Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 96-3 (F)_CONEXANT PROJECT, EIR 159GPA 96-3(F) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (949)644-3210 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FILE CMPY DATE: August 18, 2000 TO: Richard Bluth FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: GPA 96-3 (F), A No. 898, EIR No. 159, TS No. 110 and DA No. 13 Please be advised that GPA 96-3 (F), A No. 898, EIR No. 159, TS No. 110 and DA No. 13 were removed from calendar at the applicant's request by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 3, 2000. The approved minutes of the meetings held to date are attached. Applicant: Conexant Location: 4311 Jamboree Road Description General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement No. 13 to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project- site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple, Director By Ging(gr Varin Executive Secretary Planning Commission Enclosure: ❑ Approved Planning Commission minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of Approval ❑ Approved Council minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of Approved )ffi Approved minutes cc: Property Owner (if not applicant) 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 .1•\ final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and-sLll conform to City Standard 110-L to ensure that adequate sight distance Tpr_ovided. 14. Plans shall be submiltedtto the Planning Department to include graphic and lettering design criteria —to -be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. This approval shall expire unless exercised withi 2.mmonths from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the N�ew rt Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F) • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement No. 13 General Plan Amendment No. 96-31', Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested that this item be removed from calendar. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to remove this item from calendar. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanion, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser, Kronzley INDEX Item No. 2 GPA 96-3 (F) A 898 EIR 159 TS 110 DA 13 Removed from calendar City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 1_As. Temple noted that it sounds like we don't need a lot of new plans, only some refinements to the existing plans. With the re -filing, the Commission may give direction to waive any additional fees in this particular case. The timing of this issue coming back to the Commission is contingent upon our ability to work through c)ny legal research related to the unification of the two properties under permit. Whether it comes back as two separate use permits but with some mutual connection or under one use permit, just the structure of that may take a few weeks to work out. We would probably be looking on the order of one - month timeframe. Mr. Baers stated that his 6oncern is that we don't get into a complication in the use permit that gets us going backwards instead of forwards. It is my understanding the intention is fo,work out the multiple use permit structure so that it will provide the ability for this pr'bject to be approved. Chairperson Selich agreed noting that��here could be complications and at that point the Commission would have to<. decide on balance whether those differences were so detrimental that we should not pursue this course of action. It is clear the consensus is we need to investigat"e,,it. You want to go with the denial Without prejudice to which he was answered, yes.. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to deny without prejudice with a waiver of fees of the Use Permit No. 3661 with the additional changes discussed as well as a strong suggestion that the applicant make payment of the outstanding TOT fees. �1 Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F) • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement No. 13 General Plan Amendment No. 96-3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four 21 INDEX Item No. 2 GPA 96-3 (F) A 898 EIR 159 TS 110 DA 13 Continued to August 3, 2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next meeting of August 3, 2000. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to August 3rd. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow-up - Ms. Temple stated at the meeting of July i l th, the City Council reviewed the recommendation from the Harbor Committee requesting that a Harbor Commission be formed prior to the adoption of the Harbor Element. The recommendation of staff was to datesr,action on the formation of the Harbor Commission until the Planning Commission and City Council review and take action on the proposed Harbor Element. Until the issue of commercial land uses are facilitated or restricted, 't,is item will not come before the Planning Commission, probably withih two months. Commissioner Gifford asked for an advance copy of the draft.,element, which will be mailed tomorrow. The second item was the continued item on the analysis of the protection and growth initiative that was continued to the July 251h meeting. b.) Oral report from Planning*,Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - (.;hairperson Selich noted that the EDC has evolved since its inception ana,now would make recommendations on the economic impacts rather tharnRroject recommendations. We are re- working the policy and resolution and will forward it to the City Council and ask that EQAC and EDC have c�byalanced approach in the work that is done. c.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner KranzleNsked about the Costa Mesa requirements for a tattoo establishment as Ake,, are a lot of them in the village. `+ d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report- none. �1, e.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioners Kranzley and'KFser asked to be excused from the August 3rd meeting. Commissioner TuckeC noted he would be gone for the September 7th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m. STEVEN KISER , SECRETARY i� INDEX Additional Business 1 Adjournment City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to July 6th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser; frshle-y_Selich, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Gifford, Tucker 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 (F) • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement General Plan Amendment No. 96-3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Senior Planner James Campbell stated that the Development Agreement is not in a state to be presented to the Planning Commission at this time. Staff is still meeting with the applicant to work on details and it should be ready for presentation at the next meeting. Commissioner Kranzley stated that two very important parts of this deliberation are the Development Agreement and the traffic information. Since we got the supplemental traffic report from the Transportation and Development Services Manager this evening and the Development Agreement information has not been presented, I would like to suggest that we continue this item. I would offer that we hear public testimony and then continue this to allow us more time to review this thoroughly. Chairperson Selich noted this is a good suggestion, as they had not had time to look at the traffic report. The rest of the Commissioners concurred. He then stated that they will hear the staff report on the additional traffic information, any additional information the applicant wants to give us, then any public testimony. We will then continue this item to the 22nd of June. Transportation and. Development Services Manager Rich Edmonston noted the following from his report on the four items that the Commission had asked additional information on: Trip generation rate determination - the rate used in the traffic study is based upon actual field counts which were converted to trips per 12 INDEX Item No. 4 GPA 96-3(F) A 898 EIR No. 159 TS No. 110 DA Continued to June 22nd City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 employee. Based upon recently identified differences in current and projected employee shifts, the trip generation rate during the PM peak period was found to be too low. The AM peak hour generation and the total trip generation rate would be unaffected. Based upon projected employee shifts and number of employees, the PM trip generation component of the overall trip generation rate is expected to be 31.7% higher than predicted in the traffic study. Based upon this information, the traffic engineer conducted ICU analysis at three intersections that were projected to have ICU values between 0.85 and 0.90. The analysis shows that these intersections would not be impacted and would operate at satisfactory levels of service and no new TPO or CEQA impact would result using the higher PM peak generation rate. Ability of the access from Birch Street to handle the project parking structure - There are no detailed site plans as of this date. By having a single lane entry and exit from the garage that would access the Birch Street driveway, the ability of cars for egress and ingress at the end of the shifts would limit the amount of traffic getting out on to Birch Street at any given time. By designing this structure where there was more capacity for exiting onto the Jamboree side, it would make it a more attractive exit. People would go straight out via the traffic signal on Jamboree at Fairchild. Whether the short-range TPO analysis extended far enough south on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road - A specific concern for Jamboree Road was due to the Dunes traffic. The consultant was asked to look at the next intersection to the south. It was determined that no impacts were identified at that next intersection. The intersections south on Jamboree were operating at LOS A and C at the present time, and the project traffic with the Dunes traffic would not create unsatisfactory LOS. Study showing lower long-range ICU values at some intersections with a project added - Another explanation is included in the report. Workers who would come to the new Conexant building have to come from someplace. The assumption is that they are not new workers who come into the modeling area, but they are people who are already in the modeling area. If they came into the modeling area, the assumption is they would have to come into new residential in order to have a place to live in the modeling area. What the model tries to do is redistribute trips that would use a facility like Conexant, office type and manufacture type trips. It strikes a balance with all these uses of that nature within the system. For example, if somebody lived on Balboa Island and worked in Irvine Spectrum, they might drive up Jamboree to the 405 and go south. If they changed and took a job at the expanded Conexant, they would no longer be on Jamboree north of Conexant, which would result in fewer trips on that segment of Jamboree. That is how the model essentially works. Continuing, he stated that based on the analysis: 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 ➢ We are comfortable with the modeling and the trip rates. ➢ The distribution is appropriate and the p.m. peak hour rate, while slightly higher than in the report will still be mitigated at all of the intersections identified in the report as being impacted. The previously identified mitigation measures will bring them back to at least as good as the pre - project condition. ➢ There are no additional impacts identified. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston added: • Model includes all of Orange County. • The model matches certain traffic projections at the boundaries of Los Angeles County, Riverside County and San Diego County. • In the long range, there is a hierarchy of models that ultimately builds up to the SCAG regional model. They have projected what the population increase is between now and long range. With what is in the General Plan now there is equilibrium established between the population, housing land use and employment. When you introduce one or the other, than the model goes out to figure how to do that. With residential use, it clearly adds trips because you are bringing in people who make those trips. New uses, other than residential, must compete for the available trips made by the people who live here. The only other change would be if there was any type of a long-term social change, which the model cannot predict. • Does the model take into account when the people come or go? - the City's model has trips that are based on studies in terms of the work shifts that were in place at Conexant. The model assumes that the future employees will behave like the current employees in terms of both shifts and car-pooling. Wes Pringle, WPA Traffic Engineering added at Commission inquiry: One lane exiting the parking structure will have access to Birch Street that will allow only a set amount of cars to exit. There is only one lane out now, so it will not dramatically increase the number of trips going to Birch. It is designed to encourage traffic to go to Jamboree by having two lanes out. • People who park in this structure are mainly manufacturing type and have different schedules. They are not the ones who leave during the peak hours but leave at different times depending on their shift. • When we looked at the information provided by Conexant of the employees based on shift, the majority of people were added to a shift that ends at 4:30 p.m. That shift is management and engineering that work with an open schedule (flextime). The majority of them tend -to spread their hours out, but for the purposes of our analysis we have assumed they all leave at 4: 30 p.m. If they find that becomes a problem then they have the option of leaving later or earlier, which would reduce peak hour trips. • We used the density of 1 employee per 210 square feet on the basis of a 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 general office basis of one shift. The traffic study is based on Conexant's shifts and studies of their operations that were compared to general office building use. Therefore if Conexant moved out and a general office use took its place, there would be less trips. The lower density more than offsets the fact that Conexant has multiple shifts. The trip generation numbers are in the Response to Comments in Table 2 that shows comparisons for general office use as compared to what we use. The difference in density is based upon employees per square footage, either net or gross. Public comment was opened. Alan Shiroma, Conexant Systems, Inc., 4311 Jamboree Road noted concurrence with the findings in the staff report. We will continue to work with staff to iron out the Development Agreement so that it can be presented at the next meeting. Barry Eaton, EQAC representative: • There is no effect on the intersections with the higher generation. Page 2 of the traffic consultant's report, the shift factor generates 327. more traffic. • There are no threshold problems with the intersections further down Jamboree but at Jamboree and University intersection the 1% TPO number is triggered in both the a.m. and p.m., and should have been included in the study to be looked at to see if it had any capacity problems. • Relative to the model, which is hard to understand, it uses only employee numbers and population numbers and divides them into fairly large tracts. It uses the highway system to try to affect the gravity of how those numbers will relate to each other. There are other possible models out there, and I ask that you look at a better method. The actual numbers at Campus and Jamboree being used for Koll Center are the some. The model is saying that the Koll Center is going to put the model over the threshold but Conexant (has three times the traffic) is not. There are several other intersections that the model says will be affected by Koll but not Conexant. It just doesn't make sense. Koll traffic study is predicting that 50% of their new employees will be using the Conexant driveway on Jamboree. If the garage is also going to use the Conexant driveway onto Jamboree, that presents the possibility of some significant traffic on that driveway. EQAC recommended that if you are looking at a long-range solution for Jamboree and MacArthur, there be mitigation measures for Conexant-to participate in that also. The revised traffic study says that there should be a mitigation measure requiring Conexant to participate in the long-range solution at Jamboree and MacArthur. The Koll EIR study says that Koll should participate. However, the mitigation program has no such provisions. 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2000 Public comment closed. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston added that there is one driveway on Birch that accesses the site. Staff can look into a deceleration lane southbound on Jamboree. Commissioner Tucker commented that the traffic model has too many variables to ever make sense. If it doesn't make sense, then you have to take its usefulness with a grain of salt. It is a long-range prognostication that has a lot of things in it to the point that it is difficult for anybody to explain to us. In every jurisdiction, it is difficult to understand a long-range model. What happens on the Conexant property is a very minor part of the model and that is where the problem comes up. There is so much of a regional influence that we would all love to say what is it going to do to this one little site? I am convinced that there is not a long-range model in existence today that is going to tell us that answer. One of the things we have to look at with this sequence of traffic signals right next to each other, you need to look at it as a segment of roadway as opposed to an intersection. We do have the MacArthur/Jamboree intersection and the Birch/Jamboree intersection looked at and there may be some congestion in the intervening intersection, but the whole segment analysis appears to work at an acceptable plus or minus level. The last point has to do with the long-term impacts that Commissioner Selich and I are involved with in terms of the negotiation of the Development Agreement that we are attempting to work out a protocol as to how that fits together. It is not something that has escaped notice. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to June 22nd. Chairperson Selich noted that it would be best to go through this item all at one time. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford Sea Island Subdivision (Luna Planning 8. Architecture, Applicant) Southeast corner of Jamboree Road and Ford Road ':'^—.General Plan Amendment No. 99-1(D) • AmehdMQQ No. 990 • Resubdivislan•NQ.1083 INDEX Item No. 5 GPA No. 99-1 (D) A 990 Resub No. 1083 Request to permit a subdivision within an existing condom. i Um development I Continued to June and the construction of three new attached residential units. T project requires 22nd the approval of: ti 4..yr` 16 " City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96-31' • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement General Plan Amendment No. 96-3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Senior Planner Campbell noted this application would involve the demolition of one large building and replacing it with two new high rise towers. He noted a change to the proposed Planned Community text is the need to amend building footprint limit. The applicant proposed a limit of 141,500 square feet for a building less than four stories and this is amended to now be 200,000 square feet. The reason for this change is that the 141,500 square feet.limit is basically the size of the existing building and they propose to add on. The EIR was done and pointed out air quality, noise and traffic, impacts. There are mitigation measures proposed for these impacts, although some impacts remain significant and unavoidable. The consultant who prepared the EIR is here to answer any questions. The fiscal analysis should read a total of net revenue increase of an estimated 1,140, 200. Public comment was opened. Rich Bluth, Director of Facilities for Conexant made a presentation noting the following: • Conexant spun off from Rockwell, January 1, 1999. • Industry is experiencing a growth rate of almost 30%. • We are about a 2.2 billion -dollar company at this point in time. • Five primary businesses dedicated to five different facets of the communication business (cell phone, internet infrastructure, internet access through the PC, convergence of media and computer, and imaging). • Largest facility is in Newport Beach. • Proposed expansion construction will start with the parking structures; manufacturing building; additional office tower, and then the research and development tower. 27 INDEX Item No. 5 GPA No. 96-3F A 898 EIR No. 159 TS No. 110 DA City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 • Existing site is built out at 440,000 square feet and the proposed expansion will be for 566,000 square feet. • Parking is based on a growth of 2700 people, 1100 will be shift workers. • Project has a number of architectural aspects that address massing on Jamboree. The aesthetics of the parking structures will be appointed to keep it pleasing. • Traffic - Conexant analysis was based on a building occupancy of 20% greater than standard ITE office rates. (210 square feet per occupant) • Trip generation rates used in study are higher than multi -tenant office. • Worse case scenario was assumed for the case of the analysis. Two intersections identified (MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa) in the short-range analysis; mitigations have been identified for those with fair share fees of approximately $650,000. • Revenue - Conexant is number three in the City based on property tax for revenue. Net contribution just under one million dollars. Incremental revenue will add 1.1 million dollars to the City. • Industry is growing at a strong rate. This is our world headquarters. Robert Hawkins, Chairman of Environmental Quality Affairs Committee noted the following: • Rendering in staff report should be included in the EIR as part of the project description. • Water quality and run-off. Conexant maintains that it goes into a closed basin, which has no discharge. What happens when basin fills up? Officials from Irvine Company indicate that there is some discharge. • EIR failed to incorporate portions of various reports, i.e., noise report. Chairperson Selich asked if there was any reason why these renderings could not be included in the final EIR? Staff answered no. Dr. Mark Sudall, consultant working with PCR, Services Corporation stated that his expertise is in water quality and the wetlands. He was asked to evaluate the basin to find an outlet to the structure. He walked the entire basin and did not find an outlet. He then called the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Board and talked to representatives of the EPA to talk about the basin and possible discharge. Additionally, there was no evidence of water rising up the side of the basin, therefore, I did not see any way the water could get out of it. The basin is large enough to hold approximately 5-Acre feet of water. It does not look like water has left the basin; it is not filling up with sediment or vegetation. The water is evaporating. At Commission inquiry, he answered that he would have to check the calculations of the runoff when this project is at full build out. Lauren Jue with PCR, stated that in comparing the existing and proposed site plans, there is not a significant difference in the run off, we believe it will be about the same amount that is running off into this drainage area. We did not 28 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 do direct calculations relating to the quantity. Chairperson Selich asked assuming if the quantities are similar, is it within the best management practices to allow this situation to continue? He was answered that the applicant will incorporate into the design of their project, best management practices, both structural and non-structural. They will be in compliance with NPDES permit requirements, which are listed in the draft EIR. Chairperson Selich then requested calculations in the EIR to see if the basin can accept increased run off from the project and to assure that this project will not aggravate the situation beyond its present level. Commissioner Tucker stated that the Water Quality Control Board presented a letter where they ask for similar types of conditions on the project. I don't see where there will be a material increase. Hopefully, the suggestion would cover increases that were not material. Barry Eaton, also representing EQAC noted that the Irvine Company owns the basin and this is the last parcel transferred under the CIOSA Agreement. The City has more than a passing interest in that basin. The Irvine Company tells us that there is an outlet that runs into San Diego Creek, which is protected wetland. Our concern was not the extra flow, but the fact that six layers of parking garage would add extra motor fuels, etc. as part of the flow. Continuing, he noted the following traffic concerns that were not adequately answered in the responses to comments: • Traffic generation and parking was based on daytime shifts. There are five shifts altogether. Those may under represent future population, which is supposed to triple. We have never been told the breakdown of the shifts. • Regarding the revised traffic study - quite a difference which intersections became impacted between the first study and the second study. This was done due to substantial changes in base traffic counts between 1997 and 1999. Why were there such dramatic changes at Jamboree/MacArthur and Campus/Irvine and Bristol south? • Most of new employees are to be research and development. • Significant allocation to Jamboree/MacArthur, the TPO analysis should have included some of the intersections on MacArthur and Jamboree south of the freeway. No intersections were included other than Bristol South and Jamboree. Request that the TPO analysis to include at least a few of the intersections down Jamboree and MacArthur. • We think the EIR does not meet the CEQA requirements. The cumulative impacts have to include those projects, which have been underway. Dunes fits that category and it is not included in the cumulative analysis. • In the long-range analysis, it shows less traffic on Jamboree with the project than without even though 5% of the total 2,700 new employees 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 is assigned to Jamboree. Jamboree and MacArthur is a Congestion Management Plan intersection. The City has to stay consistent with these standards on those intersections. The original traffic study calculated Conexant's fair share of the required improvements at that intersection at 48%. The revised traffic study which used the TPO calculations show it as 25%. Is that consistent with the Congestion Management Plan? The revised traffic study looked at mitigation at the several intersections that were affected that were not included in the first study. Commissioner Tucker noted the distribution and the TPO requiring the minimum of 5%. The original traffic study showed only 1% on Jamboree and MacArthur and 10% on Irvine. What is our concern about an expansion by the airport if it really does not affect the neighborhoods? What I am focusing on is the effect on where people live as opposed to out in the business area of the airport. The changes based on the different traffic counts at a different time are kind of off. Are you suggesting we should count again? Mr. Eaton answered that he does not know the answer. You normally don't see a 100% difference in two years. On the one leg of 'MacArthur and Jamboree it went up 100% in the morning and down 50% in the afternoon. The counts were done differently, one by staff and one by consultant. Whether that makes the difference, I have no idea. Commissioner Tucker commented on the traffic model. There was a page in the new traffic study that talks about traffic modeling where they just don't overlay or add on to with a project. They re -distribute, that comes up with a totally different result that can not be matched up with anything. That is the uniqueness of the model, they are incomprehensible most of the time. The one issue on the basin is it seems that when a parking structure is added in place of a parking lot, you might end up with less pollutants as the only floor that is exposed to water is the top floor. This is the one that usually gets the least occupied. Why do you think adding more cars in a parking structure will create a situation where there will be more pollutants? Mr. Eaton answered because they get washed down. Chairperson Selich noted the first point of traffic study is based on the assumption of the shifts. If they were to change, then the validity of the traffic study could change, is this correct? Mr. Edmonston answered that there are two aspects. The rates do incorporate the shifts and when they were projected out, a straight office use was considered a worst case. The traffic study does include an analysis of a regular office and trip rate per person is more conservative for a regular office building. By using these office characteristics, we have done a worst case analysis that would supercede any future changes in shifts. 30 ifs City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Mr. Eaton noted that EQAC is pointing out that it was not adjusted for the shifts. It was based on the employees who left the complex primarily from shift one and excluded all the other shifts. We do not know the extent of the problem because we have never been told the ratio of employees on the other shifts compared to shift one. Compared to the general office rate, it is more conservative because the proposal for 2700 employees is a dense population on the amount of square footage projected. At Commission inquiry, he added that more analysis should be done on the prospect that most of the new employees would be on shift one, whether that would affect the number or not. The ITE number is based on a curve of studies done nationwide, which show that the larger an office project is, the lower the generation is per employee. This should be done as a check against the analysis already done. Mr. Edmonston stated that it is being suggested to use the ITE average rate rather than the curve. Again, the consultant asked which way we ought to look at it, and I reviewed what was in the trip generation. I felt the equation was better suited to a project of this size. In fact an argument could be made based on a project of 566,000 square feet, really, it is a growth of a project from 400,000 to one million. This puts you further out onto the curve, where the trip rate would be less based upon the equation. We used the equation and a conservative approach to using that equation. We can do an analysis based on the ITE rate. Mr. Eaton clarified that what staff could do was ask the consultant to look at the current percentage of the main shift employees where they based the projection numbers. As well as the percentage estimate to be of the main shift if they actually grew with the new 2700 employees. This would show why the percentages were so far apart based on the existing base number if still valid. Mr. Edmonston clarified that another way of saying this is that you would like a fuller explanation of shifts on the trip generation, how it was measured and how it impacts than the projection. He was answered yes. Chairperson Selich noted the second point was on the dramatic changes of the intersections. Mr. Edmonston answered that doing counts since the TPO was adopted twenty years ago, every time counts were done by either staff or consultants, there are some intersections that come up as anomalies. In the case of Jamboree and MacArthur, we did re-count the morning and it came back consistent with the original count. We tried to evaluate these counts. There is no count at the other intersection mentioned. We do try to provide some quality control and we will be doing our annual counts in the next couple of weeks and I have asked that these be re-counted. Numbers do change and sometimes it is hard to figure out which is the better number. In some cases, we have re-counted an intersection two or three times in a year. It is hard to get numbers that 31 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 stabilize. There are certainly some daily variations. Mr. Eaton added that if additional counts were done, then obviously all the calculations would have to be re -done. I don't know if it is worth doing all that work over again. Commissioner Kranzley asked when the toll road opened and what impacts it would have on the traffic counts. Could that have an effect on the counts? Chairperson Selich noted the third point of the other intersections on Jamboree/MacArthur. Mr. Edmonston stated that typically for the TPO analysis, he pre -selects the intersections for the consultant to look at. We look to see that we extended far enough from the project. In this case, there was a 500% change, (a change from 1% to 5%). It might be argued that it should have been rounded to 0 rather than up to 5. 1 have not had a chance to do more than a cursory look at MacArthur/Bison, which is the next intersection down and the project numbers were less than 1%. On the Jamboree/East Bluff North intersection, in one period they were less than 1% and in the other they were over the 1% threshold, but I did not have an opportunity to run an actual detail calculation to see if the ICU would have changed. Those are things we can do. The fourth point was on the cumulative impacts, in particular the Dunes. Mr. Edmonston explained that there were three analysis in the report. The TPO has committed projects and included the Dunes based on the 1998 Development Agreement. This is a larger project than what has been approved by the Planning Commission recently. In terms of the Dunes approval, the number went down in total generation and that would be true in the model as well. The Dunes by itself should not lead to anything that is not accounted for in both the TPO and the long range traffic study. The third analysis is a table that shows the cumulative intersection impacts of the reasonably foreseeable projects, and in the case of Conexant we have only Pacific Life and the Newport Country Club. By the time we re -did the traffic study, the Irvine Company and the Teachers' Credit Union had withdrawn from the project. That is the cumulative numbers, which is not the numbers that we based the mitigation upon. The cumulative is less than what we have in the traffic study. Commissioner Kranziey noted that in the March 2000 Traffic study there is a committed project list. It includes Hoag Hospital but does not include Banning Ranch. In the staff report, page 16, it talks about the traffic study done in March 2000- including Banning Ranch. I am confused. Mr. Edmonston answered that the difference is that Banning Ranch is in the cumulative run based on the latest project. There is Banning Ranch in the long- 32 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 range model, but it is not in the TPO because it is not an actual approved project. Mr. Eaton added that the cumulative run was done for information purposes only, there was no analysis or mitigation measures done. The point on the Dunes was that the numbers are down, but the numbers in the original Dunes study did not show 507. all the way up Jamboree, where the new one does. That is why we thought Jamboree was affected. The cumulative table showed three of the four intersections on Jamboree south of Bristol as over the threshold. Something is triggering them over the threshold, we hoped you would ask to find out whether it was a combinatioh of the Dunes and Conexant. Chairperson Selich asked that be checked into. Mr. Edmonston answered that he would have to go back to the model consultant. The long range analysis had the old Dunes in it and so for the model standpoint, the model used its own distribution rather than the 50% that was based on the TPO manual distribution. Mrs. Wood added that on the cumulative run, that it includes all the reasonably foreseeable projects that we had applications for. Those numbers do not reflect any mitigation measures that would have been later applied to these projects to mitigate their traffic impacts. Mr. Edmonston, at Commission inquiry, noted that the long-range model assumes build out of the highway system in the city in terms of through lanes and turn lanes as best we can imagine they would be many years out. It also assumes build out of all the projects that are approved under the General Plan. In this case this project adds that 566,000,'then there is an additional column that identifies that additional mitigation is needed, then we start looking at whether there are improvements above and beyond what we currently envision in the General Plan that could be constructed. It is in the cumulative run that we have added the Banning Ranch, Dunes, and the Koll projects. Much like in this project, there are additional mitigations that could be done that help mitigate the project. That same thing might be true for these other projects that are out there and yet to come before you. The sixth point was on the Congestion Management Plan and whether it is consistent with the 49% versus the 25% under the TPO analysis for the Fair Share fees. Mr. Edmonston answered that under the Congestion Management Plan an impact is defined for an intersection that is at LOS F or worse as this intersection was identified in the long range. In order for the project impact, the increase must be .10 (ten times what the City's threshold is). Based on the CMP guidelines, there is no mitigation required at that intersection because this 33 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 project does not meet their significance criteria. INDEX Chairperson Selich thanked the EQAC members for their work and presentation. Public comment was opened. Ted Windham, 7349 White Oak Ridge, Orange stated that he is an employee in a nearby 8,000 square foot building by Conexant. He noted concerns in terms of building height, natural light blockage, vibrations and odors. His major concern is the mitigation measures of the extra traffic and the ingress and egress of the parking structures. Referencing the exhibit, he noted that he did not know how people were to gain access to Birch or Campus going north. He asked that the Commission take a serious look at the traffic. Doug Stucker, Public Affairs Director of Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce presented a resolution in support of this application noting that Conexant has been a tremendous community leader. Mike Noonan, 113E Via Quinto as Vice President of the Orange County Business Council stated his support for this application. Our opportunity in Orange County is to take businesses like Conexant and allow them to grow. It will be good for Newport Beach and for the Orange County economy. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked if there was additional information needed for the next meeting for staff to work on? Commissioner Tucker - no Commissioner Kranzley - no Commissioner Gifford - no Commissioner Ashley - clarify points brought up by Mr. Eaton and how this project will actually result in less traffic in surrounding intersections; and access off Birch to the parking structures. Commissioner Kiser - existing signage Commissioner McDaniel - no Chairperson Selich - no Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to the next meeting. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None 34 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY nF MPXA'DnQ-r ""EARL.! CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. d (( C O N E X A N T AUG 0 7 2000 4311 Jamboree Road \`\ AM PM Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 7181911011111wi1i2i3i4�5i� August 3, 2000 Mr. James Campbell City Of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Request for Continuance of Planning Commission Hearing Dear James, Conexant has been invited by the City to participate in the City Council's study of the airport area's long range infrastructure requirements. As the outcome of this study could have impact on Conexant's current project, Conexant requests that our project be taken off the Planning Commission agenda until the City Council has completed it's study. Yours truly, Rich Bluth Executive Director Facilities CONEXANT. What's Next in Communications Technologies. O��iEWP@ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: August 3, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 2 �z 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 Appeal Period: N/A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: ConexantProject 4311 Jamboree Road PURPOSE OF General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898, APPLICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement No. 13 to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ACTION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends approval of Traffic Study No.110 to the City Council. 2. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No.159 to the City Council. 3. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898 and Development Agreement No.13. LEGAL Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 recorded in Map Book 310, Pages 7-11 DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN: General Industry ZONE: P-C, Koll Center Newport Planned Community APPLICANT & Conexant Systems, Inc. OWNER: 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Points and Authority Conformance with the General Plan ■ The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as General Industry. The existing manufacturing operation and supporting office land uses on the subject property are consistent with this designation. A General Plan Amendment to increase the allowable building area is proposed in order to be consistent with the proposed expansion. General Plan amendment procedures and requirements are established by City Council Policy K-1. Conformance with the Municipal Code ■ Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. ■ Development Agreement procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code. • Planned Community District procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. ■ Zoning Code amendment procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.94 of the Municipal Code. �ky Vicinity Map Conevant Project Drive General Plan Amendment No. 96-3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and Development Agreement No. 13 Conexant Project August 3, 2000 Page 2 of 5 INTRODUCTION This hearing was continued to this meeting, from July 20, 2000, at the request of the applicant. DISCUSSION The Conexant has not changed their stated position regarding the development agreement, and the issues related to long range traffic and the fire station remain unresolved. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the draft development agreement prepared by the City Attorney. The staff and the Planning Commission has received several pieces of correspondence related to the project which are attached as Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 & 3. The first memorandum from Mr. Eaton was considered by the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee at its July 17, 2000 meeting. The Committee considered the comments and then issued the memorandum to the Planning Commission. The EQAC memorandum identified three areas of concern which are outlined as follows: 1. The adequacy of the supplemental TPO analysis prepared as a result in the discovery that traffic in the PM peak hour was underestimated. The concern rests in the possibility that the impact will occur in the AM peak hour and create a significant impact. 2. Whether Conexant's traffic should be included in the Koll project traffic analysis if and when Conexant is approved. 3. The rationale by which staff believes that the identified mitigation measures for the long range impact to the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard is infeasible. Additionally, the issue of obtaining mitigation through the Development agreement rather than through the CEQA process is questioned. The subsequent letter from Mr. Eaton augments the concerns raised in the EQAC memorandum and identifies two inconsistencies within the development agreement. These inconsistencies will be remedied in the final draft of the agreement. The Traffic Engineer has prepared a memorandum in response to the issues raised which is attached as Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Eaton's belief that staff has "waived off' a significant impact in the AM peak hour is an incorrect characterization of the analysis. Section If of the TPO implementing guidelines permits staff the discretion to utilize trip generation rates different from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model that are more reflective of the proposed use. The Traffic Manager used this discretion in his exercise of his professional judgement in an attempt to provide the most accurate information for the city. The recently discovered increase in PM traffic due to future changes in employee shift times does not impact the AM peak due to the fact that the shift that affects the PM peak starts at 7:30 AM, and arrives before the AM peak. The Traffic Manager has reviewed the counts for over twenty intersections and the earliest AM peak is 7:30AM to 8:30 AM, and at two-thirds of these intersections the AM peak hour started later. The peak hour is established by the TPO based upon the most current intersection counts. The peak hour is not established nor predicted based upon estimated traffic volumes or incremental project traffic. Conexant Project August 3, 2000 Page 3 of 5 The question regarding Conexant traffic and whether the Koll traffic analysis should reflect it is answered directly by the Traffic Manager in his memorandum. In the past, the city has not required repeated traffic analysis as projects are approved and become committed. When a project is approved, it is reasonable to foresee its completion, and resulting traffic increase. At this point, the projected traffic is included in traffic studies for subsequent project applications. The cumulative traffic analysis within the traffic study does provide a forecast of possible traffic volumes in which both projects, as well as others, are included. The limitation of this analysis is noted in the Responses to Comments document of the EIR. The feasibility of the long range mitigation measures for MacArthur/Jamboree was discussed in the June 22nd and July 6" staff reports. Staffs belief that the measures are infeasible at this time coupled with a recommendation to approve the project with the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations is partially based upon staff s optimistic belief that the airport planning process will come to fruition, and that a comprehensive traffic improvement strategy will develop and be implemented. The Development Agreement includes provisions for Conexant's participation in the planning study for the airport area and contributions for long range traffic improvements. In summary, the Traffic Manager believes that the traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with the TPO and administrative guidelines and acceptable traffic engineering standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project pursuant to the city's draft development agreement transmitted to the Commission for the previous meeting. Staff has prepared resolutions recommending approval of the Traffic Study, certification of the EIR, approval of GPA No. 96-3(F), approval of Amendment No. 898 and approval of the city's draft Development Agreement No. 13. These resolutions are attached as Exhibit Nos. 5, 6 & 7. Changes to the resolutions were made to reflect Commissioner Kiser being selected as Secretary and changes in the dates of adoption. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director/`' 4&a, l� •l �l� XFHBIT Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL SeniorPlanneerr n —bV 1. Memorandum from Mr. Barry Eaton dated July 12, 2000 to the Chairman of the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee. 2. Memorandum from the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee dated July 19, 2000 to the Planning Commission, Conexant Project August 3, 2000 Page 4 of 5 3. Letter from Mr. Barry Eaton dated July 21, 2000 to the Planning Commission. 4. Memorandum from Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Service Manager to the Planning Commission dated August 3, 2000. 5. Resolution Recommending Approval of Traffic Study No. 110. 6. Resolution Recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 159. 7. Resolution Recommending approval of GPA No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898 and Development Agreement No. 13. Sent By' Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Jul-12-00 10:02AM; Page 2 Fran : EATON RESIDENCE/OCESR 714-760-1691 Jul.12.2000 12:55 AM psi M h M 0 DATE: JULY 12, 2000 p, Robert Hawkins, Chairperson %LWE—&/tVr <UA FROM: Barry Eaton, Member S I J l': Conexant Traffic Generation and Mitigation 1 am very concerned with the rather casual treatment that staff appears to be giving to the 31.7% under -reporting of the Conexant traffic generation, as reported by the City's traffic consultant in their memo of Jane 8, 2000, in response to concerns raised by F.QAC. I am also concerned that staff doesn't seem to want to endorse the Traffic Consultant's and FQAC."s recommendation for mitigation of C:onexant's long range traffic impact at Jamboree and MacArthur. As the Planning Commission is lite overseer of the TPO process, I believe the Commission should address the following issues. They are important because, once Conexant is approved, their traffic generation numbers become part of the "committed project" base, and set precedent for future TPO analyses and mitigations in the airport area. If, however, the Commission foots that it does not want to address these issues at this lace stage in its consideration of the Conexant project, I believe that F.QAC should include them in FQAC's report to the City Council on Conexant. My concern was raised to a very significant level by the latest Conexant staff report (dated July 6, 2000), wherein it was indicated that the under -reporting in the original TPO study didn't matter in the AM peak hour, because Conexant's s primary shift sums at 7:30 AM, prior to the normal AM peak hour. This rationale was not applied in the original Conexant TPO analysis; and I am unable to find in the TPO itself or in its implementing procedures where staff has the ability to "waive off" it very large prc jcct's traffic impacts in this manner. If staff does have this power, then it should either he applied to all of the Conexant AM traffic or none of it - it should not be applied to only the. under- reportui amount. With the very large size of the Conexant project, and the high Level of Service (LOS) already present at .some of the airport area intersections (particularly Jamboree and Campus), this assumption will make a very substantial difference to future project TPO calculations in the airport area. 91 Seht-Byt Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Jul-12-00 10:02AM; ".. ,Wv le:aeAM: -> Hawkins LaW 01'Ticas7 Page Page 3/3 From : EATON RESIDENCE/DCESR 714-760--1691 Ju1.12.2000 12.55 AM Memo to Robert Hawkins, F,QAC: Chairperson (2) July 12, 2000 Secondly, it should he established whether both the AM and PM peak hour comnmittcd traffic generation numbers for Conexant, once approved, will be the under -reported numbers in the original -traffic study, the corrected numbers in the Consultant's June 8th memo, or some further modification thereof. Third, it should be determined whether C:onexant's committed traffic generation numbers, once Conexant is approved, should be applied to the Kell project'rpo analysis, if the Koll project is still in the approval process. (They have not been so applied thus far.) Fourth, it is clear that the traffic consultant recommended implementation of one or the other of two alternative long range mitigation measures at Jamboree and MacArthur (page .51 of the March 2000 traffic study), and that EQAC endorsed this approach in their comment,.; on Conexini adopted at their May 1.5, 2000 meeting. Further, the City Council, at their June 13th meeting, requested funding from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCI'A) for the "project design" of one of the alternatives for such a project. In spite of this, staff first (June 22nd) stated that" ... there is no commitment by the City to pursue either measure due to significant costs.", then (July bth) stated that the Council action "...is a commitment to pursue planning and feasibility studies for the project only.", and recommended deleting the mitigation measure and adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration instead. I believe that it is critical to set the precedent - especially in the airport area - of including consultant - re,commended traffic mitigation measures, rather than deleting them. I request that you place this matter on EQAC'S July 17th agenda for consideration as 13QAC recommendations to the Planning Commission ai4l City z Council. t�g z M E M O R A To: From: Subject: Date: Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF N1GV&fPnPT REACH N D JULg9 2000M AM PM 7181911011111£1112i31415i6 Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee Conexant Project (the Project); Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); State Clearinghouse No. 98101090; EIR No. 159 July 19, 2000 Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to provide these supplemental comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR")for the Conexant Project (the "Project") and in particular on the traffic analysis and recent staff reports on same. This memorandum incorporates all of our earlier comments. We offer three (3) comments on the traffic analysis and on staffs responses to our earlier comments. First, we earlier pointed out that the traffic analysis resulted in an significant under reporting for the morning peak traffic. In a recent report, the City staff responded, in essence, that the under -reporting in the original Conexant TPO study was irrelevant, because Conexant's primary shift starts at 7:30 a.m. which is prior to the normal morning peak hour traffic. This rationale does not appear in the original Conexant TPO analysis. Further, we are'concerned that neither the TPO itself or its implementing procedures allows the City to ignore the recognized significant traffic impacts that the Conexant Project threatens to generate. Nfost importantly, given the reduced level of service in the airport area and the significant increase of the proposed Conexant Project, the City must: recognize these substantial traffic impacts, provide mitigation for such impacts, include such figures in calculating the traffic impacts of other projects in the area and finally, continue to strive to implement and improve procedures for implementing the TPO so that traffic impacts are recognizedand mitigated. The recent staff report could improve in all of these areas. Correlatively, the City must determine which traffic numbers apply to the Conexant Project: the numbers in the original traffic report which under report the morning peak hour traffic, the corrected numbers in the Traffic Consultants June 8, 2000 memorandum, or some further refinement or modification. Whatever the result, the City should explain the rationale for snaking such a decision. Second, other projects in the airport area including the Koll improvements are currently under review. The City must determine whether Conexant's committed traffic 3 06ed !Hd6b:Z 00-61.-Tnf !t8tl 029 6b6 9 :saoT;�o Mel sut>IneH :A8 Zua£ Planning Commission, City orNewport Beach Page 2 July 19, 2000 generation numbers (once decided upon and approved) will be applied to future projects including Koll. Finally, and importantly, we are concerned about adequate mitigation for recognized traffic impacts. The last resort for any CEQA process is to recognize significant impacts but then adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC"). If mitigation measures are available and feasible, City staff should be encouraged to investigate these fully before making a recommendation of adopting a finding of overriding signficance. However, this is precisely what staff is recommending with respect to the Conexant Project. The traffic consultant recommended implementation of various alternatives fur mitigation of long range traffic impacts at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. In its recent comments. EQAC recognized and endorsed this proposal. In spite of this record, City staff recommended omitting the mitigation measure, adopting a SOC and obtaining the necessary mitigation through the negotiation of a development agreement. The record is clear: the impacts are significant and mitigation is feasible. The Planning Commission should adopt the mitigation measures and not adopt a SOC. A development agreement may not be an appropriate vehicle to obtain mitigation in all instances. For instance, other projects in the airport area, e.g, the Koll project, will likely have similar traffic impacts which will require mitigation. However, such projects may not seek or require a development agreement. Thus, the City may be left without any mitigation for recognized trallic impacts. Such a result will exacerbate the traffic problems in the airport area. We must take all reasonable steps to mitigate any traffic impacts for the Conexant project and other projects in the airport area. The most appropriate forum and avenue for such mitigation is the environmental review process, iv e/e ailed !Yid64:Z 00.6L•Tnf 49li 099 646 `.saot440 met suT)IMEH :AS juar --From : EATON RESIDENCE/OCESR 714-760-1691 Jul.21.2000 12:30 PM P01 By Facsimile - 3 pages Barry D. Eaton 727 Beilis Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone and fax: 949/760-1691 email: eaton727(Pea rthiink.net July 21, 2000 Chairman Ed Selich and Planning Commission Members City of Newport Beach Re: Conexant Project Dear Planning Commission members: Due to the continuance of the Conexant matter at your July 20th meeting, I thought I should write to you with the comments I would have made at the hearing. First, please allow me to reiterate that I am not opposing the Conexant application. I simply feel that, because it is such a large project - particularly from a traffic perspective, that it needs to be processed and approved carefully and correctly. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT I have two comments on the Development Agreement, which you may already have caught. Section 4.4 on page 12 of both versions of the Development Agreement, specifies that the City shall supply water to the project, and Conexant shall use City water. But the EIR states that the IRWD currently supplies that water, and will continue to do so. I wasn't sure whether this was a "scrivenor's error" or an intended significant change in policy. Secondly, Section10.7(a), on page 25 of Conexant's version and page 26 of the City's version, refer to an exception in "Subsection 9.7.b." Inasmuch as there is no such subsection, I have some trouble understanding the intent of that reference. TRAFFIC I apologize for bringing this issue up so often on Conexant; but this application is not only the first under the newly revised TPO, it is probably the largest project that the City has been asked to approve, traffic -wise, in many, many years. it is essential, in my opinion, that it be processed correctly. This project will produce 4 times the PM peak hour traffic of the Dunes project (even before subtracting out the traffic generation of the existing Family Inn project). Just the difference between the March 2000 traffic study and the corrected count in the June 8th memo from the City's traffic consultant is equal to the entire PM peak hour traffic generation of the Dunes project. /I From : EATON RESIDENCE/OCESR 714-760-1691 Jut.21.2000 12:30 PM ; Djel To Planning Commissioners re: Conexant (2) July 21, 2000 My continuing concerns are threefold, and they all deal with the TPO: In response to my earlier question about the fair -share contribution to intersection improvements at Irvine/Mesa and Jamboree/MacArthur under the TPO, staff's response In the July 6th staff report Was that it was not recalculated because Conexant is contributing far more under the proposed Development Agreement than whatever the recalculated amount would be. However, the 10th "Whereas" clause in the proposed TPO resolution still has the incorrect old number (25%) in it. It seems clear to me that this needs to be either deleted or recalculated. 2. Further, the 11 th "Whereas" clause still states that "The AM peak hour generation ... (was) determined by the Traffic Engineer to be unaffected." I believe that this is simply not true or correctl The Traffic Consultant's memo of June 8th does not state this, nor does the June 8th cover memo from the Transportation and Development Services Manager. A careful reading of pages 7 -12 of the March 2000 traffic study shows that bQltl the AM and the PM peak hour generation rates were derived exactly the same way - " .. these projected trips would assume the same combination of office and light industrial employees that is currently a part of the employment base at the site." (First paragraph, page 12, March 2000 Conexant Traffic Study.) Therefore, the 31.7% Increase reported in the June 8th memo is applicable to bQ.IL the AM and PM peak hoursl The logic of this is confirmed by reviewing Table 4 on page 8 of the March 2000 study. The comparison therein showed the total daily rate within 2% of the comparable ITE generation rate, but = the AM and PM peak hour rates were 37% - 42% hiaher in the ITE example. If the acknowledged 31.7% difference is applied to both the AM and PM peak hour "field study" rates, they have a difference of less than 10% of the corresponding ITE example. Clearly, the 31.7% adjustment must be made to D= the AM and PM peak hour rates. 3. When I raised this issue in my earlier letter, staff's response, in the July 6th staff report, was essentially that it didn't matter, because the primary shift's start time was 7:30 AM prior to the AM peak hour. When i subsequently raised the issue of whether that is going to apply to all or none of Conexant's AM traffic, rather than only to the difference, Mr. Edmonston's preliminary response at the July 17th EQAC meeting was that under the revised TPO, it appeared that � of the Conexant AM traffic should be excluded from the TPO AM peak hour calculations. Several EQAC members were very concerned at the consequences of such a precedent with such a large project. /z From : EATON RESIDENCE/OCESR To Planning Commissioners re: Conexant 714-760-1691 Jul.21.2000 12:30 PM P03 (3) July 21, 2000 Upon further review of the March 2000 Traffic Study, I am now equally concerned, based on the empirical evidence in that study. Appendix A of that study has machine -generated traffic counts of each of Conexant's driveways, and machine -generated calculations of the resultant peak hours for each of the 3 weekdays studied. Driveway 1, the Birch Street driveway, has AM peak hours reflecting the production -line personnel in Building 503 that primarily use that driveway (5:30 - 6:30 AM). Driveway 3, the main driveway opposite Fairchild Road, reflects the primary use by the administrative and "R & D" personnel in Building 601 - and the same type of Personnel that has been acknowledged will occupy the 2 office towers that will replace Building 501, The machine - generated AM peak hours for the 3 weekdays at this driveway were 7:30 - 8:30 AM, 7:15 - 8:15 AM, and 7:30 - 8:30 AM respectively. I do not believe that the Planning Commission, in good conscience, can declare Conexant's future AM peak hour traffic to be outside of the normal AM peak hour, in the light of this clear empirical evidence to the contrary. It seems clear to me that this precedent -setting first application of the newly -revised TPO must be applied conservatively and correctly: The AM peak hour generation rate should be corrected by the same 31.7% factor as the PM peak hour, and fully applied to the TPO calculations for Conexant and in the future TPO base. i realize that doing this will raise the LOS at Jamboree and Campus to a .92, or Level E; and that that intersection will, therefore, have to be either mitigated or excepted under the TPO. But if the TPO is to perform its intended protective function in this City, staff and the Commission must administer and implement it on a consistently conservative and accurate basis in the public interest - particularly on a project as large and important as Conexant. Thank you for your continued consideration of my comments on this project. Very truly yours, i 0X7,YW ,P `"44'm Barry D. Eaton 0 MEMORANDUM August 3, 2000 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER SUBJECT: EQAC COMMENTS ON THE CONEXANT PROJECT Planning Commissioners received a memo from the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) dated July 19, 2000. The following information is provided in response to the issues raised in that memorandum. The EQAC commented on the inconsistency in how the AM peak hour was analyzed and the consultant's conclusion that those reporting for the large shift starting at 7:30 AM would not contribute to the morning peak hour traffic. I reviewed the actual counts from over twenty intersections that had been counted within the past year or so and found that the earliest the morning peak hour began was 7:30 and that at two-thirds of the locations the peak hour did not begin until 7:45 or later. The Traffic 'Phasing Ordinance (TPO) in Section 15.40.040 J. defines peak hour period as "... the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (morning) and the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (evening) with the highest traffic volumes (for each Primary Intersection) as determined by the field counts required by Appendix A." Based upon our most recent counts, the AM peak hour for TPO purposes begins at 7:30. The point was raised in the EQAC memo that the consultant had included traffic from the shift beginning at 7:30 AM in his original analysis, but had not included it when he performed additional studies after receiving more detailed information from Conexant on the breakdown into shifts of the future employees that would occupy the expansion area. The explanation for this is that for the initial traffic study the consultant had not looked that closely at the shift times as it was not a consideration under 1 �J J the former TPO and the consultant had not asked the City to identify when the peak hour periods began and ended. EQAC questioned how the AM peak hour trip information would be considered for purposes of analyzing future projects. The consultant will prepare a final trip generation and distribution for the project to address any changes to the project as well as the revised peak hour calculations. Another issue raised in the EQAC memo is whether or not the Conexant traffic would be added to the Koll project traffic analysis. This issue has come up several times over the years that the TPO has been in existence when more than one project is active. The City's approach has been to not require applicants to repeatedly update their traffic studies each time a project is approved. This approach has proven acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council. SUMMARY: The Conexant Traffic Study has been prepared in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The final traffic figures will be used in all traffic studies that begin after the Conexant project has received final approval. 2 /0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 159 FOR CONEXANT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.98101090). WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 26, 1998. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number 98101090; and WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on October 26, 1998 for a 30-day public review. The review period ended on November 26, 1998 and public comments were accepted by the City through December 2, 1998. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed and submitted comments dated January 18, 1999 on the NOP and Initial Study. Copies of the comments received on the NOP and Initial Study and comments received during the scoping process were included in Appendix A to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 22, 1999; and. WHEREAS, The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department; and WHEREAS, A forty-five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on November 22, 1999 and ended on February 5, 2000; and Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in a Response to Comments document dated April 14, 2000. The City Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed and submitted comments on the DEIR in December of 1999. All comments and responses were considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the project and Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000, July 6, 2000, July 20, 2000 and August 3, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District and DA No. 13 and Traffic Study No. 110 were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Additional information related to the traffic study was presented and considered by the Commission which confirmed that the traffic study adequately identified potential 'impacts and mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identities mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air quality emissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 159 for the Conexant Project (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Implementing Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR adequately analyzes project related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Implementing Guidelines and finds it adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that although the project has significant unavoidable environmental impacts, it provides several special public benefits to the City that outweigh its environmental impacts. The project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing light industrial land use in the City within an area that has existing infrastructure and access to transportation facilities. The project also is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The draft Development Agreement includes Conexant's financial participation for several intersection improvements impacted by the project in the short and long term. Conexant's contributions to funding the improvements identified in the EIR will exceed $6 million dollars provided the city expeditiously creates and implements a comprehensive airport land use and circulation plan. The draft agreement also includes Conexant's financial contribution to a comprehensive airport area land use and circulation plan which will further the City's goal to maintain acceptable levels of service for the area. The draft /a Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 agreement also identifies the City's commitment to put those intersection improvements in service when required. Lastly, the draft agreement contains a provision where Conexant contributes $500,000 to the establishment of the new fire station which is beyond their proportional share of the cost establishing the station. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the necessary statement of findings and facts related to California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certify Environmental Impact Report No. 159. wit: BY: LMI ADOPTED this 3`d day of August 2000, by the following vote, to Edward Selich, Chairman Steven Kiser, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT /I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 110 FOR THE CONEXANT PROJECT. WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community referred to as the "project"; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000, July 6, 2000, July 20, 2000 and August 3, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting; and WHEREAS, a traffic study (Conexant Project, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., March 2000) was prepared for the project in compliance with the Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the traffic study indicated that the project will increase traffic on 14 primary intersections by one percent (1%) or more during Peak Hour Periods one year after the completion of the project; and WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that 11 of the primary intersections that the project will increase traffic volume by 1% or more during Peak Hour Periods will operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2/ Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that two primary intersections (MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa) would be impacted and operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during both AM and PM peak hours without mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the traffic study identified the following mitigation measures (intersection improvements) that will reduce the project impact to a less than significant impact although the intersections will continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service: MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road:add a second northbound left turn lane, a second southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane. Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive: add an additional southbound right turn lane which can be accomplished by dropping the bike lane and restriping Irvine Avenue. WHEREAS, the traffic study has determined the proportional share of the improvement costs attributable to the project in accordance with Traffic Phasing Ordinance which are 25% of the actual cost of the intersection improvements identified above and these costs were included as a mandatory condition of approval pursuant to Development Agreement No. 13 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Conexant Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #98101090). WHEREAS, additional ICU analysis was prepared for three additional intersections due to a finding that the project trip generation rate within the PM peak hour was inaccurate due to differences in current and projected employee shifts which was the basis for developing the trip generation rate. The AM peak hour generation and the total trip generation rates were determined by the Traffic Engineer to be unaffected. The Traffic Engineer selected the three additional intersections based upon their projected ICU values between 0.85 and 0.90 by the traffic study. The increased traffic in the PM peak hour was added and in two cases, the ICU value did not change and in the third, the ICU value increased from 0.85 to 086, thus no additional impacts were identified. This supplemental traffic analysis is hereby incorporated within Traffic Study 110 WHEREAS, a question was raised as to whether the traffic analysis extended far enough south on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Traffic Engineer conducted additional ICU analysis at Jamboree/Eastbluff-University and MacArthur/Bison which are the newt two intersection south of the study intersections. The supplemental analysis, which is hereby incorporated within Traffic Study 110, indicates that the intersections of Jamboree/Eastbluff-University and MacArthur/Bison are project to operate at satisfactory levels of service with ICU values of 0.692 and 0.605 respectively. Therefore, no new significant project impact to these intersections is expected to occur. ZZ Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Traffic Study 110 based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study. ADOPTED this 3`d day of August, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT M Edward Selich, Chairman BY: Steven Kise RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-3(F), AMENDMENT NO. 898 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 13 AFFECTING THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, BY AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR INDUSTRIAL SITE "1". WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community and a development agreement; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; 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, 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, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000, July 6, 2000, July 22, 2000 and August 3, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. In addition, Development Agreement No. 13 was also considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing; and 2S Resolution No. Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Koll Center Newport Planned Community District is in conformance with the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" designation of the Newport Beach General Plan, and makes the following additional findings: The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing light industrial use on a project site that is currently designated for General Industry. The implementation of the proposed project would provide for employment in proximity to residences without resulting in an incompatibility with residential land uses. In addition, the proposed project would not impede the City's efforts to provide schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches, and neighborhood shopping centers in close proximity to each resident of the community. 2. The implementation of the proposed project provides for the redevelopment and intensification of the existing Conexant facility on a project site that has had the same land use for over 40 years. The proposed project provides for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit of .93 on the project site that strikes a reasonable balance between land use and traffic volumes so that development is, to the extent feasible, within the projected capacity and levels of service of the circulation system. The draft Development Agreement contains provisions that address short and long range project impacts to the circulation system as well as improvements that will protect the ability of other property owners in the airport area to exercise their development entitlements. The draft Development Agreement includes Conexam's financial participation for several intersection improvements and it identifies the City's commitment to put those intersection improvements in service when required. The draft Development Agreement also includes Conexam's financial contribution to a comprehensive airport area land use and circulation plan which will further the City's goal to maintain acceptable levels of service for the circulation system. 3. The project site does not contain unique natural resources or natural landforms and development of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. As discussed in the EIR, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. 4. The proposed PC amendment contains regulations and guidelines that will be applied to all development on the site. These include provisions for the control of setbacks, building height, building footprint, required parking including construction parking, parking structure screening, landscaping, open space and signs. Within the Proposed Planned Community text, special design features that address building set backs along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. The proposed project would include landscaping in planting areas around the buildings and within landscape islands in the surface parking lots. In addition, the existing landscape berm and trees along Jamboree Road would be incorporated into the overall landscaping for the proposed project. The proposed structures would be of a similar height, mass, and building material as the adjacent mid -rise buildings to the northwest, west, and southwest Resolution No. Page 3 of 10 of the project site. In addition, the proposed building height restrictions would ensure visual compatibility with existing adjacent development. 5. The proposed project is not a conversion of a land use but rather an intensification of use. The proposed project does not involve housing nor does it affect the availability of housing as discussed in the EIR. The project is located within the Airport Area and is not in close proximity to residential uses and is compatible with its commercial surroundings. The project's potential impact to police, health• and safety issues were analyzed within the public services section of the DEIR and within the hazards and geology section of the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. Project impacts in these areas were determined to be less than significant with the establishment of a new fire station with Conexant responsible for contributing their proportional share of the cost. The draft Development Agreement prepared by the City contains a provision where Conexant contributes $500,000 to the establishment of the new fire station. 6. The proposed project will not impact the Airport Settlement Agreement or the provisions of that agreement, and will have no effect on the operations of the John Wayne Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the proposed 10-story and 8- story buildings pose no threat to air navigation. WHEREAS, Development Agreement No. 13 provides specific benefits to the City of Newport Beach that would not otherwise be realized without entering into said agreement. The primary benefits to the City are increased funding for short range traffic improvements identified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, partial funding for an airport land use and circulation plan, increased funding for long range traffic improvements, partial funding beyond the project's fair share for the establishment of a new fire station which will serve the entire community and the applicant's participation in a direct pay sales/use tax system which will increase revenues to the City, A fiscal Impact assessment was performed for the proposed applications is accordance with City Council Policy F-17 which estimates an annual fiscal benefit to the City of Newport Beach of $1,140,200 upon completion of the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air quality emissions. Although these impacts are not desirable, the proposed project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general- revenue through property, sales, and use tax. Additionally, the draft Development Agreement contains further benefits identified above. The Planning Commission believes these significant public benefits of the project outweigh the potential environmental impacts as identified in the Environmental Impact Report and body of evidence considered. 2�- Resolution No. Page 4 of 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Approve General Plan Amendment No 96-3(F) establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site I of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit "A" of this resolution. All other portions of the Land Use Element shall not be affected by this Resolution. 2) Approve Amendment No. 898 amending the development standards for Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community and establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit "B" of this resolution. 3) Approve Development Agreement No. 13 attached as Exhibit "C". ADOPTED this 3'd day of August 2000, by the following vote, to wit: BY: Edward Selich, Chairman M Steven Kiser, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT 2-6 Resolution No. Page 5 of 10 Exhibit `A" 1-8. KCN Industrial Site 1. This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated 1,008,775 square feet. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in Commercial (in sq. du's) ft.) Existing Gen. Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected Plan O1/01/1987 Projectio Growth 01/01/198 Projectio Growth n 7 n 1-1. KCN OS A 0 0 0 874,346 874,346 0 1-2. KCN OS B 0 0 0 1,060,898 1,060,898 0 1-3. KCN OS C 0 0 0 734,641 734,641 0 1-4. KCN OS D 0 0 0 250,176 250,176 0 1-5. KCN OS E 0 0 0 27,150 32,500 5,350 1-6. KCN OS F 0 0 0 31,816 34,300 2,484 1-7. KCN OS G 0 0 0 81,372 81,372 0 1-8. KCN IS I 0 0 0 377,520 1,008,775 631,255 1-9. KCN RS 1 0 0 0 52,086 102,110 50,024 1- Court House 0 0 0 69,256 90,000 20,744 10. 2-1. NP BLK A 0 0 0 349,000 380,362 31,362 2-2. NP BLK B 0 0 0 10,150 11,950 1,800 2-3. NP BLK C 0 0 0 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4. NP BLK D 0 0 0 274,300 288,264 13,964 2-5. NP BLK E 0 0 0 834,762 834,762 0 2-6. NP BLK F 0 0 0 192,675 201,180 8,505 2-7. NP BLK G& 0 0 0 255,001 295,952 40,951 H 2-8. NP BLK I 0 0 0 160,578 160,578 0 2-9. NP BLK J 0 0 0 190,500 228,530 38,030 3. Campus Drive 0 0 0 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL 0 0 0 6,922,916 8,390,303 1,467,387 Population 0 01 0 27 Resolution No. Page 6 of 10 Exhibit "B" Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standard Amendment No. 898 The Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are hereby amended as indicated below: 1. Part I, Section I, is amended to read as follows: PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreage shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. Site 1: 25.043 acres B. Total Allowable Building Area Site 1: 1,008,775 gross sq. ft. exclusive of parking structures C. Parking Criteria Site 1: Building Use Caterory Parking Requirements Manufacturing ......... 2.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Engineering/Labs ...... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Administrative ......... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet D.Landseaped Open Space Site 1: Total Area .......................... 25.04 acres Building Site Coverage ........... 12.52 acres Parking Area and Structures ..... 8.71 acres Net Open Space ................... 3.81 acres 'xU Resolution No. Page 7 of 10 2. Part I, Section V., is added to read as follows: Section V. Special Features The following guidelines shall apply unless otherwise waived through the site plan review process: A. Jamboree Road Setbacks The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet. In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. B. Parking Structure Guidelines Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive architectural treatment to give the appearance of an occupied building structure rather than a parking structure. C. Building Footprints Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 200,000 square feet. D. Temporary Parking During Construction Phases Temporary parking on an off -site location with provisions for shuttle buses to Site 1 will be providedas needed during construction to meet parking demand. E. Pedestrian Circulation Development of the site shall incorporate safe and convenient pedestrian walkways that connect building entrances to parking areas, Jamboree Road, future mass transit connections and adjacent sites to the maximum extent 31 Resolution No. Page 8 of 10 feasible. Walkways shall be clearly shown on site or parking plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. 3. Part 1, Section IV. D., is amended to read as follows: D. Building Height Site 1 has been divided into three building height zones, as depicted in Exhibit C-1 and described below: 1. Central Zone (existing Buildings 503 and 501 to Jamboree Road) 2. East Zone (east of existing Building 503 toward Birch Street) 3. Service Zone (north of existing Buildings 503 and 501 toward Von Karman Ave.) Building heights of structures shall be limited as follows by height zone: 1. Central Zone ................ one hundred fifty (150) feet (10 stories) 2. East Zone ................... one hundred (100) feet (6 stories) 3. Service Zone ................ seventy-five (75) feet 4. Part I, Section MR, is amended to read as follows: F. Signs Site 1: The following signage standards shall apply in lieu of the General Sign Requirements, Part IV.: 1. General Sign Standards a. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility in Site 1, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated by internal or external source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion. b. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of the building or facility. c. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, ,a Resolution No. Page 9 of 10 functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service d. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. 2. General 'Sign Types And Numbers a. a C. "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground mounted: - Maximum Size: 100 sq. ft. each side, or 200 sq. ft. each sign - Maximum Height: 7 feet - Maximum Number: 2 Secondary identification sign on Birch Street: - Maximum Size: 35 sq. ft. - Maximum Height: 4 feet - Maximum Number: 1 Miscellaneous vehicular and pedestrian directional signs: - Maximum Size: 28 sq. ft. per face - Maximum Height: 7 feet Building mounted identification signs (excluding parking structures) - Primary building identification sign located near the top of the building Maximum Size: 400 square feet Maximum Number: 1 sign per building fagade, 2 fagades per building - Primary building entrance sign Sign must be oriented toward parking or pedestrian area of the building it is located on. Sign shall not extend above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed 35 sq. ft. in area. 3. Temporary Identification Signs a. A sign advertising the sale addition to the other signs ft. in size. , lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in authorized above, not to exceed forty (40) sq. 33 Resolution No. Page 10 of 10 b. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers, contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size each. 5. Part I, Section IV. H., is amended to read as follows: H. Parkine All parking shall be as specified in Part I, Section I. C. above, rather than the General Parking Requirements, Part III. 6. Part I, Section IV. L, Is amended to read as follows: L Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V, except that the following standards shall apply in lieu of Section I.D. thereof: A minimum of five percent (5%) of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas abutting the buildings or located adjacent to public streets shall not be included in this interior landscaping requirement. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. ?W EwPo^ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: July 20, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 2 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell °a= NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949) 644-3200: FAX (949) 644-3250 Appeal Period: N/A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road PURPOSE OF General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898, APPLICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement No. 13 to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ACTION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. that recommendsapprovalof Traffic Study No.110 to the City Council. 2. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No.159 to the City Council. 3. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898 and Development Agreement No.13. LEGAL Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 recorded in Map Book 310, Pages 7-11 DESCRIPTION: APN: 445-131-02 & 03 GENERAL PLAN: General Industry ZONE: P-C, Koll Center Newport Planned Community APPLICANT & Conexant Systems, Inc. OWNER: 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Points and Authority Conformance with the General Plan ■ The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as General Industry. The existing manufacturing operation and supporting office land uses on the subject property are consistent with this designation. A General Plan Amendment to increase the allowable building area is proposed in order to be consistent with the proposed expansion. General Plan amendment procedures and requirements are established by City Council Policy K-1. Conformance with the Municipal Code ■ Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. ■ Development Agreement procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code. • Planned Community District procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. ■ Zoning Code amendment procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.94 of the Municipal Code. Vicinity Map Drive Cott"aut Project General Plan Amendment No. 96-3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and Development Agreement No. 13 Conexant Project July 6, 2000 Page 2 of 4 INTRODUCTION This hearing was continued to this meeting from July 6, 2000 due the unavailability of the draft Development Agreement. DISCUSSION Conexant has submitted a draft development agreement for the Commission's consideration which is attached as Exhibit No. 1. The City Council appointed committee of Council Members Ridgeway and Adams, Chairman Selich and Commissioner Tucker have indicated that the Conexant draft is not acceptable due to two issues. The other issues addressed in the draft agreement have been agreed to by both the City and Conexant. The first unresolved issue is Conexant's participation in long range traffic mitigation. The second unresolved issue is Conexant's contribution to establishing a new fire station in the airport area due to the possible closure of Station No. 27 presently operated by the Orange County Fire Authority. Long Range Traffic The City has requested that Conexant pay $10 per square foot of additional entitlement to be used for long range traffic improvements which will accommodate traffic from the Conexant expansion without precluding other development already entitled in the General Plan. Conexant agrees that long range traffic improvements are necessary, but are concerned that the city have a program that requires a similar fee for other subsequent development. The City does not have a long range traffic improvement fee program in place at this time that could be applied to all development. Conexant proposes to pay the fee on their development provided that the comprehensive fee program be created, but the fee would not be applied if building permits predate the effective date of the program by 24 months. In other words, under the Conexant proposal, if they were to receive building permits and the fee program were not implemented within 24 months after that, they would pay no long range impact fees for that development. This would leave the city with an increased financial burden for the intersection improvements needed for full development of the airport area. The City committee desires that this period be 60 months due to the anticipated length of time the establishment of the program may take. Fire Station A long range impact to fire safety was identified in the EIR due to the possible closure of Station No. 27 upon annexation of Santa Ana Heights. The mitigation measure requires Conexant to contribute their proportional share of the cost to establish the station. The City committee and Conexant had tentatively agreed upon a $500,000 contribution to a new station, and Conexant has subsequently reduced it to $250,000. The committee desires that the contribution be $500,000. With either figure, staff believes that Conexant will meet the proportional share test required pursuant to the CEQA mitigation measure. The City Attorney's office has prepared a draft of the proposed development agreement that matches the committee's position. Conexant Project July 6, 2000 Page 3 of 4 RECOMMENDATION Due to the unresolved issues identified above, staff has developed the following options for consideration: 1. Recommend approval of the project accepting Conexant's draft development agreement. 2. Recommend approval of the project pursuant to the city's draft development agreement. 3. Deny the project. 4. Continue the project for further analysis or consideration. Staff has prepared resolutions recommending approval of the Traffic Study, certification of the EIR, approval of GPA No. 96-3(F), approval of Amendment No. 898 and approval of the city's draft Development Agreement No. 13. These resolutions are attached as Exhibit Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Revisions to the EIR resolution and GPA/Amendment/DA resolution have been made and previous versions should be discarded. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner AMW EXHIBITS 1. Conexant Draft Development Agreement 2. City Draft Development Agreement 3. Chapter 15.45 (Development Agreements) of the Municipal Code 4. Section 65864-65869.5 (Development Agreements) of the California Government Code. 5. Resolution Recommending Approval of Traffic Study No. 110 6. Resolution Recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 159 7. Resolution Recommending approval of CPA No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898 and Development Agreement No. 13 8. Resolution of Denial of the Conexant Project (to be forwarded separately) Conexant Project July 6, 2000 Page 4 of 4 Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JUL 13 2000 PM 71819 110 1111121112131413 16 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND CONEXANT Approved , 2000 Ordinance No. 00 — O C_D O C S \374727.4 I W 971 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is executed as of 2000, ("Approval Date") by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("CITY"), and CONEXANT, Inc. ("OWNER"). 1. RECITALS. 1.1 Proaerty/OwnershipStatus. OWNER owns all of the real property ("Property") described on Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B, consisting of approximately twenty-five and forty-three hundredths (25.43) acres. 1.2 Planning Status. The Property comprises all of "Site I Light Industrial" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The Property is currently developed with approximately four hundred thirty-eight thousand, one hundred twenty-seven (438,127) square feet of light industrial and accessory office buildings, and surface parking. The Planned Community Development Plan for the Property that was In effect prior to the effective date of this Agreement allowed less than 5,000 square feet of additional entitlement and that additional was inadequate to accommodate the expansion needs of OWNER. 1.3 Project. OWNER has asked CITY to approve a general plan amendment, zoning amendment and related permits that would authorize the construction of up to 666,000 square feet of additional light industrial/accessory office on the Property. The Project is intended to provide OWNER with facilities necessary to respond to the rapidly growing demand for the product manufactured by OWNER and to avoid the relocation of OWNER's facilities and operations to property outside of the CITY as well as the attendant loss of employment opportunities and revenue. 1.4 Hearings. The Newport Beach Planning Commission(Planning Commission) and the Newport Beach City Council (City Council) have conducted all required public hearings on the Project and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Project that is In full compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. All of these hearings were duly noticed in accordance with applicable provisions of State law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1.6 General PindinM The Planning Commission and City Council have determined that the Project and all Project Approvals are consistent with all elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Newport Beach Municipal Code, CEQA and the eq OCQDOCS%374727.4 P971 CEQA Guidelines. The Project and all Project Approvals are also consistent with all other relevant plans, policies, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the CITY. 1.6 Affordable Housing. The CITY and OWNER have determined that the Project does not constitute a residential development subject to the terms and conditions of the CITY's Housing Element. Accordingly, no present or subsequently enacted affordable housing requirement or housing in lieu fee shall be required of OWNER. 1.7 Purpose of Agreement. The purposes of this Agreement are as follows: (a) To provide for the orderly completion of development of the Property consistent with the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. (b) To provide the CITY and OWNER with certainty that the Project will be developed and maintained as contemplated by the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and the Development Plan. (c) To provide assurance to OWNER that OWNER may proceed with the Project, subject to compliance with Project Conditions, in accordance with the laws, policies, rules, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the CITY in effect as of the Approval Date. (d) To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, reduce the economic cost of development, mitigate the impacts of development, and provide public benefits in excess of those normal secured through the planning process. 1.8 Authorization. This Agreement is authorized by, and is consistent with, the provisions of §§ 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1.9 Police Power. The City Council has determined that this Agreement: (a) Is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the CITY, its residents and the public; (b) Was entered into pursuant to, and is a valid exercise of, the CITY's police power; and (c) Has been approved in accordance with the provisions of State and local law that establish procedures for the approval of development agreements. 3 OC_DOCS\374727.4 (w97] 1.10 City Ordinance. On 2000, after giving appropriate notice and holding all appropriate public hearings, the City Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. authorizing the CITY to enter into this Agreement. The City Council approved the Adopting Ordinance on , 2000, after giving appropriate notice and holding all appropriate public hearings. The Adopting Ordinance shall be considered effective as specified in Section 8.1. 1.11 CEQA Review, The City Council has independently reviewed, approved and certified the EIR for the Project. In so doing, the City Council determined, among other things, that the EIR was prepared in full compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council also adopted all feasible mitigation measures, made appropriate findings and adopted a statement of overriding considerations with respect to any significant effect that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. DEFINITIONS. 2.1. "Adopting Ordinances' refers to: (a) Ordinance No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on , 2000, approving Zoning Amendment No. 898 and this Agreement; (b) Resolution No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on 2000, approving GPA 96-3(F); (c) Resolution No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on , 2000, approving Traffic study No. 110 and making findings pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Code; (d) Resolution No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on , 2000 certifying the EIR as fully compliant with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, adopting all feasible mitigation measures, and containing the statement of overriding considerations. 2.2. "Agreement' refers to this Development Agreement. 2.3 "Annual Review" refers to the review of OWNER's and CITY's good faith compliance with this Agreement, as set forth in Section 7. 4 OC_OOCS%374727.4 (VY971 2.4 "Approval Date" means 2000, the date on which the City Council approved the Adopting Ordinance. 2.6 "Assign" means all forms of use of the verb "assign' and the nouns "assignment" and "Assignee" shall include all contexts of hypothecation, sales, conveyances, transfers, leases, and assignments. 2.6 "CEQA" and the "CEQA Guidelines refers to the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Resources of the State of California. 2.7 "CITY" refers to the City of Newport Beach, California. 2.8 "City Council" refers to the City Council of the CITY. 2.9 "Cure Period" refers to the period of time during which a Default may be cured pursuant to Article 10. 2.10 "Day" or "days" refers to a calendar day, unless expressly stated to be a business day. 2.11 "Default" refers to any material default, breach, or violation of the provisions of this Agreement. A "CITY Default" refers to a Default by the CITY, while a "OWNER Default' refers to a Default by OWNER. 2.12. "Develop" means all forms of use of the verb "develop' and the noun "Development', whether or not capitalized, means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping and parking facilities and improvements. "Develop" or "Development" also includes the maintenance, repair, alteration, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, landscaping or facility after the initial construction and completion so long as consistent with the Project Approvals, the Development Plan and this Agreement. "Develop" or "Development" also includes the use of the Property in a manner consistent with the permitted general, primary, and secondary uses as set forth in the PC Text and the Development Plan. 2.13. "Development Plan" means and constitutes the plan for the development of the Property, as embodied and stated in the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between Project Approvals and the Development Plan, the Project Approvals shall prevail. 5 OC DOCS\374727.4 [w971 2.14. "Effective Date" shall be the date this Agreement becomes effective as specified in Section 8.1. 2.16. "SIR" refers to Environmental Impact Report 169 (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) prepared for the Project and certified as fully compliant with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines by the CITY Council on the Approval Date.. 2.16. "Estoppel Certificate" refers to the document certifying the status of this Agreement required by Section 7.4. 2.17. "Exhibit" refers to an Exhibit to this Agreement. All Exhibits are Incorporated as a substantive part of this Agreement. The Exhibits to this Agreement are as follows: Exhibit : Description: A Legal Description of the Property E Map depicting the Property C Project Approvals comprising the Development Plan D List of Project Conditions 2.18. "Existing_ General Regulations means those General Regulations approved by the CITY on or before the Approval Date (irrespective of their Effective Date) and not rescinded or superseded by CITY action taken on or before the Approval Date. 2.19. "Future General Regulations" means those General Regulations adopted or approved by the CITY in any way, after the Approval Date. 2,20. "General Plan" refers to the CITY's General Plan in effect on the Approval Date, plus all amendments to the General Plan adopted by the CITY on or before the Approval Date as part of the Project Approvals, Project Conditions or the Development Plan. 2.21. "General Plan Amendment' or "GPA" means General Plan Amendment 96-3(F) amending the General Plan of the CITY as approved by the City Council on , 2000. 2.22. "General Regulations 'means all laws, ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and permitted uses of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property and provisions relating to applicable fees, charges, assessments and levies. The foregoing includes the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance (Fair Share Ordinance) and water 6 OC oocs1374727.4 (w971 and sewer connection fee ordinances. General Regulations do hot include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy identified in or governing the following ("Governmental Exceptions"): (a) The provisions of Titles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (except Chapters 15.38 and 15.40) and of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; (b) Property taxes and assessments; (c) The control and abatement of Nuisances (subject to the provisions of Section 3.4); (d) The exercise of the power of eminent domain; (e) The provision of, or charges for, water, sewer, refuse, police, fire and other municipal services that are generally applicable to all owners or lessees of commercial property in the CITY; and (f) The manner in which property is used that are related to the amount and time of noise from permitted activities, the use of alcohol, and the nature and timing of special events. 2.23. "Governmental Reservations" refers to those actions that CITY may take that may affect the Project or the operation of the Project, as follows: (a) Enforcement of the specific provisions, limitations and restrictions contained in the Project, Project Approvals, Development Plan and Project Conditions; (b) Enforcement of the provisions and conditions of this Agreement; (c) Enforcement of, or pursuant to, Governmental Exceptions, or Governmental Reservations; and (d) Enforcement of Existing General Regulations 2.24. "Include" and all contexts and forms of the words "includes" and "including" shall be interpreted to also state "but not limited to." 2.26. "OWNER" refers to Conexant, Inc., a Delaware corporation. 2.26. "Mortgagee" refers to the holder of a beneficial interest under any mortgage, deed of trust, sale -leaseback agreement, or other transaction under which all or a portion of OWNER's interest in the Property is used as security. 7 OC_DOCS\374727.4 [W971 2.27. "Notice" refers to any written notice or demand between the Parties required or permitted by this Agreement. 2.28. "Parties" refers to the CITY and OWNER and a "Party" refers to the CITY or OWNER. 2.29. "PC Text" refers to the "Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan" as amended by the City Council on the Approval date and any subsequent modification of the PC Text with respect to the Property that are approved by the City Council and to which OWNER consents. Except for the modifications expressly permitted by the terms of this Agreement, OWNER shall be under no obligation to consent to modifications of the PC Text 2.30. "Planning Commission" refers to the Planning Commission of the CITY. 2.31. "Pro ect' refers to the existing and proposed development of the Property pursuant to, and consistent with the Project Approvals, consistent with and subject to Project Conditions, and as described in the Development Plan. The Project includes those improvements existing on the Property as of the Approval Date. 2.32. "Project Approvals" refers to all approvals, amendments, permits, licenses, consents, rights and privileges, and other actions required or authorized to be approved, issued or taken by CITY in connection with development of the Property, including but not limited to the following discretionary actions: (a) General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F)_,; (b) Zoning Code Amendment No. 898 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan); (c) Traffic Study No. 159; and (d) Environmental Impact Report No. 159 (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090). Project Approvals also means any grants of easements, vacations, subdivisions, resubdivisions, lot line adjustments or other actions necessary to the implementation of the Project. Project Approvals also include any and all discretionary or ministerial permits related to construction of the Project including grading permits, building permits, and occupancy permits. 2.36. "Project Conditions" means all conditions to OWNER's right to proceed with Development pursuant to the Project Approvals, including the provisions of this 8 oc_00cs374727.4 Iw97l Agreement, the PC Text, the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City Council, conditions to approval of the Traffic Study, conditions to Project Approvals, Existing General Regulations and Governmental Reservations. The Project Conditions are generally described in Exhibit D. 2.37. "Property" refers to the real property described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B". 2.38. "Subsequent Development Permits means all Project Approvals granted or issued by the CITY subsequent to the Approval 'Date in connection with development of the Property. 2.39. "Vested Entitlement" or "Entitlement" refers to the development rights granted OWNER pursuant to this Agreement and the Project Approvals that are subject to Project Conditions. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 3.1 Development Program. This Agreement vests OWNER's right to proceed with the development described in the Project Approvals and Development Plan. OWNER acknowledges that its right to proceed with the Vested Entitlement is subject to the Project Conditions. OWNER acknowledges that City grants no assurance that OWNER will receive necessary permits or approvals from any other public agency with jurisdiction over the Project or that Project Approvals will not be subject to and affected by legal or other challenges or procedures initiated by third parties. (a) Permitted Uses. The Property shall be used and developed only in the manner provided in the Project Approvals and the Development Plan. CITY acknowledges that, from time to time, OWNER may seek and obtain, in accordance with applicable provisions of State and local law, minor amendments to the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. The Planning Director of the CITY ("Planning Director") shall determine, subject to appeal by OWNER to the Planning Commission, whether a proposed amendment is a "minor amendment" for purposes of this Agreement. A minor amendment is one that does not increase trips, noise or other environmental impacts associated with Project Approvals or the Development Plan. (b) Permitted Density of Development. OWNER shall have the vested right to develop the Property and receive the CITY's approval of all Project Approvals consistent with the permitted density and level of intensity authorized by the Project Approvals and as described in the Development Plan. The CITY shall not OC_00=374727.4 [W971 impose any condition on any Project Approval that reduces the permitted density and level of intensity allowed in the Development Plan and discretionary Project Approvals. CITY acknowledges that the boundaries of the parcels shown on the Development Plan and the Project Approvals are approximate and are subject to minor variation prior to recordation of final map(s) for the Project, provided OWNER complies with the applicable procedures for subdivision maps. CITY may impose standard conditions of approval on any subdivision or resubdivision requested by OWNER so long as the condition(s) do not reduce the permitted density or intensity, or substantially increase the cost of the development, allowed In the Project Approvals and described in the Development Plan. (c) Maximum Height and Size of Structures. OWNER shall have the vested tight to develop the Property with the maximum height and size of structures as set forth in the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. 3.2 Compliance with Project Conditions. OWNER acknowledges that City Council approval of the Project Approvals, the Development Plan and this Agreement is subject to compliance with the Project Conditions. The Project Conditions are, among other things, designed to minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts of the Project and protect and enhance the environment, in certain instances, the Project Conditions exceed those that might otherwise be appropriate under "nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests recently articulated by the courts. By entering Into this Agreement, OWNER agrees to be bound by, and waives any protest of, any Project Conditions, Any Project Conditions imposed by the CITY after the Effective Date shall be consistent with the Project Approvals, Development Plan and this Agreement. 3.3 Compliance with General Regulations. OWNER shall comply with the Existing General Regulations. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, OWNER shall not be obligated to comply with any Future General Regulations that are in conflict with the Development Plan or this Agreement. Any Future General Regulation(s) that are inconsistent with this Agreement and/or the Development Plan and which do not fall within the definition of Governmental Reservations or Governmental Exceptions shall not be applicable to the development or use of the Property. With respect to Existing General Regulations that require the payment of fees, costs, and expenses, the applicable fee, cost, or expense shall be that in effect on the Approval Date subject to any automatic increases or decreases mandated by the text of the Existing General Regulation as of the Approval Date. OWNER shall, however, comply with: (a) any Future General Regulation that does not impair or affect its ability to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan or increase OWNER's cost or cause delays In timing. OWNER shall also comply with all provisions of the Uniform Codes for building, fire, plumbing, mechanical and electrical, whether 10 OC_DOCSX374727.4 (w971 adopted before or after the Approval Date by the CITY, which are in effect at the time applications for specific Project Approvals are submitted. 3.4 Public Health and Safety/Uniform Codes. This Agreement shall not prevent the CITY from adopting, and applying to the Project, Future General Regulations, including Uniform Codes (as referred to above), that are based on recommendations of a multi -state professional organization relating to the specifications for the constructions of improvements ("Building Codes') and become applicable throughout CITY. This Agreement shall not prevent the CITY from adopting, and applying to the Project, conditions inconsistent with the Development Plan or Project Approvals, when the conditions are adopted by the City Council after a noticed public hearing and pursuant to a determination by the City Council that the conditions are necessary to abate a public nuisance (Nuisance). In no event shall the CITY impose any condition pursuant to a determination of Nuisance unless the OWNER has been given notice of, and the right to present evidence at, a public hearing. Any determination of Nuisance, and the rational relationship between the Nuisance and the conditions imposed, must be supported by substantial evidence in the record of the hearing. 4. BENEFITS TO OWNER. 4.1 Right to Develop. During the term of this Agreement, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop, and receive building and occupancy permits for construction on, the Property to the full extent permitted by the Project Approvals and the Development Plan subject to the Project Conditions. CITY shall only take action with respect to the Property that complies and is consistent with the Project Approvals and the Development Plan unless OWNER gives its written consent to the action or CITY is permitted to take the action pursuant to this Agreement. OWNER may refuse to grant consent in OWNER's sole and absolute discretion. CITY shall not impose or increase any condition or requirement (whether in the form of a fee, tax, requirement for dedication or reservation of and, or any other type of exaction) on the Project, except as expressly permitted by this Agreement, Existing General Regulations, Governmental Reservations or Governmental Exceptions. However, CITY may impose or increase a condition or requirement when such action is required (as opposed to permitted) by State or federal law and then only to the minimum extent and duration necessary to comply with State or federal law. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, the ordinances, plans, resolutions, and policies governing the permitted use and development of the Property shall be those described in the Project Approvals and the Development Plan. 11 OC DOCS\374727.4IW971 4.2 Reservations or Dedications of Land. No dedication or reservation of any portion of the Property shall be required of OWNER in conjunction with the application or issuance of any Project Approval except as may be provided in the Project Approvals, Project Conditions, Development Plan or this Agreement. 4.3 No Additional Traffic Related Fees or. Conditions. OWNER's satisfaction of the provisions of Section 5 shall be deemed full compliance with all Existing General Regulations, Future General Regulations and CEQA relative to traffic impacts or traffic fees. Except as provided in Section 5, CiTY shall not impose or Increase the amount of any traffic -related fee, charge, dedication, or ,improvement relative to, or as a condition to, development of the Project. 4.4 Water and Sewer Connection. The CITY shall provide and maintain water and sewer service to the Property through a connection to CITY water and sewer lines in the same manner as water and sewer service is provided to other similarly situated property owners. CITY shall provide water and sewer facilities only to the boundaries of the Property. OWNER shall pay any water and sewer connection fees required by the Existing General Regulations. OWNER shall pay for water and sewer service in accordance with Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations. OWNER shall fully comply with any conditions or restrictions to service in Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations that are applicable to similarly situated property owners. OWNER also agrees that CITY may require OWNER, at OWNER's cost but only to the same extent as other owners of commercial property and only at the time of issuance of any ministerial Development Permit related to water service, to modify water services facilities on the Property to accommodate reclaimed water service. 4.6 Storm Drain. The CITY shall provide storm drain capacity to the exterior boundaries of the Property to the extent, and subject to the same conditions, that capacity is provided to similarly situated commercial property in the CITY. OWNER agrees to accept, during the term of this Agreement, all storm drain inflow from facilities in place as of the Effective Date, 4.6 Park Fees. OWNER and CITY acknowledge that the Project may generate some incidental demand for, and usage of, park and open space land within the CITY but that the Project is exempt from the Park Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 19.50 of the Newport beach Municipal Code) and any Existing General Regulation relating to the dedication of land for park or open space purposes or the payment of park or open space fees. 4.7 Future Impact Fees Conditions and Exactions. So long as OWNER is not in default under this Agreement, and except for any Improvement Fee as described In Section 4.2 above, CITY will not impose, or increase the amount of, any impact fee, condition, mitigation measure, or exaction other than as expressly required by the 12 oC DOCS\374727.4 iw971 Project Approvals, Project Conditions, Existing General Regulations, the Development Plan, or this Agreement. CITY shall not, without the written consent of OWNER, form, or cause the formation of, any new governmental entity for the purpose of imposing fees, conditions or exactions the CITY could not directly impose pursuant to this Section. CITY may form or cause the formation of an assessment district (or similar vehicle) comprised of the Property and other property in the area for the purpose of funding public improvements that provide a special benefit to the Property. However, CITY may not include- the Property in any assessment district formed to fund construction of public improvements that CITY is prohibited from imposing on OWNER because of this Agreement. 4.8 Time for Construction and Completion of Proiect. OWNER shall have the right to develop the Project in the manner and at the time that OWNER deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment. The Parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot predict the timing of the development of the Project because of numerous factors not within the control of OWNER, such as market demand, economic conditions, interest rates and competition. Subject to compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and Project Conditions, OWNER shall, at any time during the term of this Agreement, be entitled to apply for, and receive, Project Approvals consistent with the Development Plan. 4.9 Development Standards. Because the Development Plan has been prepared to meet the unique design parameters of this Project, the City Council has determined that rigid consistency with the Existing General Regulations and Future General Regulations is neither necessary nor appropriate. The terms and provisions of the Project Approvals, Development Plan or this Agreement shall prevail in the event of any conflict with Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations. 4.10 Tentative Maps. (a) Improvement Security. As a condition of approving a final subdivision map or any future resubdivision for all or a portion of the Property, the CITY may require the furnishing of appropriate and reasonable improvement agreements and security pursuant to the Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as altering or relieving OWNER of any obligation imposed pursuant to the Municipal Code or the Subdivision Map Act. The improvement requirements, exactions or other conditions of approval of a subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment shall be consistent with this Agreement but CITY may impose standard conditions of approval generally applicable to similar projects subject to the provisions Section 3.1(b). (b) Expiration. Any current or future tentative maps for resubdivision of the Property shall expire concurrently with the termination of this 13 OC_DO CS\374727.4 Iw971 Agreement or after the maximum period for the expiration of tentative maps authorized by Government Code § 66462.6, whichever is later. Should the time periods authorized by Government Code § 66452.6 be lengthened after the execution of this Agreement, OWNER shall be entitled to further extensions of any tentative subdivision map applicable to the Property, to the maximum extent authorized by law. (c) Resubdivisions. The Parties acknowledge that resubdivisions, lot line adjustments, or similar modifications may be necessary to develop the Project and are contemplated by this Agreement. These modifications or adjustments shall be approved provided they are in substantial conformance with the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. 4.11 Processing and Issuance of Permits. (a) Processing of Permits. As a material term of this Agreement benefiting OWNER, the CITY shall promptly accept for processing/review, and expeditiously approve, permit applications for the development and use of the Property that are in substantial conformance with the Project Approvals, Development Plan, Existing General Regulations, and this Agreement. (b) Issuance of Ministerial Project Approvals. CITY shall issue to OWNER all necessary use, building, occupancy, and other permits and approvals upon request, provided that applications are submitted in accordance with the Existing General Regulations and are in substantial conformance with the Project Approvals, Development Plan and this Agreement. (c) Vesting of Protect Approvals. Any permit, license or approval issued pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested and deemed a Project Approval when granted. 4.12 Future Approvals, The future approval or issuance of any Project Approval that Is consistent with the Development Plan, Including any permit, license or authorization to proceed, subdivisions, resubdivisions, lot line adjustments, vacations and similar actions shall not require an amendment of this Agreement S. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING. 14 oC oocs1374727.4 P971 5.1 Regional Transportation Facilities Fees. OWNER acknowledges that CITY is bound by provisions of ordinances, agreements, rules and regulations related to the financing, construction and operation of major transportation improvements that benefit large areas of Orange County including the Property. OWNER shall comply with the provisions of all such ordinances, agreements, rules and regulations, including the payment of fees required by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Agreement and/or the Transportation Corridor Agency (collectively, the "TCA"). OWNER acknowledges that it is required to comply with Chapter 15.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. OWNER shall have the right to appeal or contest the imposition and/or amount of fees through any procedure adopted or used by the TCA for that purpose. OWNER shall also have the right to commence litigation relative to the amount, method of calculating or timing of any fees or the procedure utilized by the TCA or other agency to resolve disputes relative to fees. OWNER shall hold CITY harmless with respect to any loss, damage claim or liability arising out of any litigation commenced by OWNER that is related to this Section. OWNER agrees that satisfaction of the provisions of this Section is a condition to any discretionary or ministerial Project Approval. CITY shall not be required to issue any discretionary or ministerial Project Approval until OWNER provides proof that all fees required to be paid to the TCA, whether pursuant to ordinance, settlement or judgment, have been paid. 6.2 Fair Share Traffic Fees. OWNER shall pay $1,064,720 in fees required pursuant to Chapter 15.38 of the Code (Project Fair Share Fees). The Project Fair Share Fees are based on the eight thousand (8000) additional average daily trips generated by the Project multiplied by the current per trip fee of one hundred thirty three dollars and nine cents ($133.09). The average daily trip generation rates assumed for the Project are substantially higher than the rates normally used for calculating Fair Share Fees and the higher rates will result in OWNER paying approximately four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) more than OWNER would pay in absence of this Agreement. The Project Fair Share Fees shall be paid at the time specified in Chapter 15.38 of the Code. 5.3 TPO Improvements. OWNER shall contribute funds to be used by CITY for the construction of the circulation system improvements identified in Traffic Study 159 (TPO Improvements). OWNER's contributions to the funding of the TPO Improvements equal or exceed the requirements of the TPO and OWNER's contributions to the funding of the TPO Improvements is in addition to all other fees, charges or contributions required by this Agreement and/or existing General Regulations. OWNER's contributions to the TPO Improvements shall be as follows: (a) Irvine/Mesa Intersection. OWNER shall contribute the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to fund the widening of Irvine Avenue (Irvine Widening Project). CITY agrees that the Irvine Widening Project will include the addition of a southbound (Irvine) right turn lane and other improvements at the Irvine/Mesa intersection that will ensure that the Project fully complies with the 15 OC DOCS\374727.4 EW971 TPO. CITY also agrees to provide any funding necessary to supplement OWNER's contribution and other sources of funds such that full construction financing is available for the Irvine Widening Project. CiTY agrees that the Irvine Widening Project is complete within one year after occupancy of the Project and CITY acknowledges that the Irvine Widening Project will fully mitigate the short term and long term impacts of the Project on traffic service levels at the Irvine/Mesa intersection. OWNER's contribution to the Irvine Widening Project exceeds the requirements of the TPO (25% of the cost of restriping the irvine/Mesa Intersection). (b) MacArthur/Jamboree Intersection. OWNER shall contribute the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to fund construction of a second northbound (MacArthur) left turn lane, the construction of a second southbound (MacArthur) left turn lane and the construction of a second northbound (MacArthur) right turn lane at the MacArthur/Jamboree intersection (MacArthur Project). City has prepared preliminary plans, specifications and cost estimates for the MacArthur Project. The MacArthur Project fully mitigates the impacts of Project trips at the MacArthur/Jamboree intersection as required by the TPO. The MacArthur project is anticipated to cost one million seven hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($1,760,000). CITY has obtained "Measure M" and other funding commitments of one million four hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($1,490,000). OWNER's contribution to the MacArthur Project exceeds the requirements of the TPO (25% of $270,000). CITY agrees to provide any supplemental funds necessary to ensure that construction of the MacArthur Project is complete no later than one year after occupancy of any development authorized by the Project Approvals. 5.4 Airport Area Planning 5tugy ana Long mange i rarric improvement Fee. City Is contemplating initiation of a planning and circulation improvement study for the "airport area" that would, among other things, identify intersection and/or link improvements that would be required to permit additional long range growth in that area (the "Planning Study"). This Planning Study is intended to lead to the possible preparation, approval and implementation of an airport area Specific Plan and improvement program ("Improvement Program"). The Improvement Program would identify major circulation system improvements to be constructed and provisions for financing the construction of those improvements, in whole or in part, through a fee on development in the airport area that would benefit from the improved circulation ("Improvement Fee"). In support of that planning effort, OWNER agrees to pay to CITY a fee equal to forty-five cents ($.45) per square foot of entitlement granted pursuant to the Project Approvals, to be used by the CITY solely for the purpose of funding the Planning Study and Improvement Program. The fee shall be paid within ninety (90) 16 OC_DOCV374727.4 tw971 days following the Effective Date. In the event the City adopts the Improvement Program and Improvement Fee, OWNER agrees that building permits issued after adoption of the Improvement Fee shall be subject thereto, and further agrees that within ninety (90) days after adoption of the Improvement Fee, OWNER shall pay to City the Improvement Fee computed for those building permits for the Project issued within twenty-four (24) months prior to the effective date of the Improvement Fee; provided, however, that in no event shall the Project be required to pay an Improvement Fee in excess of ten dollars ($10.00) per square foot of building area (which amount may be adjusted every twelve months after the Effective Date to reflect increases or decreases in construction costs from the Effective Date as specified in the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record, or in the event the Engineering News Record no longer publishes the Construction Cost Index or similar index in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (all urban consumers - Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside) ). 5.5 Traffic Demand Management. The Traffic Study and the Long-range Analysis were based on certain Project trip generation assumptions (such as a higher than normal number of employees per square foot of space) to ensure that Project traffic impacts were no greater than predicted. However, to ensure that Project impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible OWNER shall implement, and maintain for the Term of this Agreement, a Traffic Demand Management Program consisting of at least the following: (a) OWNER will recommend to its Union workforce a work shift adjustment for its compressed work week employees. The work shift for those employees would change from 5:30 a.m. — 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. The revised work shift would reduce the a.m. and p.m. peak period trips generated by the Project. (b) OWNER will retain a designated employee or consultant to devote a minimum of twenty (20) hours per week to administer and promote the following trip programs and services: (i) a vanpool program for its compressed work week employees. The vanpool program will entail, at a minimum, OWNER's subsidization of each vanpool in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the monthly vanpool operating costs (including acquisition costs, fuel and oil, repair, maintenance and insurance); (ii) rideshare matching services for employees desiring help in identifying possible rideshare partners; 17 OC_DOCS\374727.4 EW971 (III) to make available to employees general transit information Including ticketing assistance and providing transit itineraries and schedules; (iv) guaranteed return trips (to the point of commute origin) for carpool, van pool and transit users who cannot match return itineraries with their car pools, van pools, or available transit. (c) OWNER will provide preferential parking for rideshare vehicles. (d) OWNER will provide bicycle storage equipment, lockers, showers and other biking related services sufficient to encourage use of bicycles by its commuting workforce. (e). OWNER will develop and implement telecommuting and flex time policies to support at-home work opportunities and flexible hours that remove trips from the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic periods. 5.6 Fire Station. The EIR indicated that fire suppression service to the Project would not meet CITY response time standards In the event of the closure of OCFA Station 27. CITY has conducted studies of fire service needs in the airport area and options for providing fire suppression and paramedic services consistent with CITY standards. The options for providing fire suppression and paramedic services include the construction, equipping and staffing a new fire station in the airport area or Immediately south of Bristol Street in Santa Ana Heights (New Fire Station). The current estimated cost of constructing and equipping a New Fire Station is two million dollars ($2,000,000). OWNER shall pay CITY a fire suppression impact fee (FSIE) of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) to be used solely to fund the acquisition of a fire station site, the construction of the New Fire Station. OWNER shall pay the FSIE within ten (10) days after CITY executes an agreement to purchase a site for the New Fire Station or City takes title to a parcel transferred to the City by the County of Orange for the New Fire Station. CITY will consider establishing a fire station impact fee on new construction in the area served by the New Fire Station, in the event CITY establishes afire suppression facility impact fee program (Program) for area served by the New Fire Station, CITY shall use its best efforts to structure the Program so that OWNER is reimbursed for that portion of the FSIE that exceeds the fee that OWNER would have been required to pay pursuant to the Program. Payment of the FSIE shall fully discharge OWNER from any obligation to pay any fee pursuant to the Program or any similar impact fee. 6. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Sales Tax Principles. OWNER has the right, pursuant to the Bradley Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Tax Law) to make a direct sales or use 18 OC_DOCS\374727.4 P971 tax payment ("Tax") through a "direct pay permit" for certain purchases and sales ("Eligible Transactions"). CITY receives substantially more Tax from OWNER if OWNER directly pays the Tax on all Eligible Transactions. The Parties agree that, as a practical matter, OWNER is unable to identify all Eligible Transactions and that this Agreement only contemplates a good faith effort on the part of OWNER to maximize the amount of Tax paid to CITY. The Parties also agree that OWNER's good faith compliance with this Article should result in identification of, and direct payment of Tax on, at least seventy percent (by value) of Eligible Transactions (such Tax being the "Baseline"). OWNER's compliance with the provisions of this Article is a material part of the consideration to CITY for approving this Agreement. 6.2 Tax Program. OWNER shall, within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, prepare and submit to the Revenue Manager of CITY .for approval a Sales and Use Tax Program (Program) that, at a minimum, has the following components: (a) general accounting procedures that OWNER has implemented or will implement upon approval of the Program that are reasonably calculated to ensure that OWNER identifies at least seventy percent (70%) of the value of all Eligible Transactions. (b) general accounting procedures that OWNER has implemented or will implement upon approval of the Program that are reasonably calculated to ensure that OWNER utilizes the "direct pay permit" with respect to all Eligible Transactions identified pursuant to (a). (c) the procedures that Owner will implement to maximize the amount of Tax paid to the City with respect to construction of the Project. (d) procedures pursuant to which OWNER will provide City with information identifying all buyers and sellers with whom OWNER does business. The Program shall also contain other information relevant to OWNER's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement pertaining to the direct payment of Tax. OWNER shall, within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date submit the Program to the Revenue Manager of CITY for approval. OWNER shall modify the Program in accordance with any and all reasonable recommendations of the Revenue Manager that are consistent with the intent of this Section. OWNER shall, during the term of this Agreement, fully implement the Program approved by the Revenue Manager. CITY will assist OWNER in the identification of Eligible Transactions and eligible buyers and sellers. . 6.3 Rebate/Payment Procedures 19 0C_DOCM374727.4 (W971 (a) In the event CITY receives, during any calendar year during the term of this Agreement, Sales Tax attributable to the Program that exceeds the Baseline, OWNER shall receive a rebate equal to twenty-five percent of the Tax in excess of the Baseline. (b) In the event CITY fails to receive, during any calendar year during the term of this Agreement, Tax that equals the Baseline, OWNER shall pay CITY an amount which, when added to the Tax received, equals the Baseline. (c) The obligations of the Parties pursuant to this Section shall be pro- rated for any portion a calendar year during the term of this Agreement. (d) CITY shall conduct an audit within sixty days after the end of each calendar year during the term of this Agreement to determine if OWNER is entitled to a rebate or is required to make a supplemental payment. CITY shall pay the entire cost of the audit if the audit determines that the Tax equals or exceeds the Baseline and OWNER shall pay the entire cost of the audit (but not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000)) if the audit determines the Tax is less than the Baseline. 6.4 Contract, Duration and Minimum Guarantee. Within six (6) months after the Effective Date, OWNER shall execute, and thereafter fully implement and administer, a Sales Tax Program and Rebate Agreement that is consistent with OWNER's obligations pursuant to this Article and the Program. The Sales Tax Program and Rebate Agreement shall have an initial term of ten (10) years, but shall also provide for extensions with the agreement of the parties. 7. ANNUAL REVIEW. 7.1 CITY and OWNER Responsibilities. Each Party shall review the other Party's good faith substantial compliance with this Agreement once each year (the "Annual Review'). As part of the Annual Review, OWNER shall submit to CITY an annual review statement describing its actions in compliance with this Agreement and the Development Plan. 7.2 Procedure. In connection with the Annual Review, each Party shall have a reasonable opportunity to advise the other of alleged or potential breaches of this Agreement or the Development Plan, to explain the basis for that Party's position, and to receive from the other Party a statement of its position. A Party may issue a written "Notice of Non -Compliance" specifying the factual basis for the notice if, on the basis of the Annual Review, that Party concludes that the other Party has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement or the Development Plan. The Party receiving a 20 oc_oocs\374727.4 P971 Notice of Non -Compliance shall have thirty (30) days to respond in writing. If a Notice of Non -Compliance is contested, the Parties shall have up to sixty (60) days to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) occasioning the Notice. In the event that the Parties are not able to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) by the end of the sixty (60) day period, the Party alleging the non-compliance may pursue the remedies provided in this Agreement. 7.3 Mitigation Monitoring. The Annual Review shall include an analysis of compliance with the various conditions and mitigation measures related to the Project. 7.4 Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may at any time deliver written Notice to the other Party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate") stating: (a) The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties. (b) The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if amended, identifying the amendments. (c) To the best of the signing Party's knowledge, no Default in the performance of the requesting Party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a Default does exist, the nature of the Default. A Party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting Party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The City Manager may sign an Estoppel Certificate on behalf of the CITY. 7.5 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure to conduct an Annual Review shall not constitute a Default of either Party or be asserted as a Default by either Party. 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS 8.1 Effective Date. This Agreement shall bind the Parties as of the Approval Date subject to the Adopting Ordinance becoming effective. The Adopting Ordinance shall be deemed effective when ordinances are generally effective pursuant to provisions of the Newport Beach City Charter. 8.2 Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for a term of twenty-five (25) years unless otherwise terminated or modified pursuant to this Agreement, or extended pursuant to the provisions and conditions of Section 11.. 8.3 Assignment. OWNER has the absolute right to assign its rights and/or delegate its obligations under this Agreement and the Development Plan as part of an 21 OQDOCS1374727.4 iw971 assignment of all or a portion of the Property. Any assignment shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. As long as OWNER owns/leases any part of the Property, OWNER may (at its election) assign the benefits of this Agreement without delegating the obligations for the portion of the Property assigned. If that occurs, however, the benefits assigned shall remain subject to the performance by OWNER of the corresponding obligations. Upon any assignment of all or a portion of the Property, OWNER shall be released from all obligations under this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred as of the date the assignment is effective. Where an assignment includes the delegation of the corresponding obligations, those obligations become solely the obligations of the Assignee. If an Assignee is in Default, then as to OWNER or any Assignees not in Default, the Default shall not: (1) constitute their Default; (11) give grounds for termination of their rights under this Agreement; or (III) be a basis for an enforcement action against them. 8.4 Amendment of Agreement. (a) Consent. Subject to the provisions of Subsection 8.4.b., this Agreement may be amended from time to time by the mutual consent of the Parties, or their successors in interest, but only in the manner provided by the Government Code, the Newport Beach Municipal Code and this Agreement. After any amendment, the term "Agreement" shall refer to the amended Agreement. (b) Amendments. The Parties acknowledge that OWNER may determine that amendments to the Development Plan and/or Project Approvals are appropriate and desirable. In such event, OWNER may apply in writing for an amendment to prior Project Approvals or the Development Plan. CITY shall process and act on the application. CITY shall have no obligation to grant any application that amends the permitted land uses, the overall intensity or density of the Project, or otherwise is an amendment of the Development Plan that could have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts. Any approved amendment shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference and may be further amended from time to time as provided in this Section. 8.6 Enforcement. This Agreement is enforceable by each of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, in the event of a Default the remedies shall be limited to those specified in Section 10.7. 8.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) Expiration of the term in accordance with Section 8.2; 22 00_00CM74727.4 CW971 (b) Entry, after all appeals have been exhausted, of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directing the CITY to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the CITY's approval of this Agreement or any material part of the Project or Project Approvals; or (c) The effective date of a Party's election to terminate the Agreement as provided in Section 10.3 of this Agreement. 8.7 Right to Terminate Upon Specified Events. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, OWNER retains the right to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to CITY in the event that OWNER reasonably determines that continued development of the Project consistent with the Development Plan has become economically infeasible due to changed market conditions, increased development costs, burdens imposed by the CITY or other governmental' entity as conditions to future discretionary approvals of the Project consistent with this Agreement, the CITY's exercise of the Governmental Reservations in a way deemed by OWNER to be inconsistent with the Development Plan, or similar factors. 9. CONFLICTS OF LAW. 9.1 Conflict with State and Federal Laws and Regulations. Where State or federal law or regulation prevents compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, those provisions shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to comply with the State or federal laws or regulations, and the modified Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: (a) The CITY shall not request modification of this Agreement pursuant to this provision unless and until the City Council makes a finding, based on substantial evidence in the record of a public hearing where OWNER has notice and an opportunity to present evidence, that the modification is required (as opposed to permitted) by State and federal law or regulation; (b) The modifications must be limited to those required (as opposed to permitted) by the State or federal law or regulation; (c) The modified Agreement must be consistent with the State or federal law or regulation requiring the modification; (d) The intended material benefits of this Agreement must still be received by each of the Parties after modification; and (e) The modification and any applicable local, State, or federal law or regulation does not render the modified Agreement impractical to enforce; 23 O C_D O =374727.4 I W 9 7] 9.2 Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 10. DEFAULT REMEDIES AND TERMINATION. 10.1 General Provisions. In the event of a Default the Party alleging a Default shall give the other Parry a written Notice of Default. The Notice of Default shall specify the nature of the alleged Default, and a reasonable manner and sufficient period of time (not less than thirty (30) days) in which the Default must be cured (the "Cure Period"). During the Cure Period, the Party charged shall not be considered in default for the purposes of termination of the Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. if the alleged Default is cured within the Cure Period then a Default shall be deemed not to exist. Neither Party shall initiate nor pursue legal proceedings if the Default in question Is not susceptible of cure within the applicable Cure Period, and the Defaulting Parry commences Its cure within the Cure Period and diligently pursues the cure to completion. 10.2 ORtion to Institute Legal Proceedings or to Terminate. The noticing Party must give the Defaulting Party a Notice of intent to terminate this Agreement If the noticing Party intends to terminate the Agreement and the alleged Default is not cured within the Cure Period. The City Council shall, no later than forty-five (45) days after a Notice of intent is served on either Parry, hold a public hearing in the manner specified in the Government Code and/or the Municipal Code to consider and review the alleged Default. 10.3 Notice of Termination. After the public hearing described in Section 10.2, the Party alleging the Default, at Its option, may give written Notice of termination of the Agreement to the other Party. The Agreement shall be terminated immediately upon giving the Notice. A termination shall be valid only if good cause exists and a preponderance of the evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing establishes the continued existence of a Default after the Cure Period. The findings of the City Council as to the existence of a Default shall have no weight in any legal proceeding brought to determine the existence of a Default. The validity of any termination may be challenged pursuant to Section 12.17, in which case the court shall render an independent judgment as to the existence of a Default and good cause for termination. Termination may result only from a material Default of a material provision of this Agreement. 10.4. Waiver. Failure or delay in giving Notice of Default shall not waive a Party's right to give future Notice of the same or any other Default. 10.5 Default by OWNER. Subject to and after termination of this Agreement in compliance with Sections 10.1 through 10.3, if OWNER Defaults, the CITY shall have 24 oc_Docs1374727.4 CW971 no obligation to perform any of CITY's obligations under this Agreement (as opposed to the CITY's obligations under the Development Plan and the General Regulations), unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The CITY's election not to perform as permitted by this provision shall not constitute a Default. 10.6 Default by the ClTY. Subject to and after termination of this Agreement in compliance with Sections 10.1 through 10.3, if the CITY Defaults, OWNER shall have no obligation to perform any of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement, unless otherwise ordered by a court of law. However, OWNER shall not be entitled to receive Project Approvals or take any other action inconsistent with provisions of the Development Plan, the Newport Beach General Plan, or relevant zoning ordinances unless otherwise permitted by law. OWNER's election not to perform as permitted by this provision shall not constitute a Default. 10.7 Specific Performance. (a) The Parties agree that, except as provided in Subsection 9.7.b., the loss by either of them of their respective rights under this Agreement would not be compensable through monetary damages. Therefore, the remedy for a Default for each Party shall be limited to specific performance and/or injunctive relief. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event any development fees or taxes are imposed on development of the Property other than those authorized pursuant to this Agreement or the Development Plan, OWNER shall be entitled to recover from CITY restitution of all improperly assessed fees or taxes, together with interest thereon at the maximum allowable non -usurious rate from the date such sums were paid to CITY to the date of restitution. 10.8 Effect of Termination. The termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights, duties and obligations of the any successor to OWNER to comply with the provisions of Section 5.3. 11. ENCUMBRANCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY. 11.1 Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement on the Property by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property or its improvements. 11.2 Entitlement to Written Notice of Default. A Mortgagee shall, upon written request to CITY, be entitled to receive from CITY written notification of any 25 OC 00=374727.4 [W971 default by Owner of the performance of which has not been cured within thirty (30) default. Notwithstanding OWNER's default, this Agreement shall terminated by CITY as to any Mortgagee to whom Notice given and to which either of the following is true: (a) OWNER's obligations under this Agreement days following the date of the Notice of such not be Is to be (1) The Mortgagee cures any default by OWNER involving the payment of money within sixty (60) days after the Notice of default; provided, however, that if any such default cannot, with diligence, be cured within the sixty (60) day period, then the Mortgagee shall have additional time as may be reasonably necessary to cure the default if the Mortgagee commences the cure within the sixty (60) day period and diligently pursues the cure to completion. (ii) As to defaults requiring title or possession of all or a portion of the Property to cure: (i) the Mortgagee agrees in writing, within sixty (60) days after receipt from CITY of the written Notice of default, to perform the proportionate share of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement allocable to that part of Property in which the Mortgagee has an interest conditioned upon the Mortgagee's acquisition of the required portion of the Property by foreclosure (including a trustee sale) or by a deed in lieu of foreclosure; (ii) the Mortgagee commences foreclosure proceedings to reacquire title to the Property or applicable portion thereof within the sixty (30) days and thereafter diligently pursues foreclosure to completion; and (iii) the Mortgagee promptly and diligently cures the default after obtaining title or possession. Subject to the foregoing, in the event e€ any Mortgagee records a Notice of default as to its mortgage or deed of trust, CITY shall consent to the assignment of all of OWNER's rights and obligations under this Agreement to the Mortgagee or to any purchaser of OWNER's interest at a foreclosure or trustee sale and OWNER shall remain liable for such obligations unless released by CITY or unless the applicable portion of OWNER's Property is transferred. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection 11.2.a. of this Agreement, if any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings including by any process of injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings involving OWNER, the times specified in Subsection 26 OC oocs137a727.a CW971 11.2.a of this Agreement for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be tolled during the period of the prohibition. (c) OWNER's execution or breach of this Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any existing or future mortgage or deed of trust on OWNER's Property made in good faith and for value. 11.3. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Except as provided in this Agreement, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the obligations of OWNER or other affirmative covenants of OWNER or to guarantee such performance. No Mortgagee shall be liable for any Default or monetary obligations of OWNER arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by the Mortgagee or their respective successors or assigns. However, to the extent any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY's performance. In the event a Mortgagee elects to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan, the Mortgagee shall be required to assume and perform the obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER under this Agreement. 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 12.1 Notices. All Notices shall be written and delivered by personal delivery (including Federal Express and other commercial express delivery services providing acknowledgments or receipt), registered, certified, or express mail, or telegram to the addresses set forth below. Receipt shall be deemed complete as follows: (a) For personal delivery, upon actual receipt; and, (b) For registered, certified, or express mail, upon the delivery date or attempted delivery date as shown on the return receipt. Notices shall be addressed as follows: To the CITY: City Clerk - City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: City Manager Attention: City Attorney To OWNER: Conexant Systems, Inc. 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Attn: Director of Facilities 27 OC_DOCS\374727.4 CW971 With a copy to: Robert K. Break, Esq. Latham & Watkins 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 The addresses to which Notices shall be sent may be changed by giving Notice of a new address. 12.2 Enforcement Delays Extension of Time of.Performance. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in Default where delays or non-performance are due to war, Insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, oil spills, casualties, acts of nature, unavailability of materials, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than CITY, suspension of rights in accordance with the existence of unforeseen circumstances, governmental moratorium other than a moratorium enacted by CITY, litigation, or similar bases for excused performance. An extension of time for performance shall be deemed granted for the period of the delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon, but in no case shall the extension of time for performance exceed six (6) months. 12,3 Severability. if any material part of the Agreement is found by a court to be invalid, void, or illegal, the Parties shall modify the Agreement to implement the prior intent of the Parties. These steps may include the waiver by either of the Parties of their right under the unenforceable provision. If, however, the Agreement objectively cannot be modified to implement the prior intent of the Parties and the Party substantially benefited by the material provision does not waive its rights under the unenforceable provisions, the entire Agreement shall become void. For purposes of this Section, and without excluding the possible materiality of other provisions of this Agreement, all provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 are deemed "material'. 12.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the Parties regarding the subject matter. This Agreement supersedes all negotiations and previous offers and understandings between the Parties regarding the subject matter. 12.5 Waivers. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver. 12.6 Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals in Section 1 are part of this Agreement. 12.7 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealina. Neither Party shall do anything that has the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other Party to receive the benefits of this Agreement. 28 OC DOCM374727.4Iw97i 12.8 Covenant of Cooperation. The CITY shall cooperate with OWNER to obtain any permits from other public agencies that may be required for development of the Project. OWNER may challenge any ordinance, measure, moratorium, or other limitation in a court of law if litigation is necessary to protect the development rights vested in the Property pursuant to this Agreement. 12.9 Justifiable Reliance. CITY acknowledges that, OWNER will reasonably be relying on CITY's performance of its covenants in this Agreement when OWNER invests money and effort in construction of the Project. 12.10 Further Actions and Instruments. Upon the request of either Party, the other Party shall promptly execute documents, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and take any other action reasonably necessary to implement the terms and conditions of this Agreement or permit development of the Project in accordance with the Development Plan. 12.11 Successors and Assigns. Subject to Section 8.3 above, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Agreement inure to, all successors -in -interest and assigns of the Parties. 12.12 Construction of Agreement. All language in all parts of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole and given its fair meaning. The captions of the Sections and Subsections are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of construction. This Agreement does not, and is not intended to, impermissibly contract away the police power, legislative authority or governmental functions of the CITY in general or with respect to the Property. 12.13 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to do so and the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. 12.14 Consent. Any consent required by the Parties in carrying out the terms of this Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. 12.16 Effect on Title. This Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated. 12.16 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be executed by the CITY and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County no later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date. The recordation of this Agreement 6 is a ministerial act and the failure of the CITY to record the Agreement as required by this Section and Government Code § 65868.5 does not make the Agreement void or ineffective. 29 OC DOCS\374727.4 [W971 12.17 Institution of Least Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any Default, to enforce any provision of this Agreement, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of this Agreement, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Legal actions shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California. 12.18 Attorneys' Fees. In any arbitration, quasi-judicial, administrative, or judicial proceeding between the Parties initiated with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs, expenses, and disbursements in connection with such action. 12.19 Relationship of the Parties. The contractual relationship between CITY and OWNER arising out of the Agreement is one of independent contractor and not agency. This Agreement does not create any third party beneficiary rights. 12.20 Indemnification. OWNER and CITY agree to cooperate in the defense of any legal action filed and prosecuted by any person or entity other than the Parties that challenges the validity or manner of approval of this Agreement, the Project Approvals or the Project Conditions (Third Party Lawsuit). CITY will promptly notify OWNER of any Third Party Lawsuit upon service. CITY may retain counsel to defend the Third Party Lawsuit and, in such event, OWNER shall pay all attorneys fees and costs incurred by the CITY in the defense of the Third Party Lawsuit. OWNER shall also indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers and employees with respect to any costs, expenses, judgment, damages or award, including an award of attorney fees and/or costs to any third party, arising out of any Third Party Lawsuit. OWNER acknowledges and agrees that CITY has fully complied with all applicable statutes, ordinances, including the provisions of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Act, and Existing General Regulations in the initiation, processing, evaluation and approval of all Project Approvals. OWNER's obligations pursuant to this Section shall commence as of the Approval Date and continue for the period specified in Section 8.2 or until this Agreement terminates, whichever occurs first. The obligation of OWNER to defend, Indemnify and hold CITY harmless shall not apply to the fraud or willful misconduct of the CITY or its officers or employees that occurred on or before the Approval Date. The obligation of OWNER to defend, indemnify and hold CITY harmless shall not apply to the fraud, willful misconduct or violation of law by the CITY or its officers and employees that occurs after the Approval Date. Dated: 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By: Mayor Dated: 12000 CONEXANT, Inc. 30 OC_130=374727.4 CW971 F:1cat\u sers\sh ared%g\C onexantlConexantDA0613soudrt.do c 31 OC DOCS1374727.4 [W97] By: Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND CONEXANT Approved ,2000 Ordinance No. 00 0 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is executed as of 2000, ("Approval Date") by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("CITY"), CONEXANT, Inc. ("OWNER"). 1. RECITALS. and 1.1 Property/Ownership Status. OWNER owns all of the real property ("Property") described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B," consisting of approximately twenty-five and forty-three hundredths (25.43) acres. 1.2 Planning Status. The Property comprises all of "Site I Light Industrial" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The Property is currently developed with approximately four hundred thirty-eight thousand, one hundred twenty-seven (438,127) square feet of light industrial and accessory office buildings, and surface parking. The Planned Community Development Plan for the Property that was in effect prior to the effective date of this Agreement allowed less than 5,000 square feet of additional entitlement and that additional was inadequate to accommodate the expansion needs of OWNER. 1.3 Project. OWNER has asked CITY to approve a general plan amendment, zoning amendment and related permits that would authorize the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial/accessory office on the Property. The Project is intended to provide OWNER with facilities necessary to respond to the rapidly growing demand for the product manufactured by OWNER and to avoid the relocation of OWNER's facilities and operations to property outside of the CITY as well as the attendant loss of employment opportunities and revenue. 1.4 Hearings. The Newport Beach Planning Commission(Planning Commission) and the Newport 'Beach City Council (City Council) have conducted all required public hearings on the Project and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Project that is in full compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. All of these hearings were duly noticed in accordance with applicable provisions of State law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1.5 General Findings. The Planning Commission and City Council have determined that the Project and all Project Approvals are consistent with all elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Newport Beach Municipal Code, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Project and all Project Approvals are also consistent with all other relevant plans, policies, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the CITY. 1.6 Affordable Housing. The CITY and OWNER have determined that the Project does not constitute a residential development subject to the terms and conditions of the CITY's Housing Element. Accordingly, no present or subsequently enacted affordable housing requirement or housing in lieu fee shall be required of OWNER, 1.7 Purpose of Agreement, The purposes of this Agreement are as follows: (a) To provide for the orderly completion of development of the Property consistent with the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. (b) To provide the CITY and OWNER with certainty that the Project will be developed and maintained as contemplated by the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and the Development Plan. (c) To provide assurance to OWNER that OWNER may proceed with the Project, subject to compliance with Project Conditions, in accordance with the laws, policies, rules, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the CITY in effect as of the Approval Date. (d) To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, reduce the economic cost of development, mitigate the impacts of development, and provide public benefits in excess of those normal secured through the planning process. 1.8 Authorization. This Agreement is authorized by, and is consistent with, the provisions of §§ 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, and Chapter 15,45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1.9 Poiice Power. The City Council has determined that this Agreement: (a) is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the CITY, its residents and the public; (b) Was entered into pursuant to, and Is a valid exercise of, the CITY's police power; and (c) Has been approved in accordance with the provisions of State and local law that establish procedures for the approval of development agreements. 1.10 City Ordinance. On , 2000, after giving appropriate notice and holding all appropriate public hearings, the City Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. authorizing'the CITY to enter into this Agreement. The City Council approved the Adopting Ordinance on 2000, after giving 3 appropriate notice and holding all appropriate public hearings. The Adopting Ordinance shall be considered effective as specified in Section 8.1. 1.11 CEQA Review. The City Council has independently reviewed, approved and certified the EIR for the Project. In so doing, the City Council determined, among other things, that the EIR was prepared in full compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council also adopted all feasible mitigation measures, made appropriate findings and adopted a statement of overriding considerations with respect to any significant effect that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. DEFINITIONS. 2.1. "Adopting Ordinances" refers to: (a) Ordinance No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on , 2000, approving Zoning Amendment No. 898 and this Agreement; (b) Resolution No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on 2000, approving GPA 96-3(F); (c) Resolution No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on , 2000, approving Traffic study No. 110 and making findings pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Code; (d) Resolution No. 2000- adopted by the City Council on , 2000 certifying the EIR as fully compliant with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, adopting all feasible mitigation measures, and containing the statement of overriding considerations. 2.2. "Agreement" refers to this Development Agreement. 2.3 "Annual Review" refers to the review of OWNER's and CITY's good faith compliance with this Agreement, as set forth in Section 7. 2.4 "Approval Date" means , 2000, the date on which the City Council approved the Adopting Ordinance. 2.5 "Assign" means all forms of use of the verb "assign' and the nouns "assignment" and "Assignee" shall, include all contexts of hypothecation, sales, conveyances, transfers, leases, and assignments. El 2.6 "CEQA" and the "CEQA Guidelines" refers to the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Resources of the State of California. 2.7 "CITY" refers to the City of Newport Beach, California. 2.8 "City Council" refers to the City Council of the CITY. 2.9 "Cure Period" refers to the period of time during which a Default may be cured pursuant to Article 10. 2.10 "Day" or "dove" refers to a calendar day, unless expressly stated to be a business day. 2.11 "Default" refers to any material default, breach, or violation of the provisions of this Agreement. A "CITY Default" refers to a Default by the CITY, while a "OWNER Default" refers to a Default by OWNER. 2.12. "Develo " means all forms of use of the verb "deveio " and the noun "Development", whether or not capitalized, means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping and parking facilities and improvements. "Develop" or "Development" also includes the maintenance, repair, alteration, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, landscaping or facility after the initial construction and completion so long as consistent with the Project Approvals, the Development Plan and this Agreement. "Develop" or "Development" also includes the use of the Property in a manner consistent with the permitted general, primary, and secondary uses as set forth in the PC Text and the Development Plan. 2.13. "Development Plan" means and constitutes the plan for the development of the Property, as embodied and stated in the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between Project Approvals and the Development Plan, the Project Approvals shall prevail. 2.14. "Effective Date" shall be the date this Agreement becomes effective as specified in Section 8.1. 2.15. "EIR" refers to Environmental Impact Report 159 (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) prepared for the Project and certified as fully compliant with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines by the CITY Council on the Approval Date.. 5 2.16. "Estoppel Certificate" refers to the document certifying the status of this Agreement required by Section 7.4. 2.17. "Exhibit" refers to an Exhibit to this Agreement. All Exhibits are incorporated as a substantive part of this Agreement. The Exhibits to this Agreement are as follows: Exhibit: Description: A Legal Description of the Property B Map depicting the Property C Project Approvals comprising the Development Plan D List of Project Conditions 2.18. "Existing General Regulations means those General Regulations approved by the CITY on or before the Approval Date (irrespective of their Effective Date) and not rescinded or superseded by CITY action taken on or before the Approval Date. 2.19. "Future General Regulations" means those General Regulations adopted or approved by the CITY in any way, after the Approval Date. 2.20. "General Plan" refers to the CITY's General Plan in effect on the Approval Date, plus all amendments to the General Plan adopted by the CITY on or before the Approval Date as part of the Project Approvals, Project Conditions or the Development Plan. 2.21. "General Plan Amendment" or "GPA" means General Plan Amendment 96-3(F) amending the General Plan of the CITY as approved by the City Council on , 2000. 2.22. "General Regulations"means all laws, ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and permitted uses of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property and provisions relating to applicable fees, charges, assessments and levies. The foregoing includes the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance (Fair Share Ordinance) and water and sewer connection fee ordinances. General Regulations do not include. any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy identified in or governing the following ("Governmental Exceptions"): (a) The provisions of Titles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (except Chapters 15.38 and 15.40) and of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 9 (b) Property taxes and assessments; (c) The control and abatement of Nuisances (subject to the provisions of Section 3.4); (d) The exercise of the power of eminent domain; (e) The provision of, or charges for, water, sewer, refuse, police, fire and other municipal services that are generally applicable to all owners or lessees of commercial property in the CITY; and (f) The manner in which property is used that are related to the amount and time of noise from permitted activities, the use of alcohol, and the nature and timing of special events. 2.23, ',Governmental Reservations" refers to those actions that CITY may take that may affect the Project or the operation of the Project, as follows: (a) Enforcement of the specific provisions, limitations and restrictions contained in the Project, Project Approvals, Development Plan and Project Conditions; (b) Enforcement of the provisions and conditions of this Agreement; (a) Enforcement of, or pursuant to, Governmental Exceptions or Governmental Reservations; and (d) Enforcement of Existing General Regulations 2.24. "Include" and all contexts and forms of the words "includes" and "Including" shall be interpreted to also state "but not limited to." 2.25. "OWNER" refers to Conexant, Inc., a , corporation. 2.26. "Mortgagee" refers to the holder of a beneficial interest under any mortgage, deed of trust, sale -leaseback agreement, or other transaction under which all or a portion of OWNER's interest in the Property is used as security. 2.27. "Notice" refers to any written notice or demand between the Parties required or permitted by this Agreement. 2.28. "Parties" refers to the CITY and OWNER and a "Party" refers to the CITY or OWNER. 7 2.29. "PC Text" refers to the "Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan" as amended by the City Council on the Approval date and any subsequent modification of the PC Text with respect to the Property that are approved by the City Council and to which OWNER consents. Except for the modifications expressly permitted by the terms of this Agreement, OWNER shall be under no obligation to consent to modifications of the PC Text 2.30. "Planning Commission" refers to the Planning Commission of the CITY. 2.31. "Project" refers to the existing and proposed development of the Property pursuant to, and consistent with the Project Approvals, consistent with and subject to Project Conditions, and as described in the Development Plan. The Project includes those improvements existing on the Property as of the Approval Date. 2.32. "Project Approvals" refers to all approvals, amendments, permits, licenses, consents, rights and privileges, and other actions required or authorized to be approved, issued or taken by CITY in connection with development of the Property, including but not limited to the following discretionary actions: (a) General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F)_; (b) Zoning Code Amendment No. 898 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan); (c) Traffic Study No. 159; and (d) Environmental Impact Report No. 159 (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090). Project Approvals also means any grants of easements, vacations, subdivisions, resubdivisions, lot line adjustments or other actions necessary to the implementation of the Project. Project Approvals also include any and all discretionary or ministerial permits related to construction of the Project including grading permits, building permits, and occupancy permits. 2.36. "Project Conditions" means all conditions to OWNER's right to proceed with Development pursuant to the Project Approvals, including the provisions of this Agreement, the PC Text, the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City Council, conditions to approval of the Traffic Study, conditions to Project Approvals, Existing General Regulations and Governmental Reservations. The Project Conditions are generally described in Exhibit D. 1.1 2.37. "Property" refers to the real property described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" 2.38. "Subsequent Development Permits" means all Project Approvals granted or issued by the CITY subsequent to the Approval Date in connection with development of the Property. 2.39. "Vested Entitlement" or "Entitlement" refers to the development rights granted OWNER pursuant to this Agreement and the Project Approvals that are subject to Project Conditions. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 3.1 Development Program. This Agreement vests OWNER's right to proceed with the development described in the Project Approvals and Development Plan. OWNER acknowledges that Its right to proceed with the Vested Entitlement is subject to the Project Conditions. OWNER acknowledges that City grants no assurance that OWNER will receive necessary permits or approvals from any other public agency with jurisdiction over the Project or that Project Approvals will not be subject to and affected by legal or other challenges or procedures Initiated by third parties. (a) Permitted Uses. The Property shall be used and developed only In the manner provided in the Project Approvals and the Development Plan. CITY acknowledges that, from time to time, OWNER may seek and obtain, in accordance with applicable provisions of State and local law, minor amendments to the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. The Planning Director of the CITY ("Planning Director") shall determine, subject to appeal by OWNER to the Planning Commission, whether a proposed amendment is a "minor amendment" for purposes of this Agreement. A minor amendment is one that does not increase trips, noise or other environmental impacts associated with Project Approvals or the Development Plan. (b) Permitted Density of Development. OWNER shall have the vested right to develop the Property and receive the CITY's approval of all Project Approvals consistent with the permitted density and level of intensity authorized by the Project Approvals and as described in the Development Plan. The CITY shall not impose any condition on any Project Approval that reduces the permitted density and level of intensity allowed in the Development Plan and discretionary Project Approvals. CITY acknowledges that the boundaries of the parcels shown on the Development Plan and the Project Approvals are approximate and are subject to minor variation prior to recordation of final map(s) for the Project, provided 0 OWNER complies with the applicable procedures for subdivision maps. CITY may impose standard conditions of approval on any subdivision or resubdivision requested by OWNER so long as the condition(s) do not reduce the permitted density or intensity, or substantially increase the cost of the development, allowed in the Project Approvals and described in the Development Plan. (c) Maximum Height and Size of Structures. OWNER shall have the vested right to develop the Property with the maximum height and size of structures as set forth in the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. 3.2 Compliance with Project Conditions. OWNER acknowledges that City Council approval of the Project Approvals, the Development Plan and this Agreement is subject to compliance with the Project Conditions. The Project Conditions are, among other things, designed to minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts of the Project and protect and enhance the environment. In certain instances, the Project Conditions exceed those that might otherwise be appropriate under "nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests recently articulated by the courts. By entering into this Agreement, OWNER agrees to be bound by, and waives any protest of, any Project Conditions. Any Project Conditions imposed by the CITY after the Effective Date shall be consistent with the Project Approvals, Development Plan and this Agreement. 3.3 Compliance with General Regulations. OWNER shall comply with the Existing General Regulations. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, OWNER shall not be obligated to comply with any Future General Regulations that are in conflict with the Development Plan or this Agreement. Any Future General Regulation(s) that are inconsistent with this Agreement and/or the Development Plan and which do not fall within the definition of Governmental Reservations or Governmental Exceptions shall not be applicable to the development or use of the Property. With respect to Existing General Regulations that require the payment of fees, costs, and expenses, the applicable fee, cost, or expense shall be that in effect on the Approval Date subject to any automatic increases or decreases mandated by the text of the Existing General Regulation as of the Approval Date. OWNER shall, however, comply with: (a) any Future General Regulation that does not impair or affect its ability to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan or increase OWNER's cost or cause delays in timing. OWNER shall also comply with all, provisions of the Uniform Codes for building, fire, plumbing, mechanical and electrical, whether adopted before or after the Approval Date by the CITY, which are in effect at the time applications for specific Project Approvals are submitted. 3.4 Public Health and Safety/Uniform Codes. This Agreement shall not prevent the CITY from adopting, and applying to the Project, Future General Regulations, including Uniform Codes (as referred to above), that are based on recommendations of a multi -state professional organization relating to the specifications for the constructions of improvements ("Building Codes") and become applicable 10 throughout CITY. This Agreement shall not prevent the CITY from adopting, and applying to the Project, conditions inconsistent with the Development Plan or Project Approvals, when the conditions are adopted by the City Council after a noticed public hearing and pursuant to a determination by the City Council that the conditions are necessary to abate a public nuisance (Nuisance). In no event shall the CITY impose any condition pursuant to a determination of Nuisance unless the OWNER has been given notice of, and the right to present evidence at, a public hearing. Any determination of Nuisance, and the rational relationship between the Nuisance and the conditions imposed, must be supported by substantial evidence in the record of the hearing. 4. BENEFITS TO OWNER. 4.1 Riaht to Develop. During the term of this Agreement, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop, and receive building and occupancy permits for construction on, the Property to the full extent permitted by the Project Approvals and the Development Plan subject to the Project Conditions. CITY shall only take action with respect to the Property that complies and is consistent with the Project Approvals and the Development Plan unless OWNER gives its written consent to the action or CITY is permitted to take the action pursuant to this Agreement. OWNER may refuse to grant consent in OWNER's sole and absolute discretion. CITY shall not impose or increase any condition or requirement (whether in the form of a fee, tax, requirement for dedication or reservation of and, or any other type of exaction) on the Project, except as expressly permitted by this Agreement, Existing General Regulations, Governmental Reservations or Governmental Exceptions. However, CITY may impose or Increase a condition or requirement when such action Is required (as opposed to permitted) by State or federal law and then only to the minimum extent and duration necessary to comply with State or federal law. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, the ordinances, plans, resolutions, and policies governing the permitted use and development of the Property shall be those described in the Project Approvals and the Development Plan. 4.2 Reservations or Dedications of Land. No dedication or reservation of any portion of the Property shall be required of OWNER in conjunction with the application or issuance of any Project Approval except as may be provided in the Project Approvals, Project Conditions, Development Plan or this Agreement 4.2 No Additional Traffic Related Fees or Conditions. OWNER's satisfaction of the provisions of Article 5 shall be deemed full compliance with all Existing General Regulations, Future General Regulations and CEQA relative to traffic Impacts or traffic fees. Except as provided in Section 5, CITY shall not impose or increase the amount of any traffic -related fee, charge, dedication, or improvement relative to, or as a condition to, development of the Project. 11 4.4 Water and Sewer Connection. The CITY shall provide and maintain water and sewer service to the Property through a connection to CITY water and sewer lines in the same manner as water and sewer service is provided to other similarly situated property owners. CITY shall provide water and sewer facilities only to the boundaries of the Property. OWNER shall pay any water and sewer connection fees required by the Existing General Regulations. OWNER shall pay for water and sewer service in accordance with Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations. OWNER shall fully comply with any conditions or restrictions to service in Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations that are applicable to similarly situated property owners. OWNER also agrees that CITY may require OWNER, at OWNER's cost but only to the same extent as other owners of commercial property and only at the time of issuance of any ministerial Development Permit related to water service, to modify water services facilities on the Property to accommodate reclaimed water service. 4.5 Storm Drain. The CITY shall provide storm drain capacity to the exterior boundaries of the Property to the extent, and subject to the same conditions, that capacity is provided to similarly situated commercial property in the CITY. OWNER agrees to accept, during the term of this Agreement, all storm drain inflow from facilities in place as of the Effective Date. 4.6 Park Fees. OWNER and CITY acknowledge that the Project may generate some incidental demand for, and usage of, park and open space land within the CITY but that the Project is exempt from the Park Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and any Existing General Regulation relating to the dedication of land for park or open space purposes or the payment of park or open space fees. 4.7 Future Impact Fees Conditions, and Exactions. So long as OWNER is not in default under this Agreement, CITY will not impose, or increase the amount of, any impact fee, condition, mitigation measure, or exaction other than as expressly required by the Project Approvals, Project Conditions, Existing General Regulations, the Development Plan, or this Agreement. CITY shall not, without the written consent of OWNER, form, or cause the formation of, any new governmental entity for the purpose of imposing fees, conditions or exactions the CITY could not directly impose pursuant to this Section. CITY may form or cause the formation of an assessment district (or similar vehicle) comprised of the Property and other property in the area for the purpose of funding public improvements that provide a special benefit to the Property. However, CITY may not include the Property in any assessment district formed to fund construction of public improvements that CITY is prohibited from imposing on OWNER because of this Agreement. 4.8 Time for Construction and Completion of Project. OWNER shall have the right to develop the Project in the manner and at the time that OWNER deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment. The Parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot predict the timing of the development of the Project because of 12 numerous factors not within the control of OWNER, such as market demand, economic conditions, interest rates and competition. Subject to compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and Project Conditions, OWNER shall, at any time during the term of this Agreement, be entitled to apply for, and receive, Project Approvals consistent with the Development Plan. 4.9 Development Standards. Because the Development Plan has been prepared to meet the unique design parameters of this Project, the City Council has determined that rigid consistency with the Existing General Regulations and Future General Regulations is neither necessary nor appropriate. The terms and provisions of the Project Approvals, Development Plan or this Agreement shall prevail in the event of any conflict with Existing General Regulations or Future General Regulations. 4.10 Tentative Maps. (a) Improvement Security. As a condition of approving a final subdivision map or any future resubdivision for all or a portion of the Property, the CITY may require the furnishing of appropriate and reasonable improvement agreements and security pursuant to the Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as altering or relieving OWNER of any obligation imposed pursuant to the Municipal Code or the Subdivision Map Act. The improvement requirements, exactions or other conditions of approval of a subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment shall be consistent with this Agreement but CITY may impose standard conditions of approval generally applicable to similar projects subject to the provisions Section 3.1(b). (b) Expiration. Any current or future tentative maps for resubdivision of the Property shall expire concurrently with the termination of this Agreement or after the maximum period for the expiration of tentative maps authorized by Government Code § 66462.6. whichever is later. Should the time periods authorized by Government Code § 66452.6 be lengthened after the execution of this Agreement, OWNER shall be entitled to further extensions of any tentative subdivision map applicable to the Property, to the maximum extent authorized by law. (c) Resubdivisions. The Parties acknowledge that resubdivisions, lot line adjustments, or similar modifications may be necessary to develop the Project and are contemplated by this Agreement. These modifications or adjustments shall be approved provided they are in substantial conformance with the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. 13 4.11 Processing and Issuance of Permits. (a) Processing of Permits. As a material term of this Agreement benefiting OWNER, the CITY shall promptly accept for processing/review, and expeditiously approve, permit applications for the development and use of the Property that are in substantial conformance with the Project Approvals, Development Plan, Existing General Regulations, and this Agreement. (b) Issuance of Ministerial Proiect Approvals. CITY shall issue to OWNER all necessary use, building, occupancy, and other permits and approvals upon request, provided that applications are submitted in accordance with the Existing General Regulations and are in substantial conformance with the Project Approvals, Development Plan and this Agreement. (c) Vesting of PromecL Approvals. Any permit, license or approval issued pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested and deemed a Project Approval when granted. 4.12 Future Approvals. The future approval or issuance of any Project Approval that is consistent with the Development Plan, including any permit, license or authorization to proceed, subdivisions, resubdivisions, lot line adjustments, vacations and similar actions shall not require an amendment of this Agreement 5. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING. 5.1 Regional Transportation Facilities Fees. OWNER acknowledges that CITY is bound by provisions of ordinances, agreements, rules and regulations related to the financing, construction and operation of major transportation improvements that benefit large areas of Orange County including the Property. OWNER shall comply with the provisions of all such ordinances, agreements, rules and regulations, including the payment of fees required by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Agreement and/or the Transportation Corridor Agency (collectively, the "TCA"). OWNER acknowledges that it is required to comply with Chapter 15.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. OWNER shall have the right to appeal or contest the imposition and/or amount of fees through any procedure adopted or used by the TCA for that purpose. OWNER shall also have the right to commence litigation relative to the amount, method of calculating or timing of any fees or the procedure utilized by the TCA or other agency to resolve disputes relative to fees. OWNER shall hold CITY harmless with respect to any loss, damage claim or liability arising out of any litigation commenced by OWNER that is related to this Section. OWNER agrees that satisfaction of the provisions of this Section is a condition to any discretionary or ministerial Project Approval. CITY shall not be required to issue any discretionary or ministerial Project 14 Approval until OWNER provides proof that all fees required to be paid to the TCA, whether pursuant to ordinance, settlement or judgment, have been paid. 5.2 Fair Share Traffic Fees. OWNER shall pay $1,064,720 in fees required pursuant to Chapter 15.38 of the Code (Project Fair Share Fees). The Project Fair Share Fees are based on the eight thousand (8000) additional average daily trips generated by the Project multiplied by the current per trip fee of one hundred thirty three dollars and nine cents ($133.09). The average daily trip generation rates assumed for the Project are substantially higher than the rates normally used for calculating Fair Share Fees and the higher rates will result in OWNER paying approximately four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) more than OWNER would pay In absence of this Agreement. The Project Fair Share Fees shall be paid at the time specified in Chapter 15.38 of the Code. 5.3 TPO Improvements. OWNER shall contribute funds to be used by CITY for the construction of the circulation system improvements identified in Traffic Study 159 (TPO Improvements). OWNER's contributions to the funding of the TPO Improvements equal or exceed the requirements of the TPO and OWNER's contributions to the funding of the TPO Improvements is in addition to all other fees, charges or contributions required by this Agreement and/or existing General Regulations. OWNER's contributions to the TPO Improvements shall be as follows: (a) Irvine/Mesa intersection. OWNER shall contribute the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to fund the widening of Irvine Avenue between University Avenue and Bristol Street South (Irvine Widening Project). CITY agrees that the Irvine Widening Project will include the addition of a southbound (on Irvine Avenue) right turn lane and other improvements at the Irvine/Mesa Intersection that will ensure that the Project fully complies with the TPO. CITY also agrees to provide any funding necessary to supplement OWNER's contribution and other sources of funds such that full construction financing is available for the Irvine Widening Project prior to the award of the construction contract. CITY agrees that the Irvine Widening Project will be complete within one year after initial occupancy of the Project. CITY acknowledges that the Irvine Widening Project will fully mitigate the short term and long term Impacts of the Project on traffic service levels at the Irvine/Mesa and Irvine/University intersections. OWNER's contribution to the Irvine Widening Project exceeds the requirements of the TPO (25% of the cost of restriping the Irvine/Mesa Intersection). (b) MacArthur/Jamboree Intersection. OWNER shall contribute the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to fund construction of a second northbound (MacArthur) left turn lane, the construction of a second southbound (MacArthur) left turn lane and the construction of a second northbound (MacArthur) right turn lane at the MacArthur/Jamboree intersection (MacArthur Project). City has prepared preliminary plans, specifications and cost estimates for the MacArthur Project. The MacArthur Project fully mitigates the impacts of 15 Project trips at the MacArthur/Jamboree intersection as required by the TPO. The MacArthur Project is anticipated to cost one million seven hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($1,760,000). CITY has obtained "Measure M" and other funding commitments of one million four hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($1,490,000). OWNER's contribution to the MacArthur Project exceeds the requirements of the TPO (25% of $270,000). CITY agrees to provide any supplemental funds necessary to ensure that construction of the MacArthur Project is complete no later than one year after occupancy of any development authorized by the Project Approvals. 5.4 Long Ran-ge Traffic Improvements. (a) Introduction. The EIR evaluated the "long term" impacts of the Project on major intersections in Newport Beach and Irvine (Long-range Analysis). The Long-range Analysis assumed construction of all entitlement and all circulation system improvements authorized in the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan (including the TPO Improvements). The Long-range Analysis also assumed the construction of entitlement and circulation system improvements contemplated for the year 2020 in the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Irvine General Plan. The Long- range Analysis concluded that the Project would, depending on the construction of the J5 Ramp, have significant long-range adverse traffic impacts on four (4) or five (5) major intersections. The potential cost of mitigating the long- range impacts of the Project on intersections in the airport area could be significant. For example, mitigation of the impact of Project trips on service levels may require the construction of a grade separation and access ramps at the MacArthur/Jamboree intersection. The CITY has prepared conceptual plans for a grade separation at the Jamboree/MacArthur intersection and very preliminary cost estimates indicate that improvement costs, exclusive of right-of-way could be in the range of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) to twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). Moreover, the approval of the Project will result in an increase in average daily trips in the vicinity of the Project that may require other property owners to make improvements pursuant to the TPO that would not be necessary but for the Project. (b) Planning/Financing Program. City is contemplating initiation of a planning and circulation improvement study for the "airport area" that would, among other things, identify intersection and/or link improvements that would mitigate the long-range impacts of Project trips (Planning Study). This Planning Study is intended to lead to the preparation, approval and implementation of an airport area improvement program (Improvement Program). The Improvement Program would identify major circulation system improvements to be constructed and provisions for financing the construction of those improvements through a fee on new 16 development in the airport area that would benefit from the improved circulation (Improvement Fee). (c) OWNER Commitments. OWNER agrees to do the following: (i) Pay the CITY, within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, forty-five cents ($.45) per square foot of entitlement granted pursuant to the Project Approvals to be used by the CITY solely for the purpose of funding the Planning Study. (ii) Pay the CITY the sum of ten dollars ($10) per square foot for all development authorized by the Project Approvals (Mitigation Fee). The amount of the Impact Fee shall be adjusted every twelve months after the Effective Date to reflect increases or decreases in construction costs for that period as specified in the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record. The Mitigation Fee shall be adjusted in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (all urban consumers - Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside) in the event the Engineering News Record no longer publishes the Construction Cost Index or similar index. (d) Conditions. OWNER's obligation to pay the Mitigation Fee is contingent on City Council approval of the Improvement Program no later than sixty (60) months after the issuance by CITY of the first building permit for entitlement authorized by Project Approvals. In the event the Improvement Program fee is less than the Mitigation Fee, OWNER shall only be required to pay an amount equal to the Improvement Program fee. While OWNER's obligation to pay the Mitigation Fee is contingent on the adoption of an Improvement Program, the Mitigation Fee is based solely on the terms and conditions of this Agreement and is not based on the terms and/or components of the Improvement Program. The Mitigation Fee is a material part of the consideration to the CITY for CITY's approval of this Agreement. (e) Payment. OWNER shall pay the Mitigation Fee within ninety (90) days after City Council approval of the Improvement Program and upon a written request for payment submitted by CITY. OWNER shall post a bond, letter of credit or similar instrument, with form and content approved by CITY, guaranteeing payment of the Mitigation Fee. In the event OWNER elects to post a bond, OWNER shall obtain prior CITY approval of the bonding company. The instrument that guarantees payment shall be filed with CITY no later than ninety (90) days after the Effective Date. (f) Compliance. OWNER's compliance with the provisions of this Section shall relieve OWNER of any obligation to participate in the improvement Program or any other circulation system funding program 17 developed and implemented by the CITY including a specific area plan or major thoroughfare program for the airport area. OWNER's compliance with the provisions of this Article shall constitute full and complete satisfaction of any obligation to make or fund, in whole or in part, any CITY circulation system improvement as a condition to development of the Project. 5.5 Traffic Demand Management. The Traffic Study and the Long-range Analysis were based on certain Project trip generation assumptions (such as a higher than normal number of employees per square foot of space) to ensure that Project traffic impacts were no greater than predicted. However, to ensure that Project impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible OWNER shall implement, and maintain for the Term of this Agreement, a Traffic Demand Management Program consisting of at least the following: (a) OWNER will recommend to its Union workforce a work shift adjustment for its compressed work week employees. The work shift for those employees would change from 5:30 a.m. — 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. The revised work shift would reduce the a.m. and p.m. peak period trips generated by the Project. (b) OWNER will retain a designated employee or consultant to devote a minimum of twenty (20) hours per week to administer and promote the following trip programs and services: (1) a vanpool program for its compressed work week employees. The vanpool program will entail, at a minimum, OWNER's subsidization of each vanpool in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the monthly vanpool operating costs (including acquisition costs, fuel and oil, repair, maintenance and insurance); (ii) rideshare matching services for employees desiring help in identifying possible rideshare partners; (III) to make available to employees general transit information including ticketing assistance and providing transit itineraries and schedules; (iv) guaranteed return trips (to the point of commute origin) for carpool, van pool and transit users who cannot match return itineraries with their car pools, van pools, or available transit. (c) OWNER will provide preferential parking for rideshare vehicles. It (d) OWNER will provide bicycle storage equipment, lockers, showers and other biking related services sufficient to encourage use of bicycles by its commuting workforce. (e). OWNER will develop and implement telecommuting and flex time policies to support at-home work opportunities and flexible hours that remove trips from the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic periods. 5.6 Fire Station. The EIR concludes that fire suppression service to the Project will not meet CITY response time standards in the event of the closure of OCFA Station 27. CITY has conducted studies of fire service needs in the airport area and options for providing fire suppression and paramedic services consistent with CITY standards. The options for providing fire suppression and paramedic services include the construction, equipping and staffing a new fire station in the airport area or immediately south of Bristol Street in Santa Ana Heights (New Fire Station). The current estimated cost of constructing and equipping a New Fire Station is two million dollars ($2,000,000). OWNER shall pay CITY a fire suppression impact fee (FSIF) of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to be used solely to fund the acquisition of a fire station site, the construction of the New Fire Station. OWNER shall pay the FSIF within ten (10) days after CITY executes an agreement to purchase a site for the New Fire Station or City takes title to a parcel transferred to the City by the County of Orange for the New Fire Station. CITY will consider establishing a fire station impact fee on new construction in the area served by the New Fire Station. In the event CITY establishes a fire suppression facility impact fee program (Program) for area served by the New Fire Station, CITY shall use its best efforts to structure the Program so that OWNER is reimbursed for that portion of the FSIE that exceeds the fee that OWNER would have been required to pay pursuant to the Program. Payment of the FSIE shall fully discharge OWNER from any obligation to pay any fee pursuant to the Program or any similar impact fee. 6. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Sales Tax PrIhclplea. OWNER has the right, pursuant to the Bradley Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Tax Law) to make a direct sales or use tax (Tax) payment through a "direct pay permit" for certain purchases, leases and sales (Eligible Transactions). CITY receives substantially more Tax from OWNER if OWNER directly pays the Tax on all Eligible Transactions. The Parties agree that, as a practical matter, OWNER is unable to identify all Eligible Transactions and that this Agreement only contemplates a good faith effort on the part of OWNER to maximize the amount of Tax paid to CITY. The Parties also agree that OWNER's good faith compliance with this Article should result in identification of, and direct payment of Tax on, at least seventy percent (by value) of Eligible Transactions (Baseline). OWNER's compliance with the provisions of this Article Is a material part of the consideration to CITY for approving this Agreement. 19 6.2 Tax Program. OWNER shall, within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, prepare, and submit to the Revenue Manager of CITY for approval, a Sales and Use Tax Program (Program) that, at a minimum, has the following components: (a) OWNER's commitment to, during the term of this Agreement, maintain a direct pay pen -nit or similar authorization to directly pay Tax on all Eligible Transactions; (b) the general accounting procedures that OWNER has implemented or will implement upon approval of the Program that are reasonably calculated to ensure that OWNER identifies at least seventy percent (70%) of the value of all Eligible Transactions. (c) the general accounting procedures that OWNER has implemented or will implement upon approval of the Program that are reasonably calculated to ensure that OWNER utilizes the "direct pay permit" with respect to all Eligible Transactions identified pursuant to (b). (d) the procedures that Owner will implement to maximize the amount of Tax paid to the City with respect to construction of the Project. (e) procedures pursuant to which OWNER will provide City with information identifying all buyers and sellers with whom OWNER and/or OWNER's contractors do business. The Program shall also contain other information relevant to OWNER's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement pertaining to the direct payment of Tax.. OWNER shall, within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date submit the Program to the Revenue Manager of CITY for approval. OWNER shall modify the Program in accordance with any and all reasonable recommendations of the Revenue Manager that are consistent with the intent of this Section. OWNER shall, during the term of this Agreement, fully implement the Program approved by the Revenue Manager. CITY will assist OWNER in the identification of Eligible Transactions and eligible buyers and sellers. . 6.3 Rebate/Payment Procedures (a) in the event CITY receives, during any calendar year during the term of this Agreement, TAX that exceeds the Baseline, OWNER shall receive a rebate equal to twenty-five percent of the Tax in excess of the Baseline. (b) In the event CITY fails to receive, during any calendar year during the term of this Agreement, TAX that equals the Baseline, OWNER shall pay CITY an amount which, when added to the Tax received, equals the Baseline. 20 (c) The obligations of the Parties pursuant to this Section shall be pro- rated for any portion of a calendar year during the term of this Agreement. (d) CITY shall conduct an audit within sixty days after the and of each calendar year during the term of this Agreement to determine if OWNER is entitled to a rebate or Is required to make a supplemental payment. CITY shall pay the entire cost of the audit if the audit determines that the Tax equals or exceeds the Baseline and OWNER shall pay the entire cost of the audit (but not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000) if the audit determines the Tax is less than ;the Baseline. 6.4 Contract. Within six (6) months after the Effective Date, OWNER shall execute, and thereafter fully implement and administer, a Sales Tax Program and Rebate Agreement that is consistent with OWNER's obligations pursuant to this Article and the Program. 7. ANNUAL REVIEW. 7.1 CITY and OWNER Responsibilities. Each Party shall review the other Parry's good faith substantial compliance with this Agreement once each year (the "Annual Review"). As part of the Annual Review, OWNER shall submit to CITY an annual review statement describing its actions in compliance with this Agreement and the Development Plan. 7.2 Procedure. In connection with the Annual Review, each party shall have a reasonable opportunity to advise the other of alleged or potential breaches of this Agreement or the Development Plan, to explain the basis for that Part's position, and to receive from the other Party a statement of its position. A Party may issue a written "Notice of Non -Compliance" specifying the factual basis for the notice if, on the basis of the Annual Review, that Party concludes that the other Party has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement or the Development Plan. The Party receiving a Notice of Non -Compliance shall have thirty (30) days to respond in writing. If a Notice of Non -Compliance is contested, the Parties shall have up to sixty (60) days to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) occasioning the Notice. In the event that the Parties are not able to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) by the end of the sixty (60) day period, the Party alleging the non-compliance may pursue the remedies provided in this Agreement, 7.3 Mitigation Monitoring. The Annual Review shall Include an analysis of compliance with the various conditions and mitigation measures related to the Project. 21 7.4 Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may at any time deliver written Notice to the other Party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate") stating: (a) The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties. (b) The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if amended, identifying the amendments. (c) To the best of the signing Party's knowledge, no Default in the performance of the requesting Party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a Default does exist, the nature of the Default. A Party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting Party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The City Manager may sign an Estoppel Certificate on behalf of the CITY. 7.5 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure to conduct an Annual Review shall not constitute a Default of either Party or be asserted as a Default by either Party. 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS 8.1 Effective Date. This Agreement shall bind the Parties as of the Approval Date subject to the Adopting Ordinance becoming effective. The Adopting Ordinance shall be deemed effective when ordinances are generally effective pursuant to provisions of the Newport Beach City Charter. 8.2 Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for a term of twenty-five (25) years unless otherwise terminated or modified pursuant to this Agreement, or extended pursuant to the provisions and conditions of Section 11.. 8.3 Assignment. OWNER has the absolute right to assign its rights and/or delegate its obligations under this Agreement and the Development Plan as part of an assignment of all or a portion of the Property. Any assignment shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. As long as OWNER owns/leases any part of the Property, OWNER may (at its election) assign the benefits of this Agreement without delegating the obligations for the portion of the Property assigned. If that occurs, however, the benefits assigned shall remain subject to the performance by OWNER of the corresponding obligations. Upon any assignment of all or a portion of the Property, OWNER shall be released from all obligations under this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred as of the date the assignment is effective. Where an assignment includes the delegation of the corresponding obligations, those obligations become solely the obligations of the Assignee. If an Assignee is in Default, then as to OWNER or any Assignees not in Default, the Default shall not: (1) constitute 22 their Default; (ii) give grounds for termination of their rights under this Agreement; or (III) be a basis for an enforcement action against them. 8.4 Amendment of Agreement. (a) Consent. Subject to the provisions of Subsection 8A.b., this Agreement may be amended from time to time by the mutual consent of the Parties, or their successors in interest, but only in the manner provided by the Government Code, the Newport Beach Municipal Code and this Agreement. After any amendment, the term "Agreement" shall refer to the amended Agreement. (b) Amendments. The Parties acknowledge that OWNER may determine that amendments to the Development Plan and/or Project Approvals are appropriate and desirable. In such event, OWNER may apply in writing for an amendment to prior Project Approvals or the Development Plan. CITY shall process and act on the application. CITY shall have no obligation to grant any application that amends the permitted land uses, the overall intensity or density of the Project, or otherwise is an amendment of the Development Plan that could have one or more significant adverse environmental Impacts. Any approved amendment shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference and may be further amended from time to time as provided In this Section. 8.5 Enforcement. This Agreement is enforceable by each of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, in the event of a Default the remedies shall be limited to those specified in Section 10.7. 8.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events; (a) Expiration of the term in accordance with Section 8.2; (b) Entry, after all appeals have been exhausted, of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directing the CITY to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the CITY's approval of this Agreement or any material part of the Project or Project Approvals; or (c) The effective date of a Party's election to terminate the Agreement as provided in Section 10.3 of this Agreement. 8.7 Right to Terminate Upon Specified Events. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, OWNER retains the right to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to CITY in the event that OWNER reasonably determines that continued development of the Project consistent with the Development Plan has 23 become economically infeasible due to changed market conditions, increased development costs, burdens imposed by the CITY or other governmental entity as conditions to future discretionary approvals of the Project consistent with this Agreement, the CITY's exercise of the Governmental Reservations in a way deemed by OWNER to be inconsistent with the Development Plan, or similar factors. 9. CONFLICTS OF LAW. 91 Conflict with State and Federal Laws and Regulations. Where State or federal law or regulation prevents compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, those provisions shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to comply with the State or federal laws or regulations, and the modified Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: (a) The CITY shall not request modification of this Agreement pursuant to this provision unless and until the City Council makes a finding, based on substantial evidence in the record of a public hearing where OWNER has notice and an opportunity to present evidence, that the modification is required (as opposed to permitted) by State and federal law or regulation; (b) The modifications must be limited to those required (as opposed to permitted) by the State or federal law or regulation; (c) The modified Agreement must be consistent with the State or federal law or regulation requiring the modification; (d) The intended material benefits of this Agreement must still be received by each of the Parties after modification; and (e) The modification and any applicable local, State, or federal law or regulation does not render the modified Agreement impractical to enforce; 9.2 Controllinq Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 10. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION. 10.1 General Provisions. In the event of a Default the Party alleging a Default shall give the other Party a written Notice of Default. The Notice of Default shall specify the nature of the alleged Default, and a reasonable manner and sufficient period of time (not less than thirty (30) days) in which the Default must be cured (the "Cure Period"). During the Cure Period, the Party charged shall not be considered in default for the purposes of termination of the Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. If the alleged Default is cured within the Cure Period then a Default shall be deemed not to exist. Neither Party shall initiate nor pursue legal proceedings if the Default in question is not susceptible of cure within the applicable Cure Period, and the Defaulting Party commences its cure within the Cure Period and diligently pursues the cure to completion. 10.2 Option to Institute Legal Proceedinas or to Terminate. The noticing Party must give the Defaulting Party a Notice of intent to terminate this Agreement if the noticing Party intends to terminate the Agreement and the alleged Default is not cured within the Cure Period. The City Council shall, no later than forty-five (45) days after a Notice of intent is served on either Party, hold a public hearing in the manner specified in the Government Code and/or the Municipal Code to consider and review the alleged Default. 10.3 Notice of Termination. After the public hearing described in Section 10.2, the Party alleging the Default, at its option, may give written Notice of termination of the Agreement to the other Party. The Agreement shall be terminated immediately upon giving the Notice. A termination shall be valid only if good cause exists and a preponderance of the evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing establishes the continued existence of a Default after the Cure Period. The findings of the City Council as to the existence of a Default shall have no weight in any legal proceeding brought to determine the existence of a Default. The validity of any termination may be challenged pursuant to Section 12.17, in which case the court shall render an independent judgment as to the existence of a Default and good cause for termination. Termination may result only from a material Default of a material provision of this Agreement. 10.4. Waiver. Pailure or delay in giving Notice of Default shall not waive a Party's right to give future Notice of the same or any other Default. 10.5 Default by OWNER. Subject to and after termination of this Agreement In compliance with Sections 10.1 through 10.3, if OWNER Defaults, the CITY shall have no obligation to perform any of CITY's obligations under this Agreement (as opposed to the CITY's obligations under the Development Plan and the General Regulations), unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The CITY's election not to perform as permitted by this provision shall not constitute a Default. 10.6 Default by the CITY. Subject to and after termination of this Agreement in compliance with Sections 10.1 through 10.3, if the CITY Defaults, OWNER shall have no obligation to perform any of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement, unless otherwise ordered by a court of law. However, OWNER shall not be entitled to receive Project Approvals or take any other action inconsistent with provisions of the Development plan, the Newport Beach General Plan, or relevant zoning ordinances unless otherwise permitted by law. OWNER's election not to perform as permitted by this provision shall not constitute a Default. 25 10.7 Specific Performance. (a) The Parties agree that, except as provided in Subsection 9.7.b., the loss by either of them of their respective rights under this Agreement would not be compensable through monetary damages. Therefore, the remedy for a Default for each Party shall be limited to specific performance and/or injunctive relief. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event any development fees or taxes are imposed on development of the Property other than those authorized pursuant to this Agreement or the Development Plan, OWNER shall be entitled to recover from CITY restitution of all improperly assessed fees or taxes, together with interest thereon at the maximum allowable non -usurious rate from the date such sums were paid to CITY to the date of restitution. 10.8 Effect of Termination. The termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights, duties and obligations of the any successor to OWNER to comply with the provisions of Section 5.3. 11. ENCUMBRANCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY. 11.1 Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement on the Property by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property or its improvements. 11.2 Entitlement to Written Notice of Default. A Mortgagee shall, upon written request to CITY, be entitled to receive from CITY written notification of any default by Owner of the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement which has not been cured within thirty (30) days following the date of the Notice of such default. (a) Notwithstanding OWNER's default, this Agreement shall not be terminated by CITY as to any Mortgagee to whom Notice is to be given and to which either of the following is true: (i) The Mortgagee cures any default by OWNER involving the payment of money within sixty (60) days after the Notice of default; provided, however, that if any such default cannot, with diligence, be cured within the sixty (60) day period, then the Mortgagee shall have additional time as may be reasonably necessary to cure the default if the Mortgagee 26 commences the cure within the sixty (60) day period and diligently pursues the cure to completion. (li) As to defaults requiring title or possession of all or a portion of the Property to cure: (1) the Mortgagee agrees in writing, within sixty (60) days after receipt from CITY of the written Notice of default, to perform the proportionate share of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement allocable to that part of Property in which the Mortgagee has an interest conditioned upon the Mortgagee's acquisition of the required portion of the Property by foreclosure (including a trustee sale) or by a deed In lieu of foreclosure; (ii) the Mortgagee commences foreclosure proceedings to reacquire title to the Property or applicable portion thereof within the sixty (30) days and thereafter diligently pursues foreclosure to completion; and (lit) the Mortgagee promptly and diligently cures the default after obtaining title or possession. Subject to the foregoing, in the event of any Mortgagee records a Notice of default as to Its mortgage or deed of trust, CITY shall consent to the assignment of all of OWNER's rights and obligations under this Agreement to the Mortgagee or to any purchaser of OWNER's interest at a foreclosure or trustee sale and OWNER shall remain liable for such obligations unless released by CiTY or unless the applicable portion of OWNER's Property is transferred. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection 11.2.a. of this Agreement, If any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings including by any process of injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings Involving OWNER, the times specified In Subsection 11.2.a of this Agreement for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be tolled during the period of the prohibition. (c) OWNER's execution or breach of this Agreement shall not defeat, render Invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any existing or future mortgage or deed of trust on OWNER's Property made in good faith and for value. 11.3. Mortgadee Not Obligated. Except as provided in this Agreement, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the obligations of OWNER or other affirmative covenants of OWNER or to guarantee such performance. No Mortgagee shall be liable for any Default or monetary obligations of OWNER arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by the Mortgagee or their respective successors or assigns. However, to the extent any covenant to be 27 performed by OWNER is a condition to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY's performance. In the event a Mortgagee elects to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan, the Mortgagee shall be required to assume and perform the obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER under this Agreement. 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 12.1 Notices. All Notices shall be written and delivered by personal delivery (including Federal Express and other commercial express delivery services providing acknowledgments or receipt), registered, certified, or express mail,. or telegram to the addresses set forth below. Receipt shall be deemed complete as follows: (a) For personal delivery, upon actual receipt; and, (b) For registered, certified, or express mail, upon the delivery date or attempted delivery date as shown on the return receipt. Notices shall be addressed as follows: To the CITY: City Clerk - City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: City Manager Attention: City Attorney To OWNER: Conexant Systems, Inc. 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Attn: Director of Facilities With a copy to: Robert K. Break, Esq. Latham & Watkins 650 Town Center Drive, 20t' Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 The addresses to which Notices shall be sent may be changed by giving Notice of a new address. 12.2 Enforcement Delay Extension of Time of Performance. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in Default where delays or non-performance are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, oil spills, casualties, acts of nature, unavailability of materials, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than CITY, suspension of rights in accordance with the existence of unforeseen circumstances, governmental moratorium other than a moratorium enacted by CITY, litigation, or similar bases for excused performance. An m extension of time for performance shall be deemed granted for the period of the delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon, but in no case shall the extension of time for performance exceed six (6) months. 12.3 Seyerabillty. If any material part of the Agreement Is found by a court to be invalid, void, or illegal, the Parties shall modify the Agreement to implement the prior intent of the Parties. These steps may include the waiver by either of the Parties of their right under the unenforceable provision. If, however, the Agreement objectively cannot be modified to implement the prior intent of the Parties and the Party substantially benefited by the material provision does not waive its rights under the unenforceable provisions, the entire Agreement shall become void. For purposes of this Section, and without excluding the possible materiality of other provisions of this Agreement, all provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 6 are deemed "material". 12.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the Parties regarding the subject matter. This Agreement supersedes all negotiations and previous offers and understandings between the Parties regarding the subject matter. 12.6 Waivers. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver. 12.6 Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals in Section 1 are part of this Agreement. 12.7 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Neither Party shall do anything that has the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other Party to receive the benefits of this Agreement. 12.8 Covenant of Cooperation. The CITY shall cooperate with OWNER to obtain any permits from other public agencies that may be required for development of the Project. OWNER may challenge any ordinance, measure, moratorium, or other limitation in a court of law if litigation is necessary to protect the development rights vested in the Property pursuant to this Agreement. 12.9 Justifiable Reliance. CITY acknowledges that, OWNER will reasonably be relying on CITY's performance of its covenants in this Agreement when OWNER invests money and effort in construction of the Project. 12.10 Further Actions and Instruments. Upon the request of either Parry, the other Party shall promptly execute documents, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and take any other action reasonably necessary to implement the terms and conditions of this Agreement or permit development of the Project in accordance with the Development Plan. W 12.11 Successors and Assigns. Subject to Section 8.3 above, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Agreement inure to, all successors -in -interest and assigns of the Parties. 12.12 Construction of Agreement. All language in all parts of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole and given its fair meaning. The captions of the Sections and Subsections are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of construction. This Agreement does not, and is not intended to, impermissibly contract away the police power, legislative authority or governmental functions of the CITY in general or with respect to the Property. 12.13 Authority to Execute. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to do so and the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. 12.14 Consent. Any consent required by the Parties in carrying out the terms of this Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. 12.15 Effect on Title. This Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated. 12.16 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be executed by the CITY and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County no later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date. The recordation of this Agreement a is a ministerial act and the failure of the CITY to record the Agreement as required by this Section and Government Code § 65868.5 does not make the Agreement void or ineffective. 12.17 Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any Default, to enforce any provision of this Agreement, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of this Agreement, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Legal actions shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California. 12.18 Attorneys' Fees. In any arbitration, quasi-judicial, administrative, or judicial proceeding between the Parties initiated with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs, expenses, and disbursements in connection with such action. 12.19 Relationship of the Parties. The contractual relationship between CITY and OWNER arising out of the Agreement is one of independent contractor and not agency. This Agreement does not create any third party beneficiary rights. 12.20 Indemnification. OWNER and CITY agree to cooperate in the defense of any legal action filed and prosecuted by any person or entity other than the Parties that 30 challenges the validity or manner of approval of this Agreement, the Project Approvals or the Project Conditions (Third Party Lawsuit). CITY will promptly notify OWNER of any Third Party Lawsuit upon service. CITY may retain counsel to defend the Third Party Lawsuit and, in such event, OWNER shall pay all attorneys fees and costs Incurred by the CITY in the defense of the Third Party Lawsuit. OWNER shall also Indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers and employees with respect to any costs, expenses, judgment, damages or award, including an award of attorney fees and/or costs to any third party, arising out of any Third Party Lawsuit. OWNER acknowledges and agrees that CITY has fully complied with all applicable statutes, ordinances, including the provisions of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Act, and Existing General Regulations in the initiation, processing, evaluation and approval of all Project Approvals. OWNER's obligations pursuant to this Section shall commence as of the Approval Date and continue for the period specified in Section 8.2 or until this Agreement terminates, whichever occurs first. The obligation of OWNER to defend, Indemnify and hold CITY harmless shall not apply to the fraud or willful misconduct of the CITY or its officers or employees that occurred on or before the Approval Date. The obligation of OWNER to defend, indemnify and hold CITY harmless shall not apply to the fraud, willful misconduct or violation of law by the CITY or its officers and employees that occurs after the Approval Date. 12.21 Payments. Any payment due pursuant to this Agreement shall bear Interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum on the unpaid balance from the date due until paid. Dated: , 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By: Mayor Dated, , 2000 CONEXANT, Inc. F:bat\users\shared'Ag\Conexant\0613soudrt.doc 31 By: Its: 15A5.010 .. Chapter 15.45 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Sections: 15.45.010 Purpose. 15.45.020 Application and Fees. 15.45.030 Contents. 15.45.040 Public Hearing —Notice. 15.45.050 Findings. 15AS.060 Amendment/Cancellation. 15.45.070 Periodic Review. 15.45.080 Local Coastal Programs. 15.45.090 . Recordation. 15.45.010 Purpose. The lack of certainty in the approval of develop- ment projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of the project and discourage in- vestment in, and commitment to, comprehensive planning. Assurance that an applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approv- al, will strengthen the public planning process, en- courage private participation in comprehensive plan- ning, and reduce the economic costs of develop- ment. The ordinance codified in this chapter is adopted in part pursuant to the provisions of Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California. (Ord. 82-30 § 1 (part), 1982) 15.45.020 Application and Fees. A. Application. The process for the consideration of a development agreement shall be initiated upon the filing of an application therefor, by or on behalf of the property owner or other person having a legal or equitable interest in real property located within the municipal boundaries of the City, or real proper- ty to be annexed to the City of Newport Beach. Application fors shall be provided by the Planning Department. The application for consideration of a proposed development agreement shall be accompa- nied by a copy of the proposed development agree- ment containing all of the provisions required by the 576 ordinance codified in this chapter, and the applicant shall provide such other information with respect to the proposed project as may be required by the Planning Director. "' T B. Fees. The City Council shall establish a rea- sonable fee for processing the application for con- sideration of a development agreement by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 87-14 § 1, 1987: Ord. 82- 30 § 1 (part), 1982) 15.45.030 Contents. A development agreement shall specify the dura- tion of the agreement. The development agreement shall specify the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reser- vation or dedication of land for public purposes, if any reservation or dedication is required by the City of Newport Beach. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and require- ments for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and require- ments for subsequent discretionary action shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement. The development agreement may provide that construction be commenced within a specified time, that the project be completed within a specified time, and/or may provide for construc- tion to be accomplished in phases. The development agreement may contain such other provisions as may be considered necessary or proper by the City Coun- cil to further legitimate City interest or to protect the public health, safety and welfare so long as such terms are not inconsistent with the provisions of state law relating to development agreements, nor inconsistent with the ordinances, policies, plans or resolutions of the City of Newport Beach. (Ord. 82- 30 § 1 (part), 1982) 15.45.040 Public Hearing —Notice. A public hearing on an application for a develop- ment agreement shall first be held by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council. Notice of intention to consider the adoption of a develop- c� 15.45.040 ment agreement shall be given as provided in Sec- tions 65090 and 65091 of the -California Govern- ment Code in addition to such other notices that may be required by law or ordinance for actions considered concurrently with the development agree- ment. (Ord. 95729 § 10,1995: Ord. 82-30 § 1(part), 1982) 1SASAS0 Findings. Unless otherwise provided by the development agreement, the ordinances, rules, plans and policies of the City of Newport Beach which govern permit- ted uses of land, the density of development, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications, applicable to development of the property subject to the development agreement, shall be those ordinance rules, plans and policies in force at the time of execution of the agreement. A devel- opment agreement shall not prevent the City of Newport Beach in subsequent actions applicable to the property, from applying new rules, regulations, and policies which do not conflict with those rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the prcperty as set forth in the agreement, nor shall a develop- ment agreement prevent the City of Newport Beach from denying or conditionally approving any subse- quent development project application on the basis of such existing or new rules, regulations and poli- cies. (Ord. 82-30 § 1 (part), 1982) 15.45.060 Amendment/Cancellation. Development Agreements shall only be used after careful consideration since they can limit authority of future City Councils to react to changed condi- tions. A development agreement may be amended, or canceled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest. Notice of intention to amend or cancel any portion of the agreement shall be given in the man- ner provided by Section 65867 of the Government Code. An amendment to a development agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Section 65867.5. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after a development agreement 577 has been entered into, prevent or preclude compli- ance with one or more provisions of the- develop- ment agreement, such provisions of the agreement shall be modified or.suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regula- tions. (Ord. 82-30 § 1 (part), 1982) 15.45.070 Periodic Review. The City Council shall periodically review the de- velopment agreement and activity conducted pursu- ant thereto to determine if the applicant or successor in interest has complied with the terms of the agree- ment. This review shall be conducted at least once every twelve (12) months from the date on which the agreement is executed. At the time of such re- view, the applicant, or successor in interest thereto, shall be required to demonstrate good faith compli- ance with the terms of the agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on the applicant or successor -in -interest. If, as a result of such periodic review, the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the applicant cr successor in interest thereta has not-oriplied in good faith with terms or conditions of the agree- ment, the City Council may terminate or modify the agreement. The periodic review of the agreement shall be subject to the public notice provisions of Section 15.45.040 herein. (Ord. 82-30 § 1 (part), 1982) 15.45.080 Local Coastal Programs. A development agreement shall not be applicable to any development project located in an area for which a local coastal program is required to be prepared and certified pursuant to the requirements of Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code, unless: (1) the re- quired local coastal program has been certified as required by such provisions prior to the date on which the development agreement is entered into, or (2) in the event that the required local coastal program has not been certified, the California Coast- al Commission approves such development agree- ment by formal commission action. (Ord. 82-30 § 1 (part), 1982) 15.45.090 15.45.090 Recordation. Within ten -days after the effective'date of a de- velopment agreement or any modification or the cancellation thereof, the City Clerk shall record the agreement or any modification or cancellation there- of in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Orange. (Ord. 82-30 § 1 (part), 1982) WK Chapter'15S0 __ I DAMAGE PREVENTION* 15.50. 0 Statutory Authorization. 1550.0 Findings of Fact. 15.50.03 Statement of Purpose. 15.50.040X Methods of Reducing Flood Losses. 1550.050 Definitions. 15.50.060 nds to Which This Chapter 1550.070 BXsis for Establishing the AV of Special Flood Hazard. 1550.080 Co pliance. 15.50.090 Abr ation and Greater 15.50.100 Interpketation. 1550.110 Warnfik and Disclaimer of 1550.120 Severab' 15.50.130 Establish nt of Development Permit. 1550.140 Designation the Flood Plain 15.50.150 Permit RevievAand Remedial Action. 15.50.160 Use of Other B Flood Data. 1550.170 Documentation o ood Plain Development. 15.50.180 Alteration of Wate ourses. 1550.190 Map Determinations 15.50.200 Appeals and Varianc Procedure. 1550.210 Conditions for Varianc 1550.220 Standards of Constructi 1550.230 Standards for Utilities. 15.50.240 Standards for Subdivisio 1550.250 Coastal high Hazard Ar 15.50.260 Mudslide Prone Areas. 1550.270 Flood -Related Erosion -Prone Areas. The Planning and Zoning Law I the person or entity is not an entity as specified in subdivision ( that fact, kn the absence of actual knowledge as described in th receding sentence of this subdivision, shall not give rise to any laim against the owner for a violation of this section. (r) t is the intent of the Legislature that the provisions of this sectio are in addition to, but not preemptive of, applicable federa aws governing the sale, or other disposition of a devel- opment hich would result in either (1) a discontinuance of its use as an ssisted housing development or (2) the termination of is) This cdonshallremainineffectonlyuntilDecember31, '000,snda fthatdateisrepeated,unlessalaterenactedstatute, which is en ted on or before December 31, 2000, deletes or extends that re. (Added by rs. 1990, Ch. 1437; Amended by Stars. 1993, Ch.790.) to another use, c cpt pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (con ncing with Section 66410) of Title 7), or prior toclosureofa oatinghomematinaorcessationofUseof thelandasafloonng mcmarina,thepetsonorcntiryproposing, the change in uses all file a report on the Impact of the conversion, closure, dt cessation of use upon the displaced residents ofthe floating one marina to be converted or closed.', Indeterminiugtheimpac ftheconversion,closure,orcessation of use on displaced floau home marina residents, the report, shalladdresstheavailabili ofadequatereplacement housing in' floating home marinas and klocation costs. (b) The personproposing change inuseshailprovideacopy of the report to a resident of ch floating home in the floating home marina at least 15 days 'onto the hearing, if any, on the impact report by the advisory a ncy, or if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. (c) When the impact report is ded prior to the closure or cessation of use, the person orenti proposing the change shall provide a copy ofthe report to arcs ent of each floating home in the floating home marina at the as a time as the notice of the change is provided to the residentspu uantto subdivision (f) of Section 800.71 of the Civil Code. (it) When the impact report is filed rior to the closure or cessation of use, the person or entity 'ng the report or any resident may request, and shall have a rig to, a hearing before the legislative body on the sufficiency of t report. (e)Thelegislative body, oritsdelegateda isoryagency, shall review the report, priorto any change ofuse, dmayrequire,as a condition of the change, the person or enti to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion, osure,orcessa- tion of use on the ability of displaced flootin home marina residents to find adequatehousing ina floating ho emarina.The steps required to be taken to mitigate shall n exceed the reasonable costs of relocation. (f)Iftheclosure orcessationofuseofafloalkngh emarina results from an adjudication ofbankmptey,theprovis nsofthis section shall not be applicable. (g) The legislative body may establish reasonable fe pursu. ant to Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 54990) of rt 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 to cover any costs incurred by th local ncy in implementing this section. Those fees shall be paid by the on or entity proposing the change in use. (h) ' section is applicable to charter cities. (i) This tion is applicable when the closure, cessation, or change of use eresultofadecisionbyAlocal governmental entity or planning nay not to renew a conditional use permit or zoning variance u which the floating home marina has operated,orataresulta otherzoning orplanning decision, action, or inaction. now a state or local governmental aitencyisnotrequiredtotakestep mitigatethe adverse impact of the change pursuant to subdivisio e). 0)Thissectionappliestoenyfloat3ng emarinaasdefined in Section 800A of the Civil Code, and to s arina or harbor (1)whichismanagedbyanonprofitorganizan the property, assets, and profits of which may not inure to any 'vidual or group of individuals, butonlytoanothernonprofitorga tion; (2)therulesandregulationsofwhicharesetbymajorityv of the benhholders thereof; and (3) which contains berths for few than 25 floating homes. Article 2.5. Development Agreements 65864. The Legislature finds and declares that: (a) The lock of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and otherdevclopment to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensiveplanning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. (b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval ofthe project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regula- tions, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planningprocess, encourage private participation in com- prehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs ofdevelop- ment. (c) The lack of public facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities, is a serious Impediment to the development of new housing. Whenever possible, applicants and local govern- ments may include provisions in agreementswherebyapplicants ate reimbursed over time for financing public facilities. (Amended by Stats.1984, Ch.143.) 65865. (a) Any city, county, or city and county, may enterinto a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property as provided in this article. (b) Any city may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property in unincorporatedterritorywithin thatcity's sphere ofinfluence for the development of the property as provided in this article. However, the agreement shall not become operative unless annexation proceedings annexing the property to the city are completed within the period of time specified by the agreement. Iftheannexation is not complctedwithinthe time specified inthe agreement or any extension of the agreement, the agreement is 8o • MR Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws 0 The Planning and Zoning Law null and void. (c) Every city, county, or city and county, shall, upon request of an applicant, by resolution or ordinance, establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agree- ments upon application by, or on behalf of, the property owner or other person having a legal or equitable interest in the property. (d) A city, county, or city and county may recover from applicants the direct costs associated with adopting a resolution or ordinance to establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements. (Amended by Slats. 1984, Ch. 751; Amended by Slats. 1986, Ch. 857.) 65865.1. Procedures established pursuant to Section 65865 shall include provisions requiring periodic review at least every 12 months, at which time the applicant, or successor in interest thereto, shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. If, as a result of such periodic review, the local agency finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the applicant or successor in interest thereto has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the agreement, the local agency may terminate or modify the agreement. (Added by Stars. 1979, Ch. 934.) 65865.2. A development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication ofland for public purposes. The development agreement may include con- ditions, terns, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terns, re- strictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement. The agreement may provide that construction shall be com- menced within a specified time and that the project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. The agreement may also include terms and conditions relating to applicant financing of necessary public facilities and subse- quent reimbursement over time. (Amended by Stars. 1984, Ch. 143) 65865.3. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), Section 65868, or Section 65869.5, notwithstanding any other law, if a newly incorporated city or newly annexed area comprises territory thatwas formerlyunincorporated, any devel- opment agreement entered into by the county prior to the effec- tive date ofthe incorporation or annexation shall remain valid for the duration of the agreement, or eight years from the effective date of the incorporation, whichever is earlier. The holder of the development agreement and the city may agree that the develop- ment agreement shall remain valid for more than eight years, provided that the longerperiod shall not exceed 15 years from the effective date of the incorporation or annexation. The holder of the development agreement and the city shall have the same rights and obligations with respect to each other as ifthe property had remained in the unincorporated territory of the county. (b) The city may modify or suspend the provisions of the development agreement if the city determines that the failure of the city to do so would place the residents of the territory subject to the development agreement, or the residents of the city, or both, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both. (c) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (d), this section applies to any development agreement which meets all of the following requirements: (1) The application for the agreement is submitted to the county prior to the date that the first signature was affixed to the petition for incorporation or annexation pursuant to Section 56704 or the adoption ofthe resolution pursuant to Section 56800, whichever occurs first. (2) The county enters into the agreement with the applicant prior to the date of the election on the question of incorporation orannexation, or, in the case ofan annexation without an election pursuant to Section 57075, prior to the date that the conducting authority orders the annexation. (3) The annexation proposal is initiated by the city. If the annexationproposal is initiated by apetitionerotherthan the city, the developmentagreement is valid unless the city adopts written findings that implementation of the development agreement would create a condition injurious to the health, safety, orwelfare of city residents. (d) This section does not apply to any territory subject to a development agreement if that territory is incorporated and the effective date of the incorporation is prior to January 1, 1987. (Added by Stats.1986, Ch. 857; Amended by Slats. 1989, Ch. 664.) Note: Stars. 1986, Ch. 857 also states: SEC. 4. The Legislature declares that the amendment to Section 65865.3 of the Government Code limiting the period of time that a development agreement shall remain valid in a newly incorporated city shall not be construed as an indication by the Legislature as to the appropriate duration of other development agreements. 65865A. Unless amended or canceled pursuant to Section 65868, or modified or suspended,pursuant to Section 65869.5, and except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) of Section 65865.3, a development agreement shall be enforceable by any party thereto notwithstanding any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regula- tion adopted by the city, county, or city and county entering the agreement, which alters or amends the rules, regulations, or policies specified in Section 65866. (Added by Slats. 1979, Ch. 934; Amended by Slats. 1986, Ch. 857.) 65866. Unless otherwise provided by the development agree- ment, rules, regulations, and official policies governing permit- ted uses of the land, governing density, and governing design, improvement, and construction standardg'and specifications, applicable.to development of the property subject to a develop- ment agreement, shall be those rules, regulations, and official policies in force atthetime of execution of the agreement. A development agreement shall not prevent a city, county, or city and county, in subsequent actions applicable to the property, from applying new rules, regulations, and policies which do not conflict with those rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the property as set forth herein, nor shall a development agree- 1998 Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws • 81 7'hePlanning andZbning Law ment prevent a city, county, or city and county from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent development project application on the basis ofsuch existing or new rules, regulations, and policies. (Added by Slats. 1979, Ch. 934.) 65867. A public hearing on an application for a development agreement shall be held by the planning agency and by the legislative body. Notice of intention to consider adoption of a development agreement shall be given as provided in Sections 65090 and 65091 in addition to any other notice required by law for other actions to be considered concurrently with the develop- ment agreement. (Amended by Slats.1984, Ch.1009.) 65867.5. A development agreement is a legislative act which shall be approved by ordinance and is subject to referendum. A development agreementshall not be approvedunless the legisla- tivebody findsthattheprovisions oftheggreementereconsistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. (Added by Slats. 1979, Ch. 934.) 65868. A development agreement may be amended, or can- celed in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the patties to the agtecmont or their successors in interest, Notice of Intention to amendoreancel anyportion oftheogrecmentshallbegiven lathe manner provided by Section 65867. An amendmentto an agree- ment shall be subject to the provision of Section 65867.5. (Added by Slats. 1979, Ch. 934.) 65868.5.No later than 10 days after a city, county, or city and county enters into a development agreement, the clerk of the legislative body shall record with the county recorder a copy of the agreement, which shall describe the land subject thereto. From and after the time ofsuch recordation, the agreement shall impart such notice thereof to all persons as is afforded by the recording laws of this state. The burdens of the agreement shall be bindingupon, and the benefits of the agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to the agreement. (Added by Slats. 1979, Ch, 934.) 65869. (a) A development agreement shall not be applicable to any development project located in an area for which a local coastal program is required to beprepared and certified pursuant to the requirements of Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code, unless: (1) the required local coastal program has been certified as required by such provisions prior to the date on which the developmentagreementisentered into, or(2) lathe event thatthe required local coastal program has notbeen certified, the Califor- nia Coastal Commission approves such development agreement by formal commission action. (Added by Slats. 1979, Ch. 934.) 65869.5. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after a development agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of the development agreement, such provisions of the agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations. (Added by Stats.1979, Ch. 934) Article 2.7. Covenants for Easement 658 . Any city or county may adopt an ordinance for the impost n of covenants pursuant to this article. (Addek by Stals. 1985, Ch. 996.) 65871. a) In addition to any other method for the creation of en easem t, an easement may be created pursuant to an ordi- nancesdop dimplementingthisarticle,byarecordedcovenant of essemen ode by an owner of real property to the city or county. An a amen created pursuant to this article may be for parking, ingre ,egress, emergency access, light and air access, landscaping, o pen -space purposes, (b)Atthe tim frecordingofthecovenantofeasement,allthe real property ben filed or burdened by the covenant shall be in common ownersh .The covenant shall be effective when re- corded and shall t as an easement pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencingwith ction 801) ofTitle2ofPart2of Division 2 of the Civil Code, cept that it shall not merge into any other interestin the real pro rty. Section 1104 of the Civil Code shall be applicable to conve net of the affected real property. (c) A covenant of eas entrecorded pursuant to this section shall describe the real p try to be subject to the easementand the real property to be enefited thereby. The covenant of easementshollalsoidenti the approval, permit, or designation granted which relied upon required the covenant. (d) A covenant executed ursuant to this section shall be enforceable by the successo in interest to the real property benefited by the covenant. (Added by Slats. 1985, Ch. 9 .) 65873. The covenant of ease em shall be recorded In the county where all oraportionoft h restricted property is located and shall contain a legal descripti of the real property and be executed by the owner of the real perry. From and after the time of its recordation, the covenant hall impart notice thereof to all persons to the extent afforded b he recording laws ofthis state. Upon recordation, the burdens the covenant shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the to nant shall inure to, all successors in interest to the real propc (Added by Stars.1985, Ch, 996.) 65874. (a) The ordinance adopted pursu t to Section 65870 shalt provide a procedure for the release o the covenant. The procedure shall require apublic hearingbyth gencydesignated by the ordinance forthatpurpose. The hearing allbeheldatthe request of any person whether or not that pers has title to the real property. (b) Upon a determination that the restriction a hepropertyis no longer necessary to achieve the land use goal f the city or county, a release shall be recorded by the city or untyin the county where the restricted property is located. (c) The ordinance may provide for the impositio of fees to recoverthe reasonable costs ofprocessing the release omthose persons requesting the release pursuant to this section. (Added by Slats. 1985, Ch. 996.) 65875. Nothing in this article shall create in any pets other than the city or county and the owner of the real pr try burdened or benefited by the covenant standing to enforce r to challenge the covenant or any amendment thereto or tel so 82 • 1998 Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 110 FOR THE CONEXANT PROJECT. WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community referred to as the "project"; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000, July 6, 2000 and July 20, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting; and WHEREAS, a traffic study (Conexant Project, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., March 2000) was prepared for the project in compliance with the Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the traffic study indicated that the project will increase traffic on 14 primary intersections by one percent (1%) or more during Peak Hour Periods one year after the completion of the project; and WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that 11 of the primary intersections that the project will increase traffic volume by 1% or more during Peak Hour Periods will operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that two primary intersections (MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa) would be impacted and operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during both AM and PM peak hours without mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the traffic study identified the following mitigation measures (intersection improvements) that will reduce the project impact to a less than significant impact although the intersections will continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service: MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road:add a second northbound left turn lane, a second southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane. Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive: add an additional southbound right turn lane which can be accomplished by dropping the bike lane and restriping Irvine Avenue. WHEREAS, the traffic study has determined the proportional share of the improvement costs attributable to the project in accordance with Traffic Phasing Ordinance which are 25% of the actual cost of the intersection improvements identified above and these costs were included as a mandatory condition of approval pursuant to Development Agreement No. 13 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Conexant Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #98101090). WHEREAS, additional ICU analysis was prepared for three additional intersections due to a finding that the project trip generation rate within the PM peak hour was inaccurate due to differences in current and projected employee shifts which was the basis for developing the trip generation rate. The AM peak hour generation and the total trip generation rates were determined by the Traffic Engineer to be unaffected. The Traffic Engineer selected the three additional intersections based upon their projected ICU values between 0.85 and 0.90 by the traffic study. The increased traffic in the PM peak hour was added and in two cases, the ICU value did not change and in the third, the ICU value increased from 0.85 to 086, thus no additional impacts were identified. This supplemental traffic analysis is hereby incorporated within Traffic Study 110 WHEREAS, a question was raised as to whether the traffic analysis extended far enough south on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Traffic Engineer conducted additional ICU analysis at Jamboree/Eastbluff-University and MacArthur/Bison which are the newt two intersection south of the study intersections. The supplemental analysis, which is hereby incorporated within Traffic Study 110, indicates that the intersections of Jamboree/Eastbluff-University and MacArthur/Bison are project to operate at satisfactory levels of service with ICU values of 0.692 and 0,605 respectively. Therefore, no new significant project impact to these intersections is expected to occur. Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Traffic Study 110 based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study. ADOPTED this 2dh day of July, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY: Edward Selich, Chairman BY: Larry Tucker, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 159 FOR CONEXANT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.98101090). WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 26, 1998. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number 98101090; and WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on October 26, 1998 for a 30-day public review. The review period ended on November 26, 1998 and public comments were accepted by the City through December 2, 1998. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed and submitted comments dated January 18, 1999 on the NOP and Initial Study. Copies of the comments received on the NOP and Initial Study and comments received during the scoping process were included in Appendix A to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 22,1999; and. WHEREAS, The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department; and WHEREAS, A forty-five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on November 22, 1999 and ended on February 5, 2000; and RE Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in a Response to Comments document dated April 14, 2000. The City Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed and submitted comments on the DEIR in December of 1999. All comments and responses were considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the project and Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000, July 6, 2000 and July 20, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District and DA No. 13 and Traffic Study No. 110 were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Additional information related to the traffic study was presented and consideredby the Commission which confirmed that the traffic study adequately identified potential impacts and mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air quality emissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 159 for the Conexant Project (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Implementing Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR adequately analyzes project related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Implementing Guidelines and finds it adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that although the project has significant unavoidable environmental impacts, it provides several special public benefits to the City that outweigh its environmental impacts. The project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing light industrial land use in the City within an area that has existing infrastructure and access to transportation facilities. The project also is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The draft Development Agreement includes Conexant's financial participation for several intersection improvements impacted by the project in the short and long term. Conexant's contributions to funding the improvements identified in the EIR will exceed $6 million dollars provided the city expeditiously creates and implements a comprehensive airport land use and circulation plan. The draft agreement also includes Conexant's financial contribution to a comprehensive airport area land use and circulation plan which will further the City's goal to maintain acceptable levels of service for the area. The draft Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 agreement also identifies the City's commitment to put those intersection improvements in service when required. Lastly, the draft agreement contains a provision where Conexant contributes $500,000 to the establishment of the new fire station which is beyond their proportional share of the cost establishing the station. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the necessary statement of findings and facts related to California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certify Environmental Impact Report No.159. wit: BY: t ADOPTED this 2& day of July 2000, by the following vote, to Edward Selich, Chairman Larry Tucker, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-3(F), AMENDMENT NO. 898 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 13 AFFECTING THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, BY AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR INDUSTRIAL SITE "1". WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community and a development agreement; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; 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, 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, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000, July 6, 2000 and July 22, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. In addition, Development Agreement No. 13 was also considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing; and Resolution No. Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Koll Center Newport Planned Community District is in conformance with the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" designation of the Newport Beach General Plan, and makes the following additional findings: 1. The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing light industrial use on a project site that is currently designated for General Industry. The implementation of the proposed project would provide for employment in proximity to residences without resulting in an incompatibility with residential land uses. In addition, the proposed project would not impede the City's efforts to provide schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches, and neighborhood shopping centers in close proximity to each resident of the community. 2. The implementation of the proposed project provides for the redevelopment and intensification of the existing Conexant facility on a project site that has had the same land use for over 40 years. The proposed project provides for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit of .93 on the project site that strikes a reasonable balance between land use and traffic volumes so that development is, to the extent feasible, within the projected capacity and levels of service of the circulation system. The draft Development Agreement contains provisions that address short and long range project impacts to the circulation system as well as improvements that will protect the ability of other property owners in the airport area to exercise their development entitlements. The draft Development Agreement includes Conexant's financial participation for several intersection improvements and it identifies the City's commitment to put those intersection improvements in service when required. The draft Development Agreement also includes Conexant's financial contribution to a comprehensive airport area land use and circulation plan which will further the City's goal to maintain acceptable levels of service for the circulation system. 3. The project site does not contain unique natural resources or natural landforms and development of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. As discussed in the EIR, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. 4. The proposed PC amendment contains regulations and guidelines that will be applied to all development on the site. These include provisions for the control of setbacks, building height, building footprint, required parking including construction parking, parking structure screening, landscaping, open space and signs. Within the Proposed Planned Community text, special design features that address building set backs along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. The proposed project would include landscaping in planting areas around the buildings and within landscape islands in the surface parking lots. In addition, the existing landscape berm and trees along Jamboree Road would be incorporated into the overall landscaping for the proposed project. The proposed structures would be of a similar height, mass, and building material as the adjacent mid -rise buildings to the northwest, west, and southwest Resolution No. Page 3 of 10 of the project site. In addition, the proposed building height restrictions would ensure visual compatibility with existing adjacent development. 5. The proposed project is not a conversion of a land use but rather an intensification of use. The proposed project does not involve housing nor does it affect the availability of housing as discussed in the EIR. The project is located within the Airport Area and is not in close proximity to residential uses and is compatible with its commercial surroundings. The project's potential impact to police, health and safety issues were analyzed within the public services section of the DEIR and within the hazards and geology section of the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. Project impacts in these areas were determined to be less than significant with the establishment of a new fire station with Conexant responsible for contributing their proportional share of the cost. The draft Development Agreement prepared by the City contains a provision where Conexant contributes $500,000 to the establishment of the new fire station. G. The proposed project will not impact the Airport Settlement Agreement or the provisions of that agreement, and will have no effect on the operations of the John Wayne Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the proposed 10-story and 8- story buildings pose no threat to air navigation. WHEREAS, Development Agreement No. 13 provides specific benefits to the City of Newport Beach that would not otherwise be realized without entering into said agreement. The primary benefits to the City are increased funding for short range traffic improvements identified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, partial funding for an airport land use and circulation plan, increased funding for long range traffic improvements, partial funding beyond the project's fair share for the establishment of a new fire station which will serve the entire community and the applicant's participation in a direct pay sales/use tax system which will increase revenues to the City, A fiscal Impact assessment was performed for the proposed applications is accordance with City Council Policy F-17 which estimates an annual fiscal benefit to the City of Newport Beach of . $1,140,200 upon completion of the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air quality emissions. Although these impacts are not desirable, the proposed project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. Additionally, the draft Development Agreement contains further benefits identified above. The Planning Commission believes these significant public benefits of the project outweigh the potential environmental impacts as identified in the Environmental Impact Report and body of evidence considered. Resolution No. Page 4 of 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Approve General Plan Amendment No 96-3(F) establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit "A" of this resolution. All other portions of the Land Use Element shall not be affected by this Resolution. 2) Approve Amendment No. 898 amending the development standards for Industrial Site I of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community and establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit `B" of this resolution. M BY: 3) Approve Development Agreement No. 13 attached as Exhibit "C". ADOPTED this 20"' day of July 2000, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Larry Tucker, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT Resolution No. Page 5 of 10 Exhibit "A" 1-8. KCN Industrial Site 1. This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated 1,008,775 square feet. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in Commercial (in sq. du's) ft.) Existing Gen. Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected Plan 01/01/1987 Projectio Growth 01/01/198 Projectio Growth n 7 n 1-1. KCN OS A 0 0 0 874,346 874,346 0 1-2. KCN OS B 0 0 0 1,060,898 1,060,898 0 1-3. KCN OS C 0 0 0 734,641 734,641 0 1-4. KCN OS D 0 0 0 250,176 250,176 0 1-5. KCN OS E 0 0 0 27,150 32,500 5,350 1-6. KCN OS F 0 0 0 31,816 34,300 2,484 1-7. KCN OS G 0 0 0 81,372 81,372 0 1-8. KCN IS I 0 0 0 377,520 1,008,775 631,255 1-9. KCN RS 1 0 0 0 52,086 102,110 50,024 1- Court House 0 0 0 69,256 90,000 20,744 10. 2-1. NP BLK A 0 0 0 349,000 380,362 31,362 2-2. NP BLK B 0 0 0 10,150 11,950 1,800 2-3. NP BLK C 0 0 0 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4. NP BLK D 0 0 0 274,300 288,264 13,964 2-5. NP BLK E 0 0 0 834,762 834,762 0 2-6. NP BLK F 0 0 0 192,675 201,180 8,505 2-7. NP BLK G& 0 0 0 255,001 295,952 40,951 H 2-8. NP BLK I 0 0 0 160,578 160,578 0 2-9. NP BLK J 0 0 0 190,500 228,530 38,030 3. Campus Drive 0 0 0 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL 0 0 0 6,922,916 8,390,303 1,467,387 Population 0 0 0 Resolution No. Page 6 of 10 Exhibit "B" Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standard Amendment No. 898 The Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are hereby amended as indicated below: 1. Part I, Section I, is amended to read as follows: PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section 1. Statistical Anal A. Building Sites Acreage shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. Site 1: 25.043 acres B. Total Allowable Building Area Site 1, 1,008,775 gross sq. ft. exclusive of parking structures C. Parkin Cg riteria Site 1: Buildine Use Caterory Parking:Reguirements Manufacturing ......... 2.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Engineering/Labs ...... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Administrative ......... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Site 1: Total Area .......................... 25.04 acres Building Site Coverage ........... 12.52 acres Parking Area and Structures ..... 8.71 acres Net Open Space ................... 3.81 acres Resolution No. Page 7 of 10 2. Part I, Section V., is added to read as follows: Section V. Special Features The following guidelines shall apply unless otherwise waived through the site plan review process: A. Jamboree Road Setbacks The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet. In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. B. Parking Structure Guidelines Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive architectural treatment to give the appearance of an occupied building structure rather than a parking structure. C. Building Footprints Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 200,000 square feet. D. Temporary Parking During Construction Phases Temporary parking on an off -site location with provisions for shuttle buses to Site 1 will be provided as needed during construction to meet parking demand. E. Pedestrian Circulation Development of the site shall incorporate safe and convenient pedestrian walkways that connect building entrances to parking areas, Jamboree Road, future mass transit connections and adjacent sites to the maximum extent 3. 4. Resolution No. Page 8 of 10 feasible. Walkways shall be clearly shown on site or parking plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. Part I, Section IV. D,, Is amended to read as follows: D. Buildin HG eieht Site 1 has been divided into three building height zones, as depicted in Exhibit C-1 and described below: 1. Central Zone (existing Buildings 503 and 501 to Jamboree Road) 2. East Zone (east of existing Building 503 toward Birch Street) 3. Service Zone (north of existing Buildings 503 and 501 toward Von Karman Ave.) Building heights of structures shall be limited as follows by height zone: 1. Central Zone ................ one hundred fifty (150) feet (10 stories) 2. East Zone ................... one hundred (100) feet (6 stories) 3. Service Zone ................ seventy-five (75) feet Part 1, Section IVY., is amended to read as follows: F. SiMs Site 1: The following signage standards shall apply in lieu of the General Sign Requirements, Part M: 1. General Sign Standards a. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility in Site 1, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated by internal or external source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion. b. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of the building or facility. C. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, Resolution No. Page 9 of 10 functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service d. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. 2. General Sign Types And Numbers a. b. C. 51 "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground mounted: - Maximum Size: 100 sq. ft. each side, or 200 sq. ft. each sign - Maximum Height: 7 feet - Maximum Number: 2 Secondary identification sign on Birch Street: - Maximum Size: 35 sq. ft. - Maximum Height: 4 feet - Maximum Number: 1 Miscellaneous vehicular and pedestrian directional signs: - Maximum Size: 28 sq. ft, per face - Maximum Height: 7 feet Building mounted identification signs (excluding parking structures) - Primary building identification sign located near the top of the building Maximum Size: 400 square feet Maximum Number: 1 sign per building fapade, 2 fapades per building - Primary building entrance sign Sign must be oriented toward parking or pedestrian area of the building it is located on. Sign shall not extend above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed 35 sq. ft. in area. 3. Temporary Identification Signs a. A sign advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs authorized above, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size. Resolution No. Page 10 of 10 b. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers, contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size each. 5. Part I, Section IV. H., is amended to read as follows: H. Parkin All parking shall be as specified in Part 1, Section I. C. above, rather than the General Parking Requirements, Part 111. 6. Part I, Section IV. I., is amended to read as follows: I. Landscap All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V, except that the following standards shall apply in lieu of Section I.D. thereof. A minimum of five percent (5%) of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas abutting the buildings or located adjacent to public streets shall not be included in this interior landscaping requirement. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. O��,EWPOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: July 6, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 2 u 2 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell C�tIFp0.�' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 Appeal Period: N/A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road PURPOSE OF General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898, APPLICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement No. 13 to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ACTION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends approval of Traffic Study No.110 to the City Council. 2. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No.159 to the City Council. 3. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898 and Development Agreement No.13. LEGAL Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 recorded in Map Book 310, Pages 7-11 DESCRIPTION: APN: 445-131-02 & 03 GENERAL PLAN: General Industry ZONE: P-C, Koll Center Newport Planned Community APPLICANT & Conexant Systems, Inc. OWNER: 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Points and Authority Conformance with the General Plan ■ The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as General Industry. The existing manufacturing operation and supporting office land uses on the subject property are consistent with this designation. A General Plan amendment to increase the allowable building area is proposed in order to be consistent with the proposed expansion. General Plan amendment procedures and requirements are established by City Council Policy K-1. Conformance with the Municipal Code ■ Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. ■ Development Agreement procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code. ■ Planned Community District procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. ■ Zoning Code amendment procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.94 of the Municipal Code. Vicinity Map N ` W faro ect 81te wE it ity Drive Conexant Project General Plan Amendment No, 96-3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and Development Agreement No. 13 Conexant Project July 6, 2000 Page 2 of 5 INTRODUCTION This hearing was continued to tonight from June 22, 2000 at the request of the applicant to allow time for continuing work on the Development Agreement. DISCUSSION Traffic Study Days before the previous hearing, the city received a letter from Mr. Barry Eaton indicating several traffic related concerns. 1. Mr. Eaton notes that the traffic engineer's supplemental TPO analysis focuses on the PM peak hour traffic and does not account for potential increases in traffic in the AM peak hour. Particular attention was paid to the intersection of Jamboree/Campus where it is predicted to operate with an ICU value of 0.90 and very few additional trips could create an impact. The traffic engineer took a look at a potential increase in AM peak hour traffic and did not predict additional traffic due to the shift start time being 7:30AM which is not within the AM Peak period. 2. Mr. Eaton cited the June 22, 2000 staff report as it discusses the long range impact to MacArthur/Jamboree that states "there is no commitment by the City to pursue either measure due to significant costs. For this reason, staff recommends that this mitigation measure be eliminated which would leave a significant unavoidable impact to long range traffic circulation at this intersection." Mr. Eaton notes that on June 13, 2000, the City Council approved the inclusion of a project to widen Jamboree Road from MacArthur across the Corona Del Mar Freeway within a planned Measure M funding application. The estimated cost of the planning for this measure is $300,000 and construction estimates are unavailable. The inclusion of the project in the Measure M application is a commitment to pursue planning and feasibility studies for the project only. When the full cost of the project is known and funding alternatives identified, the City and OCTA officials will be able to determine feasibility. The feasibility of the grade -separated intersection is also being studied, but planning for this measure is less well developed and its feasibility more speculative than the widening of Jamboree Road. If the Commission believes that either measure is feasible, it can be incorporated within the mitigation measures and eliminated from the statement of overriding considerations. This action would commit the City to implement one measure in order to mitigate the impact of this project as well as the buildout of entitlements of the General Plan. 3. Mr. Eaton correctly noted that there are 14 intersections rather than 13 intersections impacted by the project by at least 1%. This change has been made to the resolution. 4. Mr. Eaton asks if an increase in the PM peak hour traffic of 31.7% should increase the TPO proportional share contribution to the impacted intersections. Conexant has conceptually agreed to pay $200,000 for Irvine/Mesa and $200,000 for MacArthur/Jamboree which far exceeds 25% of the costs. For this reason, the Traffic Engineer did not re -calculate the percentage. Conexant Project July 6, 2000 Page 3 of 5 I With these clarifications, staff believes that the traffic analysis is complete and provides a reasonable prediction of traffic volumes and feasible mitigation measures. If the Commission desires further analysis or further clarification, staff can provide it. Development Agreement A City Council appointed committee of Council Members Ridgeway and Adams, Chairman Selich and Commissioner Tucker along with staff have been negotiating the terms of a development agreement with Conexant. The majority of issues have been settled and are summarized as follows. Two important issues, contributions to long-range traffic improvements and a new fire station, remain unresolved as of the writing of this report. Staff will provide this information and a draft development agreement as soon as available. 1. Conexant will make a total TPO contribution of $400,000 for the intersections of Irvine/Mesa and MacArthur/Jamboree. This contribution exceeds the project's proportional share, and the City commits to implement the improvements within the time frames of the TPO. 2. Conexant agrees to pay $0.45 per square foot of new entitlement ($254,700) to be used for the preparation of a comprehensive airport area land use and infrastructure plan. The City has committed $250,000 to this planning initiative and the City Council has recently approved a new position in the Planning Department that will focus -on the Airport Area. 3. Conexant will implement a direct pay permit for sales and use tax. This means that they will pay the State directly rather than the vendor which will make Newport Beach the point of sale for Conexant's purchase and lease transactions. This program will assist in achieving the estimated $1,140,200 dollars in increased revenue to the City identified in the fiscal impact report prepared by Kosmom Partners. The City and Conexant are in general agreement upon the particulars of the program, which is outlined in the draft development agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending approval of the Traffic Study and certification of the EIR. Several revisions to the resolutions have been made and previous versions should be discarded. If the Commission finds that the Development Agreement, with the coming provisions regarding long-term traffic improvements and a fire station, demonstrates that the project has public benefits sufficient to outweigh its environmental impacts, staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution recommending approval of GPA No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898 and Development Agreement No.13. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director PA&��� Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL July 6, 2000 - Page 4 of 5 F*IT,fv-.TM Resolution Recommending Approval of Traffic Study No. 110 2. Resolution 3. Resolution Developme RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 110 FOR THE CONEXANT PROJECT. WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots I & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community referred to as the "project''; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000 and July 6, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting; and WHEREAS, a traffic study (Conexant Project, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., March 2000) was prepared for the project in compliance with the Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the traffic study indicated that the project will increase traffic on 14 primary intersections by one percent (1 %) or more during Peak Hour Periods one year after the completion of the project; and WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that 11 of the primary intersections that the project will increase traffic volume by 1% or more during Peak Hour Periods will operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that two primary intersections (MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa) would be impacted and operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during both AM and PM peak hours without mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the traffic study identified the following mitigation measures (intersection improvements) that will reduce the project impact to a less than significant impact although the intersections will continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service: MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road: add a second northbound left turn lane, a second southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane. Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive: add an additional southbound right turn lane which can be accomplished by dropping the bike lane and restriping Irvine Avenue. WHEREAS, the traffic study has determined the proportional share of the improvement costs attributable to the project in accordance with Traffic Phasing Ordinance which are 25% of the actual cost of the intersection improvements identified above and these costs were included as a mandatory condition of approval pursuant to Development Agreement No. 13 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Conexant Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #98101090). WHEREAS, additional ICU analysis was prepared for three additional intersections due to a finding that the project trip generation rate within the PM peak hour was inaccurate due to differences in current and projected employee shifts which was the basis for developing the trip generation rate. The AM peak hour generation and the total trip generation rates were determined by the Traffic Engineer to be unaffected. The'Traffic Engineer selected the three additional intersections based upon their projected ICU values between 0.85 and 0.90 by the traffic study. The increased traffic in the PM peak hour was added and in,two cases, the ICU value did not change and in the third, the ICU value increased from 0.85 to 086, thus no additional impacts were identified. This supplemental traffic analysis is hereby incorporated within Traffic Study 110 WHEREAS, a question was raised as to whether the traffic analysis extended far enough south on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Traffic Engineer conducted additional ICU analysis at Jamboree/Eastbluff-University and MacArthurBison which are the newt two intersection south of the study intersections. The supplemental analysis, which is hereby incorporated within Traffic Study 110, indicates that the intersections of Jamboree/Eastbluff-University and MacArthur/Bison are project to operate at satisfactory levels of service with ICU values of 0.692 and 0.605 respectively. Therefore, Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 no new significant project impact to these intersections is expected to occur. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Traffic Study 110 based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study. M BY: ADOPTED this 61 day of July, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Larry Tucker, Secretary AYES NOES ABSENT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 159 FOR CONEXANT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.98101090). WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 26, 1998. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number 98101090. WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on October 26, 1998 for a 30-day public review. The review period ended on November 26, 1998 and public comments were accepted by the City through December 2, 1998. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed and submitted comments dated January 18, 1999 on the NOP and Initial Study. Copies of the comments received on the NOP and Initial Study and comments received during the scoping process were included in Appendix A to the Draft EIR. Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 22, 1999. WHEREAS, The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested. organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. WHEREAS, A forty-five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on November 22, 1999 and ended on February 5, 2000. WHEREAS, Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in a Response to Comments document dated April 14, 2000. The City Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed and submitted comments on the DEIR in December of 1999. All comments and responses were considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the project and Environmental Impact Report. WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000 and July 6, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Additional information related to the traffic study was presented and considered by the Commission which confirmed that the traffic study adequately identified potential impacts and mitigation measures, and WHEREAS, the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air quality emissions. Although these impacts are not desirable, the proposed project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing light industrial land use in the City on an under utilized parcel within an area that has existing infrastructure and access to transportation facilities. The project Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 also is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 159 for the Conexant Project (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Implementing Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR adequately analyzes project related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Implementing Guidelines and finds it adequate. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt necessary of findings and facts related to California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certify Environmental Impact Report No. 159. 1-YA ADOPTED this 6d day of July 2000, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Larry Tucker, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-3(F), AMENDMENT NO. 898 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 13 AFFECTING THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, BY AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR INDUSTRIAL SITE "1". WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots I & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community and a development agreement; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site I and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; 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, 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 Resolution No. Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000 and July 6, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. In addition, Development Agreement No. 13 was also considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Koll Center Newport Planned Community District is in conformance with the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" designation of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, approval of the proposed applications provides for the orderly expansion of the existing industrial/office facility operated at the site by the applicant; and WHEREAS, Development Agreement No. 13 provides specific benefits to the City of Newport that would not otherwise be realized without entering into said agreement. The primary benefits to the City are increased funding for short range traffic improvements identified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, partial funding for an airport land use and circulation plan, increased funding for long range traffic improvements, partial funding beyond the project's fair share for the establishment of a new fire station which will serve the entire community and the applicant's participation in a direct pay sales/use tax system which will increase revenues to the City. WHEREAS, A fiscal Impact assessment was performed for the proposed applications is accordance with City Council Policy F-17 which estimates an annual fiscal benefit to the City of Newport Beach of $1,140,200 upon completion of the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air Resolution No. Page 3 of 10 quality emissions. Although these impacts are not desirable, the proposed project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing light industrial land use in the City on an under utilized parcel within an area that has existing infrastructure and access to transportation facilities. The project also is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Planning Commission has found that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and has recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary findings and a statement of overriding considerations to certify Environmental Impact Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Approve General Plan Amendment No 96-3(F) establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit "A" of this resolution. All other portions of the Land Use Element shall not be affected by this Resolution. 2) Approve Amendment No. 898 amending the development standards for Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community and establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit "B" of this resolution. 3) Approve Development Agreement No.13 attached as Exhibit "C". Resolution No. Page 4 of 10 ADOPTED this day of July 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT BY: Edward Selich, Chairman BY: Larry Tucker, Secretary Resolution No. Page 5 of 10 Exhibit "A" 1-8. KCN Industrial Site 1. This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated 1,008,775 square feet. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in dues) Commercial (in sq.f1.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 1-1. KCN OS A 0 0 0 874,346 874,346 0 1-2. KCN OS B 0 0 0 1',060,898 1,060,898 0 1-3. KCN OS C 0 0 0 734,641 734,641 0 1-4. KCN OS D 0 0 0 250,176 250,176 0 1-5. KCN OS E 0 0 0 27,150 32,500 5,350 1-6. KCN OS F 0 0 0 31,816 34,300 2,484 1-7. KCN OS G 0 0 0 81,372 81,372 0 1-8. KCN IS 1 0 0 0 377,520 1,008,775 631,255 1-9. KCN RSI 0 0 0 52,086 102,110 50,024 1-10. Court House 0 0 0 69,256 90,000 20,744 2-1. NP BLK A 0 0 0 349,000 380,362 31,362 2-2. NP BLK B 0 0 0 10,150 11,950 1,800 2-3. NP BLK C 0 0 0 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4. NP BLK D 0 0 0 274,300 288,264 13,964 2-5. NP BLK E 0 0 0 834,762 834,762 0 2-6. NP BLK F 0 0 0 192,675 201,180 8,505 2-7. NP BLK G& H 0 0 0 255,001 295,952 40,9SI 2-8. NP BLK 1 0 0 0 160,578 160,578 0 2-9. NP OLK J 0 0 0 190,500 228,530 38,030 3. Campus Drive 0 0 0 885,202 I,261,727 376,525 TOTAL 0 0 0 6,922,916 8,390,303 1,467,387 Population 0 0 0 Resolution No. Page 6 of 10 Exhibit "B" Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standard Amendment No. 898 The Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are hereby amended as indicated below: 1. Part I, Section I, is amended to read as follows: PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Statistical Anal A. Building_Sites Acreage shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. Site 1: 25.043 acres B. Total Allowable Building Area Site 1: 1,008,775 gross sq. ft. exclusive of parking structures C. Parking Criteria Site 1: Building Use CateQory Parking Requirements Manufacturing ......... 2.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Engineering/Labs ...... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Administrative ......... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet D. Landscaped Open Space Site 1: Total Area .......................... 25.04 acres Building Site Coverage ........... 12.52 acres Parking Area and Structures ..... 8.71 acres Net Open Space ................... 3.81 acres Resolution No. Page 7 of 10 2. Part I, Section V., is added to read as follows: Section V. Special Features The following guidelines shall apply unless otherwise waived through the site plan review process: A. Jamboree Road Setbacks The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet. In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. B. Parking Structure Guidelines Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive architectural treatment to give the appearance of an occupied building structure rather than a parking structure. C. Building Footprints Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 200,000 square feet. D. Temporary Parking During Construction Phases Temporary parking on an off -site location with provisions for shuttle buses to Site 1 will be provided as needed during construction to meet parking demand. E. Pedestrian Circulation Development of the site shall incorporate safe and convenient pedestrian walkways that connect building entrances to parking areas, Jamboree Road, future mass transit connections and adjacent sites to the maximum extent Resolution No. Page 8 of 10 feasible. Walkways shall be clearly shown on site or parking plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. 3. Part I, Section IV. D., is amended to read as follows: D. Building Height Site 1 has been divided into three building height zones, as depicted in Exhibit C-1 and described below: 1. Central Zone (existing Buildings 503 and 501 to Jamboree Road) 2. East Zone (east of existing Building 503 toward Birch Street) 3. Service Zone (north of existing Buildings 503 and 501 toward Von Karman Ave.) Building heights of structures shall be limited as follows by height zone: 1. Central Zone ................ one hundred fifty (150) feet (10 stories) 2. East Zone ................... one hundred (100) feet (6 stories) 3. Service Zone ................ seventy-five (75) feet 4. Part I, Section IV.F., is amended to read as follows: Site 1: The following signage standards shall apply in lieu of the General Sign Requirements, Part IV.: 1. General Sign Standards a. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility in Site 1, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated by internal or external source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion. b. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of the building or facility. C. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, Resolution No. Page 9 of 10 functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service d. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. 2. General Sign Types And Numbers a. "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground mounted: - Maximum Size: 100 sq. ft. each side, or 200 sq. ft. each sign - Maximum Height: 7 feet - Maximum Number: 2 b. Secondary identification sign on Birch Street: - Maximum Size: 35 sq. ft. - Maximum Height: 4 feet - Maximum Number: I C. Miscellaneous vehicular and pedestrian directional signs: - Maximum Size: 28 sq. ft, per face - Maximum Height: 7 feet d. Building mounted identification signs (excluding parking structures) - Primary building identification sign located near the top of the building Maximum Size: 400 square feet Maximum Number: I sign per building fagade, 2 fagades per building - Primary building entrance sign Sign must be oriented toward parking or pedestrian area of the building it is located on. Sign shall not extend above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed 35 sq. ft. in area. 3. Temporary Identification Signs a. A sign advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs authorized above, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size. Resolution No. Page 10 of 10 b. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers, contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size each. 5. Part I, Section IV. H., is amended to read as follows: H. Parkins All parking shall be as specified in Part I, Section I. C. above, rather than the General Parking Requirements, Part III. 6. Part I, Section IV. I., is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V, except that the following standards shall apply in lieu of Section I.D. thereof: A minimum of five percent (5%) of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas abutting the buildings or located adjacent to public streets shall not be included in this interior landscaping requirement. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-3(F), AMENDMENT NO. 898 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 13 AFFECTING THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, BY AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR INDUSTRIAL SITE "V). WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community and a development agreement; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; 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, 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 Resolution No. Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, June 8, 2000, June 22, 2000 and July 6, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. In addition, Development Agreement No. 13 was also considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Koll Center Newport Planned Community District is in conformance with the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" designation of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, approval of the proposed applications provides for the orderly expansion of the existing industrial/office facility operated at the site by the applicant; and WHEREAS, Development Agreement No. 13 provides specific benefits to the City of Newport that would not otherwise be realized without entering into said agreement. The primary benefits to the City are increased funding for short range traffic improvements identified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, partial funding for an airport land use and circulation plan, increased funding for long range traffic improvements, partial funding beyond the project's fair share for the establishment of a new fire station which will serve the entire community and the applicant's participation in a direct pay sales/use tax system which will increase revenues to the City. WHEREAS, A fiscal Impact assessment was performed for the proposed applications is accordance with City Council Policy F-17 which estimates an annual fiscal benefit to the City of Newport Beach of $1,140,200 upon completion of the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air Resolution No. Page 3 of 10 quality emissions. Although these impacts are not desirable, the proposed project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing light industrial land use in the City on an under utilized parcel within an area that has existing infrastructure and access to transportation facilities. The project also is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Planning Commission has found that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and has recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary findings and a statement of overriding considerations to certify Environmental Impact Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Approve General Plan Amendment No 96-3(F) establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit "A" of this resolution. All other portions of the Land Use Element shall not be affected by this Resolution. 2) Approve Amendment No. 898 amending the development standards for Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community and establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit "B" of this resolution. 3) Approve Development Agreement No. 13 attached as Exhibit "C". Resolution No. Page 4 of 10 ADOPTED this 6t' day of July 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT Edward Selich, Chairman Larry Tucker, Secretary Resolution No. Page 5 of 10 Exhibit "A" 1-8. KCN Industrial Site 1. This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated 1,008,775 square feet. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 1-1. KCN OS A 0 0 0 874,346 874,346 0 1-2. KCN OS B 0 0 0 1,060,898 1,060,898 0 1-3. KCN OS C 0 0 0 734,641 734,641 0 1.4. KCN OS D 0 0 0 250,176 250,116 0 1-5. KCN OS E 0 0 0 27,150 32,500 5,350 1-6. KCN OS F 0 0 0 31,816 34,300 2,484 1-7. KCN OS G 0 0 0 81,372 81,372 0 1-8. KCN IS I 0 0 0 377,520 1,008,775 631,255 1-9. KCN RS 1 0 0 0 52,086 102,110 50,024 1-10. Court House 0 0 0 69,256 90,000 20,744 2-1. NPBLKA 0 0 0 349,000 380,362 31,362 2-2. NP BLK B 0 0 0 10,150 11,950 1,800 2.3. NP BLK C 0 0 0 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4. NP BLK D 0 0 0 274,300 288,264 13,964 2-5. NPBLKE 0 0 0 834,762 834,762 0 2-6. NP BLK F 0 0 0 192,675 201,180 8,505 2-7. NP BLK G& H 0 0 0 255,001 295,952 40,951 2-8. NP BLK 1 0 0 0 160,578 160,578 0 2-9. NP BLK J 0 0 0 190,500 228,530 38,030 3. Campus Drive 0 0 0 895,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL 0 0 0 6,922,916 8,390,303 1,467,187 Population 0 0 0 Resolution No. Page 6 of 10 Exhibit "B" Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standard Amendment No. 898 The Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are hereby amended as indicated below: 1. Part I, Section I, is amended to read as follows: PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreage shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. Site 1: 25.043 acres B. Total Allowable Building Area Site 1: 1,008,775 gross sq. ft. exclusive of parking structures C. Parking Criteria Site 1: Building Use Category Parking Requirements Manufacturing ......... 2.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Engineering/Labs ...... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Administrative ......... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet D. Landscaped Open Space Site 1: Total Area .......................... 25.04 acres Building Site Coverage ........... 12.52 acres Parking Area and Structures ..... 8.71 acres Net Open Space ................... 3.81 acres Resolution No. Page 7 of 10 2. Part I} Section V., is added to read as follows: Section V. Special Features The following guidelines shall apply unless otherwise waived through the site plan review process: A. Jamboree Road Setbacks The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet. In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. B. Parking Structure Guidelines Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive architectural treatment to give the appearance of an occupied building structure rather than a parking structure. C. Building Footprints Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 200,000 square feet. D. Temporary Parking During Construction Phases Temporary parking on an off -site location with provisions for shuttle buses to Site 1 will be provided as needed during construction to meet parking demand. B. Pedestrian Circulation Development of the site shall incorporate safe and convenient pedestrian walkways that connect building entrances to parking areas, Jamboree Road, future mass transit connections and adjacent sites to the maximum extent Resolution No. Page 8 of 10 feasible. Walkways shall be clearly shown on site or parking plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. 3. Part I, Section IV. D., is amended to read as follows: D. BuildingHeiaht Site 1 has been divided into three building height zones, as depicted in Exhibit C-1 and described below: 1. Central Zone (existing Buildings 503 and 501 to Jamboree Road) 2. East Zone (east of existing Building 503 toward Birch Street) 3. Service Zone (north of existing Buildings 503 and 501 toward Von Karman Ave.) Building heights of structures shall be limited as follows by height zone: 1. Central Zone ................ one hundred fifty (150) feet (10 stories) 2. East Zone ................... one hundred (100) feet (6 stories) 3. Service Zone ................ seventy-five (75) feet 4. Part I, Section IV.F., is amended to read as follows: F. Sim Site 1: The following signage standards shall apply in lieu of the General Sign Requirements, Part IV.: 1. General Sign Standards a. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility in Site 1, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated by internal or external source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion. b. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of the building or facility. C. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, Resolution No. Page 9 of 10 functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service d. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. 2. General Sign Types And Numbers a. "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground mounted: - Maximum Size: 100 sq. ft. each side, or 200 sq. ft. each sign - Maximum Height: 7 feet - Maximum Number: 2 b. Secondary identification sign on Birch Street: - Maximum Size: 35 sq. ft. - Maximum Height: 4 feet - Maximum Number: 1 C. Miscellaneous vehicular and pedestrian directional signs: - Maximum Size: 28 sq. ft. per face - Maximum Height: 7 feet d. Building mounted identification signs (excluding parking structures) - Primary building identification sign located near the top of the building Maximum Size: 400 square feet Maximum Number: 1 sign per building fagade, 2 fagades per building - Primary building entrance sign Sign must be oriented toward parking or pedestrian area of the building it is located on. Sign shall not extend above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed 35 sq. ft, in area. 3. Temporary Identification Signs a. A sign advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs authorized above, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size. Resolution No. Page 10 of 10 b. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers, contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size each. 5. Part I, Section IV. H., is amended to read as follows: H. Parking All parking shall be as specified in Part I, Section I. C. above, rather than the General Parking Requirements, Part III. 6. Part I, Section IV. I., is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V, except that the following standards shall apply in lieu of Section I.D. thereof: A minimum of five percent (5%) of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas abutting the buildings or located adjacent to public streets shall not be included in this interior landscaping requirement. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. ,eWPOR, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: June 22, 2000 o PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: i 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 Appeal Period: N/A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: ConexantProject 4311 Jamboree Road PURPOSE OF General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898, APPLICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement No. 13 to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ACTION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends approval of Traffic Study No.110 to the City Council. 2. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No.159 to the City Council. 3. Continue the hearing to July 6, 2000. LEGAL Lots I and 2 of TractNo. 7953 recorded in Map Book 310, Pages 7-11 DESCRIPTION: APN: 445-131-02 & 03 GENERAL PLAN: General Industry ZONE: P-C, Koll Center Newport Planned Community APPLICANT & Conexant Systems, Inc. OWNER: 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Points and Authority Conformance with the General Plan ■ The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as General Industry. The existing manufacturing operation and supporting office land uses on the subject property are consistent with this designation. A General Plan amendment to increase the allowable building area is proposed in order to be consistent with the proposed expansion. General Plan amendment procedures and requirements are established by City Council Policy K-1. Conformance with the Municipal Code ■ Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. • Development Agreement procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code. ■ Planned Community District procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. • Zoning Code amendment procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.94 of the Municipal Code. Vicinity Map Drive ConexantProject General Plan Amendment No. 9&3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No.159, Traffic Study No.110 and Development Agreement No.13 Conexant Project June 22, 2000 Page 2 of 4 This public hearing started on May 18, 2000 which was continued to the June 6, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission. Due to receiving material regarding traffic at the June 61h meeting, the Commission took testimony from the traffic engineer and public and continued the hearing. Additionally, it was the Planning Commission's desire to hold approval of the various applications until such time as the draft development agreement was available for consideration. The Planning Commission did not specifically request any additional information from staff, but during the discussion, several issues were raised that warrant additional clarification. Trajftc The traffic engineers looked at the trip generation rate used in the traffic study to determine if it remained valid based upon recently identified differences in current and projected employee shifts. This question is important in that the trip generation rate used in the traffic study is based upon current employee habits and shifts and it was assumed that the future employees operate similarly. Based upon the new information, the trip generation rate during the PM peak period was found to be too low and the AM peals hoar and total trip generation rate would be unaffected. The PM peak generation is expected to be 31.7% higher than predicted in the traffic study. Based upon this information, the traffic engineer conducted ICU analysis at three intersections that were projected to have ICU values between 0.85 and 0.90 within the traffic study to determine if there would be any new impacts. The analysis shows that these intersections would not be impacted and would operate at satisfactory levels of service and no new TPO or CEQA impacts would result using the higher PM peak generation rate. The impacts to three intersections previously identified in the traffic study can be mitigated which will address the increased PM peak traffic. The cumulative impact of the Dunes and Conexant traffic on Jamboree was looked at and it was found that the intersections further south on Jamboree would not be impacted. The analysis prepared by the Traffic Engineer will be included as supplemental analysis in Traffic Study No. 110. Long Range Impact to MacArthur/Jamboree The Traffic Study identifies a long range impact to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The mitigation measure identified is a grade separation or an additional westbound through lane. Staff questioned the feasibility of such an ambiguous mitigation measure especially when it is conceptual and there is no commitment by the City to pursue either measure due to significant costs. For this reason, staff recommends that this mitigation measure be eliminated which would leave a significant unavoidable impact to long range traffic circulation at this intersection. If the Planning Commission and City Council agree with this assessment of the feasibility of this measure, the impact to the intersection would need to be incorporated within a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the project. The City is negotiating with Conexant through the Development Agreement process to ensure Conexant's participation in a long range planning and capital improvement program for the area. This program will include addressing the long range improvements to the MacArthur/Jamboree Conexant Project June 22, 2000 Page 3 of 4 intersection. If the City believes that the identified mitigation measure is feasible and makes a commitment to implement it in the future, it is appropriate to include the measure within project approval and incorporate it within the Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program (MMRP). Presently, the measure is not in the MMRP based upon the initial finding that the measure appears conceptual, and therefore, infeasible at this time. Development Agreement As noted previously, the city is actively negotiating the terms of development agreement. The City has created a committee to negotiate the agreement which consists of Council Members Ridgeway and Adams, Chairman Selich and Commissioner Tucker. Although Conexant has not concurred with the complete agreement, the committee is cautiously optimistic that Conexant and the City will reach agreement. The latest draft of the agreement is being considered by Conexant at this time, and if they conceptually agree to the draft, it draft will be forwarded to the Planning Commission when available. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending approval of the Traffic Study and certification of the EIR. These resolutions are attached for review. Due to the fact that the draft Development Agreement is unavailable at this time, and based upon the Planning Commission's stated intent not to recommend approval of the project without it, staff does not recommend adoption of the previously transmitted resolution related to GPA No. 96- 3(F), Amendment No. 898. If the Planning Commission desires to hold approval of the resolutions related to the Traffic Study and EIR pending the Development Agreement and a final recommendationon the entire project, staff recommends that this item be continued to July 6, 2000. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director / l D EXHIBITS Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planter 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Resolution Recommending Approval of Traffic Study No. 110 3. Resolution Recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 159 Conexant Project June 22, 2000 Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 110 FOR THE CONEXANT PROJECT. WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community referred to as the "project"; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000 and June 8, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting; and WHEREAS, a traffic study (Conexant Project, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., March 2000) was prepared for the project in compliance with the Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the traffic study indicated that the project will increase traffic on 13 primary intersections by one percent (1 %) or more during Peak Hour Periods one year after the completion of the project; and WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that 11 of the primary intersections that the project will increase traffic volume by 1% or more during Peak Hour Periods will operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that two primary intersections (MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa) would be impacted and operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during both AM and PM peak hours without mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the traffic study identified the following mitigation measures (intersection improvements) that will reduce the project impact to a less than significant impact although the intersections will continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service: MacArthur Boulevard/Janiborec Road: add a second northbound lefi' turn lane, a second southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane. Irvhic Avenue and Mesa Drive: add an additional southbound right turn lane which can be accomplished by dropping the bike lane and restriping Irvine Avenue. WHEREAS, the traffic study has determined the proportional share of the improvement costs attributable to the project in accordance with Traffic Phasing Ordinance which are 25% of the actual cost of the intersection improvements identified above and these costs were included as a mandatory condition of approval pursuant to Development Agreement No. 13 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Conexant Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #98101090). WHEREAS, additional ICU analysis was prepared for three additional intersections due to a finding that the project trip generation rate within the PM peak hour was inaccurate due to differences in current and projected employee shifts which was the basis for developing the trip generation rate. The AM peak hour generation and the total trip generation rates were determined by the Traffic Engineer to be unaffected. The Traffic Engineer selected the three additional intersections based upon their projected ICU values between 0.85 and 0.90 by the traffic study. The increased traffic in the PM peak hour was added and in two cases, the ICU value did not change and in the third, the ICU value increased from 0.85 to 086, thus no additional impacts were identified. This supplemental is hereby incorporated within Traffic Study 110 WHEREAS, a question was raised as to whether the traffic analysis extended far enough south on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The Traffic Engineer conducted additional ICU analysis at Jamboree/Eastbluff-University and MacArthur/Bison which are the newt two intersection south of the study intersections. The supplemental analysis, which is hereby incorporated within Traffic Study 110, indicates that the intersections of Jamboree/Eastbluff-University and MacArthur/Bison are project to operate at satisfactory levels of service with ICU values of 0,692 and 0.605 respectively. Therefore, no new significant project impact to these intersections is expected to occur. Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 no new significant project impact to these intersections is expected to occur. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Traffic Study 110 based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study. M. ADOPTED this 22th day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Larry Tucker, Secretary AYES NOES ABSENT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 159 FOR CONEXANT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.98101090). WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 26, 1998. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number 98101090, WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on October 26, 1998 for a 30-day public review. The review period ended on November 26, 1998 and public comments was accepted by the City through December 2, 1998. The Subcommittee of the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) for the Conexant Project approved and submitted comments dated January 18, 1999 on the NOP and Initial Study. Copies of the comments received on the NOP and Initial Study and during the scoping process were included in Appendix A to the Draft EIR. Resolution No. Page z of 3 WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 22, 1999. WHEREAS, The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested. organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. WHEREAS, A forty-five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on November 22, 1999 and ended on February 5, 2000. WHEREAS, Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in a Response to Comments document dated April 14, 2000. These comments and responses were considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the project and Environmental Impact Report. WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000 , June 8, 2000 and June 22, 2000, the Planning Conunission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Additional information related to the traffic study was presented and considered by the Commission which confirmed that the traffic study adequately identified potential impacts and mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air quality emissions. Although these impacts are not desirable, the proposed project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing light industrial land use in the City on an under utilized parcel within an area that has existing infrastructure and access to transportation facilities. The project Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 also is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 159 for the Conexant Project (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Implementing Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission Ends that the EIR adequately analyzes project related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Implementing Guidelines and finds it adequate. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt necessary of findings and facts related to California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certify Environmental Impact Report No. 159. M. W ADOPTED this 22od day of June 2000, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Larry Tucker, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT t �gWPO/jT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: June 8, 2000 o° o� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 4 )z PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 Appeal Period: N/A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road PURPOSE OF General Plan Amendment No. 96-3(F), Amendment No. 898, APPLICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement No. 13 to allow along range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ACTION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. 159 to the City Council. 2. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends approval of Traffic Study No. 110 to the City Council. 3. Adopt Resolution No. that recommends approval of General Plan AmendmentNo. 96-317 and Amendment No. 898 to the City Council. LEGAL Lots 1 and 2 of TractNo. 7953 recorded in Map Book 310, Pages 7-11 DESCRIPTION: APN: 445-131-02 & 03 GENERAL PLAN: General Industry ZONE: P-C, Koll Center Newport Planned Community APPLICANT & Conexant Systems, Inc. OWNER: 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Points and Authority Conformance with the General Plan ■ The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as General Industry. The existing manufacturing operation and supporting office land uses on the subject property are consistent with this designation. A General Plan amendment to increase the allowable building area is proposed in order to be consistent with the proposed expansion. General Plan amendment procedures and requirements are established by City Council Policy K-1. Conformance with the Municipal Code ■ Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. ■ Development Agreement procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code. ■ Planned Community District procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. ■ Zoning Code amendment procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.94 of the Municipal Code. Vicinity Map Drive Conexant Project General Plan Amendment No. 96-3P, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No.159, Traffic Study No. 110 and Development Agreement No. 13 Conexant Project June 8, 2000 Page 2 of 5 INTRODUCTION This public hearing was continued from the May 18, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed and considered the proposed project, and based upon that discussion, several issues and questions were raised. This report will focus on these points as well address the draft mitigation monitoring report and development agreement that were not presented to the Planning Commission at the last meeting. Lastly, attached to this report are two resolutions that recommend certification of the EIR and project approval to the City Council. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission requested that staff address the following items as a result of the discussion at the last meeting. 1. Stonnwater and the detention basin Mr. Eaton indicated that he spoke with The Irvine Company and they indicated to him that the retention basin has an outflow into the San Diego Creek which is contrary what is indicated in the EIR. Staff contacted The Irvine Company but was unable to obtain any additional infonnation about the existence of any outflow of the basin. The existing site and conceptual plans for the project were evaluated again related to stormwater, and the amount of impervious surface will decrease as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the amount of stonnwater runoff will decrease as a result of the project and no impact to the basin will result which is consistent with the findings contained in the EIR. Please review the attached letter from PCR dated June 1, 2000 attached as Exhibit No. 1. 2. Trip generation rate A question was raised related to the validity of the trip generation rate for the proposed expansion when it is based upon the present driveway counts and office/manufacturing job ratio when there will be higher percentage of nonananufacturing jobs with the project. The Traffic Engineer has been reviewing this issue, but unfortunately the analysis was not complete as of the writing of this report. The analysis will be presented to the Planning Commission at the hearing. 3. Traffic impacts to Jamboree Road The question was asked whether there potentially would be a traffic impact related to Jamboree Road with the Dunes TPO analysis sending 50% of their trips on Jamboree Road to State Route 73 and Conexant sending 5% of their trips south on Jamboree Road. The Traffic Engineer has been reviewing this issue, but unfortunately the analysis was not complete as of the writing of this report. The analysis will be presented to the Planning Commission at the hearing. 4. Less traffic with the project in the long range The question of how is it possible to have less traffic impacts with the proposed project in the long range was raised. This phenomenon is caused by the traffic model as it redistributes trips due to the interaction of land uses. The Traffic Engineer has been reviewing this issue, but Conexant Project June 8, 2000 Page 3 of 5 unfortunately further analysis was not completed as of the writing of this report. Further discussion of this issue will be presented to the Planning Cormnission at the hearing. 5, Vehicle access to Parking Structure A A member of the public was concerned about potential vehicle movement conflicts in relation to Parking Structure A and Birch Street. The Traffic Engineer has been reviewing this issue, but unfortunately the analysis was not complete as of the writing of this report. The analysis will be presented to the Planning Commission at the hearing. 6. Clarify the proposed sign modifications to the PC text with reference to the existing signage The applicant proposes to make the entire existing general sign provisions of the PC text inapplicable to the project and proposes substitute sign regulations. The existing and proposed sign regulations are attached as Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3. The major difference is in the size of the building identification signs and ground signs. The general sign standards proposed are comparable and the proposed amendment will eliminate the ability to install any pole signs. The existing regulation limits a building identification sign to %z square foot of sign area for each 1 linear foot of building frontage with a maximum limit of 200 square feet per sign. The applicant requests that a sign be limited to no more than 400 square feet with no ratio of area to linear building frontage. This regulation was created based upon the existing large two story buildings which have significant linear frontages. With the introduction of high rise towers, the ratio of area to frontage will not permit an appropriate sign atop the building without a modification permit. The need to increase the area to 400 square feet arises as the existing signs are approximately 400 square feet approved by a modification. This limit is not inappropriate for a high rise tower. Conexant purchased the adjacent Koll center office building at 4000 MacArther and the approved signs range from 417 to 452 square feet approved through a modification permit. Staff believes that these signs are in proportion to the size of the buildings and the proposed regulation would permit comparable signs on the new towers. The ground sign change increases the permissible height from 4 feet to 7 feet and increases the area from 150 square feet to 200 square feet if located within 20 feet of the property line subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval of design. The proposed standard limits the number of signs to two where no limit exists presently. The City recently permitted two ground signs at the applicant's request along Jamboree Road that are 6 feet 4 inches high by 13 feet (85 square feet per side and 170 square feet total). The proposed regulation is consistent with the existing signs and the applicant has no present intention to replace the signs and no new signs are proposed. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and Sections 15091 and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, requite that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be adopted when the Lead Agency, in this case the City of Newport Beach (City), adopts an Environmental Impact Report. The purpose of the MMRP is to assign responsibility for the implementation, monitoring, and tuning of each mitigation measure that has been identified to reduce an identified environmental impact to a less than significant level. The City is required to ensure compliance with each of the adopted mitigation measures outlined in the Conexant Project June 8, 2000 Page 4 of 5 MMRP because additional significant environmental impacts could result from the project if the mitigation measures are not implemented. Staff has included standard requirements within the MMRP in order to assist staff and the applicant with other critical compliance issues. The draft MMRP is attached as Exhibit No. 4. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The proposed development agreement vests the right of Conexant Systems, Inc. to proceed with the project as approved by the city for the term of the agreement and outlines specific benefits the project will provide to the city. The draft development agreement is unavailable as of the writing of the report. City officials have scheduled a meeting with Conexant on June 5, 2000 where a draft of the development agreement will be discussed. If there is general agreement between Conexant and the city of the terms of the agreement, a draft copy will be forwarded to the Commission for review. RECOMMENDATION Staff has drafted three resolutions that would make an overall recommendation of project approval to the City Council. Specifically, the first resolution, attached as Exhibit No. 5, makes specific findings related to the California Environmental Quality Act and recommends that the City Council adopt statements of overriding considerations related to unmitigated significant environmental impacts and certify the EIR. The second resolution, attached as Exhibit No. 6, makes findings related to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and recommends that the City Council approve Traffic Study No. 110 for the project. The third resolution, attached as Exhibit No. 7, makes findings and recommendations to the City Council related to amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan, amending the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Should the Planning Commission desire to recommend project approval, adoption of the resolutions identified above and attached is necessary. Should the Planning Commission desire additional analysis or information regarding the project, or should the Commission desire to take another action, it should direct staff. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE PlanningDirector n Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL 1. Letter from PCR dated May 31, 2000. 2. Existing Koll Center Newport sign regulations 3. Proposed sign regulations 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5. Resolution Recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 159 6. Resolution Recommending Approval of Traffic Study No. 110 7. Resolution Recommending Approval of GPA No. 97-3(C) and Amendment No. 898 Conexant Project June 8, 2000 Page 5 of 5 SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES IRVINE May 31, 2000 Mr. Jim Campbell Senior Planner CITY OF NEwoRT BEACH P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 i1CR L--I Re: Response to Comment at May 18, 2000 Planning Commission Hearing from the Environmental QualityAffairs Citizens Advisory Committee Regarding Conexant Project Surface Runoff Dear Mr. Campbell: The following provides information that clarifies the comparison of the amount of pervious surface on the project site and the conclusion regarding no significant change in the quantity of the surface runoff that was provided on page IV-47 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project sire consists of a total of 25 acres. According to scaled plans of the existing conditions and the proposed conceptual site plan, the amount of existing pervious landscape area on the project site equals approximately 2.49 acres and the amount of proposed pervious landscape area on the project site would equal approximately 5.09 acres. Basedron this comparison, there will be approximately 2.6 additional acres of pervious landscape area provided with the proposed project. It should be noted that only the areas surrounding the buildings and the berm along Jamborce Road were counted as landscape area for both the existing conditions and the proposed project. The trees in the landscape islands within the parking lots were not included in the calculations for both the existing conditions and the proposed project, as they do not represent a significant runoff absorption area. To provide a more conservative comparison, the requested amendments to the Planned Community Development Standards were reviewed. As stated on page II-13 of the Draft EIR, Part I, Section I, would be amended to require a total minimum open space area of 3.81 acres. In comparison with the existing 2.49 acres of pervious landscape area on the project site, compliance with the minimum required open space required by the Planned Community Development Standards, as amended, will result in approximately 1.32 additional acres of pervious landscape area. As there is more pervious landscape area with implementation of the proposed project as compared with existing conditions, the proposed project would not lead to any net increase in the One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618-1328 intro t wviv,,pernet.com rn 949.753.7001 r.x 94� Exhibit No. I SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES IRVINE Mr. Jim Campbell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 31, 2000 - Page 2 amourit of surface runoff conveyed off -site by the private storm drain system to the City of Newport Beach's storm drain system and ultimately detained in the closed basin at the corner of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Please call me at (949) 753-7001 with any questions. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION Dr. Mark Sudol Regulatory Specialist 1 .I PART IV. GENERAL SIGN REQUIREMENTS .... Section I. Sign Standards A. Signs visible from the exterior of any building may be lighted, but no signs or any other contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. B. Signs shall be restricted to advertising only the person, firm, company or corporation operating the use conducted on the site or the products sold thereon. C. A wall sign with the individual letters applied directly shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol and calculating the area enclosed by such line. D. All signs attached to the building shall be surface mounted. Group I. PERMANENT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. Ground Signs Ground signs shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height. Also, ground signs in excess of one hundred and fitly (150) square feet in area (double face) shall not be erected in the first twenty (20) feet, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of two hundred (200) square feet. B. Wall Signs In no event shall an identification sign placed on a wall comprise more than ten (10) percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be fixture signs. Signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted. 1. The following exceptions apply to industrial zoning only. In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual industry may have a wall sign over the entrance to identify the tenant. Said sign shall give only the name of the company and shall be limited to six (6) inch high letters. Said signs must be oriented toward the parking or pedestrian area for that building and shall not exceed a maximum area of five (5) square feet. 37 Exhibit No. 2 __ J 2. Fascia mounted identification signs limited to two (2) facades for each building and structure. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building or store. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. The following exceptions apply to Professional and Business Offices and Retail and Service Center uses only. In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual ground floor business may have signing in addition to permitted Building Identification signs. (6) Each individual ground floor business shall be limited to one (1) sign per frontage not to exceed two (2) signs per business. Said signs shall not be located above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed an area equal to ten (10) percent of the business face upon which it is located. However, no sign shall exceed thirty-five (35) square feet in area. (6). In no event shall there be more than three (3) permitted ground floor wall signs per building for Professional and Business Offices. (6) C. Pole Signs One (1) identification pole sign per site will be allowed for the following commercial businesses only: a. Restaurant b. Cocktail lounge and/or bar C. Hotel If a pole sign is utilized, it shall be in lieu of other identification signs allowed by ordinance. Pole signs shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet and a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet per face, double faced. Group 11. TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. The following signs shall conform ,to all requirements for "Ground Signs," Section I, Group I, Item A with General Sign standards above unless specifically limited below. M q 1. Sale or Lease Sien A sign, advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs listed in this section. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 2. Construction Sign One (1) construction sign denoting the architects, engineers, contractor, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of construction. Said sign shall be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy, or the tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 3. Future Tenant Identification Sign A sign listing the name of future tenant, responsible agent or realtor, and identification of the industrial complex shall be permitted. Said sign will be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy or tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 4. Directional Signs Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians or give instructions as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square feet (double face) in area and shall be permitted in addition to the other signs in this section. 5. Exceptions Group II.A.1, 2 and 3: this information may be grouped on a single sign when the aggregate surface area does exceed the summation of the individual areas for each use. This area may be distributed on all surfaces of the sign. This sign may not exceed four (4) feet above grade. Group III. SPECIAL PURPOSE SIGNS A. The following permanent signs shall be permitted. Mo /F Permanent Directional Sign Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square (' feet in area per face, double faced and shall be permitted in addition to other signs permitted in these standards. 2: Community Directional and/or Identification Sian Permanent directional and identification signs, not exceeding two hundred fifty (250) square feet (per face), shall be permitted but subject to use permit. Section H. Sign Area A. Industrial The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part 1, Section II. Only one (1) single faced or double faced sign shall be permitted per street frontage. No sign or combination of signs shall exceed one (1) square foot in area for each six hundred (600) square feet of total site area. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. An additional twenty (20) square feet shall be allowed for each additional business conducted on the site. Sign limited to two (2) facades. B. Industrial Support Facilities and Business and Professional Offices The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part I, Section III. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. C. Commercial The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part II, Section II, Groups II, III, V and VI. Building identification shall be limited to a single entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed one and one- half (1 1/2) square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. D. Business and Professional Offices The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part It, Section II, Group I. Building identification shall be limited to a single entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face, Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. Section II1. Maintenance All signs indicated in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Periodic inspection shall be made as directed by the Planning Director, City of Newport Beach or his designated agent. 41 Site 1: The following signage standards shall apply in lieu of the General Sign Requirements, Part IV.: 1. General Sign Standards a. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility in Site 1, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated by internal or external source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion. b. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of the building or facility. C. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service d. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. 2. General Sign Types And Numbers 9 C. 11 "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground mounted: - Maximum Size: 100 sq. ft. each side, or 200 sq. ft. each sign - Maximum Height: 7 feet - Maximum Number: 2 Secondary identification sign on Birch Street: - Maximum Size: 35 sq. ft. - Maximum Height: 4 feet - Maximum Number: 1 Miscellaneous vehicular and pedestrian directional signs: - Maximum Size: 28 sq. ft. per face - Maximum Height: 7 feet Building mounted identification signs (excluding parking structures) Exhibit No. 3 l� - Primary building identification sign located near the top of the building Maximum Size: 400 square feet Maximum Number: 1 sign per building fagade, 2 fagades per building - Primary building entrance sign Sign must be oriented toward parking or pedestrian area of the building it is located on. Sign shall not extend above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed 35 sq. ft. in area. 3. Temporary Identification Signs a. A sign advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs authorized above, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size. b. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers, contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size each. 4 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 159 FOR THE CONEXANT PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 98101090 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Contact: James Campbell Phone:(949) 644-3210 Prepared by: PCR Services Corporation One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92618 (949) 753-7001 May 2000 Exhibit No. 4 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONEXANT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.159 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND PURPOSE This Monitoring Program for the Conexant project in the City of Newport Beach (City) has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the State of California Public Resources Code. Section 21081.6 requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects, to "adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." The City is acting as Lead Agency for the Conexant project. An Initial Study and EIR were prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the Conexant project. Where appropriate, the Initial Study and EIR recommended standard requirements and mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21081.6, this Monitoring Program was prepared to ensure that the standard requirements and approved mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. MANAGEMENT OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM Roles and Responsibilities The Monitoring Program for the Conexant project will be in place through all phases of development to occur on the project site, including final design, pre -grading, construction, and operation. The City Will have the primary enforcement role for the standard requirements and mitigation measures. Monitoring Procedures The monitoring procedures for this Monitoring Program consist of the use of the Monitoring Program Checklists, filing requirements, and compliance verification. The Monitoring Program is provided in two checklists. Table 1 on page 3 provides a checklist for the standard requirements identified in the City of Newport Heath Conexant Ent Slate Ciea fthom No. 98101090 May 2000 Page 1 environmental documentation and Table 2 on page 16 provides a checklist for the approved mitigation measures for the Conexant project. The procedures for their use are outlined below. Monitoring Program Checklists The Monitoring Program Checklists provide a comprehensive list of the standard requirements and mitigation measures. In addition, the Monitoring Program Checklists include: the time of compliance for the standard requirement or mitigation measure; the party responsible for completion; the department or agency responsible for verification of compliance; and compliance verification consisting of a signature and date. Monitoring Program Res The records of this Monitoring Program shall be retained in the entitlement file for future development within the project site related to the Conexant project. The files shall be organized and retained by the City Planning Department and Building Department. Compliance Verification The Monitoring Program Checklists shall be signed when compliance of the standard requirement or mitigation measure is met according to the City Planning Director. The compliance verification section of the checklists shall be signed for a standard requirement or mitigation measure requiring ongoing monitoring and when the monitoring of a standard requirement or mitigation measure is completed. City of Newport Beach Conexant Ent State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 May 2000 Page 2 17 Table 1 Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Standard Requirements Time of Party Responsible for Pwty(s) Responsible Compliance Completion for Verificatwn Signature Date GEOLOGIC ISSUES I. Development of the proposed project Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach will comply with the applicable each building permit. Building Department provisions of the City's Uniform Building Code, minimizing the potential for damage of new structures daring a seismic event. 2. The Applicant will comply with the During grading and Project Applicant City of Newport Beach erosion and siltation control measures of construction. Budding Department the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes. 3. The Applicant will comply with the Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach City's required submittal of site -specific each grading and Building Department geotechnicat evaluations to address building permit. specific design and construction measures for each building site prior to issuance of grading and building permits. WATEW WATM QUALITY L The Applicant will comply with the During grading and Project Applicant City of Newport Beach erosion and siltation control measures of construction. Building Department the City's grading ordinance and ail applicable local and State building codes. City of Newport Beach Conant EUt Sate Clearinghouse No. 9910109D buy 2" Page 3 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Standard Requirements Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date 2. Prior to issuance of the first grading Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach or building permit, the Applicant will each grading or Planning Department apply for a general Construction building permit. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination City of Newport Beach System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Public Works Department from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) which will include Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to the reduction of the accidental discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system during grading and construction activities. Evidence of permit shall be provided to the City Planning Department and Public Works Department. 3. Consistent with the requirements of Prior to first grading or Project Applicant City of Newport Beach the County -wide Drainage Area building permit. Planning Department Management Plan (DAMP), prior to issuance of the first grading or building City of Newport Beach permit, the Applicant will submit a Public Works Department Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address the ongoing operations of the proposed project. The WQMP will provide BMPs consistent with the requirements of Orange County's municipal NPDES permits. City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 rant EIR May 2000 Page 4 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Standard Requirements Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date Evidence of permit shall be provided to the City Planning Department and Public Works Department. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCOLATIoN 1. Construction activities, related During construction. Project Applicant City of Newport Beach vehicular access and emergency access, Public Works Department will be completed in accordance with applicable City requirements. Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department 2. In compliance with the Federal Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach Aviation Administration's (FAA) Federal building permits, Planning Department Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, the project will be in Applicant will file FAA Form 7460-I for compliance with Orange County Airport all buildings that would penetrate the applicable policies of Land Use Commission imaginary surface for the John Wayne the Airport Land Use Airport. Commission regarding the lighting of the Wilding. HAZARDS 1. The Applicant will compdy with state During operations. Project Applicant Newport Beach Fire and law that requires on -site use and storage of hazardous materials be reported to the Marine Department County of Orange Health Care Agency in the form of Hazardous Materials State Claringho w No. 98101090 C� Page 5 Con oot EIR May 2000 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time -of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Standard Requirements Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date Business Plan (HMBP) filed with the local fire department. Any changes in the use and storage of hazardous materials as a result of the proposed project will be reflected in the HMBP as a ro riate. 2. The Applicant will comply with During construction Project Applicant City of Newport Beach Federal and State Occupational Safety and operations. Planning Department and Health Act (OSHA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCQAMD) regulatory requirements. UTiLmEs & SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. The Applicant will comply with the Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach erosion and siltation control measures of each grading and Building Department the City's grading ordinance and all building permit. applicable local and State building codes. CULTURAL REsouRCEs 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach permit, the project applicant shall each grading permit. Planning Department provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist City of Newport Beach has been retained to observe grading Building Department City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 May 2000 Page 6 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Mine of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontologicaVarchaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist) archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologistlarchaeologist shall deter- mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, City of Newport Beach Sate Claringhmse No. 9810109D �J Page 7 May 20oo Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Standard Requirements Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. Ant Qunrrrr 1. Grading will be conducted consistent As indicated as notes Project Applicant See below with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule on grading plan(s), will 403 including: occur prior to and during grading and construction activities. Land Clearing/Earth-Moving The Applicant shall secure any As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach necessary permits from the on grading plan(s), will Planning Department SCAQMD, including an approved occur prior to issuance fugitive dust emissions control plan of grading permits. pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Non -toxic soil stabilizers shall be As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach applied according to manufacturers' on grading plan(s), will Building Department specifications or vegetation shall be occur during grading planted on all inactive construction and construction. areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more and not City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 Conexant EUt May 2000 ' '� Page 8 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Standard Requirements Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date scheduled for additional construction activities within 12 months, to the extent feasible). Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach with 5 percent or greater silt content on grading plan(s), will Building Department shall be watered twice daily, occur dig grog enclosed, covered, or treated with and construction. nontoxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications. All other active sites shall be As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach watered at Ieast twice daily. on grading plan(s), will Building Department occur during grading and construction. All grading activities shall cease As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach during second stage smog alerts and on grading plan(s), will Building Department periods of high winds (i.e., greater occur during grading than 25 mph) if dust is being and construction. transported to off -site locations and cannot be controlled by watering. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach other loose materials off -site shall be on grading plan(s), will Building Department covered or wetted or shall maintain occur during grading at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., and construction. minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). City or Newport mach CouaootEM Sate Ctearioglnuse No. 98101090 May 2000 J page 9 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of I Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Standard Requirements Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date A construction relations officer shall As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach be established by the Applicant to on grading plan(s), will Planning Department act as a community liaison concern- occur during grading ing on -site construction activity, and construction. City of Newport Beach including resolution of issues related Building Department to fugitive dust generation. Paved Roads Streets shall be swept hourly if As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach visible soil material has been carried on grading plan(s), will Building Department onto adjacent public paved roads. occur during grading and construction. Construction equipment shall be As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach inspected prior to leaving the site on grading plan(s), will Building Department and loose dirt shall be washed off occur during grading with wheel washers as necessary. and construction. City of Newport Beach Conexant EfB State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 May 2000 Page 10 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Standard Requirements Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Compliance Completion _ Verification Signature Date Unpaved Roads Water or non toxic soil stabilizers As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach shall be applied, according to manu- on grading plan(s), will Building Department facturers' specifications, as needed occur during grading to reduce off -site transport of and construction. fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. 6 Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads As indicated as notes Project Applicant City of Newport Beach shall not exceed 15 mph. on grading plan(s), will Building Department occur during grading and construction. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. The Applicant will provide fire Prior to issuance of Project Applicant Newport Beach Fire and hydrants every SW feet at locations building permits. Marine Department determined to be appropriate by the Fire and Marine Department during the site City of Newport Beach plan review process consistent with City Building Department Standards. Sum aafir4 wuse No. 98I01090 Cooeont EHt May 2000 Page 11 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Standard Requirements Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date 2. Consistent with applicable building Prior to issuance of Project Applicant Newport Beach Fire and and fire codes, the additional buildings building permits. Marine Department as a result of the proposed project will be equipped with: automatic sprinklers City of Newport Beach (with a design of ordinary group II over Building Department a 3,000 square foot area); smoke detectors; an integrated fire alarm system; a central fire control room; a firefighters communication system; and an integrated sprinkler standpipe system (with connections at each level in every stairwell). 3. The additional buildings as a result of Prior to issuance of Project Applicant Newport Beach Fire and the proposed project will be sited to building permits. Marine Department allow for adequate access by fire and emergency service vehicles and City of Newport Beach equipment consistent with applicable Building Department building and fire codes. State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 \I Page 12 Conex t EIIt May 2000 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Standard Requirements Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date UTn rr1ES AND SERVICE SYSMIS 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach the Project Applicant will demonstrate building permits. Building Department that adequate facilities would be available to serve the proposed project including verification from Southern California Edison Company (SCE). 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach the Project Applicant will demonstrate building permits. Building Department that adequate facilities would be available to serve the proposed project including verification from Southern California Gas Company (SCG). 3. The Applicant will comply with the Prior to Issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach State Energy Conservation Standards for building permits. Building Department New Residential and Non -Residential Structures (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2 of the California Administrative Code). City orNewport Heath Cooaont Ent Shoe Clmringhwse No. 98I0109D May 2000 Page 13 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Standard Requirements Compliance Completion Verification Signature Date 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach the Applicant will demonstrate to the building permits. Planning Department City Planning Department and Public Works Department that adequate water City of Newport Beach facilities and supply will be available to Public Works Department serve the proposed project including Utilities Division verification from Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). 5. The Applicant will comply with State Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach regulations regarding water conservation building permits. Planning Department (e.g., Titles 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code, the Health and Safety Code). 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach the Applicant will demonstrate to the building permits. Planning Department City Planning Department and Public Works Department that adequate sewer City of Newport Beach facilities would be available to serve the Public Works Department proposed project. This would include Utilities Division verifications of adequacy from the Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 rant Ent May 2000 Page 14 Table 1 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Standard Requirements Standard Requirements Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible for Compliance Completion Verification signature Date 7. The Applicant will comply with During operations. Project Applicant City of Newport Beach requirements set forth by the California Public Works Department Integrated Waste Management Plan Utilities Division (CIWMP) and the City of Newport Beach to -divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills by the year 2000. City or Newport Beach Caeexant EHt state Clearhomse No. 98101090 May 2000 Page 15 Table 2 Conexant Project Monitoring Program Mitigation Measures Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible Mitigation Measures Compliance Completion for Verification Signature Date AIR QUALM 1. The Project Applicant shall TDM Plan to be Project Applicant City of Newport Beach implement Transportation Demand submitted prior to Planning Department Management (TDM) measures related to issuance of each the proposed project. Such measures building permit for City of Newport Beach shall include coordinating transit services each habitable Traffic Engineer to the development through provision of structure. Approval bus stops and turnouts, facilitating and implementation of bicycle/transit interface, and expanding TDM Plan to occur the existing programs related to prior to issuance of emissions off -sets and carpooling/mass certificates of transit. occupancy. 2. The Project Applicant shall comply Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach with Regulation 13, New Source building permits. Planning Department Review, and offset -emissions as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Evidence of compliance shall be provided to the City Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall install Prior to issuance of Project Applicant City of Newport Beach [377beetct ighting which provides building permits. Building Department per watt of electricity City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 Conexant EHt May 2000 1 Page 16 Table 2 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible Compliance Completion for Verification Signature Date TRANSPORTATIONITRAMC 1. To address Near Term Traffic Prior to issuance of the Project Applicant City of Newport Beach Conditions, the Project Applicant shall first building permit for Traffic Engineer be responsible for the payment of fees a habitable structure. for the following improvements to the City of Newport Beach intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/ Planning Department Jamboree Road as determined by the City Traffic Engineer: (a) add a second northbound left tam lane; (b) add a second nouthbound left turn lane; and (c) add a northbound right tam lanes. The project's fair share contribution is 25 percent. City of Newport Reach Sum Clearinghouse No. 98101090 Coeexant Ent May 2000 Page 17 Table 2 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Mitigation Measures Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible Mitigation Measures Compliance Completion for Verification Signature Date 2. To address the Near Term Traffic Prior to issuance of the Project Applicant City of Newport Beach Conditions, the Project Applicant shall first building permit for Traffic Engineer be responsible for the payment of fees a habitable structure. for the following improvements to the City of Newport Beach intersection of Irvine Avenue/Mesa Planning Department Drive: add a southbound right turn lane (accomplished by removing the bike lane and restriping Irvine Avenue). The project's fair share contribution is 25 percent. 3. To address the Long Tenn Traffic Contribution shall be Project Applicant City of Newport Beach Conditions, the Project Applicant shall made within ten years Traffic Engineer be responsible for the payment of fees from project approval for the following improvement to the or prior to occupancy City of Newport Beach intersection of Irvine Avenue/Mesa of last square foot of a Planning Department Drive: (a) convert the westbound habitable structure. through lane to a combination left/through lane; and (b) add split Improvement to be in phasing in the east -west direction. The place prior to project's fair share shall be determined occupancy of last by the City. square foot of habitable structure. State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 Cone t EIR May 2000 Page 18 Table 2 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible Compliance Completion for Verification Signature Date 4. To address the Long Term Traffic Contribution shall be Project Applicant City of Newport Beach Conditions, the Project Applicant shall made within ten years Traffic Engineer be responsible for the payment of fee for from project approval the following improvements to the or prior to occupancy City of Newport Beach intersection of Irvine Avenue/University of last square foot of a Planning Department Drive: (a) convert the eastbound habitable structure. through lane to a left/through combination lane; and (b) add split Improvement to be in phasing in the cast -west direction. The place prior to project's fair share shall be determined occupancy of last by the City. square foot of habitable structure. City or Newport Remo State Cte"inghmm No. 99101090 Cobexmt EIR May 2000 Page 19 Table 2 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Mitigation Measures Enplementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible Mitigation Measures Compliance Completion for Verification Signature Date Nom During grading and Project Applicant City of Newport Beach 1. Noise -generating construction equip- construction. Building Department ment operated at the project site shall be equipped with effective noise control devices, i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures. All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, will be generated. 2. Effective temporary noise barriers During grading and Project Applicant City of Newport Beach shall be used and relocated, as needed, construction. Building Department whenever possible, to block line -of -sight between the construction equipment and off -site uses. 3. Truck deliveries and haul -offs shall During grading and Project Applicant City of Newport Beach only be permitted between the hours of construction. Traffic Engineer 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. weekdays and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Saturdays and shall use haul routes that are away from noise -sensitive residential locations. The haul routes shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 Conemttt EfR May 2000 Page 20 Table 2 (Continued) Conexant Project Monitoring Program Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Implementation Verification of Compliance Time of Party Responsible for Party(s) Responsible Compliance Completion for Verification Signature Date PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection After closure is Project Applicant Newport Beach Fire 1. If the closure of Orange County Fire officially announced by and Marine Department Authority (OCFA) Station 27 should OCFA, the study and occur prior to the buildout of the proportional share shall City of Newport Beach proposed project, the Applicant shall be be paid prior to closure Planning Department required to assist in the cost of an of Station 27. evaluation of the current call loads, response times, and fire station deployment in order to provide a continued adequate level of service to the project site. If determined to be necessary by the evaluation, the Applicant shall be responsible for the projects proportional share of the required facilities, equipment, and staffing resources identified. City orNewpwtBach Conomt Em State Ckarhwbmse No. 98101090 May 2000 Page 2I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 159 FOR CONEXANT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.98101090). WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 26, 1998. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number 98101090. WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on October 26, 1998 for a 30-day public review. The review period ended on November 26, 1998 and public comments was accepted by the City through December 2, 1998. The Subcommittee of the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) for the Conexant Project approved and submitted comments dated January 18, 1999 on the NOP and Initial Study. Copies of the comments received on the NOP and Initial Study and during the scoping process were included in Appendix A to the Draft EIR. Exhibit No. 5 ^,? Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 22,1999. WHEREAS, The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested. organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. WHEREAS, A forty-five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on November 22, 1999 and ended on February 5, 2000. WHEREAS, Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in a Response to Comments document dated April 14, 2000. These comments and responses were considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the project and Environmental Impact Report. WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000 and June 8, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearings at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air quality emissions. Although these impacts are not desirable, the proposed project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing light industrial land use in the City on an under utilized parcel within an area that has existing infrastructure and access to transportation facilities. The project also is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 159 for the Conexant Project (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Implementing Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR adequately analyzes project related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Implementing Guidelines and finds it adequate. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt necessary of findings and facts related to California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certify Environmental Impact Report No. 159. ADOPTED this 8 h day of June 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT BY: Edward Selich, Chairman BY: Larry Tucker, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 14EWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 110 FOR THE CONEXANT PROJECT. WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community referred to as the "project"; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000 and June 8, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaidmeeting was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting; and WHEREAS, a traffic study (Conexant Project, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., March 2000) was prepared for the project in compliance with the Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the traffic study indicated that the project will increase traffic on 13 primary intersections by one percent (1%) or more during Peak Hour Periods one year after Exhibit No. 6 Resolution No. the completion of the project; and Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that I 1 of the primary intersections that the project will increase traffic volume by 1% or more during Peak Hour Periods will operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. WHEREAS, utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that two primary intersections (MacArther/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa) would be impacted and operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during both AM and PM peak hours without mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the traffic study identified the following mitigation measures (intersection improvements) that will reduce the project impact to a less than significant impact although the intersections will continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service: Macarthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road: add a second northbound left turn lane, a second southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane. Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive: add an additional southbound right turn lane which can be accomplished by dropping the bike lane and restripinglrvine Avenue. WHEREAS, The traffic study has determined the proportional share of the improvement costs attributable to the project in accordance with Traffic Phasing Ordinance which are 25% of the actual cost of the intersection improvements identified above and these costs will included as a mandatory condition of approval pursuant to Development Agreement No. 13 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Conexant Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #98101090). tj 1 Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Traffic Study 110 based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study. ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT Edward Selich, Chairman Larry Tucker, Secretary It 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-3(F), AMENDMENT NO. 898 AFFECTING THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, AND BY AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR INDUSTRIAL SITE "i". WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, applications were duly filed by Conexant Systems, Inc. with respect to real property located at 4311 Jamboree Road and described as Lots 1 & 2 of Tract 7953 in the City of Newport Beach, requesting a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community would amend the development standards of the KCN Industrial Site 1 and increase the maximum permitted development of the project site and establish a new maximum of 1,008,775 gross square feet; 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, 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 Exhibit No. 7 Resolution No. Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000 and June 8, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at which time the applications to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Koll Center NewportPlanned Community District were considered. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given, and evidence, both written and oral, was duty presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Koll Center Newport Planned Community District is in conformance with the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" designation of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, approval of the proposed applications provides for the orderly expansion of the existing industrial/officefacility operated at the site by the applicant; and WHEREAS, A fiscal Impact assessment was performed for the proposed applications is accordance with City Council Policy F-17 which estimates an annual fiscal benefit to the City of NewportBeach of $1,140,200 upon completion of the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. the EIR identifies certain potential significant impacts to the environment and it identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will have a significant, unavoidable impact related to cumulative traffic, cumulative noise and cumulative air quality emissions. Although these impacts are not desirable, the proposed project meets the City's objective to recognize the value of companies like Conexant within the City as they provide high -skill jobs and contribute to the City's general revenue through property, sales, and use tax. The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing light industrial land use in the City on an under utilized parcel within an area that has existing infrastructure and access to transportation facilities. The project also is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Planning Commission has found that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and has recommended Resolution No. Page 3 of 9 that the City Council adopt the necessary findings and a statement of overriding considerations to certify Environmental Impact Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Approve General Plan Amendment No 96-3(F) establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit "A" of this resolution. All other portions of the Land Use Element shall not be affected by this Resolution. 2) Approve Amendment No. 898 amending the development standards for Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community and establishing the maximum permitted level of development for KCN, Industrial Site 1 at 1,008,775 gross square feet in accordance with Exhibit `B" of this resolution. ADOPTED this 86i day of June 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT L: Edward Selich, Chairman BY: Larry Tucker, Secretary Resolution No. Page 4 of 9 Exhibit "A" 1-8. KCN Industrial Site 1. This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated 1,008,775 square feet. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 1-1. KCN OS A 0 0 0 874,346 $74,346 0 1-2. KCN OS B 0 0 0 1,060,898 1,060,898 0 1-3. KCN OS C 0 0 0 734,641 734,641 0 1-4. KCN OS D 0 0 0 250,176 250,176 0 1-3. KCN OS E 0 0 0 27,150 32,500 5,350 1.6. KCN OS F 0 0 0 31,816 34,300 2,484 1.7. KCN OS G 0 0 0 81,372 81,172 0 1-8. KCN IS I 0 0 0 377,520 1,008,775 631,255 1-9, KCNRS 1 0 0 0 52,086 102,110 50,024 1-10. Court house 0 0 0 69,256 90,000 20,744 2.1. NP BLK A 0 0 0 349,000 180,362 31,362 2-2. NP BLK B 0 0 0 10,150 11,950 1,800 2-3. NP BLK C 0 0 0 211,487 457,880 246,393 24. NP BLK D 0 0 0 274,300 288,264 13,964 2.5. NP BLK E 0 0 0 834,762 834,762 0 2-6. NP BLK F 0 0 0 192,675 201,180 8,505 2-7. NP BLK G& H 0 0 0 255,001 295,952 40,951 2-8. NP BLK I 0 0 0 160,578 160,578 0 2-9. NPBLKJ 0 0 0 190,500 228,530 38,030 3. Campus Drive 0 0 0 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL 0 0 0 6,922,916 8,390,303 1,467,387 Population 0 0 0 Resolution No. Page 5 of 9 Exhibit IT " Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standard Amendment No. 898 The Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are hereby amended as indicated below: 1. Part I, Section 1, is amended to read as follows: PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreage shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. Site 1: 25.043 acres B. Total Allowable Building Area Site 1: 1,008,775 gross sq. ft. exclusive of parking structures C. Parking Criteria Site 1: Building Use Category Parking Requirements Manufacturing ......... 2.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Engineering/Labs ...... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet Administrative ......... 3.0 spaces/1,000 gross square feet D. Landscaped Open Space Site 1: Total Area .......................... 25.04 acres Building Site Coverage ........... 12.52 acres Parking Area and Structures ..... 8.71 acres Net Open Space ................... 3.81 acres Resolution No. Page 6 of 9 2. Part I, Section V., is added to read as follows: Section V. Special Features The following guidelines shall apply unless otherwise waived through the site plan review process; A. Jamboree Road Setbacks The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet. In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. B. Parking Structure Guidelines Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive architectural treatment to give the appearance of an occupied building structure rather than a parking structure. C. Building Footprints Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 200,000 square feet. D. Temporaty Parking During Construction Phases Temporary parking on an off -site location with provisions for shuttle buses to Site 1 will be provided as needed during construction to meet parking demand. Resolution No. Page 7 of 9 3. Part I, Section IV. D., is amended to read as follows: D. Building Height Site 1 has been divided into three building height zones, as depicted in Exhibit C-1 and described below: 1. Central Zone (existing Buildings 503 and 501 to Jamboree Road) 2. East Zone (east of existing Building 503 toward Birch Street) 3. Service Zone (north of existing Buildings 503 and 501 toward Von Karman Ave.) Building heights of structures shall be limited as follows by height zone: 1. Central Zone ................ one hundred fifty (150) feet (10 stories) 2. East Zone ................... one hundred (100) feet (6 stories) 3. Service Zone ................ seventy-five (75) feet 4. Part I, Section IV.F., is amended to read as follows: Site 1: The following signage standards shall apply in lieu of the General Sign Requirements, Part IV.: 1. General Sign Standards a. All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility in Site 1, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated by internal or external source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion. b. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of the building or facility. C. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shallbe properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service d. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. 2. General Sign Types And Nuinbers a. C. Resolution No. Page 8 of 9 "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground mounted: - Maximum Size: 100 sq. ft. each side, or 200 sq. ft. each sign - Maximum Height: 7 feet - Maximum Number. 2 Secondary identification sign on Birch Street: - Maximum Size: 35 sq. ft. - Maximum Height: 4 feet - Maximum Number: 1 Miscellaneous vehicular and pedestrian directional signs: - Maximum Size: 28 sq. ft. per face - Maximum Height: 7 feet Building mounted identification signs (excluding parking structures) - Primary building identification sign located near the top of the building Maximum Size: 400 square feet Maximum Number: 1 sign per building fagade, 2 fagades per building - Primary building entrance sign Sign must be oriented toward parking or pedestrian area of the building it is located on. Sign shall not extend above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed 35 sq. ft. in area. 3. Temporary Identification Signs a. A sign advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs authorized above, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size. b. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers, contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) sq. ft. in size each. Resolution No. Page 9 of 9 5. Part I, Section IV. H., is amended to read as follows: H. Parkiniz All parking shall be as specified in Part I, Section I. C. above, rather than the General Parking Requirements, Part III. 6. Part I, Section IV. I., is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V, except that the following standards shall apply in lieu of Section I.D. thereof: A minimum of five percent (5%) of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas abutting the buildings or located adjacent to public streets shall not be included in this interior landscaping requirement. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 61 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.5178 May 25, 2000 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director of Planning City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Ms. Temple and Mr. Bluth, Mr. Rich Bluth Executive Director, Facilities Conexant Systems, Inc. 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you and Mr. James Campbell for your willingness to work cooperatively with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Enclosed you, will find an agenda package for ALUC's May 31, 2000 meeting. As I have indicated in my staff report, it is my understanding that the Commission prefers not to make findings of consistency'subject to conditions. I believe it would be helpful if Mr. James Campbell could be at the meeting in case the Commissioners -have any questions on the project. I I , Again, thank you for your assistance. Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions or if I can provide, additional_information. Sincerely, Joan S. Golding, Executi fficer Airport Land Use Commission cc: James Campbell RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CF NF1A1PngT TEACH AM MAY 30 2000 PM 7181811011111� 111213141616 M.nnaluc/misc/conexant AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.5178 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY May 31, 2000 TIME: 4:00 p.m. PLACE: Hall of Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza SUBJECT: Special Meeting Santa Ana, California Planning Commission Hearing Room NOTICE PERSONS ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM NOT APPEARING IN THE FOLLOWING AGENDA. THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS STATED IN THE AGENDA ITEM OR UNDERLYING STAFF REPORTS SIMPLY REFLECT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AIRPORT STAFF AND THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION MAY DEVIATE THEREFROM. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING ON ITEMS LISTED IN THIS AGENDA, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ITEMS OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC THAT ARE WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. AGENDA ORDER: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of April 20, 2000: (Commissioners present: Bresnahan, H. Beverburg, Campbell, Erickson, Etter for Zoffer, Harris, Houston for Propst) (Commissioners absent: Propst, Zoffer) (Alternate Commissioners present: S. Beverburg, Brady) JsG.nr.5n4a000 Notice of Special Meeting May 31, 2000 Page 2 of 3 CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Discussion of Adomine an Interim to Areas within 1 tini.ur running ruca ror iva_a6, i ustin: A presentation by stair, discussion among Commissioners, direction to s , and possible adoption of an approach to reviewing projects during an interim period 1) prior to the receipt of an environmental clearance document from the County of Orange and adoption of a new AELUP pertaining to the areas surrounding the proposed Orange County International Airport (OCR and 2) prior to the receipt of an environmental clearance document from the City of Tustin and the amendment of the AELUP to remove the MCAS, Tustin from the AELUP. Recommended Action: Receive report and adopt recommendations providing direction and authorization to the Executive Officer regarding the review of development projects for consistency with the current AELUP. NEW BUSINESS: 2. City of Newport Beach — General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment for onexant Project: Amendment will increase the allowable entitlements for the site as we as increase the aflFwable building height. Recommended Action: Find project, as conditioned, consistent with -the AELUP. 3. Staff Report Regarding the Appointment of an Executive Officer to the Commission: Per the t:omnnssion-s request, state and Commissioner H. Beverburg provide research regarding the appointment of Executive Officers for County Commissions. Recommended Action: Receive reports. 4. Informational Item CLOSED SESSION: New and/or Recent Construction Municipal Airport. Recommended Action: Located Near Fullerton on planning activities eceive report. 5. County Counsel — Conference with Legal Counsel -Pending Litigation: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a & ) Counsel requests a closed session wi the Airport Land Use Commission to discuss the following: City of Lake Forest v. ALUC, et at., O.C.S.C. Case No. 817647 and City oflrvine v. ALUC, et al., O.C.S.C. Case No. OOCCO2500 The Commission may advise in open session on any reportable actions. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 6. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman: Staff recommends that per the Rules of Procedure (Bylaws) the Commission elect a C auman and Vice Chairman for new 1-year terms, and until the election of their successors. Recommended Action: Elect Chairman and Vice Chairman. Notice of Special Meeting May 31, 2000 Page 3 of 3 ONGOING BUSINESS: 7. Administrative Status Report: Receive and File memos regarding various administrative activities/issues, Commission correspondence senttreceived, and pending project reviews. 8. Proceedings with Consistent Agencies: Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fullerton, arden Grove, Huntington 'Beach. Irvine, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Stanton, Tustin, Westminster, and County of Orange. 9. Proceedings with Inconsistent Agencies: Laguna Woods, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, andSeal each. 10. Items of Interest to the Public: Members of the public may address the Commission regarding any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission provided that no action may be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law. ADJOURNMENT: Next Regular Meeting: June 15, 2000 � AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DRANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY _c 3160 Airway Avenue •Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.5178 AGENDA ITEM 2 May 31, 2000 TO: Commissioners/Alternates FROM: Joan S. Golding, Executive Officer SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment - Conexant Project Background The City of Newport Beach has submitted this project in compliance with Public Utilities Code (PUC) 21676(b). The proposal is a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to allow Conexant Systems Inc. (formerly Rockwell Semiconductor) to expand their existing facility, located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street, approximately one and a quarter miles southeast of John Wayne Airport (JWA). The project would allow an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and supp6rting office/lab space, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet over the next twenty years. The central portion of the site would be developed to a maximum height of 150' AGL (see attached maps). - AELUP Issues Staff has identified aircraft noise impact and height restrictions as AELUP issues. Regarding the Noise Issue: The project proposes an expansion/intensification of land uses partially within Noise Impact Zone 2, with the southeasterly edge of the project site falling within the 60 CNEL Noise Contour for JWA (see attached map). AELUP Section 3.2.2 deems such commercial/industrial uses to be compatible in an airport environs, providing that interior noise levels are mitigated so as to allow normal work activities to occur. Regarding the Height Restriction Issue: The project proposes a maximum height of 150' AGL. The site is located beneath the FAR Part 77 Horizontal. Surface, and the County of Orange Avigation Easement for airspace (203.68' AMSL; approximately 150' AGL), at JWA (see attached. map). The FAA does not identify the project as an Obstruction, unless the project sponsor seeks to penetrate the Horizontal Surface. If such penetration of the surface were to - occur, the project sponsor would be required to purchase the airspace from the owner, the County of Orange. Since the site is beneath the traffic pattern downwind leg for aircraft arriving to Runway 19L, AELUP Section 3.2.2 requires that such tall structures in the vicinity of these Commissioners/Altemates May 31, 2000 Page 2 of 3 established flight paths be marked or lighted, and that the emission of light and glare be suppressed. Conclusion Although listed as an Inconsistent Agency by this Commission, the City of Newport Beach has historically complied with the PUC by referring mandatory projects (and sensitive non - mandatory projects as well) for ALUC reviews and determinations. The Conexant Project represents the desired build -out of a land use that is compatible with the airport environs near JWA. However, proximity to aircraft operations, within the established aircraft traffic pattern, does require minimal mitigation for noise and light/glare; as well as compliance with FAR Part 77 procedures and the AELUP policy of rooftop red -obstruction lighting. Since, the planned buildings will actually be outside of the JWA 60 CNEL Contour line, normal building and insulation code requirements will be sufficient to mitigate the actual aircraft noise levels. The project sponsor's compliance with the Koll Center Newport Planned Community development standards for exterior architecture and lighting will prevent excessive light and glare emissions. The FAA has issued a Determination of No Hazard (copy attached) for the project, while finding that there will be no obstruction of the navigable airspace, and while suggesting that any voluntary obstruction lighting follow FAA criteria. It has been brought to my attention that your Commission prefers not to make findings of Consistency subject to conditions. I recognize and understand that preference but believe in the case of this particular project that the addition of a condition facilitates my recommendation of a finding of consistency with that AELUP rather than having to recommend that your Commission find the project inconsistent with the AELUP. As noted above, Section 3.2.2 of the AELUP in the discussion of the "Height Restriction Zone" indicates that: "However, any object which rises above the height of surrounding development, or which is located in close proximity to any of the various flight paths, must be clearly visible during hours of twilight or darkness and must not threaten, endanger, or interfere with aeronautical operations. Such objects, even if within the above height restrictions, are not acceptable to the Commission unless they are clearly marked or lighted according to FAA standards." Based on that language in the AELUP, ALUC staff discussed the issue with the City of Newport Beach. City staff and the project proponent both indicated their willingness to have an obstruction lighting condition on the project included by the City of Newport Beach. Both parties have indicated that the condition will be recommended for inclusion in the Development Agreement, between the City and Conexant (see attached letters dated May 23, 2000/May 24, 2000 from the Newport Beach Director of Planning and the Conexant Executive Director of Facilities). With the receipt of these letters I am recommending that your Commission find the proposed Conexant Project as conditioned Consistent with the AELUP. Commissioners/A Itemates May 31, 2000 Page 3 of 3 Recommendation That the Commission find the City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment — Conexant Project to be Consistent with the AELUP, subject to the following condition: 1. Structures which rise above surrounding development or which are located in close proximity to any of the various flight paths shall be clearly marked or lighted according to FAA standards. Respectfully submitted, .1Vw, S. Joan S. Golding, Executive 0 icer Airport Land Use Commission Attachments: 1. General Plan Amendment Location/Project Maps 2. AELUP Noise Impact Zones Map 3. JWA Part 77 Airspace Map 4. FAA Determination Letter 5. Letters from City -and Conexant 11 j I I I I 11 t. x x 4 m I I I I LAN I I �8/r" ti ! � 1 • � / c� ■ OIL ways lam �� 2201R1fY D �I R IV I N t9 46 Q- �t7 �'t �9 �. ��� I �j��`�3 OVA 41Otle 5 am O PROJECT SITES �1m .•alga .� 7 am 9 ♦ V� s z f� 1 p u saw 16 17 19 ewe zo .I _t�i.C21 ,• wt0 R s � `=j=.a� �5ytio� �� P SJ, � �• - _ Q' I 8 BAYYI Y? S G P1Q4' ..t" ' CIR M11Q9i=4:`.r.,`�,,. �rfigs '' , l.T•S? INrjD yo `O• Qy` ^/� UIMRtR 01f1 t•bl .. ._:�dro- ;f_. l:r SAN _i:,G:Gi+'w `•�';ivb¢V.w�:, i.. r-L'17a. n�=PV1 FC••`. PAW Q hill �:-i:: rttr q s .a, a t MR•� Y,a F Y SfA Y ! WIS s--= r.? M:_ i. r�jN• �r�a� -`STR Figure ILA-2 Coae=nt 0 .25 .5 1 Mile VicUUt)r Map Sawn: Thane &a1Mo hqn. ION i MONO EXISTING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 1 NEW PARKING A STRUCTURE 8 ass• i TBUILDING 2STORY EXISTING 2 STORY IHOP I PARKING BELOW LDOONC1KiNSG I I I I— I I i HISTORY COMMONS H I ASSEMBLYAREA ' 3STORY I I STRUCTURE A i I I�IIe_Iie_,1 elm llelelille_llelell,l�l B STORY /^, EXISTING ENTRY JAMBOREE ROAD I V Not to scale W m Figure II.C-2 Conexant Proposed Conceptual Site Plan 1�t Jrt " a*" M w AMA IN a A " w JAMOURCC KUHU R K V) N L U n m LEGEND 10 Central Zone (150 Foot Maximum Height) East Zone (100 Foot Maximum Height) EDService Zone (75 Foot Maximum Height) , y� Figure II.0 Not to scale Conexane Building Height __ _ Swu. lrpOon MatalMdulWuf�, e�gnibt/a9e PROJECT •rit' ' - S 'a'' �'iTVV �!_ i�`,Z-' _` t.;�,a .��� ;t,�-: .� iy-.s Ilk _ \ u ♦ :?, •� '+' aSi - i -.- -t-:ti C:isr.Z •aY„ T' ; " "'''������.... `g` �a '. �ia-� ���`T^�' t�• Y� 'Vk\ l gyp _ R yt - • ` �� : "�" y+' : '"aka-�,' / `' ^��: Ito _ T- G.• - .•t • '.'L :f � Cy•_ .`� -ll ••� . _.�a rL _ ,t.':y�':ir _ - - �.w C'�fe ,.-.r_ � '•�,:. _ _'ti ' - - -' a'� r' • ` • - •i V'j}'�Tti * �-i��_ /ft "�'. 9 _ =1-� 'LJl- � a]Mnl �-ly—P, �''� , In _ S.i.,•Jbl•S lyi••,q -_ i -^• YS- ._�'�`� __ �� _♦ S.. ? •1+`CT.-.^-'�'., _ �.=yam ^ .�a. �, - _ � •�.• . ':Z' — •-`-S. _Ne e _ _ _iLV'-f^.vitM1M•i `� ti•�. `• '� `.. .v`�^ ...~,n 1Z k,.i-i%s:J , ::> :�'.PLC$a _�'U;RFaACE' r.\T ,a x= ` �.. - =+A' yea �-- r. • ~ HOR I �GIbCf A`.' SURF V. 2 04 �Y..(! .`....¢� .. `+ _ •4, —`T..t .� }van � � ` ., _ ♦•;-.+:--•y-,; i.'!.`. ••- :F ' _:.`,4 ...,.ti _ _'`+,K�•-: _�rftit" _ - T-.i:q^- �M: _ E_.. _ 1`� .?s r tw CON I L::S E �:-i•..'.:; • ' ? `- ••--+t a :tie.. - . v.q: omtj.:-'.'�';A U ;•Y1yt .',.4 _ - ,.. "t_ -'�i "'-` _ � •_. - •.:_ �, y'-",Z � :-�t`"Na� � ! '' ��., � - t y s'�'-.%"��=_Y.s'"k•,.�. - :._ 1�,, _ "t�a'e• 't• I, 9'fi. � , r. -APWQACW.'SUR AGC :, '=. ==� 1 APPROACH tIRFICG'•f"^ .:? 4. fi.--c" �':• -: x•• .,y ;,�•s -?L-__- yn-t _ "k :r s13'_.,. .'n:=:-,m}- r.`•.;:-'f5!. y_ � t1 U •�v .J._- ' •�-Yf I.^":'Jd_h .Sin," .c.•;-••-.w•ai g �.f:_ ��a'.� '�-' ..-w�L-tom 1: ' - 'mot: _ : r •:• si _c s,, 'SLar•:.•>. - __ x-•_< -.`_ . _:+:::+ } _ �,=`r". _ _ ! �_ - .sS'= ��yv�cc - � _"*_',.;_, 1' • ''T u •�"�. _ ';=�5:•�.. �-za._.� .':� ":: £sr", ,..¢•'..:= = .v-.>:%:;•Y'. ''r �'~ • ! >,- a�r.,.;s,3'�" _: St ^+:r.R'_ -+�� '.•. _ _+i;.:- _ _ :._+t.. _:.� _ Yt^iSfvi ...sii--S;.: i;•;; h.,- :-..hc� :!:•4�.,.= aka: i--. - .3t !' _ - ..:.= - _ - �+.�-.-=s _"_ :t,,r- '3fi-, x >•iC"J.�r.' - .�--.F --•t:w... :-.5. ._eC_^`._•_ j •/ :.. { � �r':i..�..�'-Z: �:' z -i: - :'3Y: '^ si;Y+ '��=.. ... `Z r`!- . �-'+_4_.i- �t43 " ��U ._ - _c • �+:- `Z!' - �•-t :. �� _ Federal Aviation Administration Western/Pacific Region, AWP-520 P. O. Box 92007 WWPC Los Angeles, CA 90009 ISSUED DATE: 03/28/00 RICH SLUTH CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 4311 JAMBOREE ROAD, MIS F04-339 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 AERONAUTICAL STUDY No: 00-AWP-0481-OE PRIOR STUDY No: 00-AWP-0388-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has completed an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Description: BUILDING - 10 STORY OFFICE BUILDING Location: NEWPORT BEACH CA Latitude: 33-39-42.07 NAD 83 Longitude: 117-51-42.20 Heights: 150 feet above ground level (AGL) 200 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1J. This determination expires on 09/28/00 unless: (a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office or (b) the construction is sub3act to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination- In such case the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction or on the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, 04/05/2000 10:42 9494836140 CONEXANT! PAGE bz including increase in heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as r_ranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has.a height greater than the' studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace.by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, br local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communicatior commission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be 310 725-6557 please re: rd Karen Mc Specialis of further assistance, please contact our office at On any future correspondence concerning this matter, 04/06/2000 16:34 9494836140 CONEXANTI I PAGE 02 Federal Aviation Administration Western/Pacific Region, AWP-520 P. O. Box 92007 WWPC Los Angeles, CA 90009 ISSUED DATE: 03/28/00 RICH BLUTH CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. •4311 JAMBOREE ROAD, M/S PO4-339 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 AERONAUTICAL STUDY No: 00-AWP-0388-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has completed an aeronautical study snder the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, 'title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Description: BUILDING - 8-STORY OFFICE BUILDING Location: NEWPORT BEACH CA Latitude: 33-39-40.07 NAD 83 Longitude: 117-51-37.20 Heights: 120 feet above ground level (AGL) 170 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1J. This determination expires on 09/28/00 unless: (a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office or (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction or on the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST'FOR EXTE14SION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST IS DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights,-frequency(ies) or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, 04/06/2000 16:34 9494836140 CONEXANT! PAGE 03 including increase in heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace ,by aircraft and does not relieve the smonsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or r_gulation of any Federal, State, br local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communication: Czmmission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at 310 725-6557. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study -Number 00-AWP-0388-OE. �• LW_.,-. •�/•', �J,�-�-..fir.( - Karen -Mc Dona (DYE) Specialist, Airspace Branch NB -PLANNING DEPT ■ M ID:949-644-3229 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 1763 NEWPORT BCH, CALIFORNIA 9265MOI5 MAY 24'00 11:05 No.002 P.01 To: Joan Golding, Executive Director From James Campbell, Senior Plann Farce 949.252.5290 Pogesr 2 Phones 949.262.5123 Data May 24, 2000 Re: Conexant Project CC: Al Shiroma, Conexant I can be reached by phone at (949) 644-3210 My e-mail address is: icampbell@city.nevport-beach.ce.us 0 Urgent Q For Review ❑ !•loose Comment m Please Reply 0 please Recycle e Comments: Please see the attached letter dated May 23r 2000. The original will follow via first class mall. Conexant is sending a letter of confirmation this morning via fax and malls please look for It. CNB-PLRNNING DEPT. ID:949-644-3229 MRY 24'00 11:05 N0.002 P.02 May 23, 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9265"915 Joan S. Golding, Executive Officer Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: General Plan Amendment and Platmed Community Amendment for the Conexant Project Dear Ms. Golding: The City of Newport Beach is currently processing a request submitted by Conexant Systems, Inc. for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community text amendment which would authorize an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and support office to be constructed at 4311 Jamboree Road. The primary change to the site will be the demolition of an existing large building and the construction of an 8-story and a 10-story office tower. The -City desires a determination of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) in accordance with Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code. The City understands that the Commission is considering requiring that the project be marked or lighted in accordance with ALUC policy as a condition of a finding of consistency with the AELUP. The requirement has been discussed with Conexant, and they are agreeable with this requirement. Conexant has agreed to install and maintain marking or lighting in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1J and ALUC policy if required by the ALUC. If the Commission requires the marking or lighting, the requirement will be included as a mandatory condition of approval within a Development Agreement between the City and Conexant. If this recommended condition of approval is disregarded by the Newport Beach City Council, they will be advised that the project's consistency determination with the AELUP would be in jeopardy. If you have any questions regarding the project, please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 644- 3200 or James Campbell, Senior Planner at (949) 644-3210. Sincerely, Patricia L. Templ'� Director of Planning CC. Al Shiroma, Conexant 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 05/24/2000 11:13 9494836140 CONEXANT! PAGE 02 _ ccc1 G O N E X A N T May 24, 2000 Joan S. Golding, Executive Officer Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Subject: Conexant Proposed Development Dear Ms. Golding: Rich alum P.E. Executive Director F9cl,ces In response to concerns regarding Conexant's proposed new development at 4311 Jamboree Road, Conexant agrees to install and maintain marking or lighting in accordance with the applicable Federal Aviation Authority and Airport Land Use Commission requirement and policies. Conexant understands the City of NewportBeach will a con c make such compliane condition of approval within a Development Agreement between the City and mplianConexa and in concurrence with said conditions. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Al Shiroma at (949) 483-5068 or the undersigned at (949) 483-4593 Sincerely, -CZK&w� Rich Bluth Executive Director Facilities cc: Tim Campbell CONEXANT. Whn•. NS t in CommuniMdom r ohnel glu. CQNCXANT SYSTEMS, INC. • 4311 JemlfOree Rood . Newport Beech, CA 926600C95 Tel 949.483.4593 • Fez 949.483.6140 a tieh.hluthtaocneunteom DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9265&8915 April 14, 2000 Interested Parties and Agencies City of Newport Beach, Planning Department Conexant Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency and had prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Conexant Project. The Draft EIR described the proposed project, and the EIR was made available for public review and comment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Comments that were received by the City in a timely manner have been reviewed and responses to these comments have been drafted. The comments, responses and additional information are contained in the attached Response to Comments document dated April 14, 2000. A copy of the Response to Comments report is available for public review at the following locations: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department Newport Beach Public Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue NewportBeach, CA 92659-8915 NewportBeach, CA 92660 (949) 644-3210 (949) 771-3800 Additional copies of the Response to Comments document can be purchased from the City. These draft responses will be reviewed by the City Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and Planning Commission prior to being forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Specific meeting dates have not been set at this time. If you have any questions regarding the project or city procedures, please call the me at (949) 644-3210 or contact me via e-mail at icampbellna city.newport-beach.ca.us. Sincerely, VV C J es Campbell Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach �E.wvoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: May 18, 2000 o� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 5 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 Appeal Period: N/A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road PURPOSE OF General Plan Amendment No. 96-3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental APPLICATION: Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and continue the hearing to June 8, 2000. LEGAL Lots 1 and 2 of TractNo. 7953 recorded in Map Book 310, Pages 7-11 DESCRIPTION: APN: 445-131-02 & 03 GENERAL PLAN: General Industry ZONE: P-C, Koll Center Newport Planned Community APPLICANT & Conexant Systems, Inc. OWNER: 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Points and Authority Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as General Industry. The existing manufacturing operation and supporting office land uses on the subject property are consistent with this designation. A General Plan amendment to increase the allowable building area is proposed in order to be consistent with the proposed expansion. General Plan amendment procedures and requirements are establishedby City Council Policy K-1. Conformance with the Municipal Code ■ Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. ■ Development Agreement procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code. • Planned Community District procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. it Zoning Code amendment procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.94 of the Municipal Code. Vicinity Map WYS Conexant Project General Plan Amendment No. 96-317, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No.159, Traffic Study No. 110 and Development Agreement Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: Light industrial, manufacturing use with supporting office/lab space North: Office uses South: Office and restaurant uses East: Vacant land and the UCI Child Development Center West: Office and restaurant uses Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 2 of 19 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Conexant Systems, Inc. (formerly known as Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Inc.), proposes the expansion of their existing facility on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. The approximately 25-acre project site is currently developed with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and supporting office space with the remaining area consisting of parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. Parking is currently provided in surface parking lots and vehicular access to the project site is provided via two entrances along Jamboree Road and one entrance along Birch Street. The project site is depicted with a conceptual site plan attached as Exhibit No. 1. The project site is designated for General Industrial land uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and comprises "Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1" within the 179-acre Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The General Plan and Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, which is the adopted zoning document for the project site, allows for the development of 442,775 square feet of building area and provides development standards for the project site. Under the existing Planned Community text, there is less than 5,000 square feet of allowable building area remaining for future development. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and supporting office/lab space, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the -project site. The development of the proposed project would occur over a 20 year time frame based on market demand for the products manufactured on the project site. One existing building would be demolished to make space for three new buildings. The buildings would be ten, eight and two stories in height. A fourth component, a three-story addition to the existing manufacturing building is also proposed. The proposed project would provide for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .93 on the project site. In addition, the proposed project would include special design features that address building setbacks along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. The vehicular access to the project site would continue to be provided via the two existing entrances on Jamboree Road and the one existing entrance on Birch Street. Parking would be provided in surface parking lots and two new parking structures. Buildout of the project is expected over the next 10 years, although the Development Agreement has a 20- year time frame to provide flexibility as actual construction will be tied to market demand. The conceptual site plan attached as Exhibit No. 2 indicates the proposed location of three new buildings, an addition to the existing manufacturing building and two parking structures. It is anticipated that the construction of the eight -story building on the southeastern portion and parking structure A on the northeastern portion of the project site would occur concurrently to provide for adequate parking. In addition, the construction of the ten -story building, the two-story building, and parking structure B on the southwestern portion of the project site would require the removal of the existing 501 building. Parking structure B would be constructed concurrent with the ten -story building to provide for adequate parking. Additional parking would be provided in reconfigured surface parking lots on the project site. The proposed project would include landscaping in planting areas around the buildings and within landscape islands in the surface parking lots. The existing landscape berm and trees along Jamboree Road would be incorporated into the overall landscaping for the proposed project. Exterior building Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 3 of 19 lighting and parking lot lighting consistent with the lighting in the adjacent developments would be providedto allow for safe pedestrian access. Conexant and its predecessors, Collins Radio and more recently Rockwell, have occupied the project site for approximately 40 years. The project site was originally developed under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange, and the City of Newport Beach annexed the property with others in December of 1970. In 1961, Collins Radio constructed an approximately 127,000 square foot administrative and laboratory building referred to as Building 501 on the project site. In 1968, an additional 240,000 square foot two-story building, Building 503, was constructed to house operations that provided highly automated design, fabrication, and testing of multilayer circuit boards, hybrid microcircuits, and metal oxide semiconductors. In 1972, Collins Radio sold the majority of its property to the Koll Company and retained the subject properties and present facilities. In 1972, the City approved a master plan, called Koll Center Newport Planned Community which provided comprehensive zoning for the approximately 179 acres bounded on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road, and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard. This planned community included the subject property and it was designated for light industrial uses to accommodate the existing use of the property. Rockwell International acquired Collins Radio in the early 1970s. In the 1990s, the Semiconductor Division of Rockwell International experienced a tremendous growth in business fueled by sales of modems to support the personal electronics industry. This created a shortage of space on the project site resulting in the need to lease supporting office/lab space within two off -site buildings in Koll Center Newport. In 1995, Rockwell purchased these two off -site buildings, located directly to the west of the project site at 4340 and 4350 Von Karman. A twin -tower building located directly to the southwest of the project site at 4000 MacArthur Boulevard was purchased by Rockwell in 1998. In January 1999, the Semiconductor Division of Rockwell International became the independent company, Conexant Systems, Inc., with the project site serving as its corporate headquarters. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Planning Commission is required to make recommendations to the City Council on the followingitems: ■ Environmental Impact Report No.159 — Certification of the Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act. ■ General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 M — Approval of the proposed increase of the allocated square feet of General Industrial from 442,775 square feet to 1,008,775 square feet for Koll CenterNewport Industrial Site No.1. ■ Zoning Code Amendment No. 898 — Approval of an amendment to Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable building area from 442,775 square feet to 1,008,775 square feet. In addition, the proposed amendment will address setbacks, building height, building footprints, signs, parking and landscaping. Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 4 of 19 Traffic Study No. 110 — Approval of a traffic study and Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for the project. Development Agreement — Approval of an agreement between the applicant and the City relating to development rights, fees, taxes, city benefits, and environmental protection. General Plan The proposed project provides for an expansion of the existing Conexant facility allowing for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and supporting office/lab space with parking facilities and landscaped open space on the project site. Although the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan designation of "General Industrial" for the site, implementation of the proposed project would require an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element text to reflect the increase from 442,775 square feet to 1,008,775 square feet allocated to Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1. Attached as Exhibit No. 3 is a copy of the applicable Land Use Element policies and discussion and an excerpt of the General Plan for the Airport Area (Statistical Area L-4) which indicates the current allowable building area for the project site. With approval of the requested General Plan Amendment, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact related to consistency with the General Plan designation for the proj ect site. The Land Use Element is a component of the General Plan, a comprehensive, long-range planning document. The Land Use Element designates the general location and distribution of land uses and includes standards for population density and building intensity. The primary objective of the Land Use Element is to provide an orderly balance of land uses while preserving and enhancing the City's character and quality of life. To this end, the Land Use Element contains twelve (12) development polices. Therefore, the proposed amendment, in association with the other components of the proposed project, must be evaluated against these polices in order to determine its consistency with the General Plan. A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing light industrial use on a project site that is currently designated for General Industry. The implementation of the proposed project would provide for employment in proximity to residences without resulting in an incompatibility with residential land uses. In addition, the proposed project would not impede the City's efforts to provide schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches, and neighborhood shopping centers in close proximity to each resident of the community. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. B. To insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties, and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To insure that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City, Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 5 of 19 variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip generation characteristics of land uses. The implementation of the proposed project provides for the redevelopment and intensification of the existing Conexant facility on a project site that has had the same land use for over 40 years. The proposed project provides for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit of .93 on the project site that strikes a reasonable balance between land use and traffic volumes so that development is, to the extent feasible, within the projected capacity and levels of service of the circulation system. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. C. Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize traffic congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor. The proposed project is not located near the harbor and does not affect access to the water nor does it impact the residential areas near the harbor. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration ofnatural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. The project site does not contain unique natural resources or natural landforms and development of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. As discussed in the DE1R, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. E. Provisions shall be made for the encouragement or development ofsuitable and adequate sites for commercial marine related facilities so as to continue the City's historical and maritime atmosphere, and the charm and character such businesses have traditionally provided the City. The site is not designated for marine related facilities nor is it located near the harbor, therefore, this policy does not apply. F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to insure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods is maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within, industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project includes special design features that address building set backs along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 6 of 19 massing. The proposed project would include landscaping in planting areas around the buildings and within landscape islands in the surface parking lots. In addition, the existing landscape berm and trees along Jamboree Road would be incorporated into the overall landscaping for the proposed project. The proposed structures would be of a similar height, mass, and building material as the adjacent mid -rise buildings to the northwest, west, and southwest of the project site. In addition, the proposed building height restrictions would ensure visual compatibility with existing adjacent development. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. G. Restrict certain types of land use conversions or forms of ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing, are incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or safetyproblems. The proposed project is not a conversion of a land use but rather an intensification of use. The proposed project does not involve housing nor does it effect the availability of housing as discussed in the housing section of the DEIR. The project is located within the Airport Area and is not in close proximity to residential uses and is compatible with its commercial surroundings. The project's potential impact to police, health and safety issues were analyzed within the public services section of the DEIR and within the hazards and geology section of the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. Project impacts in these areas were determined to be less than significant, and therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. H. Continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil producers and prohibit the construction of new onshore oil facilities except as may be necessary in conjunction with the operation of the West Newport oilfield. The project does not directly or indirectly support offshore oil leases and does not involve on or offshore support facilities, and therefore, Policy H is not applicable to the proposed project. I. Restrict and control development in flood hazard areas. The project site is not located within a flood hazard area according to the Safety Element of the General Plan, and therefore, the policy does not apply to the project. Since the project avoids flood hazard areas, the project is consistent with the implied policy to avoid or minimize new flooding risks. J. City shall aggressively pursue annexation of territory within its sphere of influence with due consideration given to costs and benefits associated with incorporation. Policy J is not applicable to the proposed project because it is already located within the City boundaries and does not affect potential future annexations. K The land use designations and building intensity standards in this Element reflect limits on John Wayne Airport imposed by the Airport Settlement Agreement and the provisions of that Agreement have become an integral part of the land use and planning process of the City of Newport Beach. The City should take all steps necessary to preserve and Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 7 of 19 protect the Agreement, as well as assist in the selection of a second commercial airport which, in conjunction with John Wayne Airport, could serve a majority of the County's short and medium haul demand. The proposed project will not impact the Airport Settlement Agreement or the provisions of that agreement, and will have no effect on the operations of the John Wayne Airport, as there is a daily cap on the number of commercial flights from the airport. Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the proposed 10-story and 8- story buildings pose no threat to air navigation. Therefore, Policy K is not applicable to the proposed project. L. The City shall encourage its community commercial districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its several community commercial districts through the adoption and application of its planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. The proposed PC amendment contains regulations and guidelines that will be applied to all development on the site. These include provisions for the control of setbacks, building height, building footprint, required parking including construction parking, parking structure screening, landscaping, open space and signs. Therefore, approval of the amendment would ensure that the project is consistent with this policy. Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text The Koll Center Newport Planned Community text allows for the development of 442,775 square feet of building area for general industrial uses on the project site. Under the existing Planned Community text, there is less than 5,000 square feet of allowable building area remaining for future development. This site is the only industrial site within the Planned Community. Implementation of the proposed project would require the amendment of the Planned Community text to reflect the increase in the intensity of development from 442,775 square feet of building area to a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. In addition, the amendment of the Planned Community text is required to accommodate the proposed project as identified by the applicant. The text includes regulations addressing several issues and is only applicable to what is identified as Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1. The draft amendment is attached as Exhibit No. 4. ♦ Building site — This section will be simplified to indicate that Industrial Site 1 is 25.043 acres and the reference to Industrial Site 2 which was consolidated within Site 1 in 1989 is removed. There is no change in area from the total area currently designated by the General Plan. ♦ Building area -, This section identifies the building area allocation exclusive of parking structures to be increased from 442,775 square feet to 1,008,775 sq. $. ♦ Required parking — The traffic study prepared by WPA Engineering developed a parking rate of 2.95 spaces per 1,000 square feet of area, which was based upon the characteristics of the existing Conexant facility. Using this ratio, a total of 2976 parking spaces would be necessary for the entire site (1,004,127 square feet * 2.95 = 2962.17 — 2963 spaces). Generally, this type of Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 8 of 19 ratio is applied to net building area, which will be less than the proposed 1,004,127 square feet for the site, and therefore, this total number of spaces is conservative. The proposed standard establishes required parking ratios for the distinct Conexant uses rather than using a 3 space per 1000 square feet of building area. The proposed parking ratios are as follows: Use Required Parking Ratio Manufacturing: 2.0 spaces/1, 000 squarefeet Engineering/labs: 3.0 spaces/1, 000squarefeet Administrative: 3.0 spaces1l,000square feet The project description identifies two types of uses, which are "manufacturing" and "supporting office/lab space" which are not consistent with the terminology used in the proposed standard. Since the "engineering/lab" and "administrative" standards are identical and they encompass the term "supporting office/lab space", the disparity in the terms is not significant. Using the proposed parking ratios and identified use of all the buildings at buildout, a total of 2651 spaces will be required and is calculated as follows: Use Area Parking Ratio Spaces Manufacturing: 361, 705 sq. ft. 2. 0 spaces perl, 000 square feet 723.41 Engineering/labs: 642,422 sq. ft. 3.0 spaces perl, 000 square feet 1927.26 TOTAL: 1,004,127sq.ft. N/A 2651 The difference between the traffic engineer's estimate of parking need and the proposed standard is 312 spaces. This difference is too large to attribute to the difference between net building area and gross building area, as it would be approximately 10% of the project. Although the proposed manufacturing standard is one third less than the existing standard and less than the Traffic Engineer's estimate, the estimate is based upon a conservative 210 square feet per employee rate, which inflates the total. Staff recommends that the proposed parking ratios should be adopted and they will provide a standard to be used as different phases are developed. Staff further recommends that prior to the issuance of the permits for the final phases, a parking utilization study be required to determine if additional parking is required. If deemed necessary, an additional level can be required on the parking structure, which would be subject to the aesthetic controls of the proposed PC amendment. If the facility were abandoned by the applicant and converted to a general office use, additional parking would be required pursuant to the adopted standard for office uses at 3 spaces per 1000 square feet. ♦ Setbacks - The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road is proposed to be 30 feet. In addition, an average building setback across the entire length of the projecVs Jamboree Road frontage is proposed to be a minimum of 40 feet. In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the projects total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks will be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. The applicant proposes that the setbacks are general guidelines that may be waived for individual buildings through the site plan review process, which would be subject to Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 9 of l9 Planning Commission consideration. Staff recommends that the final precise plans be subject -to review by the City before any building permits are issued through the Site Plan Review process or it's equivalent regardless of the setbacks proposed. Landscaping open space — This section identifies site coverage of the 25.04 acre campus as follows: Description Area Percent of total area Building coverage 12.52 acres 50% Parking area and structures 8.71 acres 34.8 % Open space 3.81 acres 15.2 % TOTAL 25.04 acres 100% The existing PC text landscape standards will be applied in an attempt to ensure that the project will be consistent with the surrounding Koll Center. The proposed open space to be landscaped is 15.2% of the overall site and will be located along Jamboree Road and in and around the proposed multi -story towers. The landscape setback will be consistent with the landscaping provided within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. One proposed exception to the landscape standards is to provide a minimum of 5% of the parking area as landscaped area although trees can be bunched rather than be evenly distributed. The current text requires 1 tree for each 5 spaces. Alternatives to this interior landscaping can be perimeter landscape berms, lot depression or other innovative designs subject to City review. Five percent interior landscaping is a reasonable standard that is applied by many cities, but to allow bunching of trees defeats the primary purpose of interior parking lot landscaping. The primary purpose is to provide shade for vehicles and the asphalt, which reduces the heat generated. Shading reduces the "heat island" effect and reduces energy costs of adjacent buildings and vehicles. Additionally, interior landscaping provides aesthetic benefits. Staff recommends that the 5% interior requirement be evenly distributed throughout the parking lots with no alternative and that trees must be included in the plan at regular intervals. This interior standard should only apply to surface lots as opposed to parking structures as plantings in structures is generally unfeasible. Additionally, the perimeter of the parking lots should have berms or shrubs to screen the vehicles from public view and staff suggests that no alternative be permitted. Staff proposes these higher standards in an effort to enhance the project and provide additional energy efficiency and aesthetic benefits. ♦ Building height —The existing PC text restricts structures for this site to 75 feet in height except for a single vertical column 15 feet by 15 feet for the existing air separation plant to be 90 feet high provided it meets increased setback requirements. The proposed amendment will designate three height limitation zones, which are depicted in Exhibit No. 4. The "East Zone" is located generally east ofthe existing buildings extending toward Birch Street and would allow buildings and structures up to 100 feet in height. This area is presently developed with a surface parking lot and loading facilities where a 5-level parking structure is proposed. The 100-foot limit can more than easily accommodate a 5-level parking structure, which would tend to be between 65 to 75 feet in height depending upon design. The applicant requests 100 feet for this area so they might have the flexibility to build the 8-story tower in this Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 10 of 19 general location. Additionally, if an additional level for the parking structure is determined necessary, the height limit will not present an issue. In the event that the 8-story building is constructed in this area, the parking structure planned for this area will need to be incorporated elsewhere on the site consistent with the proposed standards. Placing the 8-story building in this location The "Service Zone" is located to the north of the existing manufacturing buildings and would permit structures up to 75 feet in height. The service zone height limit is identical to the current standard and there are no plans to construct any structures taller than the existing service structures, which are approximately 30 feet in height. The "Central Zone" would cover the balance of the site outside the two previous zones extending to Jamboree Road. This zone would permit buildings and structures up to 150 feet in height. This standard can accommodate the proposed 10-story tower assuming that the design needs 15 feet per floor. The FAA has determined that the locations and building height of the two proposed towers does not pose a threat to air navigation. The building height is comparable to the building height allowable for a majority of the Koll Center Newport PC. This 150-foot height accommodates similar development to the office buildings in the immediate vicinity and the proposed towers will not be out of character or scale to the airport area. Although this zone extends to Jamboree Road, the proposed PC amendment includes increased setbacks which will avoid significant building massing too close to Jamboree Road, and therefore, staff recommends that this standard be adopted. ♦ Parking structure screening — The proposed text requires that parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are screened from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or architectural treatment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider requiring design review of the parking structures when the final plans are developed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structures. ♦ Building footprint — the proposed PC amendment limits the building footprint of any building above 4 stories to 56,000 square feet. Buildings 4 stories or less would be limited to 141,500 square feet, which accommodates the existing development. ♦ Signs — Standards for sign types and locations are proposed and would replace the general standards of the PC text. The existing standards are general and contain provisions for possible multi -tenant designs and do not adequately address signage for a single large tenant such as Conexant with multiple high rise buildings. Building identification signs would be a maximum of 400 square feet and limited to 2 facades per building. Presently there is a maximum allowable sign coverage of 10% of the elevation and a maximum of 200 square feet per sign. The existing PC text does not limit the total number of signs and it has not been an issue in the past, but with a request to double the sign size, a limit of the number of sign may be necessary. On May 11, 2000, the applicant submitted a correction to, the signage section clarifying the intent of the building signs proposed. The 400 square foot limit was chosen as it is the present size of the existing building sign approved with a Modification. After consultation with the applicant, staff understands that the intent is to provide two large Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page l l of 19 building identification signs per high rise tower at the upper floor, and to permit a smaller sign over the building entrance. The applicant proposes to limit the building entrance sign to 35 square feet which staff believes shows restraint and will not be highly visible form the public right of way. Lastly, staff desires the text to be clarified to prohibit signs on the parking structures except for minor directional signs. One "primary" monument sign with copy on each side is proposed for identification purposes along Jamboree Road was proposed and has now been eliminated with the recent change in signage. The applicant also proposed to limit the size of monument signs located at the driveways on Jamboree Road to 50 square feet each side and a maximum height of 10 feet. This standard would make the existing signs nonconforming, so the applicant amended the request to have the signs be 100 square feet each side. Birch street will have a 35 square feet sign with a maximum height of 4 feet. Staff believes that the two Jamboree driveway signs at 10-foot high is excessive as the existing signs are new and just under 7 feet. Staff recommends that the applicants proposed modifications be adopted but that the height of the monument signs on Jamboree Rd. should be limited to 7 feet. The general requirements will not permit any sign to gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion which is consistent with the Koll Center PC text and in good taste. Other miscellaneous directional signs, construction signs or leasing signs are proposed or regulated in a manner consistent with the Koll Center Planned Community. Additionally, the building signs must be flush mounted and may be illuminated either internally or externally. The monument signs located in proximity to the streets would need to be approved by the Traffic Engineer and all signs will require appropriate building and electrical permits with commensurate review by staff. Although the sign criteria are general, the program is not excessive in staffs opinion and provides adequate controls, flexibility and creativity. In summary, the proposed amendment to the Koll Center Newport PC text accommodates the applicant's project although staff recommends that several minor amendments be made which will enhance the project and protect the integrity of the Koll Center Newport PC and the City. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) The City contracted with PCR Services Corporation (PCR) for the preparation of an Initial Study and EIR for the proposed project. The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Within the Initial Study, all environmental factors contained within the Initial Study checklist were analyzed and discussed. Based upon the analysis with the Initial Study, the following environmentaltopics were identified as potentially affected within the implementation of the proposed project and should be addressed in the DEIR: Land Use and Planning, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems and Aesthetics. The remaining issue areas were determined to be affected at either a less than significant level or that the project would have no impact: Population and Housing, Geologic Issues, Water, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Hazards, Cultural Resources and Recreation, PCR then prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 98101090) that focused upon the environmental issues identified as "potentially affected." The Draft EIR was previously transmitted Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 12 of 19 to the Commission. The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45-day review period that began on October 26, 1999 and concluded on January 5, 2000. Comments were received by several responsible agencies and interested parties, which the City is required to prepare written responses for. These comment letters and responses to the comments are contained in the Response to Comments Document that was previously transmitted to the Commission. The DEIR provides a detailed project description and a description of the environmental setting. The document also discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to the CEQA. These alternatives include a "no project" alternative, a "reduced intensity" alternative and an "alternative site location." The following discussion provides a summary of the environmental issues affected by the proposed project that either are potentially significant or potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. (i) Air Quality The air quality analysis looked at estimated air emissions for project construction and operations and uses the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance. Construction impacts were determined to be less than significant due to implementation of best management practices for dust suppression and the fact that the project is phased and construction will not occur at one time. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact due to anticipated mobile source emissions exceeding SCAQMD's significance thresholds for ROC and NO,, from the anticipated additional traffic. The project applicant shall implement Transportation Demand Management measures related to the proposed project. Such measures shall include coordinating transit services to the development through provision of bus stops and turnouts, facilitating bicycle/transit interface, and expanding the existing programs related to emissions off -sets and carpooling/mass transit. The residual impact after implementation of the mitigation measure remains a significant and unavoidable impact. Approval of the proposed project will require a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA. This is a finding that can be made by the City if the Council determines that the project benefits outweigh the negative impacts associated with project approval. A full discussion of the impact analysis is contained in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR. (ii) Transportation/Circulation A traffic study, dated November 1999, was prepared in accordance with the pre -July 1999 Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the EIR. This traffic study also conducted a long range and cumulative impact assessment of the proposed project and the reduced intensity alternative. This traffic study provided the basis for impact analysis contained in the DEIR. Subsequent to the circulation of the DEIR, staff commissioned a second traffic study after it was possible to implement the revised TPO procedures. This second traffic study, dated March 2000, should be used for impact assessment from a CEQA perspective as well as TPO compliance. The second traffic study did not identify any new impacts and in fact, it predicts less severe impacts to area intersections. The major difference in the two studies is the existing traffic count data that is the baseline traffic conditions. The first study used 1997 traffic count data Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 13 of 19 and the March 2000 study used 1999 data that was not available when the first study was begun. One initial step in the impact analysis was to determine the trip generation of the proposed project. The project is specialized' in nature due to the fact that it has elements of manufacturing, office and support lab space and it does not fit any specific trip generation category established by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). The traffic study developed a site specific trip generation rate that is based upon actual trip counts for the existing facility. A request was made by the Commission to compare this trip generation rate with typical office, light industrial and corporate office trip generation rates. The trip generation rate for generic light industrial uses and general office uses is lower than the rate used in the study. The March 2000 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study indicates total daily trip generation for the proposed project at 8,000 average daily trips where the general office land use using 1TE standard #710 would generate 5,000 average daily trips. The corporate office trip generation rate is very similar to the site specific rate, and the decision was made to utilize the site specific rate as it most accurately reflects project characteristics. The use of the site specific trip generation rate further provides a conservative estimate of trip generation as it uses a lower factor of 210 square feet per employee than is typically used (250 square feet per employee). Short term traffic impacts will occur as a result of the project at the following intersections: ♦ Macarthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road Mitigation Measure: a second northbound left turn lane, a second southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane are required to mitigate the project traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Preliminary designs for this intersection improvement have prepared and have been submitted to OCTA for measure Mf rnding: The project is anticipated to be constructed in 2002-2003, After improvement, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the AMpeak hour and LOS D in the PM peakhour. ♦ Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive Mitigation Measure: an additional southbound right turn lane is required to mitigate the project impacts to a less than significant level. This improvement can be accomplished by dropping the bike lane and restriping Irvine Avenue. After Improvement, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS Din the AMpeak hour and LOSE in the PMpeakhour. The long range analysis, which is projected to be the year 2020, included 59 intersections located within the City of Newport Beach and 9 intersections located in the City of Irvine. This analysis projected traffic volumes associated with buiidout of the city under its present General Plan with committed and related projects in addition to the project. Under long range conditions,15 City of Newport Beach intersections and 2 Irvine intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service. Of these intersections, 5 Newport Beach and 2 Irvine intersections show an ICU increase of 0.01 or more attributable to the project. The Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 14 of 19 other intersections are impacted by cumulative traffic, and the project's incremental impact is less than a 0.01 increase in the ICU value and therefore, less than significant. The impacted intersections are: ♦ Campus Avenue and Bristol Street North (Newport Beach) Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures have been ident fed due to right-of- way constraints and acquisition requirements. The proposed project incrementally contributes to the intersection that is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable level of service. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeablefuture projects would result in a significant cumulative impact. ♦ Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive (Newport Beach) Mitigation Measure: Convert the westbound through lane to a combination left/through lane and split phasing. The City will determine the project's fair share of this improvement. The intersection will operate at a satisfactory level of service in both the AM(LOSB) and PM (LOSD) peak hours. ♦ Irvine Avenue and University Drive (Newport Beach) Mitigation Measure: Convert an existing eastbound through lane to a combination left/through lane and split phasing. The City will determine the project's fair share of this improvement. This improvement will mitigate the project, but the intersection will operate at an unacceptable level of service in the PM (LOS E) peak hour. ♦ MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road (Newport Beach) Mitigation Measure: The short term mitigation measure is assumed in the long range analysis and the project impact is mitigated. Additional intersection improvement scenarios are under initial investigation. One possibility is a grade separation but the extent to which it mitigates intersection operation is speculation. A second option is to provide a fourth westbound through lane on Jamboree Rd. at MacArthur Blvd. which will mitigate the project, but the intersection will operate at an unsatisfactory level of service during the PM (LOS E) peak hour. With either option, the City will determine the project's fair share of the approved mitigation measure. ♦ Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North (Newport Beach) Mitigation Measure: The City is investigating a planned on -ramp to the Corona del Mar Freeway known as the JR-5 ramp. The Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North intersection will operate at an acceptable level ofservice with the deletion of this ramp. ♦ Jamboree Road and I-405 NB Ramps (Irvine) Mitigation Measure: The City of Irvine has indicated that there are planned improvements to the intersection which would add a fourth northbound through lane Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 15 of 19 and a westbound free right turn lane. This improvement mitigates the project to an acceptable level ofservice and no mitigation is required. ♦ Jamboree Road and 1405 SB Ramps (Irvine) Mitigation Measure: The City of Irvine has Indicated that there are planned improvements to the intersection that would add a fourth northbound through lane. This improvement mitigates the project to an acceptable level of service and no mitigation is required A third traffic model run was performed within the March 2000 traffic study that included other large, pending projects. Specifically, the model run included the Koll Center Newport, Banning Ranch, Newport Dunes (as submitted) and Newport Center Expansion. Since the analysis included the Newport Center Project that is no longer being pursued and it over estimates the Newport Dunes project and has no planned or future traffic improvements, additional cumulative impacts can not be accurately predicted. This third traffic model run was conducted for informational purposes to be used as a guide for the Planning Commission and City Council in their considerationof all these projects, (III) Noise The noise analysis focuses upon construction, operational and traffic -related noise. Construction and operational noise are expected to be less than significant with adherence to standard city requirements and the noise ordinance. Traffic noise was modeled and project - related traffic in the short and long term analysis is expected to be less than significant. In the cumulative analysis scenario, three roadway segments are impacted where a 3.0 dBA or higher increase is anticipated. The DEIR incorrectly identified these roadway segments. The impacted roadway segments are: Campus Drive between Jamboree Road and Von Karman Avenue, 3.0 dBA increase; Birch Street between Jamboree Road and Von Karman Avenue, 3.6 dBA increase; and Birch Street between Mesa Drive and Bristol Street, 4.6 dBA. In the case of Birch Street between Mesa Drive and Bristol Street, there are residential units located adjacent to the roadway. This roadway segment is within the unincorporated Santa Ana Heights area and is designated for commercial uses, and therefore, the existing residential uses can be considered an interim land use. These residential uses located within commercial districts may not be in existence when the cumulative noise impact is realized. The other roadway segments are within commercial districts in the airport area of Newport Beach with no sensitive land uses. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in a significant cumulative long-term noise impact associated with traffic-relatednoise. The proposed project's incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for this cumulative traffic related noise increase. Again, approval of the proposed project will require a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA. This is a finding that can be made by the City if the City Council determines that the project benefits outweigh the negative impacts associated with project approval. A full discussion of the impact analysis is contained in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIR. Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 16 of 19 Project Alternatives The "no project" alternative would avoid all the impacts attributable to the proposed project, but would not achieve the applicant's goals nor would the City realize any of the potential economic impacts of the proposed project. This alternative is the environmentally superior alternative and should remain under consideration. The "reduced intensity" alternative was assumed to be a buildout of 75% of the proposed project. This alternative would reduce project related impacts to a certain degree, but many of the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and would not be significantly reduced below the proposed project. In regards to traffic, in the short range analysis, the impacts are not significantly reduced and the same mitigation measures would apply. The project will be mitigated as with the "full project" alternative, but the intersections will still operate at unsatisfactory levels of service. In the long range analysis, the reduced intensity alternative will avoid the cumulative impacts to Irvine/University and MacArthur/Jamboree, but the remaining impacted intersections identified will be impacted. The reduced intensity alternative will not achieve the applicant's long term goal to provide for the expected growth of the business, but this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and should be considered. The "alternative site location" option assumed that a similar facility was constructed in the City of Irvine across Jamboree Road, due to the necessity of the proposed project to be in close proximity to the existing manufacturing operation. This option would not avoid the impacts associated with the project and it will not achieve any of the City's economic benefits. The alternative might generate additional congestion with future employees traveling across Jamboree Road to two separate Conexant campuses. This alternative is not environmentallysuperior and should not be considered further. Staff believes that the DEIR has been prepared and processed in full compliance with the CEQA implementing guidelines and that all the environmental factors and evidence have been analyzed and disclosed. Public notice of the DEIR has been provided and the DEIR has been made available for public comment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide a forum for public input upon the adequacy of the document. The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) is reviewing the Responses to Comments Document on May 15, 2000, and their comments will be available at the Planning Commission hearing. If the DEIR proves adequate, staff will recommend that the Planning Commission adopt written findings related thereto, and recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) A traffic study was prepared in accordance with the pre -July 1999 Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the EIR and Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. This traffic study provided the basis for impact analysis contained in the DEIR and Municipal Code compliance. The traffic study identified short term impacts to three area intersections, one of which has no known feasible mitigation measures. With this situation, the City, if it desired to approve the project, would have had to exempt the project pursuant to Section 15.40.030 (3) of the TPO by making a finding that the project benefits outweighed the traffic impacts. After the amendment to the TPO in July, staff was required to Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 17 of 19 amend the traffic model to be consistent with the new TPO procedures. The new TPO procedures were available for implementation in December of 1999, and a new traffic study was commissioned which previously transmitted to the Commission with the Responses to Comments document. This traffic study identified short term impacts to the intersections of MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa. Mitigation measures have been identified which will reduce the project impacts to a less than significant level at both intersections. The previously identified unrnitigatable intersection (Campus/BristolN.), was not made worse by the project in the second study. At the intersection of MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Rd., a second northbound left turn lane, a second southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane will be necessary. After improvement, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and, LOS D in the PM peak hour. At the intersection of Irvine and Mesa, an additional southbound right turn lane is required to mitigate the project impacts. After improvement, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. However, although both intersections operate at a level of service D, the project does not worsen the ICU with the improvements identified. The TPO traffic study calculates the applicant's fair share of the improvement cost to be 25% based upon the TPO methodologies. Payment of this fee is a mitigation measure and is a condition of project approval. The applicant's share of these improvements is estimated to be $125,000 for improvements to Jamboree/MacArthur and $250,000 for improvements to Irvine/Mesa. Prior to the issuance of permits, the improvements must be made; or must be budgeted and committed to the project by the City; or other agencies with jurisdictions must have opened bids for the construction, or the applicant must post bonds. The Traffic Engineer believes that the March 2000 TPO traffic study has been prepared in compliance with the TPO and administrative procedures for implementing the TPO, and recommends approval of Traffic Study No. 110. Development Agreement The City and Conexant are currently negotiating the terms and conditions of a development agreement. Within the basic structure of the agreement, the applicant would be provided assurance that they could develop the project consistent with the project description contained within the EIR over the 20 year term of the agreement. In exchange, Conexant agrees to take steps to increase tax revenue to the City and possibly provide electronic devices to the city that are manufactured by Conexant. Additionally, the conditions of approval including all mitigation measures and traffic mitigation fees will be incorporated into the agreement providing a solid tool for enforcement and monitoring of project compliance. The City has established an informal committee made up of two City Council members, two Planning Commissioners and selected city staff to delve into the details of the agreement with the applicant. A draft of the proposed development agreement is not available as of the writing of this report, and will be forwarded to the Commission when available. Fiscal Impact Analysis City Council Policy F-17 requires that general plan amendments include an economic development component to determine the economic implications of the application. A fiscal impact analysis was conducted for the project that evaluated potential revenues against potential service costs. The increase in service costs are primarily attributable to public safety and are Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 18 of 19 estimated to be $357,200. The analysis estimates that the proposed project will result in increased recurring revenues of approximately $2,468,500 with a net, annual fiscal impact of $2,110,300. A large portion of the increased revenue comes from the establishment of a direct pay tax permit based upon existing transactions which is estimated to be approximately $700,000. The complete fiscal impact report is attached as Exhibit No. 9. The report has been transmitted to the Economic Development Committee for review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and encourage the public to provide input upon the project and EIR. At the conclusion of the evening, the hearing should be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission for further consideration. If directed, staff will conduct further analysis, prepare findings and conditions of approval for future consideration. When available, the draft development agreement will be forwarded for consideration in advance of the next meeting. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director EXHIBITS Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner 1. Existing conceptual site plan 2. Proposed conceptual site plan 3. General Plan, Land Use Element Policies and excerpt for the Airport Area (Statistical Area L-4) 4. Draft Koll Center Newport Planned Community text amendment 5. Environmental Impact Report No. 159 and Technical Appendix (previously transmitted)` 6. Responses to Comments document (previously transmitted)* 7. Traffic Study No. 110 (previously transmitted)* 8. Draft DevelopmentAgreement (unavailable as of the printing of this report) 9. Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. Copies are available for public review in the Planning Department Conexant Project May 18, 2000 Page 19 of 19 OiWNHiiQf'r`Wf44H .,�III�„ `:� r "� YIftRI'Jmim'J uu ; I, , r v 'I _ ) aaa•c " uvuuuunuuuul .... m j w = aluoa ) anauaaa t`am ..,tnnmm _ nowvaaaawr j)i aaneaamlm j Wow u, amnnnunm m r , a nn rtr1 s� = I I I iIRiIIIillliiliR HfR e nn n nnn m r nnmm� S / = � 1IrILIiflIIIIIWIIURIIRiRii Rl�! LIC •^ lrlllr l,rtlBiilliiilr Irf�ffjl jjf(.� _ nunn•urum mnn I It. I'll n rl Jlllli1111i,1}IIII(rt C f C 0 N E X A N T SITE PLAN ' EXISTING CONDITIONS Newport Beach, Caftnua s n—� ��,yw 0 A • a /'° R.°- {ram ) fiff o f o .e F" y —_ � C O N E X A N T coc:::�- 4 �BBiO11T xsmBr JAYBWFEPOb C•] SxxBUlAl10 msm�axsroBY WIMOP BU PYWHB BELOW ExelllAExnrc 1 ?J Development Policies The primary objective of this Land Use Element is to provide for an orderly balance of residential, retail, commercial and public service facilities located to insure easy and convenient access to basic services, with an emphasis on preserving and enhancing the unique beauty, character, charm and quality of life found in the various residential and commercial villages in the City of Newport Beach. The policies and implementationmeasures necessary to achieve this objective are as follows: Policy A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. DISCUSSION The Land Use Element seeks to locate shopping centers recreational facilities and other uses required of the public in close proximity to each resident of the community. An appropriate mix of land uses will minimize traffic by reducing total vehicular miles traveled. Reductions in peak hour traffic can be achieved through programs by which employers, through subsidies or other incentives, encourage employees to reside close to the place of employment. While such programs may be difficult to develop and implement, they represent one of the limited number of potential solutions to peak hour traffic problems and warrant further study. Certain uses, such as senior citizen housing facilities, and recreational facilities, support community needs, but do not easily fit into one of the major land use categories. These uses may be appropriate in any zoning district, subject to controls, if traffic generated by the project is no greater than the predominate use allowed in the area, will not otherwise adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the community. IMPLEMENTATION Study and evaluate programs for the development of employee housing close to the place of employment. 2. Permit certain land uses which support community needs, such as senior citizen housing facilities and recreational facilities in any zoning district provided that the proposed project does, not generate more peak hour traffic than that which would result from the designated land use at maximum density, and provided further that, to the extent permitted by state law, the project is approved pursuant to a use Land Use Element Page 4 -T= I permit to insure that any unique characteristics of the structure or use proposed for the propertywilt not adversely affect adjoining or nearby land uses. City shall prepare specific area plans for the commercial/retail sections of Old Corona del Mar, Old Newport Boulevard, and Central Balboa with the view towards retention of uses that serve adjoining and nearby residential areas. Policy A To insure redevelopmentof older or underutilizedproperties, and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To insure that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City, variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip generation characteristics of land uses. [GPA 96-1(A)]. DISCUSSION Traffic projections described and discussed in the report prepared by Austin Foust are based upon the additional growth authorized in this Element and the trip generation characteristics of the various uses that make up the four major land use categories. Analysis of existing development suggests that retail and commercial areas typically generate 36 average daily trips for each 1,000 square feet of building area. Certain commercial and retail uses generate more average daily trips than others. For example, restaurants and fast food outlets generate 6 to 10 times more P.M. peak traffic than hotel or motel uses. General office more than 3 times the A.M. peak hour traffic than restaurant uses. Mini -marts generate more average daily trips than any use, but the trips are spread out during the day with little impact on peak hour traffic. To insure an appropriate mix of uses which will not overburden the circulation system, floor area limits should be based, within limits, on the trip generation characteristics of land uses. However, the City must exercise strict control over both the size of the structure and uses permitted to insure the trip generation characteristics of the project do not exceed those anticipated for the "base Floor Area Ratio" linuts established by this element. IMPLEMENTATION The building intensity standards specified in this element establish a base floor area ratio within commercial areas and these limits shall be maintained except as provided in this policy. 2. The City shall establish a variable floor area limits based upon the trip generation characteristics of land uses. The variable floor area ratio limits shall be based upon the following criteria: Land Use Element Page 5 a. The "base FAR" sets a square footage amount for the site or statistical area based on the estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rate and the number of weekday vehicle trips during peak traffic hours .These factors shall establish the "Traffic Generation Limit" for the site or statistical area in question. b. Land uses with significantly higher than average estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rates or with a significantly high number of vehicle trips during peak traffic hours shall be limited to a reduced FAR calculated pro rata on trip generation characteristics C. Land uses with significantly lower than average estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rates or with a significantly low number of vehicle trips during peak traffic hours shall be increased to a maximum FAR calculated pro rata on trip generation characteristics. d. Individual properties may be allowed to exceed the base FAR up to the maximum FAR established for the statistical area in which the property is located if the mix of existing and approved land uses does not exceed the statistical area's base FAR and if there are no undeveloped or underdeveloped properties of sufficient size which, if developed, would cause the statistical area's base FAR to be exceeded. e. The "base FAR" established for a statistical area can be exceeded up to a the "maximum FAR" if it can be demonstrated that the traffic generated from the proposed use does not exceed the "traffic generation limit" either in terms of total or peak hour trips. The increased FAR would be subject to: 1) Discretionary review by the City; and 2) A finding that the building tenants would be restricted to the uses upon which the traffic equivalencywas based; and 3) A finding that the increased FAR does not cause abrupt scale relationships with the surrounding area; and 4) The recordation of a restrictive covenant which would bind future owners to the low trip generation uses which justified exceeding the base FAR. Land Use Element Page 6 a5 Policy C. Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize traffic congestion and parkingshortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor. DISCUSSION Newpores bay and ocean beaches attract millions of visitors each year. The City's policies with respect to public access to, and use of, the beach, bay, and the visitor serving facilities nearby are regulated primarily by provisions in the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. The policies in this element are to be interpreted and implemented in a manner consistentwith the provisions of the Local Coastal Program. The residents of Newport Beach have, for many years, expressed concern about heavy summer weekend traffic, especially on Balboa Peninsula, and localized congestion in and around the more intensely developed waterfront areas such as Lido Marina Village and Mariner's Mile. Traffic congestion and the absence of available parking makes it difficult for visitor and resident alike to access the beach and bay and enjoy the many activities along the waterfront. The City intends to insure that visitor serving facilities provide adequate off-street parking to accommodate their -customers and clients and thereby insure as many parking spaces as possible will be available to the public. The City has also embarked upon a program to insure the highest quality of water in the bay and along our ocean beaches. Newport Harbor is heavily used by recreational boaters and this, combined with a rapid increase in commercial activities, has created both congestion within the Harbor and increased the potential for discharge of human waste directly into the bay. Efforts to minimize the potential for discharge of human waste into the Bay and to control commercial operations to insure a pleasant environmentfor visitors and residents must continue and intensify if the need arises. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Residential and commercial structures (except piers and docks used exclusively for berthing of vessels) shall not be permitted to encroach beyond the bulkhead line. 2. The City shall maintain, to the maximum extent permitted by law, control over commercial activities conducted in the harbor to ensure, among other things, that such businesses provide adequate parking to accommodate their customers and clients and provide adequate marine sanitation facilities to minimize pollution of the bay. Regulations shall extend to all businesses, whether or not operating from a fixed place of business. 3. The City shall establish restrictions on the number of persons permitted to live Land Use Element Page 7 n") c-,G aboard vessels assigned to moorings installed over City tidelands. The City shall also consider the adoption of ordinances regulating or restricting the number of commercial activities conducted on the waters of Newport Bay if and when problems associated with such activity, such as parking, marine sanitation and noise adversely affect the quality of the marine environment. Policy D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. DISCUSSION Newport Beach has developed around and along extremely unique and valuable land forms and resource areas. The City's charm and character, as well as the value of residential and commercial property, are all tied to preserving, protecting, and enhancing Upper and Lower Newport Bay, the oceanfront beaches, and other valuable resources within the City. The City's commitment to preservation and enhancement of these areas is demonstrated by its role in the Upper Newport Bay restoration project. The City was the lead agency in both the developmentand administrationof this project. The natural resources within the City should be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Given the value of ocean or bayfront property, there is constant pressure to develop property in and around the bay and beaches. While the City remains committed to protect private property rights, it is also committed to regulate the placement of buildings and structures in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. INTLEMENTATION Location of Structures 1. Development of Coastal Bluff Sites. Natural coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. As used in this Section, "coastal bluff' is any natural landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a coastal bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistentwith the purposes of this regulation. 2. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments proposed for coastal bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations: Land Use Element Page 8 ,�q a. The following regulations apply to all building sites on existing subdivided lots, and residential subdivisions containing less than four units: 1) Grading. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of geologic hazard, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit until the applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers shall be recorded with the County Recorders Office. 2) Geologic Report. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as a part of any developmentplan. 3) Shoreline Protective Devices. In the event of an impending or existing natural disaster or other emergency, a property owner, upon the approval of a building and/or grading permit by the City Grading Engineer and Building Official, may install temporary shoreline protective devices, material, or other suitable construction to protect a coastal bluff. Prior to the approval of a building and or grading permit for the construction or installation of the emergency protective device or material, the City Attorney shall approve as to form and content a document signed by the property owner stipulating that said material or devices will be removed im- mediately upon the termination of the threat to the property. In addition, said agreement will also provide for the waiver of all claims and indemnify the City against liability for any damage resulting from approval to 'install said emergency protective material or devices. The property owner may elect to apply for the appropriate local and state permits to retain the protective material or devices after the threat to the property no longer exists, in which case the agreement shall be modified to state that upon exhaustion of all local and state administrative procedures to retain said material or devices, said material or devices will be removed in the event that the appropriate applications are denied. b. In addition to the regulations set forth above, the following regulations apply to all new tracts and subdivisions. If the development is residential in nature, these regulations will apply to all new subdivisions containing four or more units. 1) Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, shall be Land Use k'iement Page 9 provided in all new development. As a general guideline, property lines shall be set back from the edge of the bluff no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge of the bluff. In addition, there shall be a building setback of 20 feet from the bluffside property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section. 2) Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There,are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. For the most part, these are water -associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The following environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below: 1) Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive 2) Natural riparian areas 3) Freshwater marshes 4) Saltwater marshes 5) Intertidal areas 6) Other wetlands 7) Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentallysensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private Land Use Element Page 10 ,)-q property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentallysensitive habitat or riparian area. 3. Geologic HazardAreas. There are areas within the City of Newport Beach that the natural geological processes can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. These areas contain earthquake faults, existing or potential landslides, areas with expansive or collapsible soil, excessive settlement and subsidence, and areas subject to potential erosion and siltation. The following policies shall apply to all areas ofpotential geologic hazard: a. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard, except as provided in Section b. below. b. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an area of potential geologic hazard. 4. Residential Areas Impacted by Noise Levels Greater than 65 CNEL. Due to noise sources such as roadways and aircraft overflights, certain residential areas are impacted by exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. The following policies shall apply to residential subdivisions of four or more units where the existing or future exteriornoise levels are greaterthan 65 CNEL: a. No new residential development shall be permitted within any area where the noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL, unless the environmental process identifies specific mitigation measures that result in exterior areas of any residence, such as patios and other public and private recreation areas, being mitigated to less than 65 CNEL. b. In addition to mitigating exterior noise levels to less than 65 CNEL, all interior portions of a residence shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Land Use Element Page 11 30 Policy E. Provisions shall be made for the encouragement or development of suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine related facilities so as to continue the City's historical and maritime atmosphere, and the charm and character such businesses have traditionally provided the City. DISCUSSION The Land Use Plan of the City's Local Coastal Program contains the policies and implementation measures necessary and appropriate to maintain and develop coastal dependent and coastal related uses. The contents of this document should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the revisions of the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. The City has demonstrated its commitment to preserve and enhance the marine environment by adopting and implementing the Cannery Village, McFadden Square Specific Area Plan and the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan. IMPLEMENTATION Continue to implement provisions of the Mariners' Mile and Cannery Village - McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. 2. Cooperate with property owners and other agencies relative to requests for designation of certain structures to be of historical significance. Policy F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergroundingof utilities and other development standards to insure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods is maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within, industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistentwith the public health, safety and welfare. DISCUSSION The City of Newport Beach contains a wide variety of residential communities. The older residential neighborhoods in Old Corona del Mar, on Balboa Island, and on Lido Isle are characterized by relatively small lots; the close grouping of residential units and older structures, all set in unique geographical areas characterized by natural beauty and charm. Many of the newer residential communities, located inland from the Bay, have been developed under the Planned Community concept with special setback, open space and height restrictions which distinguish one project from another. In all communities, an Land Use EMment Page 12 effort has been made to control the height, bulk and location of structures within these communities to preserve their character and charm and the following implementation measures will further that goal. The City has adopted development standards which are intended to insure that new and existing projects are compatible with surrounding land uses. Development and redevelopmentpatterns within existingneighborhoods may require periodic revision to the development standards to insure they are as effective as possible in preserving the village atmosphere without creating an undue burden on the property owner and his or her ability to generate housing for all economic segments of the community. IMPLEMENTATION 1. The City shall maintain, and amend as appropriate, development standards pertaining to height, setbacks, building, bulk, open space, and other criteria that are consistent with each unique residential area, to insure that new development and redevelopment within these neighborhoods does not create abrupt scale relationships between new and existing structures, does not create a "storefront" streetside appearance and does not otherwise adversely affect the character of the area. 2. The City shall evaluate building bulk, setback, height and open space requirements for the older, but redeveloping, neighborhood of Old Corona del Mar. 3. The City shall adopt and/or maintain ordinances which, to the maximum extent permitted by law, regulate or restrict the placement of permanent and temporary signs, radio antennas, satellite dishes, and other visually obtrusive objects the presence of which can alter the character of residential and commercial neighborhoods. 4. The City shall maintain, and monitor the effectiveness of, the existing ordinance which regulates the location of adult businesses, massage parlors and escort services in relation to residential uses, educational facilities, churches, etc. 5. Maintain, and revise, if necessary, those ordinances which regulate the operational characteristics of certain uses, such as restaurants, service stations, and entertain- ment establishments, which by their nature may create noise, traffic and parking problems in their immediate area. Land Use Element Page 13 Policy G. Restrict certain types of land use conversions or forms of ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing, are incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or safety problems. DISCUSSION As more fully discussed in the Housing Element, the City has a duty to provide housing for all economic segments of the community. A large proportion of the City's low -and moderate -income housing stock is in the form of multi -family rental units. Given the high cost of land in the City of Newport Beach there is economic pressure to convert rental units to condominium or cooperative form of ownership. In the absence of regulations, it is likely that the existing multi -family rental stock would suffer substantial reductions. Certain forms of ownership, by their nature, present unique issues. Time-share projects differ in many aspects from other transient visitor facilities in types of construction, forms of ownership, patterns of use, occupancy, and commercial management. These unique features can have effects on both the areas immediately adjacent to the time- share and the City as a whole. Another significant issue involves the loss of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues associated with time-share development or conversions. Consequently, special land use and property development regulations for time-share developments are necessary. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Maintain the restrictions on conversions of multi -family dwellings to a condominium form of ownership unless the vacancy rate of rental units within the City of Newport Beach exceeds 5%. 2. Time-share projects shall address potential impacts to adjacent properties during the marketing phase of the project. 3. Time-share projects shall guarantee the future adequacy, stability, and continuity of a satisfactory level of management and maintenance of a time-share project. 4. Time-share projects shall be approved only in conjunction with a development agreement and pursuant to terms that. do not adversely impact the City's fiscal ability to provide a high level of municipal services. Land Use Element Page 14 Policy H. Continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil producers and prohibit the construction of new onshore oil facilities except as may be necessary in conjunction with the operat lonof the West Newport oil field. DISCUSSION The City of Newport Beach and other coastal communities in Southern California have long opposed the federal government's offshore oil leasing programs. The City and its residents rely heavily on the bay and oceanfront beaches for recreation and much of the City's economy is based upon its natural resources. Development of offshore tracts poses the threat of significant oil spills and resulting ecological damage. The presence of offshore oil facilities a few miles off the coast is aesthetically unpleasing much like a billboard on a scenic public highway. The City's efforts in the past have been successful but new federal leasing programs are now being proposed. It is important to monitor the federal government's action, to comment where appropriate, and to inform responsible agencies of the City's opposition to offshore oil development. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Preserve, and strengthen if necessary, the current prohibition on the construction of onshore oil processing, refining or transportation facilities, including facilities designed to transport oil produced from offshore tracts. 2. Continue to monitor the federal government's offshore oil leasing programs to insure the City and its citizens are fully aware of all proposed offshore activities, which could adversely affect the coastal environment, including participation in the Local GovemmentCoordination Program or other similar programs. 3. Oppose and lobby against proposed lease sales off the coast of Orange County and elsewhere in the Southern California region, which could adversely affect the envirorm entor the economy of the City of Newport Beach and assist jurisdictions in other areas of the state which are opposed to offshore lease sale programs in their vicinity. Policy I. Restrictand control development in flood hazard areas DISCUSSION The State Zoning & Planning Act requires the Land Use Element to identify areas covered by the Plan which are subject to flooding and requires annual review of all such areas. Land Use Element Page 15 Relatively few portions of the City of Newport Beach are situated within potential flood hazard zones and those areas are depicted by the map at the end of the Element. IMPLEMENTATION Require hydrologic analysis for all projects located within flood hazard areas. 2. Periodically review the Emergency Disaster Plan to insure adequate ability to respond to flooding. Policy City shall aggressively pursue annexation of territory within its sphere of influence with due considerationgiven to costs and benefits associated with incorporation. DISCUSSION Three large unincorporated areas are located within the City's sphere of influence. The City has repeatedly expressed its interest in annexing Irvine Company owned property southerly and easterly of Corona del Mar (the Down Coast). This area is currently uninhabited and the decision to annex is presently in the hands of the property owner. The City is willing and able to render all forms of municipal service to this area, as well as guarantee, to the extent possible, completion of the development plan which has been approved by the City of Newport Beach, the County of Orange, Friends of the Coast and other environmental groups, as well as the Coastal Commission. The City has expressed an interest in annexing the large undeveloped area that lies northerly of Oxbow Loop and easterly of the Santa Ana River Channel. This territory is also uninhabited and annexation to the City of Newport Beach must be approved by the property owner. Again, the City is willing and able to provide all necessary municipal services if and when annexation is to occur. The third large area within the City's sphere is Santa Ana Heights. This territory is inhabited but certain obstacles to annexation now exist and the decision to annex will ultimately be made by the residents. IMPLEMENTATION 1. The City shall take all steps necessary to annex the coastal strip southerly of the current corporate limits between the ocean and City of Irvine. A pre -annexation agreement which would guarantee completion of the plan approved by the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, Friends of the Coast, and other environmental groups should be actively considered. 2. The City shall be receptive to proposals to annex the large parcel northerly of Land Use Element Page 16 Oxbow Loop. 3. Annexationof the Santa Ana Heights area should be pursued once the Mesa/Birch alignment has been determined and City concerns relative to water rights and other public facilities have been resolved. Policy K. The land use designations and building intensity standards in this Element reflect limits on John Wayne Airport Imposed by the Airport SettlementAgreement and the provisions of that Agreement have become an integral part of the land use and planningprocess of the City of Newport Beach. The City should take all steps necessary to preserve and protect the Agreement, as well as assist in the selection of a second commercial airport which, in conjunction with John Wayne Airport, could serve a majority of the County's short and medium haul demand. DISCUSSION In 1985 the City, County, SPON and AWG entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement which authorized limited expansion of John Wayne Airport. This Agreement was a culmination of six years of litigation during which more than $2,000,000 was spent by the City protecting the interest of its residents. The limits imposed by the Agreement run through the year 2005 and have been fully considered in establishing the land use designation and building intensity standards for all parcels within the City of Newport Beach. The City recognizes that John Wayne Airport is now, and will always be, incapable of meeting all of Orange County's air transportation demand. The City should assist in the selection of a site for a second commercial airport which, in conjunctionwith John Wayne Airport, could serve a majority of the County's short and medium haul demand for air transportation. IMPLEMENTATION Preserve and protect the integrity of the airport settlement agreement. 2. Actively encourage all responsible agencies to promptly pursue the selection and development of a second commercial airport capable of serving a substantial portion of the County's short and medium haul air transportationdernand. Policy L. The City shall encourage its community commercial districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its Land Use Element page 17 several community commercial districts through the adoption and application of its planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. DISCUSSION: Importance. In addition to necessary goods and services, community commercial districts provide identity to the City's villages, foster a sense of community, and offer a center for socializing and public events. Community commercial districts provide employment and income opportunities as well as municipal revenue to support essential services. Revitalization. Considering their importance, the City's community commercial districts should receive to the greatest extent practicable the same support and advantages provided in privately managed malls and government redevelopment areas to keep pace with customer preferences and changes in retail marketing. This includes a variety of programs typically included within municipally sponsored revitalization efforts such as upgraded design, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, vehicle access, parking management programs, flexibility in building use, marketing research, joint advertising, and proactive and selective tenant recruitment to achieve optimum tenant mix. The goal of revitalization is to increase resident support of community commercial areas and to increase the number and spending power of visitors and tourists needed to support the City's large amount of commercial building space. Revitalization will attract specialty stores away from malls and outlets and provide the City's many restaurants with amenities in addition to the ocean and bay. Revitalization will help the City's businesses compete with inland shopping areas by providing the broad range of goods and services needed to attract high spending shoppers. Revitalization will increase commercial occupancy, raise the level of building maintenance, decrease City service costs while increasing revenues and add value to surrounding residential areas. Promise and Potential. Throughout the nation, revitalized historic commercial districts with charm and character create both pride and profits. These aspects of Newport Beach community commercial districts, coupled with their proximity to the ocean and bay, provide unique benefits unavailable to other cities. With these advantages and proper management, Newport Beach commercial districts can compete effectively with those in other cities to better serve the City's residents. IMPLEMENTATION Guidelines. 1. The City desires to promote quality community commercial areas that reflect the City's attractive, enjoyable and valuable residential areas. Attractive in the sense of architecturally and aesthetically stylish with enduring designs, materials and Land Use Element Page 18 landscaping. Enjoyable in the sense of both pride of ownership and compatibility with neighbors and community goals. Valuable in the sense of both market price and municipal revenue. 2. The City recognizes that its regulations and requirements have a significant effect on the success and the viability of commercial districts and individual businesses. 3. The City recognizes that its community commercial districts are village -like and thus pedestrian and outdoor oriented and that enhancement of these attributes is necessary for successful revitalization. 4. The City recognizes that the older and historic buildings within its community commercial districts often require special consideration and concessions. 5. The City recognizes that "Looking Good is Good Business" and that well designed and maintained business districts are the most successful. 6. The City recognizes that to be successful its business districts must appeal to residents, visitors and tourists. 7. The City recognizes that the success of community districts may require that commercial space be consolidated into central cores. Organization and Financing 1. The City shall promote and support the formation of Business Improvement Districts, Merchant Associations and similar organizations within community commercial districts to provide financial, marketing and management assistance, 2. The City shall encourage and support the formation of assessment and parking districts and shall pursue grants, public/private partnerships, low interest loans and other mechanisms to finance public and private improvements. Planning and Building The City shall encourage and support design projects to create architectural themes for individual business districts. The City shall adopt or amend Specific Area Plans, sign codes and other ordinances to implement approved designs. 2. The City shall encourage the refurbishment, remodeling and modest expansion of older, nonconforming buildings within community commercial districts by grandfathering such nonconforming uses when feasible and practicable. 3. The City shall continually seek to streamline its permitting processes to Land Use Element Page 19 minimize paperwork and shorten time frames including the requirements for obtaining Use Permits. 4. The City shall review its onsite vehicle parking requirements within community commercial districts and consider district -wide parking solutions which takes into consideration the needs of visitors and surrounding residents. 5. The City shall, in the application of its codes and regulations, give special consideration to the needs of restaurants in recognition of the high level of benefits they provide to the local economy. 6. The City shall utilize the less stringent historical building codes whenever feasible and practicable to promote the restoration of older commercial buildings. 7. The City shall consider density bonuses or other incentives to encourage conversion of commercial structures which are peripheral to the central core. Such conversions may include bed and breakfast inns, churches, schools, boat facilities, multifamily residential and similar establishments which are compatible with commercial uses and which provide a reasonable economic return to land owners. 8. The City shall review uses permitted within commercial areas adjacent to residential areas to provide more resident serving and resident compatible uses. 9. The City shall consider variance and exemption procedures for the Assistant City Manager/Community and Economic Development, the Planning Commission and the City Council to provide for unique or unforeseen circumstances which may unduly penalize quality projects. Public Works 1. The City shall approve designs for streets, sidewalks, and other public improvements to complement the pedestrian orientation of its community commercial districts. 2. The City shall review its capital improvement programs for their impacts on the pedestrian orientation and other important aspects of community commercial districts. 3. The City shall approve encroachments or rental agreements in the public right of way when practicable and feasible to foster commercial building restoration, outdoor dining and other techniques to support revitalization of community commercial districts. [GPA 95-1(C)] Land Use Element Page 20 ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICALAREA W Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 1-1. AF Area 1 50 50 0 0 0 0 1-2. AF Area 2 53 53 0 0 0 0 1-4. AF Area 4 0- 500 500 0 0 0 1-5. AFArea 5 39 39 0 0 0 0 1-6. AFArea 6 54 54 0 0 0 0 1-7. AFArea 7 59 59 0 0 0 0 1-8. AF Area 8 168 168 0 0 0 0 2.1. NF Area 1 0 0 0 74,692 148,041 73,349 2-2. NFArea 2 0 2 2 100,930 357,890 256,960 2-3. NF Area 3 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 24. NFArea 4 0 300 300 0 0 0 2.5. NP Area 5 849 849 0 0 0 0 2-6. NF Area 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 San Diego Creek North 0 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 4 Jamboree/MacArthur 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 TOTAL 1,272 2,074 802 175,622 805,931 630,309 Population 2,519 4,561 2,040 ReVIW O302M1907 Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) i. Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The area is identified as the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Areas described are the same as those defined in the Planned Community Text. (see Map 7) All development limits exclude parking. 1-1. KCN Office Site A. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allowed 403,346 sq. ft. plus 471 hotel rooms. 1-2. KCN Office Site A This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allowed 1,060,898 sq. ft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-3. KCN Office Site C. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 734,641 sq.ft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. Land Use Element Page 83 1-4. KCN Office Site D. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 250,149 sq.ft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-5. KCN Office Site E. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 32,500 sq.ft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-6. KCN Office Site F. This site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is allocated 34,500 sq.ft. This site may also accommodate separate office uses. 1-7. KCN Office Site G. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 81,372 sq.ft. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 1-8. KCN Industrial Site 1. This site is designated for General Industry and is allocated 442,775 sq.ft. 1-9. KCN Retail and Service Site 1. This site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial and is allocated 102,110 sq.ft. 1-10. Court House. This site is designated for Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities and is allocated 90,000 sq.ft. 2. Newport Place. Newport Place is bounded by Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. The area is identified as the Newport Place Planned Community. The areas described are not the same as those defined on the Planned Community Text map, but are a compilation of the area on a block -by -block basis, with more precise site allocations made in the Planned Community Text. All development limits exclude parking. 2-1. NP Block A. Block A is bounded by Corinthian Way, MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. Parcel 1, containing 6.3 acres is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use, with a 349 room hotel permitted. Parcel 2, with 2.4 acres, is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land uses other than hotel, with a maximum gross building floor area of 31,362 square feet [GPA 90-3 (A)]. 2-2. NP Block B. Block B is bounded by Birch Street, Corinthian Way, Scott Drive and Dove Street. The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and 11,950 sq.ft. is allowed. 2-3. NP Block C. Block C is bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, MacArthur Boulevard Newport Place Drive and Dove Street. The site is designated for Retail and Land Use Element Page 84 Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 457,880 sq.ft. 2-4. NP Block D. Block D is bounded by Birch Street, Dove Street, Westerly Place and Quail Street. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 288,264 sq.ft. 2-5. NP Block P. Block E is bounded by Westerly Place, Dove Street and Quail Street. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 834,762 sq.ft. 2-6. NP Block F. Block F is bounded by Newport Place Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Bowsprit Drive and Dove Street. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 201,180 sq.ft. 2-7. NP Blocks G & H. Block G & H are bounded by Birch Street, Quail Street, Spruce Street and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 295,952 sq.ft. 2-8. NP Block L Block I is bounded by Spruce Street, Quail Street, Dove Street and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is allocated 100,618 sq.ft. plus 7.63 acres for auto•center use [GPA 93-2 (E)l 2-9. NP Block J. Block J is bounded by Dove Street, Bowsprit Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Retail and Service Commercial land use. The site is allocated 204,530 sq.ft. plus 3.0 acres for auto center use. 3. Campus Drive. This area is bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street and Bristol Street North. The area is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use. The maximum allowed floor area ratio is 0.5/0.75. Land Use Element Page 85 ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in dues) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 1-1. KCN OS A 0 0 0 874,346 874,346 0 1-2. KCN OS B 0 0 0 1,060,898 1,060,898 0 1-3. KCN OS C 0 0 0 734,641 734,641 0 1-4. KCN OS D 0 0 0 250,176 250,176 0 1-5. KCN OS E 0 0 0 27,150 32,500 5,350 1-6. KCN OS F 0 0 0 31,816 34,300 2,484 1-7. KCN OS G 0 0 0 81,372 81,372 0 1-8. KCN IS I 0 0 0 377,520 442,775 65,255 1-9. KCNRS 1 0 0 0 52,086 102,110 50,024 1-10. Court House 0 0 0 69,256 90,000 20,744 2-1. NP BLK A 0 0 0 349,000 380,362 31,362 2-2. NPBLKB 0 0 0 10,150 11,950 1,800 2-3. NP BLK C 0 0 0 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4. NP BLK D 0 0 0 274,300 288,264 13,964 2-5. NP BLK E 0 0 0 834,762 834,762 0 2-6. NP BLK F 0 0 0 192,675 201,180 8,505 2-7. NP BLK G& H 0 0 0 255,001 295,952 40,951 2-8. NP BLK I 0 0 0 160,578 160,578 0 2-9. NP BLK J 0 0 0 190,500 228,530 38,030 3. Campus Drive 0 0 0 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL 0 0 0 6,922,916 7,824,303 901,387 Population 0 0 0 Land Use Element EXHIBIT "C" PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AMENDMENTS The Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are hereby amended as follows: 1. Part I, Section I, is amended to read as follows: PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. Site 1: 25.043 acres B. Allowable Building Area (Exclusive of Parking Structures) Site 1: 1,008,775 square feet C. Parking Criteria D. Site 1: Building Use Category Manufacturing Engineering/Labs Administrative Landscaped Open Space Site 1: Parking Requirements 2.0 spaces/1,000 square feet 3.0 spaces/1,000 square feet 3.0 spaces/1,000 square feet Building Site Coverage.............12.52 acres Parking Area and Structures ....... 8.71 acres Open Space ............3.81 acres Area...........................................25.04 acres OC poCSN83148.2IW971 2. Part I, Section V., is added to read as follows: Section V. Special Features The following guidelines shall apply unless otherwise waived through the site plan review process: Jamboree Road Setbacks The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. 2. Parking Structure Guidelines Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive architectural treatment to give the appearance of an occupied building structure rather than a parking structure. 3. Building Footprints Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 141,500 square feet. 4. Temporary Parking During Construction Phases Temporary parking on an off -site location with provisions for shuttle buses to Site 1 will be provided as needed during construction to meet parking demand. oC_UOCSU 83148.2 IW971 4-1/ 3. Part I, Section IV.C., is amended to read as follows: A. Buildine Heieht Site 1 has been divided into three building height zones, as depicted in Exhibit C-1 and described below: Central Zone (existing Buildings 503 and 501) East Zone (east of existing Building 503) Service Zone (north of existing Buildings 503 and 501) Building heights of structures shall be limited as follows by height zone: Central Zone ................ one hundred fifty (150) feet (10 stories) East Zone ................... one hundred (100) feet (G stories) Service Zone ................ seventy-five (75) feet 3. Part I, Section IV.F., is amended to read as follows: Site 1: The following signage standards shall apply in lieu of the General Sign Requirements, Part IV.: a. General Sign Standards All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility in Site 1, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated by internal or external source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion. ii. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of the building or facility. iii. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service iv. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance I10-L. oC_nocsv S3 talcz JW971 b. General Sign Types And Numbers ..wM r rN MrAffil. T 2 _ ii. "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground mounted: -Maximum Size: 39100 square feet each side or 200 square feet each sign -Maximum Height: 10 feet -Maximum Number: 2 iii. Secondary identification sign on Birch Street: -Maximum Sign Size: 35 square feet -Maximum Height: 4 feet �1 ) iv. Miscellaneous vehicular and pedestrian directionalsigns -Maximum Sign Size: 28 square feet per, face}' -Maximum Height: 7 feet V. Building mounted identification signs -Primary building identification sign -Maximum Sign Size: 400 square feet -Maximum Number: 2 facades -Primary building entrance sign for that building -Sign shall not be located above the ground floor fascia -No sign shall exceed 35 square feet in area �1 1y C. Temporary Identification Signs i. A sign advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs authorized above, not to exceed forty (40) square feet in size. ii. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers, contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) square feet in size each. 4. S. ii. iv. V. Primary identification ground mounted with signage on both sides: - Maximum Sign Size: 100 square feet on each side or 200 square feet total "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground Size: 50 square feet each side or 100 square feet total Height: 10 feet Number: 2 Secondary ideth fication sign on Birch Street: -Maximum Sign Siz • 35 square feet -Maximum Height: 4 N Miscellaneous vehicular an&Redestrian directional signs: -Maximum Sign Size: 28 square Peqt per face -Maximum Height: 7 feet Building mounted identification signs -Maximum Sign Size: 400 square feet per b -Maximum Number: 2 facades per building C. Temporary Identification Signs i. A sign advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be perquitted in addition to the other signs authorized above, not to exceed forty 0) square feet in size. ii. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers,,\ contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) square feet in size each. Part I, Section IV.H., is amended to read as follows: H. Parkins All parking shall be as specified in Part I, Section I.C. above, rather than the General Parking Requirements, Part Ill. Part I, Section IV.I., is amended to read as follows: OC_D0051163148 2 [w971 I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V, except that the following standards shall apply in lieu of Section I.D. thereof: A minimum of five percent (5%) of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas around buildings shall not be included in parking area. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing. Alternative landscape programs may be developed, including perimeter parking area landscaping, berming and depressing parking areas. Alternative landscape programs shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. OC_DOCS\183149.2 (W971 owl KMF DOME SERMCE ZONE V am aCAPMAN CENTRAL ZONE1W u�r nnnnnunnnninnnnnin EAST ZOP,1=:-- IG ' �ninnnnnnnnnnnnnnnrnin HtH .� � ilnnninnninnnrrruimr�nin uu�wnnnnnnrnnnrrnnnnnn aUa&OD oa6 a[RacMV3 r"'WQi EXHIBIT "D" MITIGATION MEASURES [identify special development requirements here, such as building area and massing, special articuration and setbacks, parking landscaping, parking structure standards, and phasing] OC_DOCSU 83148.2 I W971 ,y) 1 41 1 RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING D°PARTAtEN" CITY Er1v. i AM 'r1Ar 0 _ 20GO PM 7181911011111tii112i314181f, A Fiscal Impact Analysis for Conexant Systems, Inc. Submitted to: City of Newport Beach Submitted by: PAMP kosmont partners April 2000 PAV CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Newport Beach has retained Kosmont Partners ("Kosmont") to prepare an economic and fiscal impact analysis of Conexant Systems' proposed expansion of its industrial and office facilities on the northwest side of Jamboree Road near MacArthur Blvd. and Birch Street. The analysis will estimate the fiscal impact of the Company's existing 993,000 square foot campus, as compared to a proposed 566,000 square foot expansion, and a reduced intensity expansion of 425,000 square feet (75%). The fiscal impact analysis will describe the net benefit to the City associated with Conexant's operations, with and without the proposed project. The proposed project site is located on approximately 25 acres and currently consists of 438,127 square feet of light industrial and supporting office/lab space with the remaining area consisting of parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. There are two existing buildings, Buildings 501 and 503, on the project site. Both buildings consist of light industrial and supporting office space. Building 501, which was built in 1961, is located on the southwestern portion of the site and encompasses 126,675 square feet of space. Building 503, which is two stories, encompasses 311,452 square feet of space and was built in 1968, with additions made in 1996. CONEXANT SYSTEMS BUILDING AREA Bldg. 501 126,700 sf 0 sf 0 sf Bldg. 503 311,400 sf 424,600 sf 396,300 sf Other Bldgs. 554,900 sf 554,900 sf 554,900 sf New 2-story Bldg. 0 sf 50,000 sf 37,500 sf New 10-story Bldg. 0 sf 270,000 sf 202,500 sf New 8-Story Bldg. 0 sf 259.500 sf 194,600 sf Total Buildinq Area 993,000 sf 1,559,000 sf 1,417,500 sf Conexant and its predecessors, Collins Radio and more recently Rockwell, have occupied the project site for approximately 40 years. In 1999, the Semiconductor Division of Rockwell International became the independent company, Conexant Systems, Inc. Kosmont Partners Page 1 April 24, 2000 ?I CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Conexant aims to maintain its existing headquarters facility in the City and needs to expand its engineering and manufacturing facility. To meet this goal, Conexant is proposing the expansion of its Jamboree Road facility to allow for additional light industrial and supporting office space on the 25-acre project site. Buildout of the project site would include development of three new buildings, an addition to Building 503, and two parking structures. The construction of a ten story building, a two story building, and one of the two proposed new parking structures (parking structure B on the southwestern portion of the project site) would require the removal of the existing 501 building. A total of 566,000 square feet of office space is planned to be added. A reduced development scenario with 424,000 square feet of new office space Is identified as an alternative in the Draft EIR and is also examined herein. Additional Tax Impacts The City of Newport Beach is impacted by numerous tax issues related to Conexant's operations. Per State Board of Equalization ruling regarding Rockwell's prior operation, the City has been reimbursing approximately $35,000 per year in sales tax rebates. This rebate is expected to end by 2001 and has been excluded from the analysis. 2. Conexant has recently appealed its overall property tax assessment with the County Assessor's office, seeking to reduce the taxable assessed value by approximately $260 million, potentially saving $2.6 million in County taxes. Kosmont can not determine the outcome of the most recent appeal. Therefore for purposes of this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that the full reduction has been accepted. Conexant has indicated that it will be entitled to a $1 million refund of past tax payments. Based on the City's 17% share of basic tax, the County is likely to reduce future City payments by this one-time charge of $170,000. 3. As part of the Development Agreement with Conexant and the City, per provisions of SB 110, Conexant will agree to self -accrue the use tax paid on out of City purchases. This will enable the City to receive the 1% State use tax on millions of dollars in equipment purchases. It is important to note that the purpose of this fiscal impact analysis is to measure the net change in the City's general fund as a result of the Project expansion. Kosmont Partners Page 2 April 24, 2000 PAV CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fiscal Impacts The Project site is currently estimated to generate annual revenue of $1,158,000 with an offset of $186,900 allocated for police and fire protection and administrative costs. The resulting annual fiscal impact surplus is approximately $971,100 per year. At full buildout of the Project, Kosmont estimates the net fiscal surplus will increase by $1,140,200 to a total of $2,111,300 per year. CONEXANT ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT Current Full ..Buildout Annual Tax Revenues $1,158,000 $2,468,500 $2,323,900 General Fund Expenses 18( 6,900) (357,200) 31( 4,600) Net Fiscal Impact $971,100 $2,111,300 $2,009,300 A summary comparison chart illustrating the relative annual fiscal impact for the current and proposed development is shown in Figure 1. $20,000 S2r00 00 �5{k(}r04q' Figure 1 Nsf ;Fiscat Impact Current Tult-Buildout 75% Buildout Kosmont-Partners Page 3 April 24, 2000 CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT The major fiscal revenue source comes from real and personal property tax payments and state use taxes. The subject property's current assessed value for real estate and personal property is now estimated at $712 million. Assuming the tax appeal is 100% successful, the net assessed value will be reduced to $452 million. At full buildout, Kosmont estimates the net assessed value of all Conexant property will increase to $623 million. The resulting total annual property tax revenues to the City are estimated to reach $1,100,000 at full buildout. As a result of Conexant's agreement to self accrue state use tax, the City will receive an estimated $815,000 per year above current levels. In addition to the increased use tax from operations, the construction of the new $100 million facility could result in an additional non -recurring use tax payment to the City of approximately $250,000 over the construction period. Job Creation Conexant is a major provider of high -skill high -wage jobs in the City. With total company employment of almost 3,000, Conexant's average salary is approximately $70,000. The expansion of the Conexant facilities will generate approximately 2,700 new jobs at the Jamboree site resulting in total employment of approximately 5,600 at full buildout, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Creation Pull Oulildout Total annual payroll at Conexant is currently estimated at approximately $179 million. The expansion, at full buildout, will likely result in an additional $189 Kosmont Partners Page 4 April 24, 2000 PKV CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT million .in annual wages, bringing the total annual payroll to approximately $368 million. Vendor Spending Conexant Systems, Inc. currently spends over $800 million annually on the purchase of manufacturing materials, services and other products from vendors across the U.S. The vast majority of these expenditures are related to the manufacturing operation. Of this total, Kosmont estimates that Conexant spends approximately $105 million annually within Orange County, of which at least $2.8 million is spent with Newport Beach -based vendors. As a result of the proposed 566,000 square foot increase in Conexant's office/lab space, companywide vendor spending for services and equipment is expected to increase by $98 million, or approximately 12%. At full buildout Orange County vendors are thus expected receive a total of $203 million, with $3.4 million in Newport Beach, as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 ©range County' rildt lr. ending ($millions) FUIVISUi[dput 75% Buildout Kosmont Partners April 24, 2000 Page 5 PT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT II. FISCAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY The results summarized in this report are based on extensive analyses conducted by Kosmont Partners. The analyses are based upon the development program and operating assumptions provided by Conexant Systems and the City of Newport Beach, coupled with ratios of taxes and conversion tables developed by Kosmont to generate fiscal revenue impacts. Categories of Revenue Impacts The development and operation of the Conexant Systems industrial facilities will result in substantial new revenues to the City of Newport Beach. The vast majority of the impacts fall into four categories: 1. Property Taxes 2. Sales Taxes 3. Use Taxes 4. Business Taxes 5. Hotel Taxes The analysis excludes a variety of other fees and taxes that would generate additional revenue to the City, and assumes that other one-time fees (for example, building permit and inspection fees), City enterprise activities and other development fees are revenue neutral (revenues offset by additional costs). Sources of Impacts The analysis distinguishes between fiscal revenue impacts according to the source of investment or spending which generates the impact, as follows: Direct Impacts — Revenue impacts generated directly from the investment made by Conexant Systems, e.g. property taxes on the Conexant Systems facilities, sales taxes from onsite facilities. 2. Indirect Impacts — Multiplied impacts on fiscal revenues from recycling of expenditures in the City of Newport Beach, e.g, the sales and other taxes generated by respending of wages and other income generated by Conexant Systems facility employees and guests. Technical Assumptions This analysis assumes that existing tax rates will continue for the indefinite future. No impact of prior year sales tax or property tax refunds is included. Kosmont Partners Page 6 April 24, 2000 rr pv CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Property Taxes Newport Beach receives 17.65% of the 1 % basic property tax levy charged against the assessed value ("AV") of all real estate parcels and personal property within Conexant's primary tax rate area. The remainder of the basic levy goes to local schools, Orange County and other public agencies. Sales Taxes The current retail sales tax rate is 7.75% in Orange retail sales that occurs within the City limits, the City an amount equal to 1% of the retail sales amount. the County receive the other 6.75%. Use Taxes County. For every dollar of of Newport Beach receives The State of California and Through the use of a Direct Pay Permit, Conexant is able to self accrue use taxes attributable to out of state equipment purchases. The City will receive an amount equal to 1 % of the purchase price of all such taxable purchases. Hotel Bed Tax or "TOT" The City of Newport Beach levies a uniform transient occupancy tax equal to 10% of the nightly room rate at every hotel in the City limits. The City receives 9%, while the Conference and Visitors Bureau receives the remaining 1 %. Business Tax The City charges a business license fee equal to $104 plus $10 per employee for non -retail sale businesses, with a maximum fee of $1,000 per year. Since Conexant already employs almost 3,000 people, the maximum fee of $1,000 would apply. Kosmont Partners Page 7 April 24, 2000 PKV CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL FUND EXPENSES The Conexant operation results in local employees and visitors to the City. These employees and visitors result in demands on local government services, such as police and fire. Since employees can be considered temporary residents, for the average 40 hours per week at work, each employee can be converted into a 0.25 "resident equivalent." Thus at full buildout, the Project's estimated employment of 5,649 could be considered to be equivalent to 1,412 residents. Police Protection Costs The project site is located within the City Beat 33, Reporting District 34. All police officers are based at the City's sole station located at 670 Santa Barbara Drive. The Draft EIR prepared by PCR identified a less than significant impact on police protection resulting from the proposed project. Conexant provides a high level of security 24 hours per day on the entire project site with 21 security officers. As a result, Kosmont estimates that the number of police service calls would be reduced significantly from conventional manufacturing and office facilities. Using the City's prior fiscal impact analysis prepared by Dave Kiff that indicated the average cost of police protection is approximately $150 per resident, and reducing the service level by 50% to reflect Conexant's onsite security, Kosmont estimates the current annual police cost at $55,400. The incremental annual police service cost is estimated at $50,500 at full buildout. (See Exhibit 1) Fire Protection Costs The nearest City fire station is Department 3 and is located 3 miles from the site. The Orange County Fire Authority ("OCFA") Station 27 is located 0.5 miles from the site and would provide secondary response. The Draft EIR prepared by PCR identified a potentially significant impact on fire protection in the event that OCFA Station 27 ceased operations. The proposed mitigation measure in the Draft EIR provides for the analysis of regional fire service needs in the event of such closure, and would require Conexant to be responsible for its proportional share of any required facilities, equipment and staffing resources. Using the prior fiscal analysis by Dave Kiff that indicated the average cost of citywide fire protection services is approximately $165 per resident, Kosmont estimates the current annual fire protection costs to be $121,900. At full buildout, Kosmont Partners Page 8 April 24, 2000 CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT the incremental annual fire protection cost attributable to the Project is estimated at $111,000. (See Exhibit 1) Public Works The Draft EIR prepared by PCR indicated that there would be no material impact on local street maintenance costs as a result of the Project. Administrative Costs Although no direct increase in administrative costs is anticipated, there would be an indirect impact of increased police and fire department service on the overall City administrative departments. The 1999-2000 City Budget identifies an annual cost for Administrative Services of $4.9 million out of a total operations budget of $90 million, or 5.4%. Assuming a 5.4% overhead factor on the police and fire service cost results in an annual overhead cost of $9,600, At full buildout, the incremental administrative costs are estimated at $8,700. (See Exhibit 1) Kosmont•Partners Page 9 April 24, 2000 PAV CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT IV. NEWPORT BEACH REVENUE IMPACTS Following full buildout, total tax revenue to the City from the Conexant project is estimated to increase by $1,310,000 from $1,156,000 to approximately $2,468,500, as shown in Exhibit 1 and illustrated in Figure 4 below: Figure 4 Annual Tex Revenue 'Ctgtnitlt Full Buildout 16% Buildout Direct Taxes Total annual direct tax revenues to the City of Newport Beach from the existing Conexant property are estimated at approximately $881,500. Total direct taxes are expected to Increase by $1,116,000 to $1,997,500 at full buildout. Direct taxes include the following: Current Full Buildout 1. Real and Personal property tax $1,257,000 $1,558,000 2. Personal property tax appeal /1 (459,000) (459,000) 3. Sales and Use tax /2 82,500 897,500 4. Business tax 1,000 1,000' /1 Assumes successful appeal to reduce assessed value by $340 million. If appeal is unsuccessful the City's property tax would Increase to $600,000. /2 Assumes Direct Pay Permit applicable following buildout. Kosmont Partners Page 10 April 24, 2000 PKV CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Personal property tax applicable to the Conexant property is estimated at $85,000 annually, based on the recent appeal by Conexant. With new equipment purchases for the office space at full buildout, personal property tax is expected to increase by $77,000 to $172,000 annually. Total net property taxes are expected to increase from $798,000 to $ 1,099,000 as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Business tax provides a minimal amount of tax revenue, $1,000 annually for all three scenarios in this analysis. For the most recent 12 month period, Conexant's facilities generated $81,500 in sales and use taxes to the City of Newport Beach. Direct Pay Permit Based on an analysis of Conexant's 1999 material and equipment purchases, the City's tax consultant has estimated additional annual use taxes of approximately $730,000 would be forthcoming related to Conexant's agreement to utilize the Direct Pay Permit for major purchases related to its manufacturing operations. Reflecting the expected 12% growth in overall vendor spending resulting from the proposed expansion project, Kosmont has assumed that the new use taxes will increase proportionally to $815,000 after full buildout of the Project. Indirect Taxes The City of Newport Beach will realize a revenue from Conexant visitors, employee commercial businesses in Newport Beach. significant amount of indirect tax and vendor spending at other Kosmont Partners April 24, 2000 Page 11 PAV CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Indirect taxes consist of. 1. Visitor Spending (Hotel TOT) 2. Visitor Spending (Retail Sales Tax) 3. Employee Local Spending (Retail Sales Tax) 4. Vendor Spending (Retail Sales Tax) Visitor Spending (Hotel and Retail Sales) Based on studies of hotel demand at Orange County business parks, Kosmont estimates that Conexant's operation will generate demand for approximately 15 hotel room nights per 1,000 square feet of space. Assuming an average room rate of $125 to $150/night, the City's 9% share of the visitor hotel tax is currently estimated to provide approximately $168,000 annually. At full buildout, induced hotel demand from Conexant's overall operations is expected to generate $263,000 of tax revenue annually. Overnight visitor taxable retail spending in Newport Beach is conservatively estimated at $30/day for restaurant meals and ancillary items, based on typical hotel financial statements as published by PKF Consulting. Kosmont estimates that the City's 1% share of Conexant visitor retail sales currently provides about $4,500 annually. At full buildout, the sales tax revenue is expected to reach $7,000 annually. Employee Spending According to Department of Commerce statistics, between 30% and 40% of employee wages are typically spent on retail goods. According to Conexant payroll records, approximately 10% of the current employees reside in Newport Beach. With its wide variety of restaurants and retail stores at Fashion Island, and its auto dealers, Kosmont estimates that the City of Newport Beach will capture approximately 15% of the overall employee retail spending potential. With current payroll of $179 million, retail sales tax generated from employee spending is thus estimated to generate $90,000 per year. It is expected to increase to $184,000 as a result of the expansion at full buildout ($160,000 assumind 75% buildout). This analysis excludes the positive impact from Conexant's substantial stock price appreciation, known as the wealth effect, which could result in substantial additional discretionary spending, that typically amounts to 3-4% of a major increase in an individuals net worth. Kosmont Partners Page 12 April 24, 2000 Pkv CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Vendor Spending Conexant spends millions of dollars on local supplies and services. Based on a review of the 1999 accounting records, Kosmont estimates that Newport Beach businesses directly receive over $2.8 million per year. Based. bn Conexant's accounting records, approximately 50% of such local spending was for goods and materials that typically represent taxable sales. The current level of spending would generate approximately $14,000 in annual tax revenue. At full buildout, related tax revenues should increase slightly to $17,000 annually. Annual Indirect Tax Revenue The total annual City tax revenue from the above indirect sources related to the Conexant property is currently estimated at $276,500. At full buildout, indirect tax revenue is expected to increase by $194,500, reaching a total of $471,000 as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 Annuai'.Cndirect Taxes $500,000. 1400,000':• . •$300,000 • ... LA ........:........ .. ' Current Full Buildout 75% Buildout Kosmont Partners April 24, 2000 Page 13 Exhibit 1 Current Economic Factors Square Feet - Bldg. Area 993,000 Real Property Assessed Value $150,000,000 Personal Property (est.) $562.000,000 /2 Employment •2,954 Annual Wages $179,200,000 Vendor/Material Spending - Orange County Manufacturing material $34,000;000 Non -manufacturing material $59,100,000 Services $26,000,000 Vendor/Material Spending - Newport Beach Material and services $2,800,000 Direct Taxes Real & Personal Property Tax (.) Property Tax Appeal /2 Sales & Use Taxes /3 Business Tax Total Direct Taxes Indirect Taxes Visitor Hotel Spending Visitor Retail Spending Employee Local Spending Vendor Spending Total Indirect Taxes Total Direct / Indirect Taxes Municipal Service Costs Police Protection Fire Protection Administrative Services Total Costs . Net Fiscal Impact / $1.257,000 (459,000) 82,500 1.000 $881,600 $168,000 4,500 90,000 14,000 $276,500 $55,400 121,900 9,600 $186,900 $97� 11 100 Full Buildout 1,559,000 $270,000,000 $612,900,000 5,649 $367,900,000 $34,000,000 $126,400,000 $57,800,000 $3,400,000 $1,558,000 (459,000) 897,500 1,000 $1,997,500 $263,000 7,000 184,000 17,000 $471,000 $2,488,500 $105,900 233,000 18,300 $357.200 $2.111,300 75% Buildout 1,417,500 $240,000,000 $600,200,000 4,975 $320,700,000 $34,000,000 $108,800,000 $49,900,000 $3,200,000 $1,483,000 (459,000) 877.500 1,000 $1,902,500 $239,000 6,400 160,000 16,000 $421,400 $2,323,900 $93,300 205,200 16,100 $314,600 $2,009,300 /1 City share of property tax is 17.66% of the basic 1 % tax levy /2 Conservatively reflects 100% of Conexant's $260 million appeal of assessed value /3 Buildout scenarios reflect adopted Direct Pay Permit whereby Conexant self accrues the use tax on out of City purchases for manufacturing supplies and equipment. Source: Kosmont Partners CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Study Session — 6:00 p.m. January 6, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Ashley, Fuller, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Commissioner Tucker came in approximately 15 minutes after the meeting had started. HEARING ITEM ITEM NO.1. SUBJECT: CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 4311 Jamboree Road Planning Commission discussion of the proposed Conexant expansion, including preliminary review of the draft environmental impact report. Rich Bluth, Director Facilities for Conexant, 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, introduced himself and Al Shiroma, a part of the Conexant team working on this project, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bluth thanked the Commission for the opportunity to make this presentation. Mr. Bluth commented that they have attempted to capture what they think would be many of the Commissions questions. Mr. Bluth presented a slide -presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bluth gave a brief history of Conexant. He noted that they are a new company and an old company at the same time. They have been in the industry for 30 years and most of it was under the name of Rockwell, in January 1, 1999, they became Conexant. Conexant is in the communications and semi -conductor business. Mr. Bluth explained that their business is focused in two areas of the electronics industry and that is the internet and cellular phone business. Mr. Bluth presented industry statistics, which portray why their business has significant growth needs. In both the intemet and cellular phone business, worldwide, the average annual growth rate per year is almost 30 percent. Mr. Bluth commented that Newport Beach is Conexant's worldwide headquarters and although they have a number of national and international locations, this is the key location and why growth in Newport Beach is important for Conexant. Mr. Bluth showed on a slide and explained that Conexant has two major structures on their 25-acre site. The site fronts on Jamboree Road, and other streets to each side are MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue. A key element of the project is the replacement of the 126,000 square foot, one-story building with a new building. The phasing of the new building is as follows: 1. Before any new construction would begin, they would build a parking structure on the Birch side of the building to create the parking they will need to support later development. 2. There would be expansion on their primary manufacturing building. They would provide parking for that building and the first office tower. 3. The next phase would be additional parking. They have tried to keep the parking to the interior of the site and off of Jamboree Road, 4. The last step would be to create a final tower and a two-story building immediately adjacent that would represent the full build -out. Mr. Bluth stated that the existing development is about 442,000 square feet in two buildings. The proposal is for 566,000 square feet, which will bring the site to a little over a million square feet. This will provide for anticipated growth in employment, with an additional 2,600 employees taking them to about 4,000 employees. Mr. Bluth next addressed the project features proposed that go beyond the existing planned community text, which governs the area they are located. 1. The first is the footprint of the building, There are two large buildings that have 120,000 square foot floor plates. They have established that they would keep their floor plates at no more than 56,000 square feet. They would not have the mass of buildings that are there today be much more consistent with the development all around them. 2. The setbacks on Jamboree Road have been addressed. The existing text would have them with a 30-foot setback but they have added some elements to that to try and mitigate massing along Jamboree, as follows: • An average setback for the entire project was created at 40-feet. • Limited that no single structure be more that 400-feet long along Jamboree. • Prescribed that 20 percent of the project will stay open and unoccupied by the buildings across Jamboree Road. Mr. Bluth commented that, as far as parking structures, anything along Jamboree Road would be fully screened, and any open sections facing Jamboree would be architecturally treated or landscaped. Mr. Bluth commented that traffic is a key element of the effort and there are a number of impacted intersections. MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa were impacted before their project. Mr. Bluth commented that there are no measures identified for MacArthur/Jamboree that would bring it to less than significant impact. Mr. Bluth noted that this analysis was done on a worst case scenario assuming they would build -out this 2 entire site within five years, which is an extremely aggressive schedule, and it is not likely they would be able to build that much space that quickly. Mr. Bluth highlighted that Conexant's proposal and the environment they create is different than most of the projects you would find in the airport area. Conexant is an owner/occupier/employer and they are building this for their employees. Mr. Bluth commented that there are things that they have under as part of both their work culture and industry that separate them from projects that would be built of similar nature. • As a communications company, a little over a third of their employees have telecommunication capability at this time. • All salaried employees have a flex time schedule. • 60 percent of the manufacturing employees on Conexant site work a compressed workweek, which is a 12-hour shift, 5:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. • On -site cafeteria • Employee recreation areas available all times of day. There are 1500 people on -site and 900 of them work the compressed workweek, leaving 600 on a standard (Monday through Friday) workweek. This nets out to about 850 people of the 1500 that are present Monday through Friday first shift time period. That comes to one employee to over 500 square feet, which is a very light -density occupancy. Between business travel and vacations, there are probably 10 percent of their population not present at any given time. Approximately 70 percent of the people Conexant is hiring are professional, engineering types, and a little over half of the professional population has graduate degrees and a significant percentage of Ph.D.s. Conexant has significant university relationships, with university research grants of well over a million dollars a year. Conexant has a history (and Rockwell before) of charitable donations to the City. As the spin-off occurred, Conexant has stepped forward even more. They were a significant sponsor for the last Race for Cure and supported the current millennium calendar for the City of Newport Beach. Conexant supports an orphanage in Mexicali, Mexico where they have a manufacturing site. Several hundred children are actually fully supported by Conexant's employees. In doing background research, they have developed the composite revenue for the City, and it is quite significant. Conexant was pleased to find that they are the number three contributor to the City at this time. Property tax and some sales use tax total one and a half million dollars ($1,500,000) per year. Beyond that, the revenue potential for this project (between property tax and sales use tax) is estimated at another four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000), which takes them to an approximate two -million dollar ($2,000,000) revenue number from Conexant if this project approved. In conclusion, Mr. Bluth commented that Conexant is a very dynamic business and they have grown significantly. Mr. Bluth noted that in 1991, as Rockwell, they were a two nundred fifty million -dollar ($250,000,000) business and now they are a one -point five billion -dollar ($1,500,000,000) business. The first annual stockholders meeting will be held here in Newport Beach in February. This industry is growing rapidly and Conexant feels there is a need to support that growth and feel they have an opportunity to do so here. Mr. Bluth commented that, over time as they have grown, they also moved into other buildings that are immediately adjacent. Conexant is the owner of the 4000 MacArthur and fully occupy that at this time. They also own two buildings on Von Karman. Their composite site is over a million square feet between the Conexant parcel and the Koll Center Planned Community. Mr. Bluth noted that they are a very significant commerciallindustrial site already and they have done the things they can to support their growth. Now they want to focus their energy on the original site and make sure they support the growth they see in ftont of them. Mr. Bluth expressed that it is their desire to remain in Newport Beach and believe it is beneficial to both parties to accommodate that and are hopeful to move forward on this project and continue to grow as a presence in the City. Chairman Selich thanked Mr. Bluth and expressed that it was an excellent presentation. Commissioner Fuller noted that Mr. Bluth indicated they own the office building to the left (referred to the rendering) and asked if they owned both buildings. Mr. Bluth responded that they owned both buildings. Commissioner Fuller also clarified that they own the other two buildings on Von Karman and Mr. Bluth responded that is correct. Commissioner Fuller noted that it was indicated the parking was being kept off of Jamboree, and the proposed parking structure would be off of Jamboree (the one to the left of the proposed high-rise) but the parking structure to the right would not be kept off of Jamboree? Mr. Bluth commented that the rendering was subtle and pointed out a parcel, which is behind Jamboree Plaza and is not part of their site. Mr. Bluth explained that their site jogs in and the parking structure is actually behind the DerWienerschnitzel in Jamboree Plaza and they are quite a distance from Jamboree Road. Chairman Fuller commented that Mr. Bluth also indicated that 10 percent of the employees work away from the main facility. Telecommuting is a possibility along with the compressed work schedule but there is no assurance that will happen or continue into the future. In other words, if this project is approved, there is nothing in writing that states we could look forward to that in perpetuity. Mr. Bluth commented that the manufacturing facility is a 24-hour a day operation every day of the year (7x24, a work compressed schedule). When Conexant was part of Rockwell, this was the highest value building in the corporation when the manufacturing equipment was added. It needs to run every minute to return on the investment that has been made there. That work schedule is very typical in their industry. The proposal and densities that were used for the additional space were not based on the compressed workweek. They were based on a more dense population, more like an office development. Commissioner Ashley referred to the statement that the buildings would be owner occupied and would not be tenant buildings that would be leased to others. Mr. Bluth agreed. Commissioner Ashley also referred to the Environmental Impact Report, which 4 claims that Conexant would build -out this project over a period of 25 years in concert with market demand and asked if that is correct. Mr. Bluth responded yes, or business requirements for space. Commissioner Ashley commented the report said market demand and that is why he brought up the question. Mr. Bluth commented that perhaps that wording is not accurate enough. Mr. Bluth stated they are not in the real estate business, they are in the semi -conductor business. Mr. Bluth expressed, to fairly represent this, that there is no scenario that they might not lease a floor to someone if they built an entire building and could only occupy three quarters that would be a business decision. Mr. Bluth stressed that they would not build a building to lease it out as that is not their goal. Commissioner Ashley asked Mr. Bluth to explain about the 8 and 10-story buildings because ordinarily, when you think of an industry, horizontal control is so important to them as opposed to vertical rise. Consequently, how is it that you have 8 and 10-story buildings? Mr. Bluth responded that it is entirely the function of available land they have available to work with. Mr. Bluth explained if they could have put in a low-rise campus in like the Irvine Spectrum scenario, they would have considered that. With the investment they have with the manufacturing building; the amount of parking space it takes up; and the need to grow, the only way they could create growth was to make a vertical project out of this. Mr. Bluth commented it is purely a function of the land use options they have based on the size of the parcel and all the parking and everything needed to -support it. Commissioner Ashley referred to the traffic study and commented he appreciates the flextime they have in their employee operations. Commissioner Ashley asked how the amount of traffic generated would not really be a great impediment to the present level of service or the I.C.U.'s that we have at our major intersections just along Jamboree Road from Birch to MacArthur. Mr. Bluth stated he was not sure he could comment on that part of the analysis. Commissioner Ashley noted that they would have about 2,695 employees and a lot of visitors in addition to those employees. Mr. Bluth responded that their visitor profile is different than most businesses since there is no retail aspect to their business. Mr. Bluth stated the only people would be customers, which is not retail or commercial like. Their principal activities are engineering and development and the visitor ratios are much lower than what you would find in an airport average office building. Commissioner Ashley asked the City Traffic Engineer what they could really expect would be generated in the way of traffic in this particular project and how it compares to other projects of similar size in the airport area? Mr. Edmonston noted there is a very detailed traffic study as part of this project and the consultant who did that study is present if the Commission has more detailed questions. Mr. Edmonston commented, in general, their traffic generation for the expansion was based upon site specific studies and the fact that they expect a relatively similar growth in the future. Also, what is there is not just manufacturing but there is support R&D and engineering that backs that up. The study identifies that they do impact, in the short-term, some intersections. There will be a supplemental traffic study coming forward under the new Traffic Phasing Ordinance guidelines for this project, as well. Under the old TPO, they did identify some intersections and there is mitigation in the EIR in terms of their contribution to 5 improvements. There is also mitigation in the long-range study, looking at what traffic would be like in 2020 and beyond. There are impacts that have been identified. They tend to be relatively small except for the primary one that is impacted at the corner of Jamboree and MacArthur. Mr. Edmonston commented he believed that is why Mr. Bluth showed and commented that intersection would still be above the City's 0.9 criteria even after the mitigation. Mr. Edmonston brought out that they are presently working on additional mitigation at that intersection that would probably bring it back into the level of service criteria that the City has. Mr. Edmonston noted that they are not at the point as yet where they could definitively advise whether that would work or not. Commissioner Ashley noted, as a sideline to the above, that there has been a request for additional development along Bristol, west of MacArthur along Quail and now we have this project that has come before the Commission in the airport area. Commissioner Ashley asked Planning Director, Ms. Temple if there are any other significant projects anticipated in the airport business center that would come to the Planning Commission requesting something in excess of what the General Plan now allows? Ms. Temple responded that currently they are in an environmental review on a project proposed by Koll Center Newport, which is at the intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur Boulevard, on the same side of the twin towers that Mr. Bluth alluded to. The Koll project should be coming forth in the early part of this year as well. Ms. Temple stated that would be the largest project in the close proximity to the Conexant project. It is a 250,000 square foot general occupancy office proposal. Commissioner Ashley asked if there is a way in which they might look at the impacts these two projects might have on the environment before they act on the Conexant project? Ms. Temple responded that the traffic study prepared for this project was prepared with an analysis, which included the Koll project given its proximity. Mr. Edmonston commented the technique they used in the traffic study was under the short-range TPO analysis. They include only projects that have formerly been approved such as the Holtz hotel and Extended Stay America. The studies would be in the supplemental if they came along after this one got started. That short-range analysis does not include Koll project. The longer -range analysis that is in this report is data presented with and without the Koll project added to the Conexant project. The way the City has usually processed projects in the long-term is looking at reasonably foreseeable projects. When you receive the revised long-range study, it will include the assumed presence of Koll, Dunes, Newport Center and Banning Ranch, which are active at the present time. Commissioner Ashley asked if they have already taken this into account along with the Koll Center projection and have indicated that the congestion that might develop at the intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur has already been examined. When all of this materializes we will still have a level of service that will be at 0.9 or better? Mr. Edmonston responded no, particularly looking at the long-term in the document. There are several intersections that will be impacted either by Conexant individually or Conexant in conjunction with Koll. Some intersections actually get better if you build both projects than if you build just one or the other. Those tend to be intersections for which there are no fiuther known mitigation, such as Irvine and Bristol Street. There are impacts and the extent of those are in tables in both the traffic study and the environmental document as well. Commissioner Gifford commented she understood that manufacturing is not a telecommuting sort of thing. Commissioner Gifford expressed that Mr. Bluth seemed to be talking about square footage and employees in of round numbers. Do you feel that you have maximized the telecommuting, non-physical occupancy strategies you could do, and need new buildings? Obviously you do, but in general what is your sense of the way the business is in terms of new building? Mr. Bluth responded that he thought there are two sides to it. There is a significant amount of telecommuting potential that they are already starting to tap into. At the same time there is still a real reason for people to come to the work place. One of their key strategies of this business is the convergence of technologies. They have businesses that address the wireless business and imaging. A lot of these products are coming together and there is a case for having the space where people can interact and work with each other. For their business to move into the future, the strategy is not to have 50 different products, but to create products that are combinations of things that they already have capability of. The telecommuting and flextime are key features that separate them but, at the same time, they do need the bricks and mortar that allow people to come together in different kinds of work groups to create the next generation and the generation after that of new products. Commissioner Kranzley asked what percentage of chips that Conexant sells are manufactured in the Newport Beach facility? Mr. Bluth responded that number can vary widely but, in general in the last six months, at least 50 percent are sourced out overseas. Commissioner Kranzley commented that the trend has been out -sourcing, and Mr. Bluth agreed. Commissioner Kranzley asked if Mr. Bluth would view the need for manufacturing to be diminished over the course of the next twenty years or possibly non- existent? Mr. Bluth responded the need for manufacturing would diminish in proportion to the past. The strategy for Conexant's manufacturing in Newport Beach is to do the things that cannot generally be acquired in the world market place. Mr. Bluth commented they have specialty processes and products that are Conexant's intellectual property that separate them from other companies they would not have manufactured at other locations. There are other products that Conexant has that are less proprietary or maybe a subset of a greater thing that becomes a product. The strategy for the Newport Beach location is to be the center of their business for the specialty, unique products that cannot be manufactured anywhere else because of their own specialization. Commissioner Kranzley asked if their vision is that chips and wafers would probably be manufactured overseas and there would be a transition on the Newport Beach side. Mr. Bluth commented that there is a con -current strategy that this factory will always run fully loaded. As their business grows, most of the growth will probably be in outside manufacturing. Mr. Bluth commented that they would not likely build another fabrications building with this proportion, that is an unlikely scenario for their business. Commissioner Kranzley commented that his point was, at some point in time, the manufacturing facility in Newport Beach would not be used at all. Mr. Bluth commented that he could not say never but finds it an unlikely scenario in a long-term horizon. Again Mr. Bluth stressed that they continue to invest in this manufacturing facility for t. specific needs that cannot be acquired elsewhere and he expects that to continue. Mr. Bluth commented they would retain the percentage of in-house capacity that they have and incrementally grow that but most of their business would probably be elsewhere. Chairman Selich asked what the advantages were to the City of Newport Beach in having this project located here? Mr. Bluth responded there were several advantages as follows: • Headquartered in Newport Beach and recognized as a leading company in the business sector. • Significant employee base. • Revenue numbers speak quite well for Conexant's contribution to Newport Beach. This project must keep Conexant in the upper group of income towards the City of Newport Beach. • Kind of people being recruited for this location are highly skilled, many Ph.D.'s. • Employment searches are worldwide. • The people Conexant is bringing are more likely to be residents of Newport Beach than not considering the pay ranges. • Revenue potential • Benefits to the City of having a company with Conexant's stature centered in Newport Beach. Mr. Bluth commented that he sees their growth as very bullish and nearly inevitable with the positioning Conexant has in the market place. Chairman Selich asked if the staff has suggested to Conexant or have you considered or offered to do any type of transportation management program, since we would have to vote to override our own traffic phasing ordinance? Particularly in light of the fact that you have a significant part of the facility running on twenty-four hour shifts, have you considered having those shift changes take place during hours other than the peak traffic hours and other things such as car pooling or bus commuting? Have you put together some type of program that you would manage the traffic in and out of your facility so that it would not trip our TPO? Mr. Bluth responded that he thought that one of the key intersections was already tripped without their project. Chairman Selich commented the Conexant project would make the intersections worse. Mr. Bluth agreed. Chairman Selich reiterated the question is have you looked at staggering the traffic in and out in a way so that you do not make the traffic worse? Mr. Bluth responded that he did not they had addressed any kind of specific beyond the current unique shift work that they already have in the other traffic management. Mr. Bluth stated that they have a highly motivated work force and they are encourage and expected to put in significant time commitments. Some of the traditional forms of traffic management would not fit as well with Conexant's work environment. There are a lot of people who come in late and stay very late, which is very different from some businesses. Mr. Bluth commented he thought they have only touched on it in as much as they already have some difference from standard business. Traditional car-pooling or van pooling has not been touched on in a significant way up to this point. Chairman Selich asked if Mr. Bluth would have any objection to evaluating that? Mr. Bluth responded no objection, they would consider it. Chairman Selich commented, from his standpoint, he would like to see that evaluated before they got into the public hearings. Commissioner Kranzley agreed with the exception of the car pooling because of the extended work hours. Commissioner Kranzley noted that with the work structure they already have 840 peak hours are being generated and he wondered why schedules could be arranged so that more peak hour trips could be eliminated. This will be the core issue in the project and any help in that way would be a big plus. Mr. Bluth said they would consider that. Commissioner Gifford asked specifically what percentage of Conexant's employees are involved in manufacturing? Mr. Bluth estimated of Conexant's total population, it is probably one third. Commissioner Gifford asked if that group lends itself more to some of the traditional types of traffic management? Mr. Bluth stated it does. Commissioner Tucker asked how the TPO works and commented that we are talking about a specific use. But when all is said and done we could have buildings there that might not necessarily be used forever by that user for those uses. Do we have the luxury through traffic management programs to arrange trips so that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is not tripped? Or does the Traffic Phasing Ordinance just look at trips that office space generates without regard to specific uses or management programs? Ms. Temple responded that, in this particular case, they did study the particular traffic generating characteristics of this business in light of where the additions in floor area would be, and tried to come up with a trip rate that would make sense in relation to the amount of research and development as opposed to conventional administrative support office. Ms. Temple noted that it has been their understanding that most of the new development is not going to be adding a lot of additional manufacturing jobs but more the research and development and other office support uses. A particular trip rate was established which was done by doing counts on -site to determine what those rates were. In terms of long-range, if that occupancy changed to the extent it would result in an increase of 300 trips or more as set forth by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, supplemental or subsequent traffic study could be required. If Conexant sold the entire property and it was occupied for general tenancy office, the City might have an opportunity to re -review it at that time. Commissioner Tucker asked how the solution would work if it did end up generating more trips, would we say you could not occupy the top two floors? Ms. Temple responded they may need to do additional improvements if they are identified or the project could require an override to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Since it might be some time into the future, we do not know what the setting would be; we would have to look at it at the time. Commissioner Kranzley questioned the traffic characteristics created by this project would be in the conditions and if there were any significant changes by this applicant or subsequent applicant, it would come before the Commission and they could make .41 changes? Ms. Temple responded that part of the proposal is for some type of office development but it office for certain type of occupancy and we have established a special trip rate based on that occupancy. If that were to change then the previous traffic studies would have to be re -done. Commissioner Kranzley asked, in our conditions, we would be conditioning the traffic management programs that would be in place by Conexant, how do we do that? For clarification Ms. Temple commented that she had been discussing the fact that they had studied the particulars of this property for trip rate purposes. If we go to the next step and impose additional conditions on traffic management procedures, first we would require that they be implemented. We could also require that they show performance to actually produce the anticipated trip reduction. If they were unable to meet that to either make modifications to the project, the applicant might not being able to implement the full scope of the approval, etc. Commissioner Gifford commented that she would like to hear a direct answer to Commissioner Tucker's question about the options. Commissioner Gifford stated, as she understood the response, it was limited to two possible options, which were not the ones he suggested. Either there would be improvements made or the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would be overridden. Commissioner Gifford noted that we have places now where there are no feasible improvements, which is to say there could not be feasible improvements in the future, but assuming the scenario there are no feasible improvements, it sounds like a gun to the head with regard to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Are there other options, would we do what we do with some restaurants that can open for lunch, the top two floors cannot be occupied. Commissioner Gifford expressed she would like to explore the response a little more directly to his comment. Ms. Temple responded that she gave two scenarios. Perhaps the simplest would be if there were traffic problems incurred by the change of use, then the property owner could seek research and development type tenants and lease it to the kinds of businesses that would meet the operational characteristics under which the original study was prepared. Commissioner Gifford commented she thought his question was hypothetically based on a different type of occupancy. Ms. Temple commented that is a problem we have with almost any approval. Commissioner Gifford stated she is looking to the answer to the question, do we have the ability to restrict the top two floors of use. Ms. Wood commented she thought we could. Ms. Wood expressed she believed the Traffic Phasing Ordinance comes into play if someone is seeking a building permit, and if this were just changing the use in a standard building, would we have the authority to require new compliance with traffic phasing? Ms. Temple responded if they needed a tenant improvement building permit, that is a building permit. The Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Clausen commented, as far as the hypothetical, whether we would have the ability to prohibit them from using the top two floors of some area of square footage would depend upon the application and the approval mechanism that the City had at the time. if they already had the building built and they were changing the use and were applying for a building permit then we would have to look at the approval mechanisms for the TPO. Commissioner Gifford commented that it strikes her as a highly undesirable Ir solution and it would be better if we did not have the problem in the first place and need to take that into consideration. Commissioner Tucker commented what he understood from his question was that not just the manufacturing part but perhaps some of the office uses were also factored into how the trip generations are assumed to be set forth. If you have an office tower full of R&D types that are working odd hours and was factored into our traffic study then that use leaves, we might have an office building filled with traditional office uses. If we customize too much the traffic assumptions, then the structures are there when the user leaves at some point and what does that leave us with. Commissioner Kranzley commented that we always have that condition that talks about public safety that we can call an application up if we see issues with public safety, well being, etc. If it were generating more peak hour trips and causing... Ms. Clauson interjected and commented she did not think that would be the answer to the type of situation that Commissioner Tucker envisioned. Ms. Clauson expressed that Mr. Edmonston might need to talk more about how tailored these traffic projections are to this particular project as opposed to also considering other types of uses. Mr. Edmonston commented that we have had a number of buildings in the City that have converted from a more intense use, most typically from an office to a medical office. In some cases they have been required to determine whether the additional use would trigger the TPO and, if it does not do that, they would have to pay the increased fair -share fees. The City has had that mechanism and it is true that it requires a building permit, but a tenant improvement permit is usually what happens when you convert from one use to another. That is how we learn of the projects and process them. Chairman Selich commented that the concern seems to be that this project is so big that we may have it going on in other instances. If this one facility would turn over, it would be a potentially big impact because of the size. Commissioner Ashley noticed on the flex hour program, they have the people coming in at 5:30 a.m. and leaving at 5:30 p.m. on the 12-hour shift, and asked Mr. Bluth if they had given consideration to a different period of time such as 6 a.m.. The people who would be working at 6 a.m. would have to arrive before 6 and those who would be getting off at 6 p.m. would be leaving after 6 and that would help alleviate some of the peak traffic problem. Mr. Bluth responded when that shift was developed some years ago, the people who are subject to it selected that time. Mr. Bluth expressed that is something that could be an element of discussion. Commissioner Ashley noticed in the Conexant Environmental Impact Report, that the company does encourage employees to car pool and give information as to where employees live in their neighborhood so that it might induce car-pooling. Commissioner Ashley also noted that Conexant does give information which mass transit facilities may be available. In order to encourage their use of car-pooling or mass transit, have you ever considered giving some form of material inducement, which would also reduce the amount of vehicles that would be traveling? Mr. Bluth responded they do not have an 11 ride share incentive program at this time, although they do try to facilitate it. Mr. Bluth commented that they would consider and discuss that. Commissioner Ashley suggested that it would be interesting to have Mr. Bluth talk about that subject when he returns. Chairman Selich commented that they wanted to get into the traffic but running short of time and need to get into the regular Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Selich suggested that they forgo any presentation on traffic by staff and go directly to questions the Commissioners have. Commissioner Kranzley suggested that they have another study session because traffic is a significant issue. After discussion, it was decided to have two items at one study session on January 20, 2000, beginning at 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. for Conexant and from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. for Banning Ranch. The Commissioners agreed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT 7:05 p.m. 12 �EwPORr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ��G onwy`r 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 PART I: Cover Page Application: ❑ Use Permit No. ❑ Planning Director's Use Permit No. ❑ G.P.A./Amendment No. ❑ Variance No. Project Common Name (if applicable): Conexant Project FEES: la' `j 2 1- �. APPLICANT (Print): Conexant Systems, Inc. CONTACT PERSON (if different): Rich Bluth Mailing Address: 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mailing Address: 43I1 Jamboree Rona M/S F04-49q Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 483-4593 Fax( 94� 483-6140 Phone: (949) 483-4593 Fax( 949) 483-6140 Property Owner (if different from above): Mailing Address:_ Phone:( ) Fax PROJECT ADDRESS: 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Project Description (If applying for a variance, also complete attached form for required findings.): Increase site entitlements in the amount of 566,000 Sq. Ft. Project includes amendment -to planned community text and execution of a development agreement. PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (I) (We) �L �—�J g��'�"'5 _ ' depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the property(ies) involved in this applicati n. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitte in all res ects true an orrect to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. Signature(s) Lo.•r �G1�'T NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: Indicate Previous Modifications, Use Permits, Specialty Food Service Permits, etc. General Plan Designation: Date Filed: Date Deemed Complete: Posting Date: Planning Director Action Date P.C. Hearing Date C.C. Hearing nUSERS\PLMHAREDq FORMS\USE•APP.DOC Fee Pd: Zoning District: Coastal Zone: YES or NO Hearing Date: Mailing Date: Appeal P.C. Action Appeal C.C. Action Receipt PART II: Project Data Sheet i Project Common Name: Application Number(s): Conexant Project Project Address/Location: Assessors Parcel Number(s): 4311 Jamboree Road 445-131-02 Newport Beach CA 92660 445-131-03 Legal Description (Attach on separate sheet, if necessary): Lots 1 & 2 of tract No. 7953, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310> pages Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Light Industrial Light Industrial Zoning District: Land Use Designation: Light Industrial Existing Development Proposed Development Zoning Code Requirement Lot Area (sf) 1,090,873 SF 1,090,873 SF N/A Lot Width (ft) 1,709 Ft 1,709 Ft N/A Lot Depth (ft) 770 Ft 770 Ft N/A Setback Yards Front (R) 343 Ft 30 Ft 30 Side (ft) 100 Ft 10 Ft LO Side (ft) 568 Ft 10 Ft 10 Rear (ft) 0 Ft 0 Ft 0 Gross Floor Area (sf) 438,127 SF 566,000 SF 442,775 SF Floor Area Ratio 0.40 0.53 N/A Building Coverage(%) 25% 25% 50% Building Height (ft) 52 FT 150 FT 75 FT Landscaping (%) 10% 10% N/A Paving (%) 65% 40% N/A Parking 1,264 1.698 Number of Employees 1,479 2,695 Number of seats N/A N/A N/A, Dwelling Units N/A N/A N/A 3 PART III: Plans Each application shall be accompanied by 20 sets of plot plans, floor plans, and elevations; 8 sets shall be drawn to scale on 24 inch by 36 inch sheets with margins not less than 1/2 inch and 12 sets shall reduced to 11 inches by 17 inches. The required number of plans to be submitted for a Planning Director's Use Permit application is 12 sets; 4 sets drawn to scale and 8 sets reduced. All plans shall be collated, stapled and folded to a size of W" by 14", maximum. The Planning Director may modify or waive submission requirements if deemed unnecessary to sunnort the aonlieation. A. Plot Plan Plot plans shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information on the subject property and to a minimum of 20 feet on contiguous properties: • Vicinity Map. • North arrow. • Scale of the plan. • Existing and proposed property lines • Required and proposed yard setback lines. • Locations, names, dimensions, and descriptions of all existing and proposed right of way lines, dedications and easements. • Locations of existing and proposed structures, additions, utilities, driveways, walks, and open spaces. • Any structures to be relocated, removed or demolished. • Locations, heights, and materials of existing and proposed walls and fences. Locations, dimensions and descriptions of parking areas. • Location, heights, size and materials of signs. • Existing and proposed grade elevations and any significant natural features. • An information block containing the name and telephone number of the contact person and calculations in tabular form showing compliance with applicable property development regulations (i.e., density, floor area limits, height, parking, etc.) B. Floor Plans Floor plans shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information: • Overall building and individual room dimensions, including square footage calculations, • All proposed interior walls and partitions. • Room identification. .• Window and door locations. C. Elevations Elevations shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information: • Exterior wall openings. • Exterior materials and finishes. • Roof pitches. • All roof mounted equipment and screening. • Heights above grade of all floors, eaves, and ridges. D. Optional Materials • Materials board (specifications and samples of type, color and texture of proposed construction materials). • Color photographs of the subject and adjacent properties. Part IV: Other Information and Materials Each application shall be accompanied by the following: A. Property Owners' List and Assessor's Parcel Maps 1. One set of gummed address labels (Avery 5160 or equivalent) containing the names and addresses of owners of the subject property and properties within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property (excluding roads and waterways for commercial Properties only) shall be submitted. The list shall also contain the addresses of occupants of residentially -zoned property within the required prescribed radius only if the Planning Department makes the determination that the project is of significant public interest. Additional sets of gummed labels shall be required if the proposed development is appealed or called up for review. 2. An assessor's parcel map(s) indicating the 300-foot radius line and the subject property shall also be submitted. T This information shall be prepared by a title company or an ownership listing service doing business in Orange County, utilizing names and addresses from the last equalized assessment roll and utilizing the most recent assessor's maps, or alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent names, addresses or maps. The information shall be verified by the title company or ownership listing service and be accompanied by a written affidavit. B. Proiect Description and Justification A stateibent describing the proposed project in detail. This will serve as the formal statement to the approving authority on what the project is and why it should be approved. Please include any relevant information which supports the application. Particular attention should be given relating this information to any findings that must be made in order to approve the application (see table below). Required Findings Application Section Transportation Demand Management Ordinance 20.64.040 Establishment of grade by the Planning Commission 20.65.030 (B-3) Sign Exception Permits 20.67.045 (B) Accessory Outdoor Dining 20.82.050 (B) Waiver of location restrictions for massage establishments 20.87.025 (B) Modification Permits (General) 20.93.040 For condominium conversions 20.83.025, 20.83.035 (B) Use Permits (General) 20.91.035 (A) To exceed base development allocations 20.63.040 (B or C) To allow mixed use developments with less than 0.25 FAR for commercial development 20,63.040 (E) To restore of damage or Destroyed nonconforming structures 20.62.070 Conversion of a Maximum FAR use to a Base FAR use or to a Reduced FAR use, or conver- sion of a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR use 20,63.050 (B) To transfer development intensity 20.63.080 (1) To modify or waive of off-street parking and loading requirements 20.66.100 (A) For bars and cocktail lounges 20.82.020 (B) For take-out service, limited 20.82.020 (C) Variances (See page 8 of application) 20.91.035 (B) � Environmental Information Form: The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide the basis information necessary for the evaluation of your project to determine its potential environmental effects. This review provides the basis for determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, as required by state law. After this information has been evaluated by the Planning Department, a determination will be made regarding the appropriate environmental documentation for your project. Yl Variances: Required Findings: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To aid staff in determining that the finding can be made in this particular case please answer the following questions with regard to your request. (Please attach on separate sheet, if necessary.) 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? 2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? PLEASE RECORD AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT AMENDMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Planned Community Text Amendment and Development Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is entered into effective as of 1998, (hereinafter the "Effective Date") by and among the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (hereinafter "CITY"), and CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. (hereinafter "OWNER"). RECITALS A. OWNER owns all of the real property ("Property") described on Exhibit "A' and depicted on Exhibit `B," consisting of approximately twenty-five and forty-three hundredths (25.043) acres. B. The Property comprises all of "Site I Light Industrial" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. It is currently developed with approximately four hundred thirty-eight thousand one hundred twenty-seven (438,127) square feet of light industrial and accessory office buildings, and surface parking. Under the existing Planned Community text for this site, less than 5,000 square feet of expansion opportunity remains available to accommodate growing expansion needs of OWNER, which occupies the entire site. C. OWNER has requested that it be allowed up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial/accessory office expansion opportunity on the Property, for a total of one million eight thousand seven hundred seventy-five (1,008,775) square feet of allowable building area (the "Project"). Given the site size, the Project would amount to a .93 Floor Area Ratio. The Project is intended to provide OWNER with needed expansion opportunities at its existing site, and thereby encourage OWNER to remain on the Property as a major employer and source of revenues for CITY. At the same time, the Project is proposed to include standards and mitigation measures to ensure that expansion will not exceed the capacity of surrounding infrastructure. D. CITY has reviewed the Project with OWNER and as required by law, and has concluded that it is in the best interests of the City to approve the Project. Additionally, Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement Law"), and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45, authorize CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property, all for the purpose of strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private OC DOM] 8314821N971 participation and comprehensive planning and reducing the economic costs of such development. OWNER has therefore asked, and CITY has agreed, that a Development Agreement should be approved and adopted for this project in order to memorialize and secure the respective expectations of CITY and OWNER with respect to the Project. E. The City Council has found that this Agreement is in the best public interest of the CITY and its residents, adopting this Agreement constitutes a present exercise of its police power, and same is consistent with the City's General Plan and with Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45. COVENANTS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the.parties agree as follows: DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. 1.1 Definitions. This Agreement uses a number of terms having specific meanings, as defined below. These specially defined terms are distinguished by having the initial letter capitalized, or all letters capitalized, when used in the Agreement. The defined terms include the following: 1.1.1 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement. 1.1.2 "CITY" means the City of Newport Beach, a California charter city. 1.1.3 "Development," whether or not capitalized, means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping and park facilities and improvements. "Development" also includes the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, landscaping or facility after the construction and completion thereof. 1.1.4 "Development Approvals" means all permits, licenses, consents, rights and privileges, and other actions subject to approval or issuance by CITY in connection with Development of the Property, including but not limited to: (a) General plans and general plan amendments; (b) Specific plans and specific plan amendments; (c) Zoning and rezoning; OC DOCS\183148.2 tW971 (d) Tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; (e) Variances, conditional use permits, master plans, public use permits and plot plans; and (f) Grading and building permits. 1.1.5 "Development Plan" means the plan for Development of the Property, including without limitation the planning and zoning standards, regulations, and criteria for the Development of the Property, contained in and consistent with the Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport, as the same are amended by Exhibit "C." "Development Plan" also includes the Mitigation Measures identified in Exhibit "D." 1.1.6 "Development Requirement" means any requirement of CITY in connection with or pursuant to any Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction or improvement of public facilities, or the payment of fees or assessments in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of Development on the environment or other public interest. 1.1.7 "Effective Date" means the date this Agreement is recorded with the County Recorder. 1.1.8 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing Development and use of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the Property. "Land Use Regulations" does not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing: (a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (b) taxes and assessments; (c) the control and abatement of nuisances; (d) • the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain; and (f) the amount of processing fees or Development impact fees. 1.1.9 "OWNER" means Conexant Systems, Inc. and, where appropriate in context, its successors in interest to all or any part of the Property. OC DOCS\183148.2 EW971 1.1.10 "Mitigation Measures" mean those requirements imposed on the Project contained in Exhibit "D." 1.1.11 "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other security -device, a lender and their successors and assigns. 1.1.12 "Project" means the Development of the Property consistent with the Development Plan. 1.1.13 "Property" means the real property described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit `B" to this Agreement. 1.1.14 "Reservation of Authority" means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to CITY under Section 4.6 of this Agreement. 1.1.15 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with Development of the Property. 1.1.16 "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" means any Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement, other than the Development Plan. 1.1.17 "Term" shall mean the period of time from the Effective Date until the termination of this Agreement as provided in subsection 10.1, or earlier termination as provided in Section 7. 1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement: Exhibit "A" Legal Description of the Property. .Exhibit `B" Map showing Property and its location. Exhibit "C" Planned Community Development Standards Amendments Exhibit "D" Mitigation Measures 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. From and following the Effective Date, Development of the Property and CITY actions on applications for Development Approvals respecting the Property shall be subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 2.2 Ownership of Property. OWNER represents and covenants that it is the owner of the fee simple title to the Property. OC_DOCS\183148.2 [W971 2.3 Assignment. 2.3.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.), and in so doing assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement as the same may relate to the portion of 'the Property being transferred, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement. 2.3.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Upon the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a portion of the Property, the transferring OWNER shall be released of all obligations under this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred; provided that the obligations under this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred are assumed by and enforceable against the transferee. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 3.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Plan. 3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, the rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to Development of the Property, shall be those contained in the Development Plan and those Land Use Regulations not inconsistent with the Development Plan. 3.3 Subsequent Development Approvals. CITY shall accept for expeditious processing, review and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters, for all or a portion of the Property at OWNER's option. The CITY further agrees that, unless otherwise requested by OWNER or as authorized by this Agreement, it shall not amend or rescind any Subsequent Development Approvals respecting the Property after such approvals have been granted by the CITY, and that pursuant to Section 66452.6 (a) of the California Government Code, any tentative subdivision map approved for the Property, or any portion thereof, shall also be extended for a period equal to the Term of this Agreement. 3.4 Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of OWNER, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of Development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of Development to prevail over such OC DOCSU 83148.2[W971 parties' agreement, it is the parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that OWNER shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. Nothing in this section is intended to alter the standard durational limits of any applicable permits issued to OWNER. 13.5 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that Development of the Project will likely require Subsequent Development Approvals, and that in connection therewith OWNER may determine that changes are appropriate and desirable in the existing Development Approvals or Development Plan. In the event OWNER finds that such a change is appropriate or desirable, OWNER may apply in writing for an amendment to prior Development Approvals or the Development Plan to effectuate such change, and CITY shall process and act on such application notwithstanding anything in this Agreement that may be to the contrary. CITY shall have no obligation to grant any such application by OWNER that modifies the overall intensity or density of Development, or otherwise is a substantial modification of the Development Plan having significant adverse environmental impacts. If approved in a form to which OWNER has consented in writing, any such change in the Development Approvals or Development Plan shall be incorporated herein as an addendum, and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Any change in the Development Approvals or Development Plan made in accordance with the procedures required by the Land Use Regulations and with the written consent of the OWNER shall be conclusively deemed to be consistent with this Agreement, without any further need for any amendment to this Agreement or any of its Exhibits. 3.6 Reservation of Authority. 3.6.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the Development of the Property: (a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by CITY to cover the estimated actual costs to CITY of processing applications for Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued. (b) Procedural regulations not inconsistent with this Agreement relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearing, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure. (c) Changes adopted by the International Conference of Building Officials as part of the then most current versions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, or National Electrical Code, and also adopted by CITY as Subsequent Land Use Regulations. (d) Regulations which may be in conflict with the Development Plan but which are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety. To the 6 OC DOCS\183148.2 (W971 extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed consistent with Section 4.6.4 below so as to provide OWNER with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement. (e) Regulations which are not in conflict with the Development Plan and this Agreement. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of Development of the Property, or attempting to assess any additional fees or taxes on Development of the Property, or imposing architectural or landscaping requirements or reviews, shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and this Agreement and shall therefore not be applicable to Development of the Property. (f) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to Development of Property. (g) Federal and State laws and regulations which CITY is required to enforce as against the Property or the Development of the Property. 3.6.2 Future Discretion of CITY. This Agreement shall not prevent CITY, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying Subsequent Land Use Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent CITY from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the existing Land Use Regulations or any Subsequent Land Use Regulation not in conflict with the Development Plan. 3.6.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, and this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provision impractical to enforce. 3.6.4 Intent. The CITY acknowledges that OWNER has reasonably entered into this Agreement and will proceed with the Project on the assumption that CITY has adequately provided for the public health, safety and welfare through the Land Use Regulations. In the event that any future, unforeseen public health or safety emergency arises, CITY agrees that it shall attempt to address such emergency in such a way as not to impact Development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan, and if that is not possible, to select that option for addressing the emergency which has the least adverse impact on Development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. CITY specifically also agrees that it will not adopt any Development moratorium applicable to the Property except as a last resort response to such an emergency, and then shall maintain any such moratorium with respect to the Property only for so long as OC DOCS\1831482[W97] required for the CITY to address the emergency in such a way as to permit the Project to be completed according to OWNER's timetable. 3.7 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not subject to control by CITY possess authority to regulate aspects of the Development of the Property, and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. 3.8 Vesting Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with Development of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, et seg.), and if this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to OWNER, then and to that extent the rights and protection afforded OWNER under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede the provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above, Development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over any conflicting provision of law or ordinance concerning vesting maps. 3.9 OWNER's Right to Construct Facilities. It is understood and agreed that, subject to CITY review and approval of plans and specifications, the OWNER may elect, and reserves the right, to construct, or cause the construction of, any public or quasi -public facility for which the CITY intends to collect a fee, and to dedicate the completed facility to the CITY, in lieu of payment of the fee. Additionally, subject to CITY review and approval of plans and specifications, OWNER may elect, and reserves the right, to construct or cause the construction of any public or quasi -public facility for which the CITY intends to form a CFD, in which case the CFD shall be formed for purposes of acquiring rather than constructing such public facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 5.1 above. 3.10 Provision of Real Property Interests by CITY. In any instance where OWNER is required to construct any public improvement on land not owned by OWNER, CITY shall first have acquired the necessary real property interests to allow OWNER to construct such public improvements. Costs associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings, if any, shall be OWNER's responsibility, and may be included in the district on a fair share basis. 4 REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE. 4.1 Periodic Review. The City Council shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of the Agreement. As part of that review, OWNER shall submit an annual monitoring review statement describing its actions in compliance with this Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, within 30 days after written notice from the City Manager requesting that statement. The statement shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the estimated costs of review and administration of the OC DOCS\183148.2[W97] Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by resolution of the City Council. 4.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any time at CITY's sole cost. OWNER shall cooperate with the CITY in the conduct of such special reviews. 4.3 Procedure. In connection with any periodic or special review, each party shall have a reasonable opportunity to assert matters which it believes have not been undertaken in accordance with the Agreement, to explain the basis for such assertion, and to receive from the other party a justification of its position on such matters. If on the basis of the parties' review of any terms of the Agreement, either parry concludes that the other party has not complied in good faith with the terms of the Agreement, then such party may issue a written "Notice of Non -Compliance" specifying the grounds therefor and all facts demonstrating such non-compliance. The party receiving a Notice of Non -Compliance shall have thirty (30) days to respond in writing to said Notice. If the response to the Notice of Non -Compliance has not been received in the offices of the party alleging the default within the prescribed time period, the Notice of Non -Compliance shall be conclusively presumed to be valid. If a Notice of Non -Compliance is contested, the parties shall have up to sixty (60) days to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) occasioning the Notice. In the event that the parties are not able to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) by the end of the sixty (60) day period, the party alleging the non-compliance may thereupon pursue the remedies provided in Section 7. 4.4 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a periodic or special review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, CITY shall, upon request by OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance ("Certificate") to OWNER stating that after the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the City Manager and City Council that (1) this Agreement remains in effect and (2) OWNER is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. OWNER may record the Certificate with the County Recorder. Additionally, OWNER may at any time request from the CITY a Certificate stating, in addition to the foregoing, which obligations under this Agreement have been fully satisfied with respect to the Property, or any lot or parcel within the Property. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. 5.1 Specific Performance Available. The parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance is a particularly appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to OWNER and CITY because due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or 9 OC_DOM 183148.2 [W971 possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER and/or CITY may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize or condition the Property or portions hereof. OWNER and CITY have invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project -in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, such that it would be extremely difficult to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER and/or CITY for such efforts. Except as provided in the Section 7.2 below, neither OWNER nor CITY shall not be entitled to any money damages, including attorney fees, from the other party by reason of any default under this Agreement. 5.2 Restitution of Improper Development Fees. In the event any Development fees or taxes are imposed on Development of the Property other than those authorized pursuant to this Agreement, OWNER shall be entitled to recover from CITY restitution of all such improperly assessed fees or taxes, together with interest thereon at the maximum allowable non -usurious rate from the date such sums were paid to CITY to the date of restitution 5.3 Termination of Agreement. 5.3.1 Termination of Agreement for Default of OWNER. CITY in its discretion may terminate this Agreement for any failure of OWNER to perform any material duty or obligation of OWNER hereunder or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "default'); provided, however, CITY may terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Section only after following the procedure set forth in Section 6.3 and thereafter providing written notice to OWNER of the default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 30 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 30 day period but can be cured within a longer time, as reasonably determined by the CITY in its sole discretion, OWNER has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such 30 day period and to ,diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. 5.3.2 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITY. OWNER in its discretion may terminate this Agreement by written notice to CITY after the default by CITY in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after following the procedure set forth in Section 6.3 and thereafter providing written notice by OWNER thereof to CITY and, where the default can be cured, the failure of CITY to cure such default within 30 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 30 day period, the failure of CITY to commence to cure such default within such 30 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and to cure such default. 5.3.3 Rights and Duties Following Termination. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with 10 OC DOCS1183148.2 LW971 respect to (i) any obligations to have been performed prior to said termination, or (ii) any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to said termination. 5.4 OWNEWs Right To Terminate Upon Specified Events. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, OWNER retains the right to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to CITY in the event that OWNER reasonably determines that continued Development of the Project consistent with the Development Plan has become economically infeasible due to changed market conditions, increased Development costs, burdens imposed by the CITY or other governmental entity as conditions to future discretionary approvals of the Project consistent with this Agreement, the CITY's exercise of its Reserved Authority in a way deemed by OWNER to be inconsistent with the Development Plan, or similar factors. In the event OWNER exercises this right, it shall nonetheless be responsible for mitigation of impacts to CITY resulting from Development that may have occurred on the Property prior to the notice of termination, on a fair share or nexus basis, and within the thirty (30) day notice period CITY and OWNER shall meet to identify any such mitigation obligation that may remain to be satisfied. If the parties are in disagreement at the end of the thirty (30) day notice period, the Agreement shall be terminated as to all matters except for the remaining mitigation obligation in dispute, and with respect thereto the parties shall have the remedies provided in Section 5. 6 THIRD PARTY LITIGATION. CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any claim, action or proceeding filed and served against CITY to challenge, set aside, void, annul, limit or restrict the approval and continued implementation and enforcement of this Agreement. CITY and OWNER agree to cooperate in the defense of such action(s). 7 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. Subject to compliance with applicable laws, CITY will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any 11 OC_DOCSU 83148.2 [W97] mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from CITY of any default by OWNER in the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If CITY timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER's obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; except that (i) to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY's performance hereunder, and (ii) in the event any Mortgagee seeks to develop or use any portion of the Property acquired by such Mortgagee by foreclosure, deed of trust, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, such Mortgagee shall strictly comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements of this Agreement and the Development Plan applicable to the Property or such part thereof so acquired by the Mortgagee. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 8.1 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for a period of twenty (20) years from the Effective Date. 8.2 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. Similarly, amendments approved by the parties, and any cancellation, shall also be recorded. 8.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or 12 OC DOCS\183148.2 [N971 expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 8.4 Severability. Except as provided in section 4.6.3, if any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, then this Agreement shall terminate in its entirety, unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. 8.5 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party or in favor of CITY shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 8.6 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 8.7 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural. 8.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 8.9 Waiver. Failure of a parry to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 8.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit for the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 8.11 Force Majeure. Neither parry shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party's control (including the party's employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the party's control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance shall be extended for the duration of each such event, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years. 13 OC_DOCS1183148.2 (W971 8.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefitted thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefitted party. 8.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to Development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion thereof. 8.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument. 8.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by any party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court. 8.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Development of the Project is a private Development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the Development of private property and the owner of such property. 8.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or'record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 8.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain. 8.19 Amendments in Writing/Cooperation. This Agreement may be amended only by written consent of both parties specifically approving the amendment and in accordance with the Government Code provisions for the amendment of Development Agreements. The parties shall cooperate in good faith with respect to any amendment proposed in order to clarify the 14 OC_DOMI83148.2 CW971 intent and application of this Agreement, and shall treat any such proposal on its own merits, and not as a basis for the introduction of unrelated matters. 8.20 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he/they has/have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first set forth above. ATTEST: By City Cleric APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney (SEAL) CITY: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M Mayor OWNER: CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. By Title By Title [ALL SIGNATURES SHALL BE NOTARIZED. EXECUTION ON BEHALF OF ANY CORPORATION SHALL BE BY TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS.] 15 OC_DOM 183148 2 [W971 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Parcel A: Lot I of Tract No. 7953, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, Pages 7 to I I inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said county. Parcel B-[: Lot 2 of Tract No. 7953, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, Pages 7 to 11 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said county. Except from Lot 2 all oil, gas, hydrocarbons and other minerals of every kind and nature below a depth of five hundred (500) feet beneath the surface of the above desenbed property, without the right of surface entry, as reserved in the deed recorded May 7, 1974, in Book 11137, Page 1008, Official Records. Parcel B-2: A nonexclusive easement for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from Parcel B-1 to Von Kerman Avenue, within a strip of land, 30.00 feet in width, located on Lot 3 of Tract No. 7953, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, pages 7 to I 1 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California. Beginning at a point in that certain curve in the centerline of Von Kansan Avenue shown on said map as being concave Northwesterly and having a radius of 600.00 feet with a central angle of 890 59' 50" and an are length of 942.45 feet, a radial of said curve from said point bears North 250 54' 08" West; thence along the Southeasterly prolongation of said radial, South 25° 54' 08" East, 95.33 feet to a tangent curve concave Westerly and having a radius of 200.00 fcet; Thence Southerly along said curve 104.38 feet through a central angle of 290 54' 08", thence tangent to said curve South 40 00' 00" West, 198.51 feet to a tangent curve concave Easterly and having a radius of 40.00 feet; thence Southerly and Southeasterly along said curve37.25 feet through a central angle of 53° 21' 34'; thence South 490 2V 34" East, 38A9 feet to a Iine parallel with and 15.00 feet Northwesterly from the Northwesterly line of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 7953; thence along said parallel line, North 400 38' 26" East, 90.00 feet. The side lines of said strip shall be prolongaled or shortened so as to form a continuous strip of land: Excepting therefrom that portion included within said Von Karen Avenue. Parcel B-3: An easement and right of way to construct, use, maintain and operate an underground electrical power line within a strip of land, 8.00 feet in width, over that portion of Lot 3 of Tract No. 7953, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, pages 7 to I I inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, lying 4.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point in the Southeasterly line of Lot 3, distant thereon South 40° 38' 25" West; 3.99 feet from the most Southerly comer of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 7953; thence North 480 30' 22" West, 267.86 feet to a point in the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2, said point being distant along said Southwesterly Iine North 49° 21' 34" West, 267.83 feet from said Southerly comer. The sidelines of said strip of land are to be prolonged or shortened so as to terminate Northwesterly in said Southwesterly line. ParcelB4: A non-exclusive easement, 40.00 feet wide, for ingress and egress purposes, for the maintenance of the utility spine and buildings located over that portion of Lot 3 of Tract No. 7953, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, Pages 7 to I inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, the Southeasterly line of said strip being described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly comer of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 7953; thence along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 2, North 400 38' 26" East, 99.17 feet to an angle point in the most Southwesterly line of Lot I of said Tract No. 7953. Parcel C: Easements as set forth in Sections 1.05, 1.06 and 1.10 of that certain Reciprocal Grant of Easements recorded November 6, 1972, in Book 10413, Page 573 of Official Records of Orange County, California Parcel D: Easements as set forth in that certain Reciprocal Grant and Quitclaim of Easements recorded January 30, 1974, in Book 11966, Page 650 of Official Records of Orange County, California. OC_DOCS\183148.2 [W 97] 8505 � I OooO d�, � i© HAV OOL¢ EL WMAH j� ���F� Im nnnnnlinnnnnnni 111t11 ILLU I I 11LLI t I 1111W I I LJuI II LLUI I I J/JABOftEEftOAO DGI?�C�4�OO M OO C� 4G{]C� PL30O PC�G3�i7 EXH®R® EXHIBIT "C" PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AMENDMENTS The Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are hereby amended as follows: 1. Part I, Section I, is amended to read as follows: PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. Site 1: 25.043 acres B. Allowable Building Area (Exclusive of Parking Structures) Site 1: 1,008,775 square feet C. Parking Criteria t1a Site 1: Building Use Category Manufacturing Engineering/Labs Administrative Landscaped Open Space Site 1: Parking Requirements 2.0 spaces/1,000 square feet 3.0 spaces/1,000 square feet 3.0 spaces/1,000 square feet Building Site Coverage.............12.52 acres Parking Area and Structures ....... 8.71 acres nnen Space................................3.81 acres Area...........................................25.04 acres OC DOCS\I83148.2 [W971 2. Part I, Section V., is added to read as follows: Section V. Special Features The following guidelines shall apply unless otherwise waived through the site plan review process: Jamboree Road Setbacks The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. 2. Parking Structure Guidelines Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive architectural treatment to give the appearance of an occupied building structure rather than a parking structure. 3. Building Footprints Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 141,500 square feet. 4. Temporary Parking During Construction Phases Temporary parking on an off -site location with provisions for shuttle buses to Site 1 will be provided as needed during construction to meet parking demand. 2 OC_DOCS\I83148.2 [W97] 3. Part I, Section IV.C., is amended to read as follows. A. Building Height Site 1 has been divided into three building height zones, as depicted in Exhibit C-1 and described below: Central Zone (existing Buildings 503 and 501) East Zone (east of existing Building 503) Service Zone (north of existing Buildings 503 and 501) Building heights of structures shall be limited as follows by height zone: Central Zone ................ one hundred fifty (150) feet (10 stories) East Zone ................... one hundred (100) feet (6 stories) Service Zone ................ seventy-five (75) feet 3. Part I, Section IV.F., is amended to read as follows: F. Signs Site 1: The following signage standards shall apply in lieu of the General Sign Requirements, Part IV.: a. General Sign Standards All signs visible at the exterior of any building or facility in Site 1, ground mounted or on -building, may be illuminated by internal or external source. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, nor create the illusion of movement, in any fashion. ii. All signs attached to building or facility exteriors shall be flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural design features of the building or facility. iii. All signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regard to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service iv. All street signs shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be in compliance with Ordinance 110-L. b. General Sign Types And Numbers OC_DOCS\I83148.2 [W97] Primary identification ground mounted with signage on both sides: - Maximum Sign Size: 100 square feet on each side or 200 square feet total ii. "Gateway" identification signs on Jamboree Road at entry drives, ground mounted: -Maximum Size: 50 square feet each side or 100 square feet total -Maximum Height: 10 feet -Maximum Number: 2 iii. Secondary identification sign on Birch Street: -Maximum Sign Size: 35 square feet -Maximum Height: 4 feet iv. Miscellaneous vehicular and pedestrian directional signs: -Maximum Sign Size: 28 square feet per face -Maximum Height: 7 feet V. Building mounted identification signs -Maximum Sign Size: 400 square feet per building -Maximum Number: 2 facades per building C. Temporary Identification Signs A sign advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs authorized above, not to exceed forty (40) square feet in size. ii. Not more than two (2) construction signs denoting architects, engineers, contractors, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, not to exceed forty (40) square feet in size each. 4. Part I, Section IV.H., is amended to read as follows: H. Parkin All parking shall be as specified in Part I, Section I.C. above, rather than the General Parking Requirements, Part III. 5. Part I, Section IV.I., is amended to read as follows: OC_DOCS\I83148.2 [w971 I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V, except that the following standards shall apply in lieu of Section I.D. thereof: A minimum of five percent (5%) of the surface parking areas shall be devoted to planting areas. Planting areas around buildings shall not be included in parking area. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing. Alternative landscape programs may be developed, including perimeter parking area landscaping, berming and depressing parking areas. Alternative landscape programs shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. OC_DOCS\I83148.2 LW971 SERVICE ZONE 7V I------ ---------------- I j I uI¶IIrIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL(1 C HALF DOM EL C"rrAN rllTl U I - EAST ZONE I ulll�oiwllnllnllnlnngnlnlnllnln =_ I � unnnnnnnnnlnlnnnnnnnln I � ��--�n-������ �� �� pp pu-I ICI I� �I II I� I� II II I' II I� II IIII IpI I�1�1�1� 1t11TllIT1IWTf1II�T�I[1IT� 1pI = CENTRAL ZONE ISO! flTfrflTTll IfffTITr�TlllllTfTIITfTTIIIIIIIIlIII1TU I = �• ��i.i� unlinllnlllnnnnnnnnnnnnn ununuull I U -- ------------------------------ ---------� MMoRMRoAD u lmrr�l EXHIBIT "D" MITIGATION MEASURES [identify special development requirements here, such as building area and massing, special articulation and setbacks, parking landscaping, parking structure standards, and phasing] OC_DOCSU 83148.2 LIV971 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 4, 1998 Staff Planner: Marc Myers ext. 3210 X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT _ COMMUNITY SERVICES X POLICE DEPARTMENTNICE & INTELLIGENCE X CITY ATTORNEY X REVENUE X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: I Rockwell Semiconductor Systems CONTACT: Rich Bluth (949) 221-4593 FOR: General Plan Amendment The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment and PC Amendment to allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and an Initial Study, which provides a project description, and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project is attached for review and comment. Please forward comments to Marc Myers in the Planning Department. LOCATION: 4311 Jamboree Road REPORT REQUESTED BY: November 17,1998 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Check all that gMly: ❑ No comments on the project as presented. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements are not expected to alter the project design. 0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (O see attached): A hearing date has not been set at this time. ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are attached. 14 Application of Standard Code requirements-er—the will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 4, 1998 Staff Planner: Marc Myers ext. 3210 X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN X TRAFFIC ENGINEER X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT _ COMMUNITY SERVICES X POLICE DEPARTMENT/VICE & INTELLIGENCE X CITY ATTORNEY X REVENUE X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: I Rockwell Semiconductor Systems I CONTACT: Rich Bluth (949) 22144593 FOR: General Plan Amendment DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment and PC Amendment to allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and an Initial Study, which provides a project description, and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project is attached for review and comment. Please forward comments to Marc Myers in the Planning Department. LOCATION: 4311 Jamboree Road REPORT REQUESTED BY: November 17,1998 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Check all that apply: ❑ No comments on the project as presented. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements are not expected to alter the project design. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (O see attached): A hearing date has not been set at this time. Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the attached conditions of approval will substantially im act or alter the design of the project. Aix hL_A_ A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Resource Management • Human Resources • Risk Management • Fiscal Services • M.I.S. - Revenue • Accounting November 9, 1998 TO: Marc Myers, Associate Planner FROM: Craig Bluell, Management Analyst y SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS-ROCKWELL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT From a revenue perspective the Rockwell General Plan amendment needs a condition that provides for 1) Rockwell to require construction contractors to allocate the local sales and use tax derived from construction contracts of $5,000,000 or more at the Newport Beach Rockwell location to the City of Newport Beach and 2) Rockwell to register with the State Board of Equalization for a Direct Payment Permit and accrue to the City of Newport Beach use tax derived from purchases made for the Newport Beach location of Rockwell. Myers, Marc From: Bluell, Craig Sent: _ Monday, November 09, 1998 12:33 PM To: Myers, Marc Cc: Everroad, Glen; Temple, Patty Subject: Rockwell General Plan Amendment From a revenue perspective the General Plan amendment needs a condition that provides for 1) Rockwell to require construction contractors to allocate the local sales and use tax derived from construction contracts of $5,000,000 or more at the Newport Beach Rockwell location to the City of Newport Beach and 2) Rockwell to register with the State Board of Equalization for a Direct Payment Permit and accrue to the City of Newport Beach use tax derived from purchases made for the Newport Beach location of Rockwell. Under item 1, the difference in tax received by the City, assuming 1/3 of the construction costs are taxable, is either zero or at a minimum $17,000 which is 1 % of taxable construction costs. Under item 2, the difference in tax received by the City is 1 % or 4.4% of 1 % of taxable purchases. On a $500,000 taxable purchase the tax revenue to the City would be either $5,000 or $220. By way of example, one purchase made by Rockwell last year resulted in the City receiving just over $139,000 in tax revenue. From this tax payment you can see the size of the taxable purchases made by Rockwell. Page 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 4, 1998 Staff Planner: Marc Myers ext. 3210 X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT X POLICE ED PARTMEINT/VICE & INTELLIGENCE 4W ): 7i'� Ne�mah, X CITY ATTORNEY X REVENUE X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: I Rockwell Semiconductor S stems CONTACT: I Rich Bluth (949) 221-4593 FOR: General Plan Amendment DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment and PC Amendment to allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and an Initial Study, which provides a project description, and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project is attached for review and comment. Please forward comments to Marc Myers in the Planning Department. LOCATION: 4311 Jamboree Road REPORT REQUESTED BY: November 17,1998 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Check all that apply, No comments on the project as presented. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements are not expected to alter the project design. WE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Q see attached): A hearing date has not been set at this time. ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 4. 1998 Staff Planner: Marc Myers ext. 3210 X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT _ COMMUNITY SERVICES X POLICE DEPARTMENT/VICE & INTELLIGENCE X CITY ATTORNEY X REVENUE X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: I Rockwell Semiconductor Systems CONTACT: Rich Bluth (949) 2214593 FOR: General Plan Amendment The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment and PC Amendment to allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and an Initial Study, which provides a project description, and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project is attached for review and comment. Please forward comments to Marc Myers in the Planning Department. LOCATION: 4311 Jamboree Road REPORT REQUESTED BY: November 17,1998 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Check all that apply: ❑ No comments on the project as presented. Application of Standard Code requirements are not expected to alter the project design. a7 See attached comments. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (O see attached): A hearing date has not been set at this time. ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are attached., ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. Signature: . Lw C� _ Ext. 644-3I0bate: NOV 2 4 TOW MEMORANDUM Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department Fire Prevention Division Date: November 24,1998 To: Planning Department From: Dennis Lockard, Fire Marshal Subject: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, 4311 Jamboree Road The current semiconductor building is over area, based on current code requirements. Further expansion of this building as proposed will require evaluation of the type of construction, exiting, use, and allowable areas of the existing building as well as any new addition to the facility. This expansion of the fabrication facility may be difficult as a result of existing conditions. The Building Department and Fire Prevention should be contacted immediately to discuss these issues. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 4. 1998 Staff Planner: Marc Myers ext. 3210 X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDINGIGRADING DEPARTMENT _ COMMUNITY SERVICES X POLICE DEPARTMENTNICE & INTELLIGENCE X CITY ATTORNEY X REVENUE X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: I Rockwell Semiconductor Systems CONTACT: Rich Bluth (949) 221-45 33 FOR: General Plan Amendment DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment and PC Amendment to allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and an Initial Study, which provides a project description, and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project is attached for review and comment. Please forward comments to Marc Myers in the Planning Department. LOCATION: 4311 Jamboree Road REPORT REQUESTED BY: November`17,1998 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Check all that apply: ❑ No comments on the project as presented. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements are not expected to alter the project design. -7 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (0 see attached): �A hearing date has not been set at this time. 4W Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 4, 1998 Staff Planner: Marc Myers ext. 3210 X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT _ COMMUNITY SERVICES X POLICE DEPARTMENT/VICE & INTELLIGENCE X CITY ATTORNEY X REVENUE X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: I Rockwell Semiconductor Systems CONTACT: I Rich Bluth (949) 221-4593 • General Plan Amendment DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment and PC Amendment to allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and an Initial Study, which provides a project description, and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project is attached for review and comment. Please forward comments to Marc Myers in the Planning Department. LOCATION: 4311 Jamboree Road REPORT REQUESTED BY: November 17,1998 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Check all that apply. ❑ No comments on the project as presented. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements are not expected to alter the project design. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (O see attached): A hearing date has not been set at this time. ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. Signature: Ext. Date: November16,1998 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FINDINGS: 1. That the design of proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. CONDITIONS: 1. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. Structure shall not be constructed over the existing 15 feet easement for public storm drain purposes located in the northwesterly portion of the property recorded in Book 11112, page 1402 of the Orange County Recorders Office. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired obtain a building permit prior to completion of required public improvements. 4. Each building shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 5. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. 6. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 7. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 8. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 9. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Jamboree Road or Birch Street rights -of -way. 10. Section VI. (b) Transportation/Circulation should be revised to "Potentially significant unless mitigated:' The Initial Study discusses improvements, but the nature of these improvements is undefined and unclear. Improvements to project entrances and to pedestrian access shall be identified, quantified or described more clearly in this section. The relationship between the improvements and the improved emergency access should be described more clearly in Section IX. Hazards (b). Emergency evacuations from parking structures may take longer with fewer access points than from surface lot parking. Plan•com\Rockwe1198 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 October 26, 1998 Responsible Agencies, Other Interested State and Local Government Agencies, Utilities, and Other Interested Parties City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, Community and Economic Development Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach (City) will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed' project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the City if you have permit or other approval authority over some aspect of this project. The attached Initial Study provides the project description and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the City of Newport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describing your environmental concerns and also please define your statutory responsibilities and permitting or other authority (if any) with respect to this project. Please provide the name of the contact person in your agency for further communications concerning this project, if necessary. Project Title: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Project Applicant: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell International Corporation Send Responses to: Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Telephone: (949) 644-3210 Fax: (949) 644-3250 POSTED OCT 2 7 1998 GAR RANVILLE, Clerk•Recorder BY — DEPUTY 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 DATE: October 26, 1998 TO: Interested Parties FROM: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach (City) is the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Project. The City has prepared: a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR; and an Initial Study which provides a project description and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study are available for review at the following locations: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 (949) 644-3225 Newport Beach Public Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 717-3800 The 25-acre project site, located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street, is currently developed as the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Facility. The proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. The proposed project would provide for the development of additional light industrial and office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. The proposed project includes special design features that address building setbacks along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. If you would like to submit comments on the Notice of Preparation, please send written comments to the City at the address shown below. Please be specific in the statements describing your environmental concerns. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Project Title: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Project Applicant: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell International Corporation Send Responses to: Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Telephone: (949) 644-3210 Fax: (949) 644-3250 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 DATE: October 26, 1998 TO: Responsible Agencies, Other Interested State and Local Government Agencies, Utilities, and Other Interested Parties FROM: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach (City) will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the City if you have permit or other approval authority over some aspect of this project. The attached Initial Study provides the project description and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the City of Newport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describing your environmental concerns and also please define your statutory responsibilities and permitting or other authority (if any) with respect to this project. Please provide the name of the contact person in your agency for further communications concerning this project, if necessary. Project Title: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Project Applicant: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell International Corporation Send Responses to: Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Telephone: (949) 644-3210 Fax: (949) 644-3250 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Ms. Carol Tsai 1466 Kamole Street Honolulu, HI, CA 95821 Mr. Thomas Wooldridge 1735 Corbett Highlands Place Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS C/O WJS INC. 5031 Birch Street #D Newport Beach, CA 29660 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS C/O THREE'S COMPANY 4701 Teller Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 DARTS BUILDING PARTNERS 5120 Birch Street #200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 A Tee & Renae Migliori FAMILY MIGLIORI 5119 Circle Vista Avenue La Crescenta, CA 91214 HASKELL WHITE BUILDING 4901 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 c'D S�t,tut C r 1h (VNfr?J ")NV, GA &1'&'qX- Noy) Mr. Nelson Mamey 5160 Birch Street #101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 APEX ALND INVESTMENTS INC. 4675 MacArthur Court #1570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS 4770 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 CP ASSOCIATES 5100 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 EWING ENTERPRISES 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 HARRINGTON SOUND PROPERTIES INC. 5 Civic Plaza #320 Newport Beach, CA 92660 INNS SPECTRUM 4440 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 JAMBOREE ASSOCIATES LTD 18818 Teller Avenue #275 Irvine, CA 92612 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT NUMBER 14 P. O. Box 188039 Carlsbad, CA 92009 LAMBEAU PROPERTIES LLC 4921 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 LLC MILESTONE 5015 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 NEWPORT FEDERAL 4425 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA KCN LIMITED EDITION OWNERS Assoc. 5030 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 KoLL CORPORATE Assoc IT PSTG 4343 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 LEBATAINC. 4621 Teller Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 LYON LEON; LYON WILLIAM HARWELL I 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 OLEN COMMERICAL REALTY ENCUMBERANCE I COR 7 Corporate Plaza Drive 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS INC. 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard Seal Beach, CA 90740 VON KARMAN LP BP 13031 Newport Avenue #200 Tustin, CA 92780 i Mr. John Saunders 4525-A MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95815 Sacramento Area Office BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 Pat Budge, Frank Bianchini Presidents Bayview Terrace Homeowners Association C/O KEYSTONE PACIFIC MANAGEMENT CO. 4100 Newport Place, #350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Liam H. Davis NCCP Assoc. Wildlife Biologist CALIF. DEPT. OF FISH & GAME 4949 Viewridge Drive San Diego, CA 92123 Ms. Brenda Morrison District 12 CALIF. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 CALIF. ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 Ninth Street, MS-15 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Mark Durham Regulatory Branch ACOE-LOS ANGELES DISTRICT P. O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 BIRCH LEGACY 5180 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ms. Barbara Peters, Mr. Dan Rabun Newport North Villas C/O CMC ASSOC. MANAGEMENT 2492 Walnut Avenue, #100 Tustin, CA 92780 Eastbluff Homeowners Comm. Assn. C/O THE EMMONS COMPANY 17300 Redhill Avenue, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92614 Mr. Ron Rempel Regional Manager CALIF. DEPT. OF FISH & GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Mr. Robert Joseph Chief Adv. Planning District 12 CALIF. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 CALIF. INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 1501 E. Orangethorpe Ave, Suite 150 Fullerton, CA 92831 CALIF. STATE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 South Coast Area Office CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 200 Oceangate, loth Floor, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Office of Special Projects Planning & Analysis Divisions CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 2555 - 1st Avenue Sacramento, CA 95818 Division of Aeronautics CALTRANS P. 0. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Development Services Dept. CITY OF COSTA MESA P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Mr. Howard Zelefsky Planning Director CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 9: Mr. Peggy Schneble CITY OF IRVINE 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine, CA 92714 CALIF. WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826 South Coast Office CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 CALIFORNIA STATE CONSERVANCY 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 CALTRANS - PLANNING P. 0. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Mr. Perry Valantine CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Planning & Development Services CITY OF IRVINE P. 0. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 E/'iu- rAG' AA}%1 G'%-ewi/1l A^AP) Environmental Quality Affairs Committee CITY OF NFwPORT BEACH 432o A1� 6-4 q2Gfev Mr. Philip L. Arst COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLIANCE P. O. Box 2000/27 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Environmental Planning COUNTY OF ORANGE P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 CEQA Advisor Orange County Clerk COUNTY OF ORANGE REGISTRAR & RECORDER P. O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 DEPT. OF CONSERVATION 801 K Street, MS-24-02 Sacramento, CA 95814 DEPT. OF HEALTH P. O. Box 942732 601 North 7th Street Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 DEPT. OF PARKS & RECREATION P. O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 1020 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Jim Miller PFRD/Flood Control District COUNTY OF ORANGE P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Mr. Denton Turner PFRD/Harbors, Beaches & Parks COUNTY OF ORANGE P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 DEPT. OF BOATING & WATERWAYS 1629 S Street Sacramento, CA 95814 South Coastal Region & Inland Desert Region DEPT. OF FISH & GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 DEPT. OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1800 - 3rd Street Sacramento, CA -95814 DEPT. OF REAL ESTATE 107 S. Broadway, Room 8107 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Frank Robinson FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY P. O. Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92661 &� Mr.,.Alitel: lvas a MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT Chief, State Clearinghouse 1965 Placentia Avenue GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH Costa Mesa, CA 92628-5008 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SO. CALIF. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 350 South Grand 915 Capital Mall, Room 364 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Sacramento, CA 95814 NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE & VISITORS BUREAU Government Publications 3300 West Coast Highway NEWPORT CENTER BRANCH LIBRARY Newport Beach, CA 92663 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESOURCES AGENCY 1470 Jamboree Road 1020 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92625 Sacramento, CA 95814 Region 8 Intergovernmental Review SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SCAG 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3339 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Mr. Arnie Aparicio SOUTH COAST AQMD SO. CALIF. EDISON COMPANY 21865 E. Copley Drive 14803 Chestnut Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Westminster, CA 92683 SPON Division of Clean Water Programs P. O. Box 102 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Balboa Island, CA 92662 P. O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 } Division of Water Quality STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD P. O. Box 944213 Sacramento, CA 94244-2130 Mr. Steve Letterly Director TCA/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P. O. Box 28870 Santa Ana, CA 92799-8870 Los Angeles District U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. Box 532711 911 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90053 Region 9 Office U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Ms. Lynn Shelton, Mr. Jim Horian Bayview Court Homeowners Association VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT P. O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Mr. Richard Demerjian Director, Campus & Environmental Planning UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 3600 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-2325 Mr. Eric Freed Executive Officer Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Susan B. Seifert Co -Presiding Officer STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT P. O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Ms. Carol Hoffman THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, 8th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 District 11 U.S. COAST GUARD Coast Guard Island Alameda, CA 94501 Ecological Services U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Jim Applegate Facility Planner SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1601 E. Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322 Mr. Alexander Glazer, Director UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM 1111 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607-5200 I INITIAL: STUDY ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS PREPARED FOR: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92685-8915 PREPARED BY: PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92618 Tel: (949) 753-7001 Fax: (949) 753-7002 OCTOBER 1998 INrriAL STUDY CONTENTS INITIAL STUDY ATTACE3MENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT B: ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION t4 aN{yllyj�.. 2. I INITIAL STUDY Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Community and Economic Development (714) 644-3210 4. Project Location: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell International Corporation 4311 Jamboree Road, MC 504-339 Newport Beach, California 92660-3095 Contact: Rich Bluth (949) 221-4593 6. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 7. Zoning: Koll Center Newport Planned Community, Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Please refer to Attachment A. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Please refer to Attachment A. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (or whose participation is necessary to implement the project): None. '1 Initial Study Checklist ' 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" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ' n Land Use and Planning ® Transportation/Circulation © Public Services t © Population and Housing © Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems © Geologic Issues © Energy and Mineral Resources © Aesthetics ' E] Water n Hazards © Cultural Resources ® Air Quality ® Noise © Recreation ' n Mandatory Findings of Significance ' DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: n 1 u 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 have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. �R 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. pw�� �- , I Signature ' Patricia L. Temple Printed Name ln•23 a� Date For City of Newport Beach 2 Initial Study Checklist Potentially Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Signifcant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ❑ ❑ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ❑ H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ M. GEOLOGIC ISSUES. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismicity: ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Seismicity: ground failure; including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 d) Seismicity: seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ 54 3 Initial Study Checklist Potentially Issues: Potentially SfBattiicant Less Than significant Unless sigdficant No Impact Mitigated Impart 'Impact e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 Initial Study Checklist Potentially Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ VH. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Initial Study Checklist Potentially Issues: Potentially significant Less Than significant Unless significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑' ®' VH1. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 3 Initial Study Checklist Potentially Issues: Potentially significant Las Than significant Unless Slgoificant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Stormwater drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 7 Initial Study Checklist Potentially Issues: Potentially significant Less Than significant Unless significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal. a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ K ❑ ❑ c) Create light or glare? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ ❑ XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XVI. 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? ❑ 0 ❑ 8 Issues: b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, 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? Initial Study Checklist Potentially Potwtlalty stgnificant Less Than sigdficaat Udess significant No Impact Mitigated impact Impact ■ ■ ■ ■ EM_■-■� 0 I k n i i C I_ I ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the western portion of the City of Newport Beach (City), in central Orange County (County), as shown in Figure A-1 on page A-2. The project site is located approximately one mile south of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and approximately two miles east of the Costa Mesa Freeway (1-55) on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. Adjacent jurisdictions in the vicinity of the project site include the City of Irvine generally to the north, northeast, and southeast, the University of California, Irvine (UCI) directly to the east, an unincorporated area of Orange County generally to the west, northwest, and south, and the City of Costa Mesa farther to the west. The John Wayne Airport is approximately one mile to the northwest in an unincorporated area of Orange County. ' B. PROJECT SETTING The project site is approximately 25 acres and currently developed as the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems facility (Rockwell facility) with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and office space, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. Parking is currently provided in surface parking lots on the northeastern and southeastern portions of the project site. Vehicular access to the project site is provided via two entrances along Jamboree Road and one entrance along Birch Street. The majority of the project site is approximately 50 feet above sea t level and relatively flat. Figure A-2 on page A-3 provides the existing site plan for the Rockwell facility. ' The project site is designated for General Industrial land uses by the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and comprises "Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 " within the 179- ' acre Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, which is the adopted zoning document for the project site, allows for the development of 442,775 square feet of building area and provides development standards for the project site. ' Under the existing Planned Community text, there is less than 5,000 square feet of allowable building area remaining for future development. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page A-1 October 26, 1998 C C I I k I C' G�,^a;VAR G i� �•*� d ayn r rt HIFIl '2 +1Q�' I o SB:\BT 460p �w ��� �4 rq,�w4 ` K sz FAR n�na rs4 z� ctf °�~ Projecf_$ite ��4� ��1 . hA ..- s c rw 7Rx `10 U. 13 s' r ti 33 G LC IkVINE xiGvx i s vSol xt ff3. N Won PL G7 1 rKaiMurR rYwsn aA 7v BAYVf 1 jPERE'r EWX 3 yy ,9 CENTER :,y VITA ♦ :'eus •.w �y i W _4 If Sr Source: Thomas Brothers maps 1998 Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Vicinity Figure Map A-1 Ww"MMUM M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M M M M M r EXISTING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ENTRY BUILDING BUILDING LOADING Sot 503 DOCKS O 1 °0 W I PARKING LOT LU O 0000 U m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000e IB p PARKING LOT PARKING LOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAMBOREE ROAD Source: Rockwell and PCR, September 1998 � Rockwell Semiconductor Systems V` Figure A-2 k;. Existing Site Plan Attachment A: Project Description ' C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City has the following objectives for the proposed project: • To recognize the value of companies like Rockwell within the City, as they provide ' higher paying jobs and can contribute to the City's general revenue through sales and use tax. ' • To incorporate development standards for site and building design, parking, and signage that are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the surrounding land uses. ' • To provide for industrial development within the City that has activities that are compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Applicant, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Rockwell International Corporation (Rockwell), has the following objectives for the proposed project: ' • To provide the existing Rockwell facility with needed expansion opportunities, securing Rockwell as a major employer and source of revenue for the City. • To provide for expansion of the existing Rockwell facility within the City rather than at a facility within another jurisdiction. • To provide additional building area that accommodates future growth for the Rockwell ' facility over the next 20 years. ' D. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ' The Applicant is proposing the expansion of the existing Rockwell facility. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial ' and office space, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. The buildout of the proposed project would occur over a maximum time frame of 20 years based on market demand for the products manufactured on the project site. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page A-4 October 26, 1998 ' Attachment A: Project Description ' The proposed project would provide for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .93 on the project site. In addition, the proposed project would include special design features that address building set backs along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. Figure A-3 on page A-6 provides a conceptual site plan for buildout of the project site that incorporates the additional design guidelines provided in the special design features for the ' proposed project. As illustrated in Figure A-3 on page A-6, the vehicular access to the project site would continue to be provided via two existing entrances on Jamboree Road and one existing entrance on Birch Street. Parking would be provided in surface parking lots and parking ' structures. ' The additional design guidelines for the proposed project are provided below. Jamboree Road Setbacks - The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet. ' In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. These setbacks are general guidelines that ' may be waived for individual buildings through the site plan review process. ' Parking Structure Guidelines - Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are screened from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation ' or architectural treatment. ' Building Footprints - Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square .feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 141,500 square feet. Temporary Parking During Construction Phases - Temporary parking on an off -site ' location with provisions (such as shuttle buses) will be provided during construction as needed to meet parking demand. J Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page A-5 October 26, 1998 ,---_ M M M M M M M1=1 M M1=1 1=1 M M M1=1 M NEW PARKING STRUCTURE W STORY EQUIPMENT �LF -, STORY i, ROCKWELL _} COMMIiNS, 8 STORY JAMBOREE ROAD Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 503 BUILDING EXISTING 2 STORY WITH OPTIONAL PARKING BELOW 3 STORY EXISTING III II I LOADING DOCKS W Ix f0 NEWPARI(IN U STRUCTURE G ' 00 1 V� Figure A-3 I Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Attachment A: Project Description E. PROJECT APPROVALS The City is the lead agency for the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would require the following approvals from the City. • General Plan Amendment • Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text (adopted zoning) • Development Agreement (optional) • Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval • Grading permits • Building permits Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Planting Consultants Research Page A-7 City of Newport Beach October 26, 1998 I ,1 I i I I ATTACHMENT B ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Potentially significant unless mitigated. The Rockwell Semiconductor Systems (Rockwell) project site is designated for General Industrial land uses by the Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach (City) General Plan. The General Industrial land use category applies to areas in the City which are predominantly used for research and development, manufacturing, and professional services.I The 25-acre project site comprises "Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 " within the 179-acre Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, which is the adopted zoning document for the project site, allows for the development of 442,775 square feet of building area and provides development standards for the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates Jamboree Road to the east of the project site as a Primary Augmented Road and Birch Street to the north of the project site as a Secondary Road.' Adjacent jurisdictions in the vicinity of the project site include the City of Irvine generally to the north, northeast, and southeast, the University of California, Irvine (UCI) directly to the east, unincorporated Orange County generally to the west, northwest, and south, and the City of Costa Mesa farther to the west. . The proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. The proposed project would provide for the development of additional light industrial and office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. The proposed project includes special design features that address building setbacks along Jamboree ' City of Newport Beach, General Plan Land Use Element, December 1995. Y City of Newport Beach, General Plan Circulation Element, January 1992. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-1 October 26, 1998 I Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the General Plan (or Long Range Development Plan) designations and zoning (or Planned Community Development 1 Standards) for the project site and the adjacent vicinity. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ' Potentially significant unless mitigated. Local and regional plans guide development of the project site and vicinity. At the local level, the City's General Plan guides local land use decisions as discussed above in Response No. I.a). At the regional level, the proposed project would be subject to regional planning programs under the authority of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), including the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide U II 11 (RCPG), the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Program (AQMP). The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project related to consistency with the City's General Plan Elements and the applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project site. c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? Less than significant impact. The approximately 25-acre project site is currently developed with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and office space and surface parking for the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems facility (Rockwell facility). Existing adjacent land uses to the north, northwest, west, and south in the City of Newport Beach include offices, commercial and supporting uses (e.g., fast food restaurants), and a courthouse facility. To the east of the project site, there is•undeveloped land and an existing facilities management yard and storage for the UCI campus. Further to the north and northeast and directly to the southeast in the City of Irvine, existing land uses include retail and service commercial, undeveloped land, and offices. The proposed project would provide for the development of additional light industrial and ' office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. The proposed project includes special design features that address building setbacks along Jamboree Road, parking ' structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the proposed project's compatibility with existing land uses on the project site and in the adjacent vicinity. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research page B 2 October 26, 1998 L Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation 1 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? 1 No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and no agricultural resources or operations exist on or adjacent to the project site. Implementation of the proposed project ' would not affect agricultural resources or operations. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or minority community)? rNo impact. The 25-acre project site is currently developed with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and office buildings which comprise the Rockwell facility. The proposed project ' provides for the expansion of the existing Rockwell facility with an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space. The proposed project would not result in changes in the use ' of the project site and general circulation patterns in the project vicinity would remain the same. Implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community including the land uses and circulation patterns within and adjacent to 1 the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Proposal: Ia) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less than significant impact. The existing Rockwell facility on the project site currently employs a total of 1,479 personnel in five shifts, seven days per week. Implementation of the ' proposed project would result in an incremental increase in employee population over a maximum 20-year time frame. At buildout of the proposed project, approximately 2,695 additional personnel would be employed on the project site. The rate of buildout and the corresponding number of personnel employed would be dependent on the market demand for the products manufactured in the facilities on the project site. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to regional and local population projections. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-3 October 26, 1998 I r II II Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing infrastructure and roadways. The 25-acre project site is currently developed with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and office buildings which comprise the Rockwell facility. The proposed project provides for the expansion of the existing Rockwell facility with an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space. The proposed project would not result in the urbanization of an undeveloped area or the extension of major infrastructure. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the proposed project's potential to induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No impact. As discussed in Response No. II.b) above, the 25-acre project site is currently developed with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and office buildings which comprise the Rockwell facility. The proposed project provides for the expansion of the existing Rockwell facility with an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space. There are no residential properties on the project site and none would be provided as part of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. As discussed in Response No. I.b) above, The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project related to consistency with the City's General Plan Elements. The analysis will address the overall availability of housing and consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan Housing Element. M. GEOLOGIC ISSUES. Would the Proposal Result in or Expose People to Potential Impacts Involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? No impact. The project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement which occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active fault systems known Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research page B-4 October 26, 1998 ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' to exist on or near the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone which delineates earthquake fault zones along known active faults in California.' Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' b) Seismicity: ground shaking? Less than significant impact. The project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California. As discussed in Response No. III. a) above, there are no active fault ' systems known to exist on or near the project site and the project site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone. In addition, the project site is within an area designated as Category 1 which is a potential seismic hazard area that has the lowest potential risk.4 The most significantly known active faults within 50 miles of the project site that could result in ground shaking during a seismic event include the Newport -Inglewood Fault, the San ' Andreas Fault, and the San Jacinto Fault. Segments of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 5.5 miles to the south, trend southeast from Santa Monica across the Los Angeles 1 Basin to Newport Beach. The Newport -Inglewood Fault has the potential for a maximum credible earthquake with a Richter Magnitude of 7.0 in the vicinity of the project site. The San Andreas Fault Zone, approximately 30 miles to the northeast, has the potential to result in a maximum ' probable earthquake with a 7.5 Richter Magnitude in the vicinity of the project site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone, approximately 45 miles to the north, has the potential to result in a maximum ' probable earthquake with a 7.5 Richter Magnitude in the vicinity of the project site.' Potentially active faults near the project site include the San Gabriel Fault, the Whittier - Elsinore Fault, the Pelican Hill Fault, and an unnamed fault (within the UCI campus). The closest of these potentially active faults is the unnamed fault within the main portion of the UCI campus to the south6 3 Department of Conservation, Mines & Geology, May 1, 1998. ' 4 City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Safety Element, March 1975. 5 University of California, Irvine, North Campus Mixed -Use Development, Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I, April 1991. 6 Ibid. ' Rockwell Semiconductor systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-5 October 26, 1998 Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' Although implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in the exposure of people and structures to ground shaking during a seismic event, this exposure is no greater than exposure present in other areas throughout the Southern California region. In addition, development of the proposed project would comply with the applicable provisions of the City's Uniform Building Code, minimizing the potential for damage of new structures. No significant ' impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' c) Seismicity: ground failure; including liquefaction? ' No impact. Liquefaction occurs as a response to severe groundshaking where loose, saturated, granular soils lose their inherent shear strength due to excess water pressure that builds up during repeated movement from seismic activity. Factors that contribute to the potential for ' liquefaction include a low relative density of granular materials, a shallow ground water table, and a long duration and high acceleration of the seismic shaking. The project site has not been ' identified as an area subject to liquefaction during a seismic event 7 Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose, people or structures to ground failure due to liquefaction during a seismic event. In addition, development of the proposed project would comply with applicable provisions of the City's Uniform Building Code further minimizing the potential for damage of new structures. No impact would result and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Seismicity: seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? No impact. A seiche involves the oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin, such ' as a reservoir, storage tank, or lake. The project site or vicinity does not contain large water bodies that could be subject to seiches during a seismic event. A tsunami, commonly referred to ' as a tidal wave, is a sea wave generated by sub -marine earthquakes, major landslides, or volcanic action. Due to the elevation and the distance from the coastline, tsunami hazards do not exist for the project site or vicinity. There are no known active or dormant volcanoes within the project vicinity or region which present a hazard. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards. No impact would occur and ' no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' r City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Safety Element, March 1975. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach planning Consultants Research page B-6 October 26, 1998 Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation e) Landslides or mudflows? No impact. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and have relatively flat topography. The project site and vicinity are not identified as areas with the potential for landslides or mudflows.g No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Less than significant impact. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and relatively flat. The project site has an average elevation of 50 feet above mean sea level. The project site has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, ' and landscape areas. Although the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils during construction activities, erosion would be reduced by compliance with the following condition of approval: The Applicant will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes. Development of the additional building area for the proposed project would not significantly alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and the associated potential for erosion would not significantly increase relative to the existing conditions. No significant impact related to erosion would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' Implementation of the proposed project would not require significant alteration of the existing topography on the project site. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the project site due to previous grading, excavation, or placement of fill materials, these conditions ' would be reduced by the City's required submittal of site -specific geotechnical evaluations to address specific design and construction measures for each building site prior to issuance of ' grading permits. No significant impact related to changes in topography or unstable soil conditions would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' 8 City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Safety Element, March 1975. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning consultants Research page B 7 October 26, 1998 J ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' g) Subsidence of the land? No impact. Subsidence is large scale settlement of the ground surface generally caused by withdrawal of groundwater or oil in sufficient quantities such that the surrounding ground surface sinks over a broad area. The project site has not been identified as an area with the potential for subsidence.' In addition, withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or other mineral resources would not occur as part of the proposed project. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. h) Expansive soils? ' Less than significant impact. Expansive soils are generally associated with fine-grained clayey soils which have the potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and ' drying. The sediments underlying the project site and immediate vicinity range from very fine and fine to medium grained sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and clayey sand.10 The project site is located within an area identified as Category 2 which indicates the potential for moderate to highly expansive soils to occur.11 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the City would require the submittal of site -specific geotechnical evaluations to address specific design and ' construction measures for each building site. Upon compliance with the City's grading and building permit requirements, no significant impact related to expansive soil conditions would be anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this ' issue is required. ' i) Unique geologic or physical features? No impact. Unique geological or physical features typically include canyons, bluffs, rock ' outcroppings, or distinguishable faults. The project site is characterized by flat topography and does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. Implementation of the proposed project ' would not disturb unique geologic or physical features. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. 9 City of Newport Beach, General Plan, Public Safety Element, March 1975. 10 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report January through December 1997, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Newport Beach, California, March 1998. 11 City of Newport Beach, General Plan, Public Safety Element, March 1975. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B 8 October 26, 1998 I i>v 1 n 1 Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation WATER. Would the Proposal Result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less than significant impact. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and relatively flat. The project site has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. The runoff on the project site is currently conveyed off -site by a private storm drain system which flows northwest to the City's storm drain system where it flows into a well -developed riparian wetland located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and discharges into the San Diego Creek Channel and the Upper Newport Bay. During periods of heavy rainfall, runoff enters retention basins off -site to the northwest. From the retention basins, the majority of the runoff is released into the City's storm drain system at a slower rate.12• 13 Although the proposed project has the potential to result in changes in surface runoff during construction activities, potential effects would be reduced by compliance with drainage controls imposed by the City's grading and building permit requirements including the following condition of approval: The Applicant will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes. Development of the additional building area for the proposed project would not significantly alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site. With implementation of the proposed project, the drainage patterns, absorption rates, and the rate and amount of surface runoff would not significantly change relative to the existing conditions. In addition, runoff from the project site would continue to be accommodated by the existing on -site and off -site drainage facilities. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? No impact. The project site has not been identified as an area with the potential for flooding.14 Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the exposure of people or property to flood hazards. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. It Site visit by Planning Consultants Research, October 22, 1998. 1a City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department, October 20, 1998. 14 City of Newport Beach, General Plan Safety Element, March 1975. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-9 October 26, 1998 7 ,I Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? No impact. The project site and vicinity are located in an urbanized and relatively flat area. The project site has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. Surface runoff from the project site is currently conveyed off -site by a private storm drain system which flows northwest to the City's storm drain system where it flows into a well -developed riparian wetland located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and discharges into the San Diego Creek Channel and the Upper Newport Bay. During periods of heavy rainfall, runoff enters retention basins off -site to the northwest. From the retention basins, the majority of the runoff is released into the City's storm drain system at a slower rate. 1s, 16 The runoff from the project site does not flow towards the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh to the east and does not affect the wetlands at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project would not significantly alter the drainage of surface runoff on the project site or the discharge into the regional drainage facilities because there would be no significant change in the quality or quantity of the runoff from the project site. Although the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils during construction activities, erosion and any resulting effects to surface water quality would be reduced by compliance with erosion controls imposed by the following condition of approval: The Applicant will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes. Development of the additional building areas for the proposed project would not significantly alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site and the potential for erosion to result in changes to surface water quality would not significantly increase relative to the existing conditions. The proposed project would replace surface parking lots with buildings and parking structures resulting in a reduction in the amount of exposed surface parking areas that contain oil and other vehicle -related pollutants that degrade surface water quality. Based on the above, the proposed project would not impact surface water quality and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. is Site Visit by Planning Consultants Research, October 22, 1998. 16 City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department, October 20, 1998. Rockwell Semiconduaor Systems Planning Consultants Research Page B-10 City of Newport Beach October 26, 1998 ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No impact. The project site or immediate adjacent vicinity does not contain any natural water bodies. In addition, development of the proposed project would not result in changes in the amount of surface water in any natural water body. No impact would occur and no mitigation ' measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ' No impact. The project site or immediate adjacent vicinity does not contain of any natural ' water bodies. Implementation of the proposed project would not affect the course or direction of water movements in any natural water body. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or ' withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ' No impact. Groundwater is located approximately 30 feet below the land surface.17 No groundwater extraction or additions would occur as part of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not result in interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation during ' grading or construction. No impact to the quantity of groundwater would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No impact. Groundwater is located approximately 30 feet below the land surface.18 As stated above, no groundwater extractions or additions would occur as part of the proposed project ' and the underlying aquifer would not be intercepted. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. II II 17 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report January through December 1997, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Newport Beach, California, March 1998. fs ]bid. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Planning Consultants Research Page B-11 City of Newport Beach October 26, 1998 ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Less than significant impact. Groundwater is located approximately 30 feet below the land ' surface.19 As stated above, no groundwater extractions or additions would occur as part of the proposed project and the underlying aquifer would not be intercepted. Rockwell conducts and ' documents groundwater monitoring for the project site consistent with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Subsurface investigations have indicated that groundwater beneath the project site and the adjacent area to the north is degraded by chlorinated volatile organic compounds to a depth of 100-feet below the ground surface. In 1986, groundwater reclamation activities began at the project site with the installation of a groundwater extraction ' wellfield and treatment system. An expanded extraction wellfield system designed to contain the degraded groundwater was constructed in 1990 and operations began in 1991. Recently, additional recharge wells have been added to augment the system.20 Throughout the permitting ' process for the project site, no regulatory thresholds have been exceeded which would require Rockwell to conduct health effect studies. The implementation of the proposed project would, not result in the addition of activities'to the project site that would exceed these regulatory thresholds. ' No significant impact would occur to groundwater quality as a result of implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ' No impact. As described above, groundwater use or extraction would not occur as part of the proposed project. No impact on public water supplies would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report January through December 1997, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Newport Beach, California, March 1998. 10 ibid. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Planning Consultants Research Page B-12 City of Newport Beach October 26, 1998 I I ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' V. AIR QUALITY. Would the Proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality ' violation? ' Potentially significant unless mitigated. The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and Federal air quality standards are often exceeded in most parts of the Basin. The proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from construction activities such as: demolition operations; grading and foundation excavation operations; travel by construction workers to the project site; delivery and ' hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site; fuel combustion by on - site construction equipment; and the application of architectural coatings and other building materials. Operation of the proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from: stationary ' sources for regional and on -site power generation; and mobile sources associated with vehicular traffic from employees and delivery and distribution of supplies and products to and from the t project site. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of these project - related emissions with respect to the violation of any air quality standard or the potential contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, the Draft EIR will ' provide an assessment of the potential for the proposed project to result in a potentially significant impact associated with air pollutant emissions. I CI b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with light industrial and office buildings which comprise the Rockwell facility. The project site is located along Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. The land uses adjacent to the project site include offices, commercial and supporting uses (e.g., fast food restaurants), and a courthouse facility. There are no sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units, parks, schools) on the project site or in the adjacent vicinity. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the proposed project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to air pollutant emissions. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? No impact. Development of the additional building area for the proposed project would not alter air movements, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in the climate since the proposed structural additions would not be of sufficient size or density to influence meteorology Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-13 October 26, 1998 C II Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' either locally or regionally. Additionally, no operational changes that could cause any change in climate would occur on the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Create objectionable odors? No impact. Objectionable odors are not currently present within the project site or vicinity. Construction of the proposed project would involve activities and the use of equipment typical of development projects of a similar size and type. The emission of significant odors would not be anticipated during construction. The operation of the proposed project would not emit new objectionable odors on the project site and in the vicinity. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the Proposal Result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Potentially significant unless mitigated. The proposed project would result in increased vehicle trips associated with construction -related activities and ongoing operations. A traffic analysis for the proposed project will be prepared consistent with the requirements of City Council Policy L-18 and the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The traffic analysis will define the existing and projected future traffic conditions within the traffic study area, the existing and projected intersection and roadway segment levels of service, and potential deficiencies due to increased vehicle trips as a result of the proposed project. The Draft EIR will summarize the potential impacts of the proposed project associated with increased vehicle trips. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No impact. Vehicular access to the project site is currently provided via two entrances along Jamboree Road and one entrance along Birch Street. Parking is currently provided in surface parking lots on the northeastern and southeastern portions of the project site. The proposed project would provide on -site circulation and parking improvements that would include: improvement of the three existing entrances to the project site; relocation and improvement of vehicular and pedestrian access to the buildings and parking facilities; and provision of parking structures. These improvements would provide for improved access to and circulation within the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-14 October 26, 1998 I ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' project site and would provide adequate parking facilities for the increased square footage on the project site. The proposed project would not introduce hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, or provide for the use of incompatible equipment on the project site or the adjacent roadways. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? No impact. Emergency access is currently provided to the project site through the vehicle access points at two entrances along Jamboree Road and one entrance along Birch Street. ' Additional emergency vehicle access is provided by a Fire Lane along the northwestern perimeter of the existing buildings on the project site. Although construction activities could potentially affect access on the project site on a short-term basis, such construction activities would be ' completed in accordance with applicable City requirements. The proposed project would improve the three vehicular entrances to the project site and the on -site vehicular and pedestrian access to the buildings and the parking facilities, resulting in improved emergency access. No changes ' would occur to the existing emergency vehicle access provided by the Fire Lane behind the existing buildings. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access to the ' project site or affect access to nearby uses. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' d) Insufficient parking on -site or off -site? ' Less than significant impact. Currently, parking for the existing facility is provided in surface parking lots on the northeastern and southeastern portion of the project site. The proposed project would provide on -site parking in surface lots and parking structures. The number of parking spaces provided would be based on the Planned Community Development Standards by building use category. A parking assessment for the proposed project will be provided in the ' traffic study. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will summarize the analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to the adequacy of parking. II e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less than significant impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to create hazards or barriers for pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing Jamboree Road and Birch Street. As discussed in Response No. VI.b), the proposed project would provide on -site circulation and parking improvements that would provide for improved access and circulation within the project site. No Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-15 October 26, 1998 II ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ' Less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? No impact. No rail lines or waterways are located in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is located approximately one mile from the John Wayne Airport. The project site is ' located within the City's Airport Area Highrise Zone for the John Wayne Airport which has a maximum building height limit of 375 feet. The proposed project provides for a maximum building height of 150 feet for the additional building area on the project site and would not exceed the Highrise Zone height limit. The project site is approximately 5,000 feet east of Runway 19R/lL at the John Wayne ' Airport and development of buildings for the proposed project would penetrate the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) imaginary surface which is 50 feet above the property. In ' compliance with FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, the Applicant would file FAA Form 7460-1 for all buildings that would penetrate the imaginary surface.21 No impacts would occur with respect to rail, waterborne, or air traffic and no mitigation measures would be ' required. No further analysis of this issue is required. 1 1 ' u Letter from Eric R. Freed, Executive Officer, Airport land Use Commission for Orange County, October 19, 1998. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-16 October 26, 1998 �l ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' V11. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal Result in Impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? No impact. The project site is within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. On -site vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping. Wildlife is limited to common species typically found in urban environments. There are no known endangered, ' threatened, or rare plant or wildlife species or these habitats located within the project site. The proposed project would not result in an impact to either plant or animal species and no mitigation ' measures would be required. No farther analysis of this issue is required. b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? No impact. The project site is within an urbanized area and has been previously graded ' and developed. No locally designated species are known to exist on the project site. The proposed project would not result in the removal of any locally designated plant or wildlife species. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No impact. The project site is within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. No locally designated natural communities are known to exist on the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? No impact. The project site is within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. There are no natural, water sources, watercourses, or associated wetland habitat on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not affect wetland habitat located closest to the project site at the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh to the east and the wetlands at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard to the south. As discussed in Response No. W.c), the runoff from the project site does not flow towards the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh and would not affect the wetlands at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard because there would be no significant change in the quality or quantity of Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-17 October 26, 1998 1 C r u I_ l II 1 I I Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation the runoff from the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No impact. The project site is within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. The project site does not contain open space utilized for wildlife migration or dispersal. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. VEIL ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in increases in the amount of electricity and natural gas currently used by the existing development on the project site. However, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would require excessive energy consumption or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? No impact. Although non-renewable resources would be utilized in the construction and operation of the proposed project, these resources would not be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? No impact. No mineral resources are known to exist on or adjacent to the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of the availability of a known ' mineral resource that would be of future value to the region. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. 1 Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-18 October 26, 1998 ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation IX. HAZARDS. Would the Proposal Involve: a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not ' limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ' Less than significant impact (a, c, and d). The approximately 25-acre project site is currently developed with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and office buildings which comprise the Rockwell facility. Current activities at the existing Rockwell facility such as the manufacturing of semiconductors, operation of the support facilities (e.g., power generation, air ' conditioning, etc.), and facility maintenance involve the acquisition, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. State law requires that on -site use and storage of hazardous materials in certain quantities be reported to the County of Orange Health Care Agency in the form of a ' Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) filed with the local fire department. Consistent with this requirement, the Rockwell facility has a HMBP filed with the City of Newport Beach Fire ' Department. The HMBP provides: emergency safety measures that respond to potential emergencies that may occur during the course of operations at the Rockwell facility; direction for activities of an Emergency Action Team in the event that an emergency should occur; evacuation routes and other safety information; and a hazardous materials inventory.'Z The proposed project provides for the expansion of the existing Rockwell facility with an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space. During demolition, grading, and construction for the proposed project, there would be typical worker safety risks associated ' with the use of construction equipment and exposure to potentially toxic construction materials. No disturbance to the existing materials distribution system for the manufacturing process would ' occur as a result of construction activities. Compliance with Federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulatory requirements would reduce potential construction -related risks to less than significant levels. ' In addition, due to the age of the buildings on the project site, asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paint may be present. Implementation of the proposed project would require demolition of an existing building currently providing office space. During demolition, ' u Business Emergency Plan, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Newport Beach, California, June 1998. F Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning consultants Research Page B-19 October 26, 1998 ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation mandatory compliance with applicable standards and procedures required by OSHA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) would reduce the potential for the proposed project to result in the exposure ' of people to existing health hazards from building materials. Operation of the additional building area for the proposed project would not result in changes in the types of activities currently performed within the facility on the project site. Any changes in the use and storage of hazardous materials as a result of the expansion of the existing ' Rockwell facility would be reflected in the HMBP as appropriate. Compliance with the HMBP for the Rockwell facility would reduce potential operation -related risks to less than significant ' levels. Rockwell conducts and documents groundwater monitoring for the project site consistent ' with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Subsurface investigations have indicated that groundwater beneath the project site and the adjacent area to the north is degraded by chlorinated volatile organic compounds to a depth of 100-feet below the ground ' surface. In 1986, groundwater reclamation activities began at the project site with the installation of a groundwater extraction wellfield and treatment system. An expanded extraction wellfield ' system designed to contain the degraded groundwater was constructed in 1990 and operations began in 1991. Recently, additional recharge wells have been added to augment the system ' The existing groundwater reclamation activities on the project site reduce the potential for the ' proposed project to result in the exposure of people to existing health hazards associated with groundwater contamination. Throughout the permitting process for the project site, no regulatory ' thresholds have been exceeded which would require Rockwell to conduct health effect studies. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in the addition of activities to the project site that would exceed these regulatory thresholds. ' Based on the above, the construction and operation of the proposed project would not ' result in an increase in the risk of an explosion or the release of a hazardous substance relative to the existing conditions. The proposed project would not result in the creation of any new health hazard or potential new health hazard relative to the existing conditions. In addition, the proposed ' project would not result in the exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further ' analysis of this issue is required. ' u Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report January through December 1997, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Newport Beach, California, March 1998. Ci Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-20 October 26, 1998 'IJ Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? No impact. Construction and operation of the additional building area for the proposed project would not interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans on -site and in the local area. As discussed in Response No. VI. c) above, the proposed project would improve the three vehicular entrances to the project site and the on -site vehicular and pedestrian access to the buildings and the parking facilities, resulting in improved emergency access. No changes would occur to the existing emergency vehicle access provided by the Fire Lane behind the existing buildings. Any physical or operational changes as a result of the proposed project would be incorporated into the HMBP which provides the emergency response plan and the evacuation routes for the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ' No impact. The project site is within an urbanized area that is not considered to be a high fire hazard area. Development on the project site as a result of the proposed project would ' comply with the applicable fire and safety provisions of the City's Uniform Building Code and would not result in an increased fire hazard. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' X. NOISE. Would the Proposal Result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? C Potentially significant unless mitigated (a and b). The project site is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with light industrial and office uses. The project site is located along Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. The land uses adjacent to the project site include offices, commercial and supporting uses (e.g., fast food restaurants), and a courthouse facility. Based on these conditions, the noise environment of the project site is characteristic of an urbanized location adjacent to a highly traveled road. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City or Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-21 October 26, 1998 n 1 1 H Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation The development of the proposed project would result in increases in existing noise levels due to construction activities, increased vehicular traffic, and facility operations. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project associated with increases in the existing noise levels and the potential for the exposure of people to severe noise levels. ' XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the Proposal Have an Effect Upon, or Result in a Need for New or Altered Government Services in any of the Following Areas: a) Fire protection? ' Potentially significant unless mitigated. Fire and emergency medical services within the project area are provided by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. Primary response ' services are provided by Fire Station No. 3 located at 868 Santa Barbara Avenue, approximately 3 miles southwest of the project site. The increased use of the project site by employees could generate additional demands on fire protection and emergency medical services. The Draft EIR ' will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to fire protection and emergency medical services. ' b) Police protection? ' Less than significant impact. Police services within the project area are provided by the City of Newport Beach Police Department located at 870 Santa Barbara Avenue, approximately ' 3 miles southwest of the project site. The increased use of the project site by employees could generate additional demands on police protection services. Although no significant impact is F J J anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to police protection services. c) Schools? Less than significant impact. The project site is within the Santa Ana Unified School District. There are no school facilities on or immediately adjacent to the project site. As there are no residential land uses provided with the proposed project, school services would not be directly impacted. However, the proposed project includes the expansion of existing light industrial and office facilities and employment opportunities generated by the proposed project could have the potential to generate a demand for housing. Potential demand for housing and the associated increase for school services would be within regional levels accounted for by regional Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B 22 October 26, 1998 J ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' and local population projections. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less than significant impact. There are no public facilities on the project site. The proposed project would continue to provide vehicular access to the project site via two entrances along Jamboree Road and one entrance along Birch Street. Although implementation of the ' proposed project would result in an increase of vehicular trips to the project site, this increase would not result in the need for additional maintenance of local roadways. No significant impact ' would occur with respect to maintenance of public facilities and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' e) Other governmental services? ' No impact. Demand for governmental services such as libraries are primarily generated by permanent residential populations. Although the proposed project would generate an additional 2,695 employees at the project site over a maximum 20-year time period, there are no residential ' units provided as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in an impact with respect to governmental services such as libraries and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Proposal Result in a Need for New Systems, or Substantial Alterations to the Following Utilities: ' a) Power or natural gas? Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing electrical and natural gas infrastructure. The project site receives electrical and natural gas service from Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. ' Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the demand for electrical and natural gas service. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to electrical and natural gas service. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-23 October 26, 1998 I ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation b) Communication systems? No impact. The proposed project would utilize existing communications systems for ' telephones and cable television. Any potential expansion of telephone or cable networks required to serve the proposed project would be anticipated to be within the capabilities of the respective ' service providers. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. J n 1 C c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing water infrastructure. Water treatment and distribution facilities for potable water are provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to local and regional water treatment and distribution facilities. d) Sewer or septic tanks? Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing wastewater infrastructure. The project site receives sewer service from the Orange County Sanitation District. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the demand for sewage treatment service. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to sewer service. e) Stormwater drainage? No impact. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and relatively flat. The project site has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. The runoff on the project site is currently conveyed off -site by a private storm drain system which flows northwest to the City's storm drain system where it flows into a well -developed riparian wetland located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and discharges into the San Diego Creek Channel and the Upper Newport Bay. During periods of heavy rainfall, runoff enters retention basins off -site to the northwest. From the retention basins, the majority of the runoff is released into the City's storm drain system Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research page B 24 October 26, 1998 I i Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation at a slower rate.24, 21 Although the proposed project has the potential to result in changes in surface runoff during construction activities, potential effects would be reduced by compliance with drainage controls imposed by the City's grading and building permit requirements including the following condition of approval: The Applicant will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes. Development of the additional building area for the proposed project would not significantly alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site relative to the existing conditions. With implementation of the proposed project, runoff from the project site would continue to be accommodated by the existing on -site and off -site stormwater drainage facilities. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. f) Solid waste disposal? Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urban area with existing solid waste disposal services. Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the demand for local solid waste disposal facilities. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to solid waste disposal. g) Local or regional water supplies? Potentially significant unless mitigated. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing water infrastructure. Implementation of the proposed project could result in the alterations in the demand on local or regional water supplies. The Draft E1R will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to local and regional water supplies. 24 Site Visit by Planning Consultants Research, October 22, 1998. s City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department, October 20, 1998. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-25 October 26, 1998 ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' XM. AESTHETICS. Would the Proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ' No impact. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area. The project site has ' been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. There are no designated scenic vistas or scenic highways within the immediate vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would provide for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. The proposed project includes special design features that address building set backs along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. No impact with respect to a scenic vista or scenic highway would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Potentially significant unless mitigated. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area. The majority of the project site has been previously graded and developed with ' buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. Implementation of the proposed project would provide for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. Such ' development would be consistent with existing uses on -site and in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed project includes special design features that address building set backs ' along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to the potential to create a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. c) Create light or glare? Potentially significant unless mitigated. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area. The majority of the project site has been previously graded and developed with ' buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. Existing lighting sources on the project site include surface parking lot lighting and exterior light fixtures on the ' perimeter of the buildings. Implementation of the proposed project would provide for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. Additional nighttime lighting and glare from new buildings and an increased number of vehicles on the project site would occur. The ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-26 October 26, 1998 I C Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project related to nighttime lighting and glare. ' XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: ' a) Disturb paleontological resources? ' Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. The project site is within an area underlain by rocks of the Los Trancos member of the Topanga formation which is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity 26 Any surficial paleontological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been previously unearthed or disturbed. Although there is a possibility that ' paleontological resources exist at deep levels, the uncovering of such resources would be remote. Although implementation of the proposed project would' not be anticipated to disturb ' paleontological resources, any potential effect would be reduced by compliance with the following condition of approval: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the ' Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/ ' archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the ' Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written ' assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions ' shall be subject to the approval of the City. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' T6 University of California, Irvine, North Campus Mixed -Use Development, Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I, April 1991. 1 Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Page B-27 October 26, 1998 I ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation ' b) Disturb archaeological resources? Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has ' been previously graded and developed. No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known to exist within the project site. The project site has already been subject to extensive disruption ' and any surficial archaeological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been previously disturbed. Although implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to disturb archaeological resources, any potential effect would be reduced by compliance with the ' following condition of approval: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been ' retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in ' cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major ' paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation ' with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said ' finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These ' actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. ' c) Affect historical resources? I I'5 No impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. The project site does not contain any historic monuments or historic resources. No impact as a result of the alteration or destruction of a historic resource would occur and no mitigation measures would be required: No further analysis of this issue is required. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research page B 28 October 26, M8 Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No impact. There are no known ethnic cultural values attributable to the project site. No impact as a result of a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No impact. There are no existing religious or sacred uses associated with the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No further analysis of this issue is required. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Less than significant impact (a and b). Demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities are primarily generated by permanent residential populations. As there are no residential land uses provided with the proposed project, no direct impact would occur. The proposed project would generate 2,695 additional employees at the project site over a maximum 20-year time frame. The increase in the on -site population has the potential to affect adult recreation programs in the City. Although no significant impact is anticipated, the Draft E1R will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases in the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or the affect on existing recreational opportunities. ' Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research page B-29 October 26, 1998 I ' Attachment B: Environmental Evaluatio: XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNEFICANCE- 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? No impact. The project site has been developed and heavily impacted by past activities. Development of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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 major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? No impact. Development of the proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerableT Potentially significant unless mitigated. The proposed project would have the potential to generate impacts that may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Draft EIR will provide analyses of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to land use and planning, population and housing, air quality, noise, and transportation and circulation. d) Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially significant unless mitigated. Construction and operation of the proposed project would have the potential to generate significant environmental effects which could cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Draft EIR will provide analyses of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to air quality and noise. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research page B-30 October 26, 1998 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644.3200 November 18, 1999 Mr. Rich Bluth, P.E. Executive Director Facilities Conexant Systems, Inc. 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Subject: Contract for Preparation of a Fiscal Impact Analysis for Conexant Systems Expansion. Dear Mr. Bluth, City Council Policy F-17 (Economic Development Policy) requires all major zoning, subdivision and development permits considered by the City Council or Planning Commission to be accompanied by an economic analysis describing the cost and revenues to the City associated with the actions. Enclosed for your review, please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. for a fiscal impact analysis required for the proposed expansion of the Conexant facility, located at 4311 Jamboree Road in Newport Beach. The proposal contains an outline of the required scope of work, schedule of time, and cost estimate for preparation and processing of the fiscal impact analysis. The consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows: Consultant Fees $ 8,000.00 City Fees (15%) $1,200.00 Total Request: $ 9,200.00 Should you concur with the proposal, please submit a check (payable to the City of Newport Beach), or a letter which would authorize the City to deduct funds in the amount of $9,200.00 from the escrow account held in Conexant's name. Additionally, please sign and return the enclosed proposal agreement so that we may authorize Kosmont & Associates, Inc. to proceed with services. You may fax a copy and mail the original so that we can expedite the consultant's start of the project. Very truly yours, Marc M s Associate Planner Attachment: Contract Approval Signature Form Copy of Proposal from Kosmont & Associates F.\USERS\PIIJl1PLANCOM\PENDING4nckwell\FiscgAnalysis-Inter 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach �1 (( = C O N E X A N T November 24, 1999 Mr. Marc Myers City Of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 62658-8915 Subject: Contract for Fiscal Impact Analysis Dear Marc, CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 You are hereby authorized to withdraw funds from the Conexant escrow account to pay Kosmont & Associates for the Fiscal Impact Analysis related to our project. Yours truly, Rich Bluth Executive Director Facilities CONEXANT. What's Next in Communications Technologies,. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200 November 18, 1999 Mr. Rich Bluth, P.E. Executive Director Facilities Conexant Systems, Inc. 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Subject: Contract Approval for Preparation of a Fiscal Impact Analysis for Conexant Systems Expansion Project. CONTRACT APPROVAL: Approved By: Marc Myers Title: Associate Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Consultant: Kosmont & Associates, Inc. (Thomas Jirovsky) 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4895 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Project Address: 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach Date of Proposal: October 22, 1999, copy of proposal attached and on file. The budget is $9,200.00 with the understanding that modifications to the study may result in additional charges and that the balance will be due upon notice from the City of Newport Beach. Project Applicant: Conexant Systems, Inc. Applicant Approval: Bluth, Executive Director Facilities PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY: Marc s, Associate Planner F: sers\sh=d\lplaneom\pend• g\rockwell\FiscalAnalystsContmet 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beac'li STATE P.O. BOX 420807, SAN FRANCISCO,-CA 94142=0807 COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND CERTIFICATE'OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION'INSURANCE DECEMBER 22, 1,999 POLICY'NVMSERe ",K 9,75m'•— 99 CER7IFICATEEXPIRES! 3.�1+0�' r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPT, ATTN MARC 11YERS 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658-8915 L This is to certify thatwe have'issued.a'.valid'Workers'-Compensation,insueance• policy in a form.approved by the-Californfa Insurance Commissioner to the employer named. below for the policy period indicated. 30 This policy Is not subject to,cancellation by the Fund exceptupon,*R daysadvance written,notice'to the employer. 30 We will also give you IRN-days' advance, notice'shouid.this.policy be.cancelled prior to,its-normal _expiration; This certificate of insurance -is not an insurance'policyznd does -not amend,.extend+onslferthe coveragerafforded�by, the policies listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement, term, or -condition of ,any confract or, -other document with respect to which this certificate of Insurance, may be Issued or may pertaini the insurance afforded by the policies described herein Is subject -to all,.the terms,.exclusions and condl ichs of'such policies.. AUTHORIZED REPREeENTgTIVE I 0RE$1DENT - EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY LIMIT INCLUDING DEFENSE COSH'S: OCCURRENCE. ENDORSEMENT' #2065'ENT••••LTLED,¢ERTIFIGATE'HOLDERS' NOTTCZ •EFFECT'I�VE 12/22/99 IS ATTACHED TO A'ND,'FORMS-A' PART•AF THIS`POLICy, EMPLOYER r KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES ING 601 S FIGUEROA ST STE 4895 LOS ANGELES CA 90017 THIS DOCUMENT HAS A BLUE PATTERNED BACKGROUND SCIF 10262 (REV. 3-95) v qnq REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL THE CONEXANT EXPANSION PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 20, 1999 1. REQUEST The City of Newport Beach is soliciting proposals from professional consultants for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis for the Conexant Expansion project. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is occupied by Conexant Systems, Inc. (formerly known as Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Inc.) is proposing the expansion of their existing facility. The project site is approximately 25 acres and currently developed with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and supporting office space with the remaining area of the site consisting of parking lots, access roadways, walkways and landscape areas. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and support office/lab space, for a total of 1,008,775 of allowable building area on the project site. Buildout of the proposed project would occur over a maximum time frame of 20 years based on the market demand for the products manufactured on the project site. 3. SCOPE OF WORK The consultant shall prepare a fiscal impact analysis describing the cost and revenues to the City associated with the proposed project over a twenty (20) year period. The analysis needs to address the economic implications of both the existing facility versus the proposed expanded project facility, and impacts associated with a 25% reduction of the proposed project. 4. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A. The City of Newport Beach will expect the following requirements to be met by the consultant: 1. S000rt Materials: The consultant shall prepare all graphics and other supporting materials needed to complete the task identified in the scope of work. 2. Administrative Review Process: The consultant shall prepare drafts of the fiscal impact analysis report for staff review prior to public release of the documents. Staff shall be allowed a minimum of ten (10) working days to review administrative drafts. e"' Fiscal Impact Analysis The Conexant Expansion Project Request For Proposal October 20, 1999 Page 2 3. Copies and Reproducible Materials: The consultant shall provide to the City the following: a. Five (5) copies of the draft of the fiscal impact analysis report. b. Thirty (30) copies of the final fiscal impact analysis report. C. A reproducible copy of both the draft and final fiscal impact analysis report. 4. Insurance and Hold Harmless Clauses: The consultant shall provide proof of comprehensive general liability, vehicle liability and workers compensation insurance. Consultant contracts acceptable to the City of Newport Beach must also provide indemnification and a hold harmless clause. 5. Billina: Billing shall be based on completion of project and/or each phase of the project. B. All reports, data files, illustrations, photographs, charts, maps and/or other similar materials shall become the sole property of the City of Newport Beach and may not be used or reproduced in any form except with the explicit written permission of the City. C. The proposer should expect to have access to the public reports and files of the City in preparing the proposal. D. This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the RFP or to procure or contract for services or supplies. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request; to negotiate with any selected qualified representative or to cancel any part or the entirety of this RFP, if it is in the best interest of the City to do so. The City may require the proposers selected to participate in negotiations and to submit such price, technical or other revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations. E. The City has the authority to terminate its contract with the consultant at any time during the period of the study if it is determined by the City that the Contractor's performance is not satisfactory. Fiscal Impact Analysis The Conexant Expansion Project Request For Proposal October 20, 1999 Page 3 5. PROPOSAL CONTENTS The proposal shall contain the following information: A. Statement of Understanding of the Approach and Scope of the Proiect: This statement shall demonstrate the proposer's understanding of the scope and approach of the project, how best to handle this process to meet the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, and shall provide the most useful information to assist the decision -making process. The statement should also include any recommended changes to the Scope of Work presented above that, based on the proposer's experience, seem appropriate for this project. B. Experience and Qualifications: The proposer shall provide descriptions of similar fiscal impact analysis reports that the proposer has prepared. The descriptions and discussions shall also include references that can be contacted to discuss the proposer's work. In addition, the proposer shall provide a complete description of his or her firm's qualifications. Further, any subcontractor shall be identified and the relevant experience and qualifications of all subcontractors provided. C. Project Personnel and Management: List the names, specific qualifications and level of effort of each person, including subcontractor representatives, who will be assigned to the project. For each person, identify the specific tasks he or she will be undertaking. Designate the person who will have overall responsibility for the project and the person who will be primarily responsible for contact with the City. D. Availability and Ability to Perform Within the Scope of Work Time Schedule: The proposer shall describe their availability to City staff, and ability to perform the work according to the schedule. E. Statement of Commitment: The proposer shall submit a statement of commitment declaring that a qualified project manager will be available for meetings with staff. F. Schedule of Completion: The proposer shall submit a schedule for the completion of the fiscal impact analysis report in order to meet a scheduled public hearing date in January, 2000. G. Cost: A total budget for the project shall be provided, including costs identified by task, if applicable. The budget shall include costs for the time of prime contractor, subcontractors, as well as costs for all reproduction, materials, travel, etc. The cost shall be on a "not to exceed" basis. Fiscal Impact Analysis The Conexant Expansion Project Request For Proposal October 20, 1999 Page 4 6. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Five (5) copies of the completed proposal must be received by 5:00 p.m., November 5, 1999. Mail the proposal to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attention: Marc Myers, Associate Planner We welcome your proposals and look forward to working with the consultant on this project. If you have any questions about this RFP or the project, please contact Marc Myers, Associate Planner, at (949) 644-3210. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 February 23, 2000 Thomas R. Jirovsky Kosmont & Associates, Inc. 601 South Figueroa St., Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Conexant Fiscal Analysis Dear. Mr. Jirovsky: Thank you for the opportunity to consider the draft fiscal impact analysis report for the Conexant project. We have the following comments on the draft. 1. Page 7 — the city receives 9% of the TOT and I % goes to the Conference and Visitors Bureau due to an ordinance creating a Visitor Service Fee. 2. Page 8 — second paragraph: identify the "prior analysis" used. 3. Page 8 — fourth paragraph: identify the "prior analysis" used. 4. Page 9 — under the heading "Direct Taxes": How are the direct tax numbers arrived at. Please cite applicable sources. 5. Page 11— first paragraph: On what basis do you assume that 20 hotel nights are generated per 1,000 square feet of space. Please cite the source or possibly check with Conexant to see what actual generation rates might be. 6. Page U — second paragraph: What is the basis for $30/day visitorspending and is all of it spent in Newport Beach and all taxable? Please expand. 7. Page I I — under the heading of "Employee Spending": Does this analysis assume that all Conexant employees live in the City of Newport Beach? Does the reference to "retail goods" in the first sentence imply only taxable items or all items? Please clarify. Please expand and show how you arrive at the city share of the sales tax dollars. Is it truly realistic to expect that 8% of the total payroll will be spent on taxable items in Newport Beach? Please provide further support for this estimate. 8. Page 11— under the heading of vendor spending: Please provide the basis where you assume 50% of Newport Beach sales are taxable? Please amend and clarify the draft accordingly and submit the final report when available. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at (949) 644-3210 or contact me via e-mail atjcampbell@city newport-beach.ca.us. Sincerely, I C� f� James Campbell Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 6th day of December, 1999, by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Kosmont & Associates. Inc., whose address is 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4895 Los Angeles, California, 90017, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a Municipal Corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. City intends to prepare and process a Fiscal Impact Analysis for Conexant SVstems located at 4311 Jamboree Road in Newport Beach. C. City desires to engage Consultant to provide Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Project upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. D. The principal members of Consultant are, for purpose of this Project are Thomas Jirovsky, Vice President. E. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant and desires to contract with Consultant under the terms of conditions provided in this Agreement. 1 l NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned Parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 6th day of December 1999, and shall terminate when the City Council takes final action on the Conexant Systems Expansion Project which requires the fiscal impact analysis, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section, and the scheduled billing rates set forth in Exhibit "A". No rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without prior written approval of the Project Administrator. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed the total contract price of Eight Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($8.000.00). 3.1 Consultant shall maintain accounting records of its billings which includes the name of the employee, type of work performed, times and dates of all work which is billed on an hourly basis and all approved incidental expenses including reproductions, computer printing, postage and mileage. 4 3.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City payable by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice subject to the approval of the City, and based upon Exhibit WTV 3.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for extra work without prior written authorization of the City. Any authorized compensation shall be paid in accordance with the schedule of the billing rates as set forth in Exhibit "A". 3.4 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses which have been specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Such cost shall be limited and shall include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services which Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Approved computer data processing and reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 3.5 Notwithstanding any other paragraph or provision of this Agreement, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement; City may withhold payment of five percent (5%) of each approved payment as approved retention until all services under this Agreement have been substantially completed. C] 4. STANDARD OF CARE 4.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with the community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City nor have any contractual relationship with City. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals required of its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits and other approvals during the term of this Agreement. 4.2 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond Consultant's control or without Consultant's fault. 5. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed rl to constitute Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the details in means of performing the work provided that Consultant is compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement which may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance of the services or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean that Consultant shall follow the desires of City only in the results of the services. 6. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 7. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall assign the Project to a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Project term. Consultant has designated Thomas Jirovskv to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign any personnel designated in this Section or assign any new or replacement person to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of the City. Consultant warrants it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the 5 Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 8. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of the services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with the schedule specified in Exhibit "A". The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may result in termination of this Agreement by City, and the assessment of damages against Consultant for delay. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays which are due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 8.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition, which purportedly causes a delay, and not later than the date upon which performance is due. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays, which are beyond Consultant's control. 8.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand delivery or mail. 9. CITY POLICY Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project 0 direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 10, CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT All work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable city, county, state and federal law, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City Council. 11. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 12. HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, allegations of liability, suits, costs and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, property damages, or any other claims arising from any and all negligent acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply even in the event of negligence of City, or its employees, or other contractors, excepting only the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees, and shall include attorneys' fees and all other costs incurred in defending any such claim. 7 Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing, any award of attorneys' fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 13. INSURANCE Without limiting consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to City. Certification of all required policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Except workers compensation and errors and omissions, all insurance policies shall add City, its elected officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees as additional insured for all liability arising from Consultant's services as described herein. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the insurance Commissioner to transact business in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide: unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. A. Worker's compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of Consultant, per the laws of the State of California. B. Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 t-1 million combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior notice has been given in writing to City. Consultant shall give to City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, that Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Q. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or any of the services to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without consent of City shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint -venture. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement 10 by City or persons other than Consultant is waived as against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. Consultant shall, at such time and in such forms as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. 16. CONFIDENTIALITY The information, which results from the services in this Agreement, is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. 17. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of his responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to provide access to and upon request of Consultant, provide one copy of all existing record information on file at City. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data information provided by City or others without independent review or evaluation. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. 18. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Planning Department. Patricia Temple, Planning Director shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 11 19. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records during normal business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 20. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 21. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 22. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the 12 California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 23. SUBCONSULTANT AND ASSIGNMENT Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services included in this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of City. 24. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA, 92658-8915 Phone (949) 644-3200 Fax (949) 644-3250 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Kosmont & Associates, Inc. Thomas Jirovsky, Sr. Vice President 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4895 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone (213) 623-8484 Fax: (213) 623-8288 25. TERMINATION In the event either part hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days, or if more than two (2) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) days after receipt by defaulting party from the other party of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the nondefaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 25.1 City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as 14 provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay to the Consultant that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 26. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 27. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. 28. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereon. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 29. PATENT INDEMNITY The Consultant shall indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: qa Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach ATTEST: 0 LaVonne Harkless City Clerk Attachments: Consultant Proposal (Exhibit A) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Municipal Corporation Homer Bludau City Manager City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: R/users/pin/shared/1 plancom/pending/RockwelYFiscalAnalysisprofseragreemnt 16 r r •a,•• • roposal to Prepare A Fiscal Impact Analysis For Conexant Systems Inc. •,:i _y ti r Submitted to: City of Newport Beach Submitted by: KOSINIVT & ASSOCIATES. I\C. Rea: Esian', Enwiemems - Economics , Redeselopmem October 22, 1999 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC, Real Estate Entitlements - Economics , Redevelopment I October 22, 1999 Marc Myers Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Re: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Conexant Systems Expansion Dear Mr. Myers: Kosmont & Associates, Inc. ("KA') is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Newport Beach in response to your verbal request for proposal to conduct a Fiscal Impact Analysis of the 25-acre Conexant Systems facilities in Newport Beach. KA has extensive experience and capability in real estate fiscal/economic impact analysis, real estate development, and relevant land use planning. KA is prepared to commit the resources necessary to complete the report in a timely manner. We look forward to discussing our proposal with you. Please feel free to call me at (213) 623-8484, should any questions arise. Xrl' Senior Vice 1. 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4895 • Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 623-8484 Fax (213) 623-8288 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Understanding of the Project ........................................ 1 Understanding of the Project ................................. 1 2 II. Firm Qualifications...................................................... Firm Qualifications ............................................... 2 Project Personnel and Management ........................ 2 III. Project Experience and References ............................... 3 Relevant Project Experience .................................. 3 References......................................................... 5 IV. S Append Resume a. I. UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT The City of Newport Beach ("City") is soliciting proposals from consultants for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis for the proposed 560,000 square foot expansion of Conexant Systems industrial facilities. The City desires to understand the fiscal impacts of both the existing 440,000 square feet facility and with the proposed 560,000 square foot expansion. The City seeks to understand the public costs and revenues associated with the proposed development. Kosmont & Associates, Inc. ("KA") will prepare an economic and fiscal impact analysis describing the net benefit to the City associated with the proposed project over a minimum ten (10) year period. KA acknowledges that all graphics and other supporting materials needed to complete the task identified in the scope of work shall be prepared by KA. KA is also prepared to submit a "draft" of the fiscal impact analysis report for City staff review prior to public release of the documents. KA will prepare and submit five (5) copies of the draft, thirty (30) copies of the final fiscal impact analysis report, and a reproducible copy for both. City of Newport Beach — Conexant Systems Kosmont & Associates, Inc. II. FIRM QUALIFICATIONS FIRM QUALIFICATIONS Kosmont & Associates, Inc. (KA) provides a broad range of services related to public/private real estate transactions, fiscal economic impact analysis, financial feasibility analysis, and related urban land use economics. KA principals have over 70 years of experience guiding public and private clients through predevelopment and the real estate implementation processes. KA is a privately -owned company and a certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). KA's principals and senior staff have extensive real estate and public agency backgrounds, and include attorneys, financial analysts, economists, land -use planners and architects working together in a team -oriented environment. For the public sector, KA creates economic incentives and development programs that encourage investment in a community. Both public and private sectors benefit from KA's unparalleled experience. Relevant Services Offered: • Development Plan Evaluations • Land Use Economics • Cost -Benefit Analysis • Fiscal Impact Analysis • Pro -Forma Analysis • . Reuse Analysis • Redevelopment Strategies Economic and Market Analysis PROJECT PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT Thomas Jirovsky, Senior Vice President of KA, will be Project Manager for this assignment. Mr. Jirovsky specializes, in the areas of financial feasibility analysis, computer -based financial and economic impact models, asset management, and fiscal impact analysis. He has assisted a wide range of public agencies in evaluating development proposals and their associated economic and fiscal impacts. Mr. Jirovsky has also managed a variety of fiscal and economic impact studies for projects ranging from small community projects to 10,000-acre residential communities and billion -dollar international resort projects. KA Project Analyst staff members will assist Mr. Jirovsky for this project. Resume of Mr. Jirovsky is included in the Appendix section. City of Newport Beach — Conexant Systems Kosmont & Associates, Inc. III. PROJECT EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE ARBA Group Village Center Westwood Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis Kosmont & Associates, Inc. (KA) was retained by The ARBA Group to conduct an analysis of the economic and fiscal and impacts of the proposed Village Center Westwood project located in Westwood Village. The analysis included public revenue projections for the City and County of Los Angeles, construction period and permanent job growth projections, and an in-depth analysis of potential spillover effects in the Westwood area. Various projections and anticipated spillover impacts were determined through a comparison of similar entertainment and retail areas in the Southern California area including Santa Monica and Pasadena. The proposed project involved a retail complex anchored by a large 50,000-square-foot supermarket with 75,000 square feet of upscale retail, 46,000 square feet of restaurant, a 4,700 seat multiplex cinema and IMAX theater, and 242 units of senior citizen/congregate care. Calabasas Promenade KA provided Pazar Associates with financial analysis and fiscal impact analysis for this proposed 190,000-square-foot retail center located near the Ventura Freeway. KA assisted in the negotiation of the development agreement with the City of Calabasas and several of the tenant leases. KA has also been involved in the structuring of partnership terms for potential lenders and investors. Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Fiscal Impact Analysis KA completed a fiscal impact report fora proposed Kaiser Permanente medical center in the City of Ontario. The planned 450-bed, 1.4 million -square -foot facility will include a major hospital, medical office space, and administrative space. In order to determine the fiscal impact on the City of this somewhat unusual land use, KA tailored fiscal impact methodology to take account of this projects characteristics. Rand Corporation — Fiscal Impact KA provided a fiscal impact analysis to assist in negotiations for the Specific Plan Buildout on the Rand Site located in the City of Santa Monica. The analysis involved reviewing all existing market studies and development parameters, developing a fiscal impact model, preparing fiscal revenue factors, and reviewing City General Fund budget. Ritter Park Associates Ritter Ranch Fiscal Impact Report KA served as financial and negotiation advisor to Ritter Park Associates in their examination of a 10,500-acre project in the Antelope Valley. As part of this assignment KA prepared a detailed fiscal impact report for the project, which was presented to the City of Palmdale. This analysis was unique in that it made sure of creative funding City of Newport Beach — Conexant Systems 3 Kosmont & Associates, Inc. III. PROJECT EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES sources to ensure that the project did not have a negative effect on the City, while at the same time, not overburdening the developer of future residences. Toyota Motor Corp. Fiscal Impact Report KA has prepared a fiscal impact report for the Toyota/Ontario Business Park to be located in the City of Ontario. The 940-acre site was planned for a 1.9 million -square -foot state -of - the art distribution center, and 300,000-square-feet of office and R&D space. KA's fiscal analysis separately evaluated Phase I and total development utilizing the City's fiscal impact methodology. Walt Disney Imagineering - Ongoing Consulting Services KA has been retained by Walt Disney Imagineering to perform fiscal impact and other financial analyses in connection with various commercial development projects. City of La Verne - Wells Fargo Building Fiscal Impact Analysis, La Verne, CA KA conducted a financial analysis in connection with the City's proposed acquisition of a vacant Wells Fargo bank building for conversion to restaurant and retail use. Former Hughes Site Fiscal Impact Analysis and Specific Plan - Fullerton, CA CommonWealth Pacific, LLC retained KA to prepare a fiscal impact analysis and specific plan for the reuse of approximately 270-acres located in Fullerton. KA prepared a detailed fiscal impact report analyzing one-time and ongoing public revenues and expenditures along with job projections for commercial, residential, and mixed -use development. In addition, KA prepared a specific plan for the site establishing a land use plan as well as regulations for the development of the site. U.S. Filter Corporation KA estimated the economic and fiscal benefits of a proposed relocation of US Filter Corp to a new suit office in the City of Palm Desert. Federal Express Site — El Segundo KA conducted a fiscal and economic benefit analysis for a proposed Fed Ex 46-acre facility site bounded by Imperial Highway on the north, Mariposa Avenue on the south, Douglas Street on the east, and Nash Street on the west, in the City of El Segundo. Paradise Park KA provided a fiscal and economic impact analysis of the Paradise Park Redevelopment Project at the Los Angeles County Fairplex in the City of Pomona. The economic analysis included employment levels, wage ranges, and overall economic activity such as hotel demand. KA also prepared a fiscal analysis from the construction and operation of the project including project property, sales, business license, and utility taxes. - City of Newport Beach — Conexant Systems 4 Kosmont & Associates, Inc. III. PROJECT EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES REFERENCES 1. Peter Hersh Assistant to City Manager City of Irvine PO Box 19575 Irvine, California 92623-9575 (949) 724-6000 2. Danny Roberts Assistant Executive Director City of Palmdale 950 E. Palmdale Boulevard, Suite C Palmdale, California 93550 (661) 267-5125 3. Mike Lee Project Coordinator City of Pomona 505 S. Garey Avenue Pomona, California 91766 (909) 620-2037 4. Chris Jeffers City Manager City of Monterey Park 320 W. Newpark Avenue Monterey Park, California 91754 (626) 307-1410 City of Newport Beach — Conexant Systems Kosmont & Associates, Inc. 5 IV. SCOPE OF SERVICES / BUDGET SCOPE OF SERVICES The fiscal impact process entails the following basic steps: • Determination of the economical growth and employment resulting from the proposed development. • Translating the employment growth into consequent public service costs • Projecting property tax revenues from the new development • Projecting potential tax revenues induced by the growth in employment • Comparing the development -induced costs to new revenues The following section describes the proposed scope and budget to provide the requested services: Task 1: KA will conduct an introductory meet with the City and verify the assignment, schedule, and deliverables. KA will collect and review all existing relevant project information. Task 2: KA will prepare a computer model to calculate direct current City fiscal revenues and costs resulting from the alternative development scenarios. The anticipated analytical method to be used is the generally accepted per capita costing technique utilizing population and employment factors. Task 3: KA will collect relevant data including municipal revenue and expenditure data, demographic information, and property data. The process will include review of the City budget and assessment of municipal service cost impacts such as police, fire, public works, etc. KA will formulate key economic assessment criteria and fiscal impact multipliers. Task 4: KA will exercise the fiscal impact model to conduct analyses for the base case (existing use), and with the proposed expansion to one million square feet. Task 5: KA will prepare a draft report that includes all assumptions, economic and fiscal impacts, and section of findings describing the net costs and revenues to the City resulting from the proposed projects. City of Newport Beach — Conexant Systems 6 Kosmont & Associates, Inc. I IV. SCOPE OF SERVICES / BUDGET Task 6: KA will attend one presentation meeting. SCHEDULE It is anticipated that the fiscal and economics benefits component can be completed within four weeks from Notice to Proceed and receipt of all relevant project and municipal base information from the City. COMPENSATION Tasks 1 through 6 will be performed on a not -to -exceed fee of $8,000. Billing will be done on the basis of percentage of work completed by task. Bud; et _Proposed Task1: $1,200 Task 2: $1,500 Task 3: $2,000 Task 4: $800 Task 5: $1,500 Task 6: $500 Expenses $500 Total $8,000 COMMITMENT KA is fully prepared to commit the resources needed to complete a fiscal and economic analysis of the Conexant Systems project for the City of Newport Beach. a. - City of Newport Beach — Conexant Systems 7 Kosmont & Associates, Inc. APPENDIX Resume KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate , Entitlements - Economics , Redevelopment THOMAS R. JIROVSKY STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND: Thomas Jirovsky specializes in the areas of financial feasibility analysis, computer -based financial and economic impact models, asset management, public/private joint ventures, and litigation support. He has assisted a wide range of development agencies in evaluating development proposals and assisting in the negotiation of development agreements and long-term leases on office, retail, hotel and residential projects. Mr. Jirovsky has also managed a variety of fiscal and economic impact studies of new development ranging from small community projects to 10,000-acre residential communities and billion -dollar international resort projects. PROJECT EXPERIENCE: Development Feasibility/Residual Land Valuations • REIM Properties/Butterfield Stage. Analyzed redevelopment alternatives for a 1970s-era neighborhood shopping center. • MCAS Tust/n/Business Plan. Performed economic analysis of reuse plan and financing structures for the 1,000-acre former military base. • Hunter's Point Naval Sh/pyard/Business Plan. Developed financial model for reuse of 500-acre shipyard incorporating infrastructure costs and residual land values to determine optimal strategy for development. • City of West Sacramento/Raley's Landing. Evaluated the financial feasibility of a one million - square -foot office and 500-unit residential complex proposed across the rivet from downtown Sacramento. • City of Palmdale/Antelope Valley Mall. Evaluated the financial feasibility of an 800,000-square-foot regional mall and participated in negotiations with the developer for redevelopment agency assistance. • City of Cerritos/Towne Center. Evaluated retail, office and hotel development proposals in conjunction with long-term ground leases for the City of Cerritos. Economic.Development • Global Computer/Relocation Study. Analyzed economic benefits of new distribution facility. Participated in negotiation of redevelopment agency assistance package. • MTA/Northeast Linkage Study. Developed economic development strategy for community of Highland Park relative to proposed Metrorail Blue Line stations. • City of Palmdale/Reta/1 Tax Sharing. Analyzed retail tax sharing proposals for Palmdale and Lancaster to eliminate unnecessary redevelopment subsidies. • CDC/South Bay Defense Adjustment Plan. Developed strategic plan for reuse of surplus real estate assets as a result.of defense downsizing. Public/Private Joint Ventures • Ko/I/City of Industry RFP. Assisted in preparation of development proposal for 70-acre industrial park owned by the City of Industry. • City of Tust/n/Gateway Plaza. Evaluated various retail/commercial development proposals for a key redevelopment site in downtown Tustin. Economic Development Corporation/Pacific Gateway. Evaluated commercial development proposals for a long-term ground lease on 30-acre site near Los Angeles International Airport. • City of Bell Gardens/Rivergate Square. Performed financial analysis of developer proposals for neighborhood shopping center and participated in negotiation of a long-term ground lease. • City of Palmdale/Auto Center. Analyzed and negotiated the joint venture between the Palmdale Redevelopment Agency and Antelope Valley Auto Center for the development of a 50-acre auto mall. Thomas R. Jirovsky Statement of Qualifications Page Two of Two Market Studies City of Palmdale/Retail Entertainment Complex. Managed market analysis of two competing development proposals for a ±20-acre entertainment complex. City of Ontario/Sphere of Influence General Plan. Prepared analysis of regional market conditions to assist in new planning effort for 8,000-acre unincorporated area. Mission LandlIndustrial Market Study. Conducted a major market study of industrial properties in Orange County and Inland Empire. Financial Analysis U.S. Grant Jr. Trust/San Diego Property. historic San Diego property near Horton Plaza. City of Santa MonicalApartment Feasibility. on the financial feasibility of redeveloping earthquake. Trust for Public LandlSanta Fe Appraisal. use downtown site in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Fiscal and Economic Impact Managed developer selection process for reuse of Analyzed the impact of various City housing policies the rental housing stock following the Northridge Performed a reuse appraisal for a key 50-acre mixed - • AGRA LLC/Central Coast Town Center. Prepared economic impact analysis of proposed 350,000- square-foot Wal-Mart-anchored community center in Arroyo Grande. • Lewis HomesiTerra Vista. Managed fiscal impact analysis of a 4,000-unit residential community and 750,000-square-foot power center. • Amgen Corporation. Managed the fiscal and economic impact analysis of a two million -square -foot expansion of its corporate headquarters facility in Thousand Oaks. • Disney Development Company. Managed fiscal and economic impact analyses for proposed theme parks in Long Beach and Anaheim; California, and Prince William County, Virginia. • City of PalmdalelRitter Ranch. Analyzed the fiscal revenues and costs of a 7,200-unit master - planned community to be annexed to the City of Palmdale. • Cafellus Development CompanylAlameda District Plan. Managed the study of potential fiscal revenues from the development of a 10 million -square -foot officelresidential complex at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. • City of Lompoc. Analyzed the fiscal impact of a proposed 121-unit residential project and evaluated the impact of a development on leased land. EDUCATION: • University of Southern California Master of Business Administration, Finance • University of Southern California Bachelor of Science, Architecture PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: • Council of Urban and Economic Development (CUED) • International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) • Professor, "Economics and Finance for Planners" course, Cal State Northridge 0 Pj D?'A-5 OR4FT A Fiscal Impact Analysis For Conexant Systems, Inc. DRAFT Submitted to: City of Newport Beach Submitted by: .MP kosmont partners February 2000 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Estate i Entitlements -Economics Qedevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Newport Beach has retained Kosmont and Associates, Inc. ("KA") to prepare an economic and fiscal impact analysis of Conexant Systems' industrial and office facilities on the northwest side of Jamboree Road near MacArthur Blvd. and Birch Street. The analysis will address the fiscal impact of the existing 438,000 square foot facility, a proposed 566,000 square foot expansion, and a reduced intensity expansion of 425,000 square feet (75%). The economic and fiscal impact analysis will describe the net benefit to the City associated with the project. The proposed project is located on approximately 25 acres and currently consists of 438,127 square feet of light industrial and supporting office/lab space with the remaining area consisting of parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. There are two existing buildings, Buildings 501 and 503, on the project site. Both buildings consist of light industrial and supporting office space. Building 501, which was built in 1961, is located on the southwestern portion of the site and encompasses 126,675 square feet of space. Building 503, which is two stories, encompasses 311,452 square feet of space and was built in 1968, with additions made in 1996. Conexant and its predecessors, Collins Radio and more recently Rockwell, have occupied the project site for approximately 40 years. In 1999, the Semiconductor Division of Rockwell International became the independent company, Conexant Systems, Inc. Conexant aims to maintain its existing headquarters facility in the City and needs to expand its engineering and manufacturing facility. To meet this goal, Conexant is proposing the expansion of its Jamboree Road facility to allow for additional light industrial and supporting office space on the 25-acre project site. CONEXANT SYSTEMS BUILDING AREA Bldg. 501 126,700 sf 0 sf 0 sf Bldg. 503 311,400 sf 424,600 sf 396,300 sf New 2-story Bldg. 0 sf 50,000 sf 37,500 sf New 10-story Bldg. 0 sf 270,000 sf 202,500 sf New 8-Story Bldg. 0 sf 259.500 sf 194.600 sf Total Building Area 438,100 sf 1,004,100 sf 862,500 sf Page 1 KOS m & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate , Entitlements , Economics - Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Buildout of the project site would include development of three new buildings, an addition to Building 503, and two parking structures. The construction of a ten story building, a two story building, and one of the two proposed new parking structures (parking structure B on the southwestern portion of the project site) would require the removal of the existing 501 building. A total of 566,000 square feet of office space is planned to be added. Thus at full buildout, the Jamboree facility will encompass over one million square feet of space. A reduced development scenario with 424,000 square feet of new office space is identified as an alternative in the Draft EIR and the expected fiscal impact of this alternative is also examined herein. Page 2 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate a Entitlements , Economics - Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fiscal Impacts The Project site is currently estimated to generate annual revenue of $929,000 with an offset of $96,000 allocated for police and fire protection costs. The resulting fiscal impact is approximately $833,000 per year. At full buildout of the Project KA estimates the net fiscal surplus to reach approximately $1,261,600 per year in Year 2000 dollars. CONEXANT PROJECT ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT Annual Tax Revenues $928,600 $1,528,400 $1,378,000 General Fund Expenses (96,200) (266,800) (224,100) Net Fiscal Impact $832,400 $1,261,600 $1,153,900 A summary comparison chart illustrating the relative annual fiscal impact for the current and proposed development of the Jamboree site is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Net Fiscal Impact _ g�,c�giS,i�00 0, Cu'irrmt Full SulIdout• 75% Buildout The major fiscal revenue source comes from real and personal property tax payments. The subject property has a current assessed value for real estate and personal property of $441 million. At full buildout, KA estimates the assessed Page 3 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate , Entitlements , Economics i Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT value will reach $612 million. Total annual property tax revenues to the City are estimated at $1,046,000 at full buildout. The City is expected to incur modest increases in police, fire and administrative costs totaling $171,000 at full buildout of the Project. Job Creation Conexant is a major provider of high -skill high -wage jobs in the City. With total company employment of almost 3,000, Conexant's average salary is approximately $70,000. The expansion of the Conexant facilities will generate approximately 2,700 new jobs at the Jamboree site. When added to current employment of about 1,520, the Jamboree facility will have total employment of approximately 4,200 at full buildout, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Total payroll at the Jamboree facility is approximately $71 million annually. The expansion, at full buildout, will likely result in an additional $189 million in annual wages, bringing the total annual payroll to approximately $260 million. Vendor Spending Conexant Systems, Inc. currently spends over $800 million annually on the purchase of manufacturing materials, services and other products from vendors across the U.S. The majority of these expenditures are related to the manufacturing operation. At the Jamboree site, KA estimates that Conexant Page 4 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate , Entitlements , Economics , Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT spends approximately $105 million annually within Orange County, of which at least $2.8 million is spent with Newport Beach -based vendors. At full buildout of the Project, vendor spending in Orange County is expected to increase by $98 million to a total of $203 million, with $3.4 million in Newport Beach, as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 Page 5 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate @ Entitlements - Economics - Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT FISCAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY The results summarized in this report are based on extensive analyses conducted by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. ("KA" ). The analyses are based upon the development program and operating assumptions provided by Conexant Systems and the City of Newport Beach, coupled with ratios of taxes and conversion tables developed by KA to generate fiscal revenue impacts. Categories of Revenue Impacts The development and operation of the Conexant Systems industrial facilities will result in substantial new revenues to the City of Newport Beach. The vast majority of the impacts fall into four categories: 1. Property Taxes 2. Sales Taxes 3. Business Taxes 4. Hotel Taxes The analysis excludes a variety of other fees and taxes that would generate additional revenue to the City, and assumes that other one-time fees (for example, building permit and inspection fees), City enterprise activities, and other development fees are revenue neutral (revenues offset by additional municipal costs). Sources of Impacts The analysis distinguishes between fiscal revenue impacts according to the source of investment or spending which generates the impact, as follows: Direct Impacts — Revenue impacts generated directly from the investment made by Conexant Systems, e.g. property taxes on the Conexant Systems facilities. 2. Indirect impacts — Multiplied impacts on fiscal revenues from recycling of expenditures in the City of Newport Beach, e.g. the sales and other taxes generated by respending of wages and other income generated by Conexant Systems facility employees and guests. Technical Assumption This analysis assumes that existing tax policies and rates will continue for the indefinite future. Page 6 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC, Real Estate , Entitlements - Economics Redevelopment DRAFT CON ANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Property Taxes Newport Beach receives 17.1 % of the 1 % basic property tax levy charged against the assessed value ("AV") of all real estate parcels and personal property within the City's primary tax rate area. The remainder of the basic levy goes to local schools, Orange County and other public agencies. Sales Taxes The current retail sales tax rate is 7.75% in Orange County. For every dollar of retail sales that occurs within the City limits, the City of Newport Beach receives an amount equal to 1 % of the retail sales amount. The State of California and the County receive the other 6.75%. Hotel Bed Tax or "TOT" The City of Newport Beach levies a uniform transient occupancy tax equal to 10% of the nightly room rate at every hotel in the City limits. Business Tax The City charges a business license fee equal to $104 plus $10 per employee for non -retail sale businesses, with a maximum fee of $1,000 per year. Since Conexant employs 3,000 people, the maximum fee of $1,000 would apply. GENERAL FUND EXPENSES The Conexant operation results in local employees and visitors to the City. These employees and visitors result in demands on local government services, such as police and fire. Since employees can be considered temporary residents, for the average 40 hours per week at work, each employee can be converted into a 0.25 "resident equivalent." Thus at full buildout, the Project's estimated employment of 4,217 could be considered to be equivalent to 1,054 residents. Police Protection Costs The project site is located within the City Beat 33, Reporting District 34. All police officers are based at the City's sole station located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. The Draft EIR prepared by PCR identified a less than significant impact on police protection resulting from the proposed project. Conexant provides a high level of security 24 hours per day on the entire project site with 21 security Page 7 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC, Real Estate - Entitlements @ Economics s Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT officers. As a result, KA estimates that the number of police service calls would be reduced significantly from conventional manufacturing and office facilities. Using prior analysis that indicated the average cost of police protection is approximately $150 per resident, and reducing the service level by 50% to reflect the onsite security, KA estimates the annual police service cost to be $79,000 at full buildout. Fire Protection Costs The nearest City fire station is Department 3 and is located 3 miles from the site. The Orange County Fire Authority (" OCFA") Station 27 is located 0.5 miles from the site and would provide secondary response. The Draft EIR prepared by PCR identified a potentially significant impact on fire protection in the event that OCFA Station 27 ceased operations. The proposed mitigation measure in the Draft EIR provides for the analysis of regional fire service needs in the event of such closure, and would require Conexant to be responsible for its proportional share of any required facilities, equipment and staffing resources. Using prior analysis that indicated the average cost of citywide fire protection services is approximately $165 per resident, KA estimates the annual fire protection cost attributable to the Project to be $174,000 at full buildout. Public Works The Draft EIR prepared by PCR indicated that there would be no material impact on local street maintenance costs as a result of the Project. Administrative Costs Although no direct increase in administrative costs is anticipated, there would be an indirect impact of increased police and fire department service on the overall City administrative departments. The 1999-2000 City Budget identifies an annual cost for Administrative Services of $4.9 million out of a total operations budget of $90 million, or 5.4%. Using a 5.4% overhead factor on the increased police and fire service cost results in an estimated $9,000 of additional administrative costs. Page 8 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC, Real Estate a Entitlements , Economics - Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT IV. NEWPORT BEACH REVENUE IMPACTS At full buildout, total revenue from the Conexant project is estimated at approximately $1,528,000, as shown in Figure 4 below: Figure 4 •, ... ..;...v; s; 'r•'; Aonu ram'l a up :../' y ;i 51,3 "° ; , - t`ar#e t• 76.000 51,528,000 5029.000 Direct Taxes Total direct taxes generated annually from the Conexant property are currently approximately $755,000. Total direct taxes are expected to increase to $1,047,000 at full buildout ($974,000 at 75% buildout). Direct taxes include the following: 1. Real property tax 2. Personal property tax 3. Business tax Real property tax generated by the Conexant property is currently over $95,000 annually. At full buildout, this will increase to over $300,000. At 75% buildout, real property tax revenues will be approximately $250,000 annually. Page 9 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC, Real Estate , Entitlements • Economics , Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Personal property tax generated by the Conexant property is currently $658,000 annually. Personal property tax paid at full buildout is expected to be $745,000 annually. At 75% buildout, personal property tax will provide approximately $724,000 of revenue, as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Business tax provides a minimal amount of tax revenue, $1,000 annually for all three scenarios in this analysis. Indirect Taxes The City of Newport Beach will realize a significant amount of indirect tax revenue from Conexant visitors, employee and vendor spending at other commercial businesses in Newport Beach. Indirect taxes consist of: 1. Visitor Spending (Hotel TOT) 2. Visitor Spending (Retail Sales Tax) 3. Employee Local Spending (Retail Sales Tax) 4. Vendor Spending (Retail Sales Tax) Page 10 UMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate , Entitlements , Economics , Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Visitor Spending (Hotel and Retail Sales) KA estimates that office/business park tenants generate demand for approximately 20 hotel room nights per 1,000 square feet of space. Assuming an average room rate of $125/night, the visitor hotel tax currently provides approximately $100,000 annually. At full buildout, induced hotel demand is expected to generate $250,000 of tax revenue annually. At 75% buildout, visitor hotel demand is expected to generate $212,500 of tax revenue annually. Average visitor retail spending is estimated at $30/day for restaurants and ancillary items. KA estimates that the City's 1 % share of Conexant visitor retail sales currently provides about $2,400 annually. At full buildout, the sales tax revenue is expected to reach $6,000 annually. Employee Spending Between 30% and 40% of employee wages are typically spent on retail goods. With its wide variety of retail stores, KA estimates that the City of Newport Beach will capture approximately 25% of the overall spending (e.g. 8% of wages). With current payroll at the Jamboree site of almost $71 million, retail sales tax from employee spending is thus estimated to generate $57,000 per year. It is expected to increase substantially as a result of the expansion to $208,000 at full buildout ($170,000 assuming 75% buildout). This analysis excludes the wealth impact from Conexant's 1,000% stock price appreciation, which could result in substantial additional discretionary spending. Vendor Spending Conexant spends millions of dollars on local supplies and services. Based on a review of the 1999 accounting records, KA estimates that Newport Beach businesses directly receive over $2.8 million per year. Assuming that 50% of such spending represents taxable sales, such spending generates approximately $14,000 in annual tax revenue. At full buildout, this should increase to $17,000 annually. Page 11 Know & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate • Entitlements - Economics , Redevelopment DRAFT CONEXANT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT Annual Indirect Tax Revenue The total annual City tax revenue from the above indirect sources related to the Conexant property is currently $173,000. At full buildout, indirect tax revenue is expected to reach $481,000 as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 Annual indirect Taxes $600,O00 $40QsOOQ $200,000 $0 Current Full Buildout 75% Buildout Page 12 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate , Entitlements o Economics , Redevelopment Conexant Project Fiscal and Economic Impacts Current Full Buildout 75% Buildout Economic Factors Square Feet - Bldg. Area 438,000 1,004,000 862,500 Real Property Assessed Value $56,000,000 $176,000,000 $146,000,000 Personal Property $385,000,000 $435,900,000 $423,200,000 Employment 1,522 4,217 3,543 Annual Wages $70,800,000 $259,500,000 $212,300,000 Vendor/Material Spending - Orange County Manufacturing material $34,000,000 $34,000,000 $34,000,000 Non -manufacturing material $45,000,000 $111,300,000 $94,500,000 Services $26,000,000 $57,800,000 $49,800,000 Vendor/Material Spending - Newport Beach Material and services $2,800,000 $3,400,000 $3,200,000 Direct Taxes Real Property Tax /1 $95,800 $301,000 $249,700 Personal Property Tax /1 658,400 745,400 723,700 Business Tax 1,000 1,000 11000 Total Direct Taxes $755,200 $1,047,400 $974,400 Indirect Taxes Visitor Hotel Spending $100,000 $250,000 $212,500 Visitor Retail Spending 2,400 6,000 5,100 Employee Local Spending 57,000 208,000 170,000 Vendor Spending 14,000 17,000 16,000 Total Indirect Taxes $173,400 $481,000 $403,600 Total Direct/Indirect Taxes $928,600 $1,528,400 $1,378,000 Municipal Service Costs Police Protection $28,500 $79,100 $66,400 Fire Protection 62,800 174,000 146,200 Administrative Services 4,900 13,700 11,500 Total Costs $96,200 $266,800 $224,100 Net Fiscal Impact $832,400 $1,261,600 $1,153,900 /1 City share of property tax is 17.1% of the basic 1% tax levy Source: Kosmont and Associates, Inc. Peal Estate Land Use Economics Redevelopment April 19, 2000 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P O Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 Re: Proposal — Economic Consultant Services Dear James: As a result of Conexant Systems request for modifications to the fiscal impact report, Kosmont Partners ("Kosmont" or "Consultant") is submitting this proposal for add -on consulting services to our existing contract with the City. SCOPE OF SERVICES Kosmont will perform the following tasks: 1. Analyze impact of the Direct Pay Permit application to estimate the potential increase in use tax to the City following Conexant's proposed expansion. 2. Analyze impact of all existing Conexant facilities and employees in Newport Beach, in addition to the incremental impact of the proposed 566,000 sq. ft expansion. 3. Quantify impact of construction spending, aerospace tax rebate and property tax appeal by Conexant 4. Prepare a revised report to the City. STAFFING Due to time constraints, the additional analysis and report preparation will be completed by Thomas Jirovsky, Partner. SCHEDULE Kosmont will complete the revised report prior to April 28, 1999. Bruce G. Ehrlich, AlA, Esq BUDGET Thomas N. Xmvsky Henry Madrid Kosmont will complete the above tasks for a budget not to exceed $2,000, based on our Susan Perry, Esq. discounted 1999 public agency billing rates as shown in the original contract. Larry J. Kosmont, C8E houndln9partner kosmontpartners 601 S. Figueroa Street Suite3550 Los Angeles California 90017 ph213.623.8484 fx213.623.8288 www.kosmant.com James Campbell City of Newport Beach April 19, 2000 Page 2 of 2 AUTHORIZATION If this proposal is acceptable, please sign below and return to Kosmont, or provide a purchase order or other contract form. Attachment Read, understood and agreed to this day of 2000 "Client" City of Newport Beach By. Patricia L. Temple Director of Planning TomTroposatNewport Beach.Doc Mr. John Saunders 4525-A MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95815 Sacramento Area Office BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 Pat Budge, Frank Bianchini Presidents Bayview Terrace Homeowners Association C/O KEYSTONE PACIFIC MANAGEMENT CO. 4100 Newport Place, #350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Liam H. Davis NCCP Assoc. Wildlife Biologist CALIF. DEPT. OF FISH & GAME 4949 Viewridge Drive San Diego, CA 92123 Ms. Brenda Morrison District 12 CALIF. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 CALIF. ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 Ninth Street, MS-15 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Mark Durham Regulatory Branch ACOE-LOS ANGELES DISTRICT P. O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 BIRCH LEGACY 5180 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ms. Barbara Peters, Mr. Dan Rabun Newport North Villas C/O CMC ASSOC. MANAGEMENT 2492 Walnut Avenue, #100 Tustin, CA 92780 Eastbluff Homeowners Comm. Assn. C/O THE EMMONS COMPANY 17300 Redhill Avenue, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92614 Mr. Ron Rempel Regional Manager CALIF. DEPT. OF FISH & GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Mr. Robert Joseph Chief Adv. Planning District 12 CALIF. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 CALIF. INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 1501 E. Orangethorpe Ave, Suite 150 Fullerton, CA 92831 CALIF. STATE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 South Coast Area Office CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 200 Oceangate, loth Floor, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Office of Special Projects Planning & Analysis Divisions CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 2555 - 1st Avenue Sacramento, CA 95818 Division of Aeronautics CALTRANS P. O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Development Services Dept. CITY OF COSTA MESA P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Mr. Howard Zelefsky Planning Director CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mr. Peggy Schneble CITY OF IRVINE 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine, CA 92714 CALIF. WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826 South Coast Office CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 200 Oceangate, loth Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 CALIFORNIA STATE CONSERVANCY 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 CALTRANS - PLANNING P. O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Mr. Perry Valantine CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Planning & Development Services CITY OF IRVINE P. O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 Ms. Nancy Gardner Environmental Quality Affairs Committee CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 323 Jasmine Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. Philip L. Arst COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLIANCE P. O. Box 2000/27 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Environmental Planning COUNTY OF ORANGE P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 CEQA Advisor Orange County Clerk COUNTY OF ORANGE REGISTRAR & RECORDER P. O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 DEPT. OF CONSERVATION 801 K Street, MS-24-02 Sacramento, CA 95814 DEPT. OF HEALTH P. O. Box 942732 601 North 7th Street Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 DEPT. OF PARKS & RECREATION P. O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 1020 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Jim Miller PFRD/Flood Control District COUNTY OF ORANGE P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Mr. Denton Turner PFRD/Harbors, Beaches & Parks COUNTY OF ORANGE P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 DEPT. OF BOATING & WATERWAYS 1629 S Street Sacramento, CA 95814 South Coastal Region & Inland Desert Region DEPT. OF FISH & GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 DEPT. OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1800 - 3rd Street Sacramento, CA 95814 DEPT. OF REAL ESTATE 107 S. Broadway, Room 8107 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Frank Robinson FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY P. O. Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Antero A. Rivasplata Chief, State Clearinghouse GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SO. CALIF. 350 South Grand Los Angeles, CA 90054 NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE & VISITORS BUREAU 3300 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92625 Region 8 SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501-3339 Mr. Arnie Aparicio SO. CALIF. EDISON COMPANY 14803 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 SPON P. O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT 1965 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92628-5008 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 Capital Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Government Publications NEWPORT CENTER BRANCH LIBRARY 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 RESOURCES AGENCY 1020 Ninth Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Intergovernmental Review SCAG 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 SOUTH COAST AQMD 21865 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Division of Clean Water Programs STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD P. O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 Division of Water Quality STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD P. 0. Box 944213 Sacramento, CA 94244-2130 Mr. Steve Letterly Director TCA/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P. 0. Box 28870 Santa Ana, CA 92799-8870 Los Angeles District U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. 0. Box 532711 911 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90053 Region 9 Office U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Ms. Lynn Shelton, Mr. Jim Horian Bayview Court Homeowners Association VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT P. 0. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Mr. Richard Demerjian Director, Campus & Environmental Planning UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 3600 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-2325 Mr. Eric Freed Executive Officer Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Susan B. Seifert Co -Presiding Officer STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT P. 0. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Ms. Carol Hoffman THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, 8th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 District 11 U.S. COAST GUARD Coast Guard Island Alameda, CA 94501 Ecological Services U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Jim Applegate Facility Planner SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1601 E. Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322 Mr. Alexander Glazer, Director UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM I I I I Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607-5200 Ms. Carol Tsai Mr. Nelson Mamey 1466 Kamole Street 5160 Birch Street #101 Honolulu, HI, CA 95821 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Thomas Wooldridge APEX ALND INVESTMENTS INC. 1735 Corbett Highlands Place 4675 MacArthur Court #1570 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Newport Beach, CA 92660 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS BEACHWOOD PARTNERS C/O WJS INC. 4770 Von Karman Avenue 5031 Birch Street #D Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 29660 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS CP ASSOCIATES C/O THREE'S COMPANY 5100 Birch Street 4701 Teller Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DARTS BUILDING PARTNERS EWING ENTERPRISES 5120 Birch Street #200 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 A Tee & Renae Migliori HARRINGTON SOUND PROPERTIES INC. FAMILY MIGLIORI 5 Civic Plaza #320 5119 Circle Vista Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 La Crescenta, CA 91214 HASKELL WHITE BUILDING INVS SPECTRUM 4901 Birch Street 4440 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 JAMBOREE ASSOCIATES LTD 18818 Teller Avenue #275 Irvine, CA 92612 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT NUMBER 14 P. O. Box 188039 Carlsbad, CA 92009 LAMBEAU PROPERTIES LLC 4921 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 LLC MILESTONE 5015 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 NEWPORT FEDERAL 4425 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS INC. 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard Seal Beach, CA 90740 KCN LIMITED EDITION OWNERS Assoc. 5030 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 KoLL CORPORATE Assoc LT PSTG 4343 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 LEBATAINC. 4621 Teller Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 LYON LEON; LYON WILLIAM HARWELL I 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 OLEN COMMERICAL REALTY ENCUMBERANCE I COR 7 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 VON KARMAN LP BP 13031 Newport Avenue #200 Tustin, CA 92780 MC. dark Durham Regulatory Branch ACOE-Los Angeles District P.Q Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 Mr. jim Mifler County of Orange PFRD/Flood Control District P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702.4048 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. Ecological Services 2730 Loker Ave. West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ms. Brenda Morrison Calif. Dept. of Transportation District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Mr. Artie Aparicio So. Calif. Edison Company 14803 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 SPON P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Intergovernmental Review SCAG 818 West 7th Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Mr. Ron Rempel, Regional Manager Mr. Denton Turner Calif. Dept. of Fish and Gone County of Orange 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 PFRDAUrbors, Beaches & Parks Long Beach, CA 90802 P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92; 02-4048 City of Costa Mesa Development Services Dept. P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628.1200 Mr. Liam H. Davis NCCP Assoc. Wildlife Biologist Calif: Dept. of Fish & Game 4949 Viewridge Drive San Diego, CA 92123 Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region - Region 8 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501.3339 Mr. Steve Letterly, Director TCA/Environmental Services P.O. Box 28870 Santa Ana, CA 92799.8870 Environmental Quality Affairs Committee/City Newport Beach Attn: Ms. Nancy Gardner 323 Jasmine Corona del Mar, CA 92625 City of Irvine Planning and Development Services P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 `Mesa Consolidated Water District 1965 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92628-5008 Mr. Robert Joseph, Chief Adv. Ping. Calif: Dept. of Transportation District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Cal. 350 South Grand Los Angeles, CA 90054 Newport Center Branch Library Government Publications 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Antero A. Rivasplata Chief, State Clearinghouse Gov. Off. of Plnng & Rsrch 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate loth Floor, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 l� Ms. Carol Hoffman The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive, 8th Fl. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ms. Carol a Ms. Caro! Hartman 2945 C,2c51pai6 414 Pla Np4orc Beach, CA 92660 N n Beach, CA 92660 Ms. Barb Quist 2957 talpa N ort Beach, CA 92660 Bayview Terrace Homeowners Association c% Keystone Pacific Mgmt. Co. Pat Budge, Frank Bianchini, Pres. 4100 Newport Place, #350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Bayview Assn. c/o Marquis- ou ell Co. Ms. Michele tzel, Mr. Kent afnutAvenue, #100 CA9Z Orange Couni County of Or, Recorder Attn: CEQA A P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA Ms er Bayview Court Homeowners V- P=d Association N rt Beach, CA 92660 Village+y Management Ms. Lynn Shelton, Mr. Jim Horian P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Eastbluff Homeowners Comm. Assn. Newport North Villas c/o The Emmons Company do CMC Assoc Mgmt. 17300 Redhill Avenue, Ste. 210 Ms. Barbara Peters, Mr. Dan Rabun Irvine, CA 92614 2492 Walnut Avenue, #100 Tutstin, CA 92780 North Bluff Park Ms. Milly DayM 421 VistaSrdierte Assn. North Bluff Villa Com sn. c(o vlllagevmy . t. C.o. Ms. Amy EripWon, Ms. Mari Ann Beach, CA 92660 )x 4708 CA 92716 AGENCY OFFICE ADDRESSI ADDRESS2 CITY/STATE/ZIP Bureau of Indian Affairs Sacramento Area Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 California Coastal Commission South Coast Office 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Los Angeles District 911 Wilshire Blvd P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, CA 90053 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 8 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501-3339 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Office 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, Calif., 94105 U.S. Coast Guard District 11 Coast Guard Island Alameda, CA 94501 Department of Fish & Game South Coastal Region and Inland Desert Region 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 South Coast AQMD California Department of Transportation Department of Boating & Waterways 21865 E. Copley Dr. District 12 1629 S Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765.4182 2501 Pullman Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Santa Ana, CA 92705 California State Conservancy Native American Heritage Commission Resources Agency 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 915 Capital Mall, Room 364 1020 Ninth Street, Third Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 California Highway Patrol Department of Housing and Community California State Lands Commission Office of Special Projects Development 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South Planning and Analysis Divisions 1800 3rd Street Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 2555 1" Avenue Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95818 City of Huntington Beach City of Costa Mesa City of Irvine Attn: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Attn: Perry Valantine Attn: Peggy Schneble 2000 Main Street 77 Fair Drive 1 Civic Center Plaza Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Irvine, CA 92714 Air Resources Board 2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95815 Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Department of Health 601 N. 7th Street PO Box 942732 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 Caltrans - Planning P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Department of Real Estate 107 So. Broadway, Room 8107 Los Angeles. CA 90012 Department of Water Resources 1020 Ninth Street, Third Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board California Integrated Waste Management Board Division of Clean Water Programs Division of Water Quality 1501 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 150 P.O. Box 944212 P.O. Box 944213 Fullerton, CA 92831 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 Sacramento, CA 94244-2130 BAYSIDE VILLAGE H WNERS ASSN LYN�f COOK 300 COAS-' Y E 437 NE T BCH CA 92660 DOVER SHORES CgMMUNTY ASSN kVILLAGEW GMTCO BARBAR DGES;EDWARD BENSON PO B 708 IAWINE CA 92716 ISLAND LAGOON HOMED ASSN % VILLAGEWAY MG CAROLYN BENN-OUELLEC;TERRY NKOV[ CORP ATE PARK DR 200 CA 92716 VILLA POINT COMMUNI N % MERRIT PROP DON CHESE E;NEALMACHANDER 25910 O ST 2ND FLR ON VIEJO CA 92691 KAREN CASE 300 E. CO HWY., #113 \E T BEACH, CA 92660 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLIANCE C/o PHILIP L. ARST P.O. BOX 2000/27 CORONA DEL MAR � Q)4c f�KJL BEACON BAY CO •ITY ASSN JOHN HOVE 44 BEA I BAY NE ORT BCH CA 92660 HARBOR COVECOMMUNI f % STANDARD PACI RP ATTN JUDITH 1565 W THUR BLVD COS ESA CA 92626 LINDA ISLE COMMUNITY ASSN % KEYSTONE PAC PR T DEBBIE STINS DY WILLFORD 4100 NE T PL #350 NE RT BCH CA 92660 CASTAWAYS % KEYSTONE P0156P MGMT CARRIE L 4100 PORT PL NEWPORT BCH CA 92660 HARBOR ISLAND COMMUNITY ASSN % WELLS PROPERTIE RICHARD WEL HARD ELLIOTT 22706 ASP T 3504 LA REST CA 92630 PROMONTORY BAY COMMUN ASSN % VILLAGEWAY MG JILL CARSON ARD BARE PO BO 8 R CA 92761 STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY SUSAN B. SEIFERT, CO -PRESIDING FRANK ROBINSON OFFICER P.O. BOX 2001 P.O. BOX 102 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662 GEORGESANDE BAYSIDE AGE 300 ASTHWY SP143 ORT BCH CA NEWPORT BCH MICHAEL D. GELFAN TERRA VIST AGEMENT, INC. 2211 PA C BEACH DR. S ' EGO. CA 92109 NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE & 1470 JAMBOREE ROAD VISTIORS BCREA MRWPnRT RF.ACH_ CA 92625 3300 WESTCOAST HIGHWAY Califwria' Waste Management Board Department of Parks and Recreation California Energy Commission 8800 Cal Center Drive P.O. Box 942896 1516 Ninth Street, MS-15 Sacramento, CA 95826 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS-24-02 Sacramento, CA 95814 Orange County Environmental Planning P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 q5a 5 -A PA& 1 iAth v&ud. P. (�). JAMBOREE ASSOCIATES LTD 18818 Teller Avg #275 Irkhra, 0% 92612 sewD jLlq1Grs W,0- 7 e, — v IV L Y 7 0 �7toh/ JAMBOREE ASSOCIATES LTD 188I S Teller Ave 9275 Irvine, CA 92612 Von Karman Lp Bp 13031 Newport Ave #200 Tustin, CA 92780 Carol Tsai 1466 Kamole St Honolulu, HI 96821 KOLL CORPORATE ASSOC LT PSTG 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 OLEN COMMERCIAL REALTY ENCUMBRANCE 1 COR 7 Corporate Plaza Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Invs Spectrum 4440 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS INC 2201 Seal Beach Blvd Seal Beach, CA 90740 ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS INC 2201 Seal Beach Blvd Seal Beach, CA 90740 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT NUMBER 14 PO Box188039 Carlsbad, CA 92009 LYON LEON;LYON WILLIAM HARWELL 1 4490 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 tZ J 1 A-S � yrv- -- EWING ENTERPRISES 4931 Birch St Nevtport 5=6h, CA 92660 LAMBEAU PROPERTIES LLC 4921 Birch St Newport Beach, CA 92660 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS 4770 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 HASKELL WHITE BLDG 4901 Birch St Newport Beach, CA 9266C BEACHWOOD PARTNERS 4770 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 KCN LIMITED EDITION OWNERS ASSOCIATION 5030 Campus Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS 4770 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 A Tee & Renae Migliori Family Migliori 5119 Circle Vista Ave La Crescenta, CA 91214 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS %T 4701 Teller Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS 4770 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS %V 5031 Birch St t#D Newport Beach, CA 92660 Llc Milestone 5015 Birch St Ngwport,&ach, (A 92660 LEBATA INC 4621 Teller Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 APEX ALND INVESTMENTS.INC 4675 Macarthur Ct # 1570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Birch Legacy 5180 Birch St Newport Beach, CA 92660 Thomas Wooldridge ' 1735 Corbett Highlands PI Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 NE WPORT FEDERAL 4425 Jamboree Rd Newport Beach, CA 92660 Nelson Mame 5160 Birch St Newport Beac HARRINGTO 5 Civic Piz #3: Newport Beac DARTS BULL 5120 Birch St Newport Bead CP ASSOCIA" 5100 Birch St Newport Beacl STOP RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT e� Ao CITY OF NFWDnRT PEACH AM DEC 0 4 1998 PM a OUR 718,9110,11,12,112,3141516 P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 December 1, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-6915 by fax transmission to (949) 644-3250 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS; Dear Mr. Myers: SPON has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project. We have the following comments: • The EIR should consider the traffic generation not only on the basis of additional building square footage but also on the projected employee population which is stated as approximately 2,695 additional personnel (Initial Study, page B-3). Section IV.c. requires further analysis in the EIR. Statements regarding surface waters on page B-10 appear to be inconsistent. One sentence says that runoff from the site enters the storm drain which flows to the riparian wetland at Jamboree/MacArthur. A later sentence states that the runoff does not affect the wetland at Jamboree/MacArthur. The EIR should clarify this apparent conflict. The project would greatly increase parking area, although much of this will be in parking structures. The EIR should also explain how the additional parking areas in the structure would be cleaned of oil and pollutants to avoid discharge into the storm drain. Such discussion is needed in order to support the statement of no impact. • The air quality analysis should also incorporate vehicle trip projections based on the projected additional 2,695 employees. • SPON disagrees that item VIIA. (regarding biological impacts to wetlands) does not require further analysis. Because of the somewhat confusing and apparently conflicting statements cited in the second comment above, we believe additional discussion is required. The EIR should clarify that there will be no impact to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Please continue to send project information to SPON at the address above. Thank you. yours, Ir L / f Ea roRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ~ S P.0 BOX 1768. NEWPORT OEACfi, CA 92659.1768 C.tit FO PN` FAX COVER SHEE DATE: TO: BUSINESS PHONE: FAX NUMBER: RE: 1 THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS FROM: NO. OF PAGES: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: X, 3 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Ne, part Beach. CA 92658-8915 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH blarc Alyers Associate Planner. Planning Department Community and Economic Development I i (714) 644-3210 Fax (71.1) 644-3250 The Legacy Company November 25, 1998 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92685-8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM DEc 01 1998 PM g181911011111211 t21314 t616 Re: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear City: The Legacy Company is acting as a consultant to Koll Center Newport Number "A" in connection with General Plan Amendment 97-3 which is a request to add 250,000 square feet of office entitlement at Koll Center Newport. Upon our review of the Rockwell Notice of Preparation we wish to provide the following comments: 1. Although the project design description on page A-4 talks in terms of adding 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space, there is no designation of the actual space to be used as office space. From the proposed conceptual site plan on Figure A-3 it is clear that a 10 story and 8 story building are proposed which will most probably be utilized for office use. 2. Any Environmental Impact Report must consider the traffic to be generated by our proposed General Plan Amendment 97-3. 3. It is not possible to restrict use to Rockwell and therefore the assumptions in the Environmental Impact Report must assume that the future buildings may be used as multi -tenant office buildings. 840 Newport Center Drive, Sute 420, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (949( 719.6365 9 Fax (949) 719-6366 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 25, 1998 Page Two We are in the process of preparing our Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for GPA 97-3 and look forward to working with the City and Rockwell in mitigating any environmental concerns identified by both projects. Very truly yours, KOLL CENTER NEWPORT NUMBER A By: THE LEGACY COMPANY By: Timothy L. Strader CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r abLL r P0 BOX 1768, NEWPORT pEACIi, CA 92659.1768 ��crcoaN` . FAX COVER SHEET IZ-z-`fs, DATE: TO: BUSINESS PHONE: FAX NUMBER: -453� �pz RE: THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT 1S FROM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marc Myers Associate Planner. Planning Department Community and Economic Development i 3300 Newport Blvd. (714) 644.3210 P.O. Box 1768 Fax (714)6 43250 New port Beach. CA 92658.8915 k0. Of PAGES: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: From: Philip L. Arst To: Marc Meyers Date: 11/30/98 Time: 1:06:36 PM Page 2 of 3 Philip L. Arst 2601 Lighthouse Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Marc Myers City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 November 29, 1998 Reference: 1. Initial Study Rockwell Semiconductor Systems NOP Prepared by Planning Consultants Research for the City of Newport Beach October 1998 2. Fomn 10-12G/A for Conexant Systems, Inc. filed Nov. 17, 1998 with the Securities & Exchange Commission by Conexant Systems, Inc. (File # 000-24923) Dear Mr. Myers: The following are my comments on the referenced study for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems NOR. Please have then addressed by the Study. ReconcWation of Proiect with Statements made by Conexant to the Securities & Exchange Commission The project title should be changed to Conexant Systems, Inc. as they have told the Securities and Exchange Commission that they are the entity that will conduct the Rockwell Semiconductor business in the future. A statement is required that Conexant is the cognizant party for this project and that it assumes responsibility for all statements contained in this study as being hue and representative of its intentions for the project. It should also represent that its statements are consistent with its statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 17, 1998(Rer. 2.) Proiect Description (Page A-4) Traffic generation is the primary issue for this project. The project description implies that the industrial component of the present site is being reduced by eliminating building 501 and replacing it with a ten -story office tower plus an eight -story office tower and attendant parking elsewhere on its site. However, Reference 2. States that: • Conexant (as Rockwell Semiconductor) operated at a loss in its most recent fiscal year and forecasts that it will continue to lose money during the current period. • Conexant is losing market share in its principal product area and its revenues are declining. • Conexant/Rockwell Semiconductor has recently implemented a general reduction in their employee workforce. • Their manufacturing plant is based upon 8-inch wafers and of small capacity; thereby rendering it obsolescent compared to its competitors. (See below) • Maintaining manufacturing competitiveness is capital -intensive. Conexant has stated that it is investigating the use of outside wafer fabrication suppliers, an approach used by many of its competitors to operate without having to fund their own manufacturing capacity. From: Philip L. Arst To: Marc Meyers Date: 11/30/98 Time: 1:06:36 PM Page 3 of 3 Not stated to the SEC but obvious to all is that Conexant's Newport Beach location and Orange County workforce has to be one of the most expensive locations in the world and places them at a competitive disadvantage to competitors in lower cost areas. Additionally Conexant's small wafer fabrication plant is at a competitive disadvantage to its competitors in terns of wafer size, processing volume and capital for process improvements. Therefore, it is evident that applicant's spending of its capital on office towers instead of upgrading its manufacturing facility means that its intent is to exit the manufacture of its wafers and turn the site into ail office tower complex. This would imply the subsequent elimination of its manufacturing facility (building 503) turning the complex into 100% office usage. The project should be reviewed as all office tower complex as not only does general office space predominate but also the above move away from manufacturing appears inevitable. Therefore, as Conexant has not stated the mixture of its proposed light industrial vs. office space, and in any event the light industrial is expected for the reasons stated above to disappear, that the project traffic generation should be calculated on the basis of 100% office usage. A second point is the statement that "the build out of the proposed project would occur over a 20 year period based upon market demand for the products manufactured on the project site." One must question Conexant's forthrightness as this statement is disproved by the implication that au obsolescent manufacturing plant could meet its manufacturing needs over a twenty year period, at a time when it has spent its capital on office towers. One can only surmise that this is a plan to create an office lower complex and all traffic generation considerations should be based on 100% office tower usage on a near -tern basis. Project Objectives (C.) It is questionable for a company that is losing market share, losing money and fighting to establish itself as an independent entity to disregard its present problems and have as its objectives: • "To provide ... needed expansion opportunities securing Rockwell as a major employer for the city" • "To provide for expansion of the existing Rockwell facility within the city rather than at a facility within another jurisdiction." • To provide additional building area that accommodates future growth for the Rockwell facility over the next 20 years." This again leaves an open question as to the real objectives of this project and that traffic generation should be considered as 100% office. Other Projects in the Airport Area It is known that the Kell Company is/has started the city approval process for an additional office lower on its property. Additionally, the Holtze Company has started the city processing of a residence hotel and office building projects. The traffic generated by these projects should be included in the Conexant study. Respectfully submitted, Philip L. Arst 1�" P. 0. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ~ i P.n 80X I768, NE\V1'ORT BEACH. CA 92659.1768 C�(IFOPN` XfA COVER_SHEE DATE: 10: BUSINESS PHONE: FAX NUMBER: 75-5—�vb2 Zack.w.e.l � RE: THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS FROM: N0, OF PAGES: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 4 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 New port Beach. CA 92658.8915 ;.ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Afarc Myers Associate Planner. Planning Department Community and Economic Development (714) 644-3210 Fax (714) 644$250 ,,nn ♦t. . ._ ... n... l..... 1 j,,^rr Rrvrb From: Philip L. Arsl To: Marc Meyers Date: 11/30/98 Time: 1:06:36 PM Page 1 of 3 FACSIMILE COVER PAGE r To: Marc Meyers From : Philip L. Arst Sent : 11/30/98 at 12:58:42 PM Pages : 3 (including Cover) Subject: This is to submit comments on the Rockwell (Conexant Systems, Inc.) NOP. Please be advised that due to the fact that this notice was sent to my PO box via registered mail it was returned twice to you as sender. I picked up the actual NOP from your secretary on or about Nov. 19, 1998 and therefore am responding within 30 days of receipt. Sent by: PDSWENVBPROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 11/30/98 15:44; Jaffa#178;Page 1/3 County of Orange Planning & Development Service IFOR NOV 3 01998 mrv��,.c n 1t�mU C\LC Post -it' Fax Note 7671 Dale%I � go, pagos� 3 To r yeJ-,rj y Fror? ,YYIGtkt— �QJ,p 1 co.!D#PtG7WYYL'o� 1'4'2a _Z co, 0A Phone k -31y0 Phon #?1 Fe n Fax # cs -3 NCL 98-90 Mare Myers Associate Plattner, Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9915 SUBJECT: NOP for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Dear Mr. Myers: The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 556,000 square feet of light industrial and office space, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site (build -out over the next 20 years). The project site is at 4311 Jamboree Road. The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP and offers the following comments: WATER QUALITY The Initial Study on Page four, section IV WATER (e )is checked "No Impact" which we believe should be changed to "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." The Initial Study on Page B-10;indicates the project could have no significant impacts on surface water resources since the entire site is either paved or built -over, and the built -over portion would increase. This does not consider the extensive impacts on the nearby critical wetland resource of Newport Bay that could occur during construction. Neither the referenced City grading ordinance nor local and State building codes address this issue. The DEIR should establish compliance with a number of existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Aarmits as mitigation for potential water quality impacts. These include the State wide Industrial NPDES Permit for New Construction Activities affecting 5 or more acres, requiring a Stormw4ter Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP); the General Permit for De Minimis impacts issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (No. CAG998001); and the Countywide Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit requiring: Sent by: POSWENVOROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 11/30/98 15:44; J*1iE"_#178;Page 2/3 Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Page 2 A. that prior to issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever comes first, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) needs to be reviewed and approved by the city. WQMP needs to include the routine and minimum, structural and non- structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) into redevelopment projects per the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix G; and B. the addition of the following as general notes on the cover sheets of construction plans for the project, also per the DAMP: 1. Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. Discharges of material other than storrawater are allowed only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not: cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; or contain a hazardous substance in a quantity reportable under Federal Regulations 40 CFR Parts 117 and 302. Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator or batter fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water, concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; and super -chlorinated potable water line flushings During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on -site, physically separated from potential storm water run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. 2. Dewatering of contaminated groundwater, or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. Dewatering of non -contaminated groundwater requires a NPDES System Permit from the respective State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Finally, the DEIR NOP does not specify the types of new activities that will be conducted on site, and whether they could as a regular course of operations or in the event of an emergency or accidental spill, result in a discharge of waste or pollutants of any form leaving the site and ultimately reaching either Newport Bay or the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh. It was for Sent by: POSWENV&PROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 11/30/98 15:45; Jetrax .#178;Page 3/3 Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Page 3 industrial operations such as this that the State Water Resources Control Board adopted still another NPDES Permit for specified industrial activities, which requires that a S WPPP of ongoing effect, modified as the facility is modified, be prepared and implemented at each development phase to ensure the long term compliance. Additional BMPs may accordingly be deemed reasonable and feasible to address such potential impacts of an ongoing nature. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION Initial Study Sections VI: Transportation/Circulation, Section's: Air Quality and Section XV: Recreation: Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Orange Bikeways Map depicts an existing Class I (paved off -road) bikeway along Jamboree Road in this location. This bikeway will ultimately connect to the San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash Regional Class I (paved off- road)bikeways just south of the project. The OCTA Commuter Bikeways Stratcgic Plan also shows an existing Class II (signed and striped on -road) bikeway in this area. We recommend the DEIR include a mitigation measure requiring development of a bicycling program which address The following: A. maps of bicycle routes throughout the area to be provided to potential bicyclists. Maps should identify the Jamboree Road Class I (paved off -road) Bikeway and the Class II (on - road) Bikeway, other on -road and off -road bikeway connections (existing and proposed) between this project and the San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash Bikeways, and any other opportunities for cycle commuting to the project site. B. Amenities to encourage cycle -commuting, such as bicycle racks, lockers/showers and easy access, from the facility to the adjacent Class I and Class I1 bikeway facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOR If you have any questions, please contact me or feel free to call Charlotte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be reached at (714) 834-2522. Very truly yours, #eorge ritton, Manager Environmental & Project Planning Services Division CH:sf CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. BOX 1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT November 17, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers, Associate Planner Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS Dear Mr. Myers: RECEIVED BY PLAN FI NFWanRRTTBEACH CITY 0 N(1V 21 1998 PM AM 101112123468 718i91 I I (I I I I) The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the expansion of the Rockwell facility and has no specific comments at this time. However, because of the significant increase in allowable square footage that is proposed, the City looks forward to reviewing the Draft EIR when it becomes available. Please feel free to call me at (714)754-5136 if you have any questions. Sincerely, /1 eA� KRISTEN CASPERS PETROS Associate Planner Building Division (714) 754-5273 77 FAIR DRIVE • Code Enforcement (714)754-5623 - FAX (714) 754-4856 TDD (714) 754.5244 Planning Division (714)'764.5245 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue Phone (949) 252-5170 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Fax (949) 252-5290 November 25,1998 Mr. Marc Myers, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92658-8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM NOV 3 0 1998 PM 718, 9110,11,12,112, 314, 616 W. Subject: NOP-EIR for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Dear Mr. Myers: On behalf of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County, Iam providing the following comments on the subject project. As you know, General Plan Amendments are required referrals to the Commission, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b). Since this project will be located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) planning areas for noise impact and height restrictions, the Draft EIR should analyze those issues thoroughly. The Commission's AELUP provides detailed information regarding the noise impact and height restriction zones and the mitigation that may be required for projects within them. Application of these mitigation measures, along with adherence to the procedures that are set forth in the AELUP, will ensure the compatibility of the project within the environs of John Wayne Airport. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number listed above. Sincerely, Eric Freed Executive Officer EFJw NOP-EIR for Rockwell 1125198 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 4 •' C, BERKELEY- DAVIS • IRVINE •LOS ANGELES -RIVERSIDE •SAN DIEGO •SAN FRANCISCO W += SANTA BA RB ARA • SANTi CRCZ ••nee• • CAMPUS & ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING November 25, 1998 Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3600 BERKELEY PLACE IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92697•_32S (949) 824-6316 (949)824.2145 Fax Re: Notice of Preparation, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Dear Mr. Myers: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT (REACH AM Nov 3 0 1998 PM g161911011111211,213,41516 t Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed expansion of the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems expansion. The traffic analysis for this DEIR should not only account for UCI's North Campus square footage entitled under a 1992 Development Agreement with the City of Irvine, but potential changes to the planned circulation system in the study area as well. In early 1996 the Regents of the University of California deleted the California Avenue extension and University Drive North from UCI's Long Range Development Plan, subject to consultations with the City of Irvine, the City of Newport Beach, and the Orange County Transportation Authority. Although both of these links remain in the Circulation Element of the City of Irvine General Plan and the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways, their implementation remains questionable. We also note that the University Drive North right-of-way west of MacArthur Boulevard is currently being proposed as the location for a parking lot with a permit duration of five years. Accordingly, we request that the traffic analysis consider two build -out scenarios, one with these two links and one without. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. You may contact me at 824- 8692 if you have any questions. ,Sincerely,, J- ames M. son Associate Planner Cc: Richard Demerjian Marry Bryant, City of Irvine NOV 25 '99 11:34AN S.C.A.O.M.D. TRP (909)396 3306 P.1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM DATE: November 25, 1998 TO: Marc Myers City of Newport Beach FAX: (949) 644-3250 , FROM: Lupe C. Valdez TELEPHONE: (909) 396-3980 DEO, Public Affairs & Transportation Programs SUBJECT: CEQADocumentComments NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 3 Please see attached letter. Bard copy of letter to follow in mail. NOV 25 '98 11:34AM S.C.A.Q.M.D. TRP (909)396 3306 P.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 ° (909) 396-2000 • http://www.agmLi.gov FAXED: NOWM BER 25,1998 November 25, 1998 Marc Myers Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0, Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-8915 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems: Newport Beach Dear Mr. Myers: The south Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The AQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Air Quality Analysis The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the AQMD Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment for grading, earth loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e,g,, heavy-duty construction equipment), and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips), Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions, and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the evaluation. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. NOV 25 '98 11:35AM S.C.R.Q.M.D. TRP (909)396 3306 P.3 Marc Myers -2- November 25, 1998 Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for this project, please refer to Chapter 11 of the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, AQMD's Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust, and the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Data Sources AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD Public Information Center at (909) 396-3600. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (http://www.agmd.gov). The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project -related emissions are accurately identified, categorized and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson of my staff at (909) 396-3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Qpe C. Valdez DEO, Office of Public Affairs and Transportation Programs LCV:KH;CB OR 98 3 -0 Control Number South Coast ��. Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 " (909) 396-2000 • http://www.agmd.gov November 25, 1998 Marc Myers Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard- P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 FAXED: NOVEMBER 25,1998 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM NOV 3 0 1998 PM 71819110111112111213141618 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems: Newport Beach Dear Mr. Myers: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The AQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Air Ouality Analysis The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the AQMD Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment for grading, earth loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment), and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions, and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the evaluation. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Marc Myers -2- November 25, 1998 Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for this project, please refer to Chapter 11 of the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, AQMD's Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust, and the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Data Sources AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD Public Information Center at (909) 396-3600. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's 'World Wide Web Homepage (http://www.agmd.gov). The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project -related emissions are accurately identified, categorized and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson of my staff at (909) 396-3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, 41Lup"C'" e . Valdez DEO, Office of Public Affairs and Transportation Programs LCV:KH:CB ORC981030-01 Control Number NOV 25 '98 111:34AM S.C.R.Q.M.D. TRP (909)396 3306 P.1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DATE: November 25, 1999 TO: Marc Myers City of Newport Beach FAX: (949) 644-3250 FROM: Lupe C. Valdez TELEPHONE: (909) 396-3780 DEO, Public Affairs & Transportation Programs SUBJECT: CEQADocument Comments NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 3 Please see attached letter. Bard copy of letter to follow in mail. NOV 25 '98 11:34AM S.C.A.Q.M.D. TRP (909)396 3306 WA South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 - http://www.agmd.gov FAXED: NOWNIBER 25,1998 November 25,1998 Marc Myers Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O, Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact'tteport for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems: Newport Beach Dear Mr. Myers: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The AQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Air Qualily Analysis The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook when preparing its air quality analysis, Copies of the Handbook are available from the AQMD Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment for grading, earth loadinglunloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment), and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g,, boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions, and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the evaluation. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. NOV 25 '98 11:35AM S.C.A.Q.M.D. TRP (909)396 3306 P.3 Marc Myers -2- November 25, 1998 Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for this project, please refer to Chapter I I of the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, AQMD's Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust, and the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Data Sources AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD Public Information Center at (909) 396.3600. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (http://www.agmd,gov), The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project -related emissions are accurately identified, categorized and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson of my staff at (909) 396-3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Lupe C. Valdez DEO, Office of Public Affairs LCV:KH:CB oRc�..�toso-nt Control Number DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT DISTRICT 12 2501 PULLMAN STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705 Marc Myers City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 12, 1998 AM NOV 18 1998 'PM 71819110111112111213141516 Subject: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems. Dear Mr. Myers: File: IGR/CEQA SCH# none Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study for the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems project. The proposed project site is located one mile south of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and approximately two miles east of the Costa Mesa Freeway (I-55) on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. The proposed project is for the expansion of the existing Rockwell facility; it would allow the development of 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comment at this time. Please continue to keep us informed of future developments, which could potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions, or need to contact us, please call Aileen Kennedy on (949) 724-2239. Si erely, i4'�-- obert F. Jo Chie ' Advance Planning Branch C: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office Sib West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California November 3, 1998 Mr. Mark Myers Associate Planner Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658-3250 RE: Comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR for the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems - SCAG No.19800572 Dear Mr. Myers: Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR for the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. 90017-3435 In addition, The California Environmental Quality Act requires that FIRS discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable t (213) 236.1800 general plans and regional plans (Section 15125 [b]). If there are f(213)236.1825 inconsistencies, an explanation and rationalization for such inconsistencies should be provided. www.SCag.Ca.gov o itau • hedden, W,,, Bob BWeo, City of Monad.• FmMoe hoiden' Supu wrYmMe Brtthwdte Burke. a Mgela County • Sannd Vioe Rreddenn Countlmembu Ron Bum, City of tot Ahmlm, • Immedltn Pit' hnidml Sup"un, Judy Mdd,,Vmturo County County orSmpvlJ: Tom Yeuty. Impaw County • D.Hd MD... D Cmuo OowtyofknMgdm Y.. Braihwtltc Ruth. b, Mgdn fo..ty • Mhud AIM' Lin Mgdo% • Ndurd Alto.. loo Mgela • Mo. M,ut. M..d Bu • Bob B".1. Momo,u • B.. B . Carltoo • Gemge Bou. Bdl • Sue Run. Glendon • Hd Remo. lo, Mid- • Rabat Brueuh. Rmvmd • Loco Wck, Lot Mgda •Gone DWeL. Ptmmnnt • No, Drummond, Wng Butch • John foram. ion Mgda • K'No Fever. f Mgda • R. Medkin. D Segundo - Rmh G.Imnr. U, Mgdes • Dleen Glvm,, Glmd.le • )tilde Goldberg, fin, Mgda • Guhod i,ordrmin. Inglewood • Mu Hcrmnda, W, Mgela Nate Holden,lo, Angel" • geld, MK.nhy, Omvnq • Sub.. id dhu.Allumbu Cindy Mlwkow,N, a Mgda • DMd My<a. Nhndolo • Going. N•k.no, Toning • PW O'Caonar, S•nu Meolu • Iewy Ornpeu, long Bath • Bavia Rout. Hm N. • Muk Ndlq no.. l Mgda • Domw Mir, Chtcmont RI.hW Moulin, In Mgela • Mreone SWw Compton • Rudy Sw .b. Lo, Mgda • Iud With,. In Mgda • No, Wilt.. In Mgda Decal, Wuhbum, hLbo,u Roul Ac Satin Pw,dea County of Oanga Wmi m Sterna. Ormge County- Sim Apodaca. Sin Clemente• Ron Beta, In AluNtm • M Novo, Buono Puk • Iin Dehq, Nnwptn knh • Rlcbvd Dixon, We Pont Gulene Htukgtm•, be Min, • Ba Perry, Bo,. Cowry of Riatdda Iuna VuuW, lu a de ,:aunty • fin Iel.. Womnot • Dick Wly, Pdm Dom•Ronb dge. N,nndde• Anm. Pug.. Cnom • Ron MbeoD,Temetul. County of Stu Smandiloa Wry MWku.. S.n Ranudloo County • Bill Neoonda. Juncho (:omong. • Jun Bugiq. Nouvoun Rohn, Dodd F.Wemm. Run. • In,Ano G.Mo. co nl Tarue•G. No.-". FW4 • Itht S.In,k. MSWmd Cowry of MnturuLudy Wds.Vmtun C uuty Mdrew Fos. Thtuutd O.b • John Win.. Smu hula •ibnl Young, Pod Humwe 0 hlmedw Retyde NII e11S/98 Policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide which may be applicable to your project are outlined in the attachment. We expect the DEIR to specifically cite the appropriate SCAG policies and address the manner in which the Project is consistent with applicable core policies or supportive of applicable ancillary policies. Please use our policy numbers to refer to them in your DEER. Also, we would encourage you to use a side -by -side comparison of SCAG policies with a discussion of the consistency or support of the policy with the Proposed Project. Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the DEIR when this document is available. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Bill Boyd at (213) 236-1960. Sincerely, t DAVID STEIN anager, Performance Assessment and Implementation RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NF,WPC)RT BEACH AM my 0 1998 PM 718191a`10111112111213141818 i November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 2 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP THE ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS (CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project involves the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site. The project site is located approximately one mile south of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and approximately two miles east of the Costa Mesa Freeway (I-55) on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains the following policies that are particularly applicable and should be addressed in the Draft EIR for the Project. 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect Local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. REGIONAL GROWTH FORECASTS The Draft EIR should reflect the most current SCAG forecasts which are the 1998 RTP (April 1998) Population, Household and Employment forecasts for the Orange County Council of Governments subregion and the City of Newport Beach. These forecasts follow: 2 November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 3 SCAG 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Orange Co COG Forecasts Population 2,859,100 3,005,700 3,105,500 3,165,400 3,244,800 Households 910,100 952,400 1,013,100 1,064,100 1,102,300 Employment 1,381,700 1,550,700 1,717,400 1,882,600 2,116,600 SCAG 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 City of Newport Beach Forecasts Population 72,500 74,200 75,400 76,100 77,000 Households 32,500 33,200 34,200 35,100 35,700 Employment 69,000 67,000 65,000 63,000 60,200 Please note that the employment decreases forecasted from year 2000 to 2020 are based on County of Orange distributional numbers. The project proposes an additional 2,695 employees over a 20-year buildout. This apparent discrepancy should be addressed in the DEIR. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has policies and actions pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation -friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant policies and actions of the RTP are the following: Core Regional Transportation Plan Policies 4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority. 4.05 The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)shall be developed using the RTP as guidance, and approval shall be based on its implementation of the RTP. 4.06 Implementing transit restructuring, including Smart Shuttles, freight improvements, advanced transportation technologies, airport ground access and traveler information services are RTP priorities. 3 November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 4 4.07 Projects proposed for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) that do not indicate a reasonable phasing of construction between segments will not be approved. 4.09 All existing and new public transit services, facilities and/or systems shall be fully accessible to persons with disabilities as required by applicable sections of the 1990 Americans with DisabilitiesAct. 4.10 All existing and new public transit services shall be provided in a manner consistent with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting intentional discrimination and adverse disparate impact with regard to race, ethnicity, or national origin. 4.11 All existing and new public transit services, facilities and/or systems shall evaluate the potential forprivate sectorparticipation through the use of competitiveprocurement. 4.15 Arterial HOV facilities to support transit and rideshare will be supported and encouraged. 4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over expanding capacity. 4.17 Alternatives to highway expansion must be evaluated before giving regional approval to expand single occupancy lanes. Core Regional Transportation Plan Actions Livable Communities 1. Study the impact of the Livable Community strategy on VW and Vehicle Trip Reductions. Non -Motorized 3. Improve or construct priority bicycle and pedestrian facilities identified in county and subregional Non Motorized Plans. Location Efficient Mortgage 4. Support continuing efforts by the Center for Neighborhood Technology and Surface Transportation Policy Project to develop and promote LEMs and obtain participation agreements by lending institutions. 11 November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 5 6. Work with housing industry, financial institutions, affordable housing interests and agencies to promote the LEMstrategy. Intelligent Transportation Systems 11. Refine Priority Corridor institutional relationships to focus on development and deployment of ITS projects consistent with the ITS Strategic Plan, national architecture, and regional performance. 12. Develop policies and guidance to incorporate ITS projects in the development, design, and funding of regional projects. 13. Work with US Department of Transportation, Caltrans, CTCs, Subregions, local governments and the private sector to identify public and private funding for implementation of ITS projects in the Region. 14. Expect emphasis of ITS to occur at subregional level. Transit Restructuring I & Work with transit operators and transportation commissions to evaluate restructuring existing services away from least performing lines towards more effecient transit services that meet the regional performance goal by the year 2010. Smart Shuttles 20. Develop a system of demand responsive transit to be implemented at major centers in the Region, providing multi -modal linkages, access within centers, and connections between centers. Transit Corridors 23. Construct exclusive transit corridors to minimize travel time and achieve the ridership in Table 3 of the Regional Transportation Plan. 25. Coordinate with San Bernardino County to review transit corridor serving Redlands and develop recommendations for same. Transit Centers/Park-n-Ride Facilities 26. Develop a subregionally focused public education and training program through a regional Livable Places Initiative that promotes successful local urban design examples November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 6 of land use related transportation planning, that reduces reliance on auto travel and improves community livability, and economic vitality 27. Continue to refine methodologies to evaluate transit center mobility and air quality impacts. 28. Enhance transit centers, constructing new centers and providing additional park-n-ride Local Roadways 43. Improve arterials that serve regional needs for freight movement or provide capacity within commute sheds. The Plan proposes $1 billion in addition to funds already identified by Transportation Commissions and Subregions. The $1 billion dollars for arterial projects is not sufficient to meet regional needs and requires further research and funding. 44. Each County Transportation Commission and NAG allocates its fair share offunding for arterials to the Subregions within the boundaries of the respective commission and IVAG based upon identified regional mobility needs and SCAG's Performance Indicators. Rail Grade Crossings 54. Construct grade separations at rail lines. Study the funding mechanisms for grade crossingprojects to meet the needs of the entire Region. 55. Recognize the need for additional fundingfor grade crossing projects to relieve truck congestion because current program funding needs exceed available public and private funding. Vanpooling 61. Continue to support private provision of vanpool programs. 62. Create a strong public private partnership to increase the number of commuter vanpools from 2, 000 to 5, 000 through more effective marketing, and through the provision of non - monetary public sector incentives. 63. Develop and implement pilot projects to test the concept of replacing low performing express bus services with non -subsidized vanpools. 0 November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 7 Telecommunications 65. Support policies and programs that facilitate individuals and business employees working at home. 66. Support public policies, programs, legislation, ordinances, housing designs and building permits that enable and support self-employed and other private sector employees working at home. Voluntary Implementation (Non -Regulatory) of Emission Reduction Strategies 68. SCAG and the Southern California Economic Partnership work together with public and private organizations to develop approaches, agreements and institutional arrangements for implementation of the SCAG Telecommunications Strategy, smart shuttles, livable communities, ATIS and alternative fuels as well as for possible inclusion in future SIPs for attainment demonstration. Alternative Fuels and Clean Cities 77. Support permitting of alternative and zero emission vehicle infrastructure and charging stations. Welfare to Work 80. Provide "one -stop" information centers for welfare recipients entering the workforce by linking Advanced Transportation Information Systems directly to job placement/referral and job training centers. 81. Develop and implement programs to utilize lower -cost, non-traditional transportation systems (such as shared -ride taxi services, jitneys, etc.) to supplement existing transit services to provide access to employment opportunities for welfare recipients. 82. Work with employers, job placement/referral and job training centers to integrate new workers entering the workforce into existing employer -based commuter assistance programs. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL STANDARD OF LIVING The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs, and that enable firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers. 7 November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 8 3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existingfacilities. 3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other economic incentives, which support attainment of subregional goals and policies. 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. 3.10 Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates. 3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job rich subregions and job growth in housing rich subregions. 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. 3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. 3.15 Support local jurisdictions strategies to establish mixed -use clusters and other transit - oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 9 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. 3.17 Support and encourage settlementpatterns which contain a range of urban densities. 3.18 Encourageplanned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact. 3.19 National Forests shall remain permanently preserved and used as open space. SCAG shall support policies and actions that preserve open space areas identified in local, state, andfederal plans. 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources ,measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL EQUITY The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference with local land use powers. 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 3.25 Encourage the efforts of local jurisdictions, employers and service agencies to provide adequate training and retraining of workers, and prepare the labor force to meet the challenges of the regional economy. 3.26 Encourage employment development in job poor localities through support of labor force 0 November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 10 retrainingprograms and other economic development measures. 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. AIR OUALITY CHAPTER CORE ACTIONS The Air Quality Chapter core actions related to the proposed project include: 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed. 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. WATER QUALITY CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS The Water Quality Chapter core recommendations and policy options relate to the two water quality goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters. 11.02 Encourage "watershed management"programs and strategies, recognizing the primary role of local governments in such efforts. 11.03 Coordinate watershed management planning at the subregional level by (1) providing consistent regional data, (2) serving as a liaison between affected local, state, and federal watershed management agencies, and (3) ensuring that watershed planning is consistent with other planning objectives (e.g., transportation, air quality, water supply). 11.05 Support regional efforts to identify and cooperatively plan for wetlands to facilitate both sustaining the amount and quality of wetlands in the region and expediting the process for obtaining wetlands permits. 11.06 Clean up the contamination in the region's major groundwater aquifers since its water supply is critical to the long-term economic and environmental health of the region. The financing of such clean-ups should leverage state and federal resources and minimize significant impacts on the local economy. 10 November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 11 11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. 11.08 Ensure wastewater treatment agency facility planning and facility development be consistent with population projection contained in the RCPG, while taking into account the need to build wastewater treatment facilities in cost-effective increments of capacity, the need to build well enough in advance to reliably meet unanticipated service and storm water demands, and the need to provide standby capacity for public safety and environmental protection objectives. CONCLUSIONS All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. 11 November 3, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Page 12 ENDNOTE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAASSOCIATIONOF GOVERNMENTS Roles and Authorities SCAG is a Joint PowersAgency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional TranspottationPlanning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organiration(MPO). SCAG's mandated roles and responsibilitiesinclude the following: SCAG is designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134(g)-(h), 49 U.S.C. §1607(f)-(g) et seq., 23 C.F.R. §450, and 49 C.F.R. §613. SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California GovernmentCode Section 65080. SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section40460(b).(c). SCAG is also designated under 42 U.S.C. §7504(a) as a Co-LeadAgency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District. SCAG is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformilyof Projects, Plans and Programs to the Air Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7506. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, SCAG is responsible for reviewingall Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportationplans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. SCAG must also evaluate the consistencyand compatibilityof such programs within the region. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for InterGovernmentalReview of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct developmentactivities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacingA-95 Review). SCAG reviews, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087, Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans [California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15206 and 15125(b)]. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), SCAG is the authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency. SCAG is responsible for preparationof the Regional Housing Needs Assessmen4 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). SCAG is responsible (with the San Diego Association of Governments and the SantaBarbara County/CitiesArea Planning Council) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. 12 Corr^iurRy = -ent Department City of Irvine. Ore C c c Center Plaza. P 0 Box 19575. Irvine. California 92623.9575 -141 724.6000 1971• November 4, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers City of Newport Beach Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 SUBJECT: ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS; NOTICE OF PREPARATION; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Mr. Myers: The City of Irvine has received a copy of the Rockwell Semiconductor System Notice of Preparation prepared by Planning Consultants Research for your City. Our staff has reviewed the proposed project and has the following comments: The project traffic analysis should include identification of impacts to intersections which are within, or adjacent to, the City of Irvine: Jamboree and Campus Jamboree and Mac Arthur Jamboree and Du Pont Jamboree and Michelson Jamboree and Fairchild Jamboree and I-405 north and southbound Mac Arthur and Fairchild Mac Arthur and Campus Mac Arthur and I-405 north and southbound Mac Arthur and Michelson 2. Corresponding mitigation measures should be identified and applied to the project to mitigate project impacts to a level of insignificance. Thank you for the opportunity to review the document. Best of luck on the project. Sincerely, STEP KEYS Senior Planner City of Irvine RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPO.'T "EACH AM NOV 0 9 W8 PM 71819110,11,12t112,3141516 I tea'.-E2 ON RECYCLED PAPER California Regional Water Quality Control Board - `/ Santa Ana Region Peter M. Rooney Secretaryfor Internet Address: httP:pwww.swrcb.ca8ov Environmental 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501.3339 Pete Wilson Phone 909 782-4130 • FAX Governor Protection ( ) AX (909) 781.6288 November 6, 1998 RECEIVED BY Marc Myers PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning Dept. - Community and Economic Development CITY CP NEWPORT BEACH - City of Newport Beach NOV 0 9 1998 3300 Newport Blvd. AM PM P.O. Box 1768 718i9i10111112�1�2131416�8 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS PROJECT Dear Mr. Myers: We have reviewed the NOP for this project. In response to the statutory concerns of this office, the Draft EIR should address the following: I. Water Quality and Beneficial Uses A. Potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater quality: - Any impacts that could cause impairment of narrative numerical water quality objectives or violations of numerical water quality objectives contained in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin need to be addressed - Proposed projects occurring upstream of or discharging into impaired waterbodies listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(D) list may be subject to additional controls (specifically Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs) pursuant to that regulation. Depending on the proposed project, these controls could include discharge prohibitions, revisions to discharge permits, or management plans to address water quality impacts. This is especially important in the Newport Bay, Chino Basin, Bear Big Lake, and Lake Elsinore watersheds. Proposed projects need to acknowledge these additional requirements may be imposed in the future. - Construction activities (including grading) that could result in water quality impacts, - Soil characteristics related to water quality (potential for erosion and subsequent siltation, increase or decrease in percolation). California Environmental Protection Agency ea Rerycled Paper Marc Myers 2 November 6, 1998 - Impacts of toxic substances handling and/or disposal (if appropriate). B. Potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater beneficial uses. - If the project impacts any riparian or wetland habitats, a complete description of the impacts, acreage of the impacts, and any proposed mitigation should be provided C. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts. II. Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Service A. Water - Availability of water for the proposed project. - Existing infrastructure: location of water supply lines, tie-ins. - Applications or permits required for water acquisition. - Impact or calculated project demand on water supply. B. Waste Disposal/Treatment - Types and amounts of waste materials generated by project. - Proposed waste treatment and disposal methods. Existing infrastructure: * treatment facilities: location, current capacity, treatment standards, master treatment facilities expansion plan (if appropriate) * treatment plant collection system: location of major trunk lines and tie-ins, current capacity * disposal facilities: location, capacity - Applications or permits required to implement waste disposal. - Impact of calculated project waste volume on capacity of existing and proposed treatment and disposal facilities. California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper Marc Myers III Permits 3 November 6, 1998 - If no new point discharges are created from the proposed project the stormwater runoff will be regulated by an areawide stormwater discharge permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). - A notice of intent (NO[) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under'the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30-days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. This is required for any construction activity over five acres in area. - A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements for any discharge of wastes to land is required by the Regional Board. - If reclaimed water is to be used in the proposed project, Water Reclamation Requirements will have to be issued by the Regional Board. We look forward to reviewing the Draft EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-4241. Sincerely, —q D��— Scott A. Dawson Environmental Specialist Planning Section cc: DeLicia Wynn - State Clearinghouse California Environmental Protection Agency �,, Recycled Paper San Joaqu r Hills Footh.O; Easfe'n �? CoirldcrAgency Corridor Agerc'r Chairman: Cholrrnan: Peter BuPo Mike Word TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Costa Mesa Irvine October 29, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers Associate Planner Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 William Woollett, Jr Chief Executive Officer Walter D. Kreuhen Chief Operating Officer Colleen E. Clark Chief Financial Officer Jerry E. Bennett Chief Engineer RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM NDU 0 2 1998 PM T1819110111112111213141618 Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of Draft EIR — Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Dear Mr. Myers: The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) wishes to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above mentioned NOP and Initial Study. The TCA has no comments regarding the project at this time. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this information, please contact Scot Scialpi of my staff at (714) 513-3426. Director Management cc: Scot Scialpi 201 E. SANDPOINTE AVE., SLTTE 200, P.O. BOX 28870, SANTA ANA, CA 92799-8870 714/436.9600 FAX 714/436-9848 http://www. tcagen cles. com Members: Anaheim • Costa Mesa • County of Orange • Dana Point • Irvine • Lake Forest • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel Mission Viejo • Orange • Newport Beach • Santa Ana • Son Clemente • Son Juan Capistrano • Tustin • Yorba Linda County of Orange Planning & Development Services Department gZZF04� NOV 3 01998 Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: NOP for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Dear Mr. Myers: NCL 98-90 THOMAS B. MATHEWS DIRECTOR 300 N. FLOWER ST. THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 927024048 TELEPHONE: (714) 8344643 FAX # 834-2771 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM DEC 0 2 1998 PM 7�81911011111211i2�314�618 The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 556,000 square feet of light industrial and office space, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site (build -out over the next 20 years). The project site is at 4311 Jamboree Road. The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP and offers the following comments: WATER QUALITY The Initial Study on'Page four, section IV WATER (c )is checked "No Impact" which we believe should be changed to "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." The Initial Study on Page B-10 indicates the project could have no significant impacts on surface water resources since the entire site is either paved or built -over, and the built -over portion would increase. This does not consider the extensive impacts on the nearby critical wetland resource of Newport Bay that could occur during construction. Neither the referenced City grading ordinance nor local and State building codes address this issue. The DEIR should establish compliance with a number of existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits as mitigation for potential water quality impacts. These include the State wide Industrial NPDES Permit for New Construction Activities affecting 5 or more acres, requiring a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); the General Permit for De Minimis impacts issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (No. CAG998001); and the Countywide Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit requiring: Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Page 2 A. that prior to issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever comes first, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) needs to be reviewed and approved by the city. WQMP needs to include the routine and minimum, structural and non- structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) into redevelopment projects per the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix G; and B. the addition of the following as general notes on the cover sheets of construction plans for the project, also per the DAMP: 1. Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. Discharges of material other than stormwater are allowed only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not: cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; or contain a hazardous substance in a quantity reportable under Federal Regulations 40 CFR Parts 117 and 302. Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator or batter fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water, concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; and super -chlorinated potable waterline flushings During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on -site, physically separated from potential storm water run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. 2. Dewatering of contaminated groundwater, or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. Dewatering of non -contaminated groundwater requires a NPDES System Permit from the respective State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Finally, the DEIR NOP does not specify the types of new activities that will be conducted on site, and whether they could as a regular course of operations or in the event of an emergency or accidental spill, result in a discharge of waste or pollutants of any form leaving the site and ultimately reaching either Newport Bay or the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh. It was for Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Page 3 industrial operations such as this that the State Water Resources Control Board adopted still another NPDES Permit for specified industrial activities, which requires that a SWPPP of ongoing effect, modified as the facility is modified, be prepared and implemented at each development phase to ensure the long term compliance. Additional BMPs may accordingly be deemed reasonable and feasible to address such potential impacts of an ongoing nature. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION Initial Study Sections VI: Transportation/Circulation, Section V: Air Quality and Section XV: Recreation: Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Orange Bikeways Map depicts an existing Class I (paved off -road) bikeway along Jamboree Road in this location. This bikeway will ultimately connect to the San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash Regional Class I (paved off- road)bikeways just south of the project. The OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan also shows an existing Class II (signed and striped on -road) bikeway in this area. We recommend the DEIR include a mitigation measure requiring development of a bicycling program which address the following: A. maps of bicycle routes throughout the area to be provided to potential bicyclists. Maps should identify the Jamboree Road Class I (paved off -road) Bikeway and the Class II (on - road) Bikeway, other on -road and off -road bikeway connections (existing and proposed) between this project and the San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash Bikeways, and any other opportunities for cycle commuting to the project site. B. Amenities to encourage cycle -commuting, such as bicycle racks, lockers/showers and easy access, from the facility to the adjacent Class I and Class II bikeway facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. If you have any questions, please contact me or feel free to call Charlotte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be reached at(714) 834-2522. Very truly yours, Awxle^ BLS George Britton, Manager Environmental & Project Planning Services Division CH:sf Sent by: PDSD/ENV&PROJECT PLN'O 714 8346132; 11/30/98 15:44; JgtEag_#178;Page 1/3 County of Orange Planning & Developinent Service, Fp8 NOV 3 01998 Post -it' Fax Note 7671 [note 11 9 gosh 3 To t 19P F Co1Deptn�,CL•LVAN� Co, 0A Phone fi�•D7� -3lyd Phon #?1 Fa Fax # q NCL 98-90 Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9915 SUBJECT: NOP for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Dear Mr. Myers: The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 556,000 square feet of light industrial and office space, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area on the project site (build -out over the next 20 years). The project site is at 43:11 Jamboree Road. The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP and offers the following comments: WATER QUALITY The Initial Study on Page four, section IV WATER (c )is checked "No Impact" which we believe should be changed to "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." The Initial Study on Page B-10:indicates the project could have no significant impacts on surface water resources since the entire site is either paved or built -over, and the built -over portion would increase. This does not consider the extensive impacts on the nearby critical wetland resource of Newport Bay that could occur during construction. Neither the referenced City grading ordinance nor local and. State building codes address this issue. The DEIR should establish compliance with a number of existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits as mitigation for potential water quality impacts. These include the State wide Industrial NPDES Permit for New Construction Activities affecting 5 or more acres, requiring a Stormw4ter Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP); the General Permit for De Minimis impacts issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (No. CAG998001); and the Countywide Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit requiring: Sent by: POSO/ENV&PROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 11/30/98 15:44; JgLEax #178;Page 2/3 Marc Myers Associate PIanner, Planning Department Page 2 A. that prior to issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever comes first, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) needs to be reviewed and approved by the city. WQMP needs to include the routine and minimum, structural and non- structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) into redevelopment projects per the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix G; and B. the addition of the following as general notes on the cover sheets of construction plans for the project, also per the DAMP: 1. Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the' site. Discharges of material other than stormwater are allowed only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not: cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; or contain a hazardous substance in a quantity reportable under Federal Regulations 40 CFR Parts 117 and 302. Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator or batter fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water, concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; and super -chlorinated potable water line fleshings During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on -site, physically separated from potential storm water run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. 2. Dewatering of contaminated groundwater, or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. Dewatering of non -contaminated groundwater requires a NPDES System Permit from the respective State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Finally, the DEIR NOP does not specify the types of new activities that will be conducted on site, and whether they could as a regular course of operations or in the event of an emergency or accidental spill, result in a discharge of waste or pollutants of any form leaving the site and ultimately reaching either Newport Bay or the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh. It was for I Sent by: PDSD/ENV&PROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 11/30/98 15:45; JgtEUA #178;Page 3/3 Marc Myers Associate Planner, Planning Department Page 3 industrial operations such as this that the State Water Resources Control Board adopted still another NPDES Permit for specified industrial activities, which requires that a S WPPP of ongoing effect, modified as the facility is modified, be prepared and implemented at each development phase to ensure the long term compliance. Additional BMPs may accordingly be deemed reasonable and feasible to address such potential impacts of an ongoing nature. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION Initial Study Sections VI: Transportation/Circulation, Section V: Air Quality and Section XV: Recreation: Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Orange Bikeways Map depicts an existing Class I (paved off -road) bikeway along Jamboree Road in this location. This bikeway will ultimately connect to the San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash Regional Class 1(paved off- road)bikeways just south of the project. The OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan also shows an existing Class 1I (signed and striped on -road) bikeway in this area. We recommend the DEIR include a mitigation measure requiring development of a bicycling program which address the following: A. maps of bicycle routes throughout the area to be provided to potential bicyclists. Maps should identify the Jamboree Road Class I (paved off -road) Bikeway and the Class 11(on- road) Bikeway, other on -road and off -road bikeway connections (existing and proposed) between this project and the San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash Bikeways, and any other opportunities for cycle commuting to the project site. B. Amenities to encourage cycle -commuting, such as bicycle racks, lockers/showers and easy access, from the facility to the adjacent Class I and Class II bikeway facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOR If you have any questions, please contact me or feel free to call Charlotte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be reached at (714) 834-2522. Very truly yours, #eorge ritton, Manager Environmental & Project Planning Services Division CH:sf CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY September 30, 1999 TO: Rich Edmonsten FROM: Robert Burnham, City Attorney RE: CONEXANT TRAFFIC STUDY I have reviewed the draft traffic study for the Conexant Project and have the following comments: 1. Page 2 — the traffic study should be revised to correspond to the "four consecutive fifteen minute periods" that now constitute the "peak hour' pursuant to the modified TPO. 2. Page 4 — we may want to consider expanding the discussion of the trip generation rates selected for use in the traffic studies to conform with the modifications to the TPO and appendix A'. 3. Page 5 — table 2 seems to have selected the a.m. and p.m. peak hours — but I'm not sure if that is the Conexant peak hour period based on their specific work schedules or the TPO "peak hour'. We should probably use a term other than "peak hour' to describe the 60 minute period with the highest inbound and outbound volumes into the Conexant parking facilities. 4. Page 8 — The trip distribution based on employee zip code is a great and accurate approach - but we should, to be consistent with the modified TPO, include some information as to how the proposed trip distribution compares with other projects in the area. 5. Page 10 — the CMPITIA analysis probably would confuse some people who are likely to closely examine this traffic study. The 3% test and the reference to LOSE will lead some to believe we have modified TPO standards accordingly. In my opinion, "figure 4" on page 11 may be adequate to deal with CMP/TIA issues. 6. Page 13 — Again, peak 2.5 hour volumes should be revised to peak hour volumes and table 8 should be conformed. 7. Page 14 — We seem to have a lot of committed projects that are on the ground and have been so for more than one year. Corporate Plaza and Corporate Plaza West are ' '•N currently built out as far as I know — in fact, the Irvine Company has requested a transfer of retail from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West to accommodate a new development. All the COSA projects have been built, and I am confused by the reference to both Newport Village and CDM Plaza. 8. page 16 — By separate memo I will draft some proposed findings for the various intersections where the project causes or makes worse an unsatisfactory level of service. The traffic study seems to omit reference to the impact of the project at Bristol North and Birch — to me, the project causes or makes worse an unsatisfactory level of service at that intersection. The traffic study should expand the discussion of why the improvements at Macarthur and Jamboree solve the p.m. peak hour problem but do not improve things during the a.m. period. The traffic study should indicate if any improvement could solve the a.m. peak hour problem. I would like an update on whether we have recounted Irvine Bristol South and if the impacts at Birch and Bristol North exist if the westbound 73 to southbound 55 connector is in place. I believe we can assume the 73/55 connector will be in place based upon the provisions of Appendix'A'. 9. Page 17 — Again we need to add Birch/Bristol North unless the recalculations with the 55/73 connector eliminate the impact. Also, the traffic engineer needs to explain that he has tried to identify improvements at the impacted intersections (Bristol South/Irvine and MacArthur/Jamboree in the a.m.) and can identify no improvement that would be consistent with the circulation element. As to Irvine/Bristol South, the traffic study should indicate whether congestion at that intersection (assuming it still exists) could have the effect of increasing traffic in the residential neighborhoods in Santa Ana Heights. 10. Page 20 — The reduced project analysis shows only a .01 ICU increase at MacArthur/Jamboree with a 25% reduction in the project. Should we take a look at a phase project or a 30% reduced project? Also, table 11 should show ICUs after improvements at MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa. 11. Page 23 — In the discussion of long range conditions without the Cole Project the traffic studies suggest "There may be a decline in the ICU values due to a change in land use from what was previously assumed in the model for this site and what is now being proposed." That statement needs to be validated or clarified and we need to determine if there is really a reason for making that statement at all. 12. Page 29 — 32 — The "Summary" should contain a brief additional paragraph on trip distribution history and add Bristol North/%rch as an impacted intersection if that's the case. RHB:Is ROBERT H. BURNHAM F:1caflShered\Bq\ nemo\REreconexancdoo City Attorney TO: FROM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE October 7, 1999 Marc Myers, Planning Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RE: Conexant Screencheck EIR I have the following substantive comments on the Conexant Screencheck EIR. (1) Part I - Page 2 — We should eliminate the 'optional" after development agreement. The development agreement is the only vehicle that will allow Conexant the right to build out the proposed project over the 20-year time frame. A development agreement is also going to be helpful, if not essential, to satisfying the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. I will discuss these issues with Mr. Break and we will begin preparation of a DA as soon as possible. V.t a- 767. (2) Part I - Page 5 — While the proposed project altTrf Lives probably satisfy CEQA you may want to consider another alternative that would give Conexant the right to build a specific percentage of the entitlement (say 60°!0) within a given time frame and a remainder subject only to further traffic analysis. This could have the effect of eliminating any need for a TPO override and provide Conexant with sufficient upfront entitlement to meet its immediate needs. (3) Part II (B) The statement of project objectives needs to be modified. First I would not •,.bifurcate the statement of objectives into City goals and Conexant goals. Second, some 1M thought should be given to drafting project objectives that allow the City Council to reject project alternatives (especially reduced projects) which may be "environmentally superior." Third, we should be able to identify certain objectives that fit neatly within the project parameters. For example, the project will help balance the relationship between �' `� the population and employment in New ort Beach if not the sub -region). The project a'� p Pp (• g� )• P 1 " n also provides the City with additional light industrial land use - to offset the loss of the �t Hughes plant and provide a balance of employment and economic opportunities. Another objective may be to locate light industrial development in proximity to required infrastructure — freeways, airports, etc. However, the most important objective is to meet Conexant's spatial needs in the most efficient way possible — expansion of the existing site and preservation of the 503 building in a way that eliminates the potential for intrasite traffic and allows for development phasing. (4) Part II (C), P.10 -19 — The EIR (and traffic studies) indicate that Conexant is willing to make the timing of employee workshifts a part of the project PC TEXT. Conexant's willingness to do so could give rise to another project objective — establishing and committing to employee shifts that concentrate most employee trips outside of the current "peak hour". This is also consistel�t with a policy In our Circulation Element (Policy 3). (5) Part IV (A) Page 24/26 — The discussion of the RCPG suggests some additional project objectives that would be consistent with the bullets at the bottom of page 25, ft "better use of the existing facilities". t-n ,_ a ),� e4j` (Vti ` '` A4-is`<''S' , ! (6) Part IV (A) (General) — The section on land use planning should delete any reference to the circulation element, the congestion management plan, or traffic impacts. I do not agree with the analysis that the project is inconsistent with the circulation element because the circulation element does not require us to achieve LOSD at all intersections and the circulation element acknowledges that many intersections in the airport area will, at build-up, greatly exceed LOSD. Moreover, the discussion of transportation and circulation impacts should be confined to the appropriate section of the environmental document. I would simply state that the analysis of circulation system impacts will be found in the section entitled "Traffic". Since there are no other "land use inconsistencies" )ezrv the appropriate conclusion t (104* #hw(_4v� W_A�4 ? - "-'� - 11, this section is to find no significant impact. 04o-�, (7) Part IV (B) (General) — The screencheck concludes that the forecast decrease in employment Gobs?) "is in large part due to a reduction in the amount of commercial development in the city and the replacement of a to nt generators with residential units." - This shift in land use is allegedly "based o p es n the Land Use Element and Housing element." I am unaware of any policy in th se or Housing Element that discusses any shift in land use or assumes any significant conversion of commercial development to residential development. Moreover, the discussion in this subpart ^� ' focuses on the impact of the project on the regional housingrobs balance. In my opinion, the project will "preserve the Newport Beach employment base", improving our jobs/housing balance, and providing for the needs of residents of those areas such as the Newport Coast and Banning Ranch that the City will annex in the next few years. This section should be beefed up to provide support for many of the inclusions -and -I -would (8) Part IV (C) — Surface Water Quality — The statement that there is "the potential for substantial degradation of water quality" due to run off containing surface pollutants is without support, probably wrong, and creates the potential for establishing a "threshold for significance" that could have an effect on numerous other projects. According to the Screencheck, except during periods of very heavy rainfall, all surface flows find their way to the Jamboree/MacArthur wetlands. That wetlands has flourished over the years so it is hard to support the argument that there is some degradation of water quality that could result in any physical change to the environment. In fact, the Screencheck goes on to 2 � wt� conclude that, with the standard NPDES permits and conditions, the project will have no significant impact to water quality. The only -concern I would have — given the importance of the MacArthur/Jamboree wetlands to a certain Newport Beach resident — would be the potential for the project to alter surface flows and to reduce the amount of water that finds its way into the MacArthur/Jamboree wetlands. I would also rethink the identification of those "areas of controversy" that relate to water quality because we appear to be sounding an alarm where there is no fire. (9) Part IV (G) (1) — Fire protection — according to the Screencheck, "when OCFA station 27 closes, the project applicant (why don't we just say Conexant) may be required to assist in the cost of evaluation of the current call loads, response times of fire station �S deployment in order to provide a continued adequate level of service to the projects site." The Screencheck goes on to conclude that "implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the Fire Departments (should be Fire and Marine Department) J emergency response to the project site and no impact would occur." These statements seem to be somewhat inconsistent and there is no mitigation measure that requires the �Q contemplated re-evaluation. ( Wud-- A (10) Part IV (G) (2) — Police protection — The Screencheck concludes "the proposed project would result in an increase in calls for (police) service to the project site." That statement is made without -support, and appears to be based solely upon the additional personnel on site. While common sense suggests that additional people may generate the need for additional police services there is nothing in the screen check — such as a review of past calls for service and an analysis of those calls — that supports the assertion. More importantly, in the cumulative impact section, the Screencheck concludes that in combination with the related projects, the project "could combine to� f generate demand for additional police protection services, which would be addressed through the City's overall planning and budgeting process." (e.g. property taxes, specific J' proiect mitigation measures, and general fund revenues.") The Screencheck also y" suggests the police department will review the project to "develop measures which minimize the demand for police services." The screen check then concludes the project I,t� ��r"r would not have "a significant cumulative impact on police protection services." This is one of many examples in the document of assertions unsupported by any facts f� (additional demands for services) followed by a conclusion of no impact. While many of these areas — such as police and fire services — are not hot buttons in the City of Newport Beach, the analysis of these issues could color the analysis of issues that are hot buttons such as traffic and air quality. (11) General - THE SCREEN CHECK REPEATEDLY IDENTIFIES THE PROJECT SITE AS "25 ACRES," "CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS THE CONEXANT HEADQUARTERS FACILITY WITH FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN SQUARE FEET" WITH PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF 11566,000 OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL." THESE FACTS AND 3 FIGURES DO NOT NEED TO BE REPEATED ON EACH PAGE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. THERE IS NO NEED TO BULK UP THE EIR WITH REPEATED REFERENCE TO INFORMATION WHICH SHOULD BE PROVIDED ONCE. (12) Part IV — (H) (2) —Water —There is no reference to whether the project will be served by both potable and reclaimed water. Since the project is in the IRWD service area I assume every effort will be made to use reclaimed water where possible — toilets, cooling systems, etc. etc. (13) Part IV — (J) — Recreation — The City is in the process of building significant new recreational facilities within two to three miles of the project — Bonita Canyon Park. Any demand for additional recreational services generated by the project or "related projects" will be easily accommodated at Bonita Canyon. Also, we again state there may be a cumulative demand for "additional recreation services and facilities" to be addressed through, among other things, "specific project mitigation measures." We cannot continue to say there may be cumulative impact that will be addressed through "specific project mitigation measures" and then conclude there is no impact and no need for mitigation measures. — �* s�'^ N 'p,�., eG _v - ay»i , ya a-^Qx-�r r—..-s (14) Initial Study Checklist — Appendix A — Page 2 — According to face sheet of the initial study checklist we had not identified any potentially significant impact in the areas of population and housing, water, or recreation. Under the circumstances, why did we analyze population and housing impacts, water quality, and recreation. Moreover, according to the initial study checklist, the impact on local and regional water supplies, fire protection services and aesthetics is potentially significant unless mitigated. (15) Appendix B — Comments on NOP — the City of Irvine ("Letter 3") has asked us to evaluate the impacts of the project on some intersections in the City of Irvine. Since we have frequently complained to the City of Irvine about their failure to analyze the impact of their projects on our intersections I think it's only fair that we comply with their request. (16) Appendix B — NOP Comments — (Letter 12, letter 13) — the project description — at least as described in the PC text — does not specify any limit on office use as opposed to manufacturing and engineering. Since the trip generation rate and peak hour trips are based on the existing uses we may want to modify the project description to limit the amount of straight office space and/or establish a relationship between the amount of manufacturing/engineering/laboratory space and the amount of support space. This is an issue that needs to be discussed with Conexant. I will submit my comments on the noise, traffic and air quality sections in a second memo. cc: Homer Bludau rd FROM E RBURTO 714 7210450 12.02.1998 06:09 P. 1 P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 December 1, 1998 Mr. Marc Myers, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-6915 by fax transmission to (949) 644-3250 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS; Dear Mr. Myers: SPON has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project. We have the following comments_ • The EIR should consider the traffic generation not only on the basis of additional building square footage but also on the projected employee population which is stated as approximately 2,695 additional personnel (Initial Study, page 13-3). • Section IV.c. requires further analysis in the EIR. Statements regarding surface waters on page B-10 appear to be inconsistent. One sentence says that runoff from the site enters the storm drain which flows to the riparian wetland at Jamboree/MacArthur. A later sentence states that the runoff does not affect the wetland at Jamboree/MacArthur. The EIR should clarify this apparent conflict. The project would greatly increase parking area, although much of this will be in parking structures. The EIR should also explain how the additional parking areas in the structure would be cleaned of oil and pollutants to avoid discharge into the storm drain. Such discussion is needed in order to support the statement of no impact_ • The air quality analysis should also incorporate vehicle trip projections based on the projected additional2,695 employees. • SPON disagrees that item VII.d. (regarding biological impacts to wetlands) does not require fiuther analysis. Because of the somewhat confusing and apparently conflicting statements cited in the second comment above, we believe additional discussion is required. The MR should clarify that there wHI be no impact to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Please continue to send project information to SPON at the address above. Thank you. ' cerely yours, IFE . +rwEND+*+ Rockwell semiconductor systems June 23, 1998 City of Newport Beach Mr. Marc Myers 3300 Newport Blvd., NewportBeach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Marc: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell International Corporation 4311 Jamboree Road PO Box C Newport Beach, CA 92658.8902 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JUN 2 3 1998 PM 718191101111121112i 31418 i6 Thank you for meeting with the Rockwell team to review our proposed Development Agreement. Attached is 1) a revised Project Description and 2) a proposed Planned Community Text Amendment and Development Agreement. The charges suggested by Patty Temple have been incorporated in these documents. Thank you for your assistance in this process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Allen Shiroma, at (714) 221-5068. Sincerely, Wr-�� Rich Bluth Director Facilities PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Location The project site is located in the Koll Center Newport area of Newport Beach, which is shown on Figure 1, the regional location map. The precise location of the project site is shown on Figure 2. As indicated on Figure 2, the project site is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Boulevard between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. Project Characteristics The project site comprises all of "Site I Light Industrial" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. It is approximately 25 acres in area, and is currently developed with 438,127 square feet of light industrial and office buildings, and surface parking, as shown on Figure 3. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems ("Rockwell') occupies the entire site. Under the existing Planned Community text for this site, less than 5,000 square feet of expansion opportunity remains available to accommodate growing expansion needs of Rockwell. The proposed project would allow up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial/office expansion opportunity for Rockwell, for a total of 1,008,775 square feet of allowable building area. Given the site size, the proposed project would amount to a .93 Floor Area Ratio ("FAR"). At the same time, the project would incorporate special setback and development standards along Jamboree Boulevard to maintain scenic and aesthetic qualities that currently exist generally within the airport area of Newport Beach. A conceptual depiction of how the proposed project could be built -out with the additional square footage of allowable buildings and setback and development standards is provided on Figure 4. The proposed project is intended to provide Rockwell with needed expansion opportunities at its existing site, and thereby secure Rockwell as a major employer and source of revenues for Newport Beach. At the same time, the project is proposed to include standards and mitigation measures to ensure that expansion will not exceed the capacity of surrounding infrastructure. Special Features The project will have additional design guidelines not found in the Specific Plan. These features address building setbacks along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building areas and massing. 1. Jamboree Road Setbacks The minimum building and parking setback on Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet. In addition, the average building setback across the entire length of the project's Jamboree Road frontage must be a minimum of 40 feet In order to avoid any future structures within 200 feet of Jamboree Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road. Additionally, 20% of the project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of curb for Jamboree Road. These setbacks are general guidelines that may be waived for individual buildings through the site plan review process. 2. Parking Structure Guidelines Parking structures located along Jamboree Road shall be designed such that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The open portion of the parking structure facade facing Jamboree Road must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive architectural treatment to give the appearance of an occupied building structure rather than a parking structure. Building Footprints Maximum building footprints for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 square feet. Buildings four stories and under shall have a maximum building footprint of 141,500 square feet. 4. Temporary Parking During Construction Phases Temporary parking on an off -site location with provisions for shuttle buses to Site 1 will be provided as needed during construction to meet parking demand. Project Approvals and Responsible Agencies The project will entail a series of approvals, beginning with an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, which is the adopted zoning document for the project site. In addition to that amendment, the project approvals will include the following: 1. Development Agreement (optional) 2. Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval 3. Grading permits 4. Building permits Newport Beach is the lead agency for the project. At this time, no responsible agencies have been identified. PLEASE RECORD AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT AMENDMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Planned Community Text Amendment and Development Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is entered into effective as of 1998, (hereinafter the "Effective Date") by and among the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (hereinafter "CITY"), and ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (hereinafter "OWNER"). RECITALS A. OWNER owns all of the real property ("Property") described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B," consisting of approximately twenty-five and forty-three hundredths (25.043) acres. B. The Property comprises all of "Site I Light Industrial" of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. It is currently developed with approximately four hundred thirty-eight thousand one hundred twenty-seven (438,127) square feet of light industrial and accessory office buildings, and surface parking. Under the existing Planned Community text for this site, less than 5,000 square feet of expansion opportunity remains available to accommodate growing expansion needs of OWNER, which occupies the entire site. C. OWNER has requested that it be allowed up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial/accessory office expansion opportunity on the Property, for a total of one million eight thousand seven hundred seventy-five (1,008,775) square feet of allowable building area (the "Project"). Given the site size, the Project would amount to a .93 Floor Area Ratio. The Project is intended to provide OWNER with needed expansion opportunities at its existing site, and thereby encourage OWNER to remain on the Property as a major employer and source of revenues for CITY. At the same time, the Project is proposed to include standards and mitigation measures to ensure that expansion will not exceed the capacity of surrounding infrastructure. D. CITY has reviewed the Project with OWNER and as required by law, and has ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 concluded that it is in the best interests of the City to approve the Project. Additionally, Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement Law"), and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45, authorize CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property, all for the purpose of strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation and comprehensive planning and reducing the economic costs of such development. OWNER has therefore asked, and CITY has agreed, that a Development Agreement should be approved and adopted for this project in order to memorialize and secure the respective expectations of CITY and OWNER with respect to the Project. E. The City Council has found that this Agreement is in the best public interest of the CITY and its residents, adopting this Agreement constitutes a present exercise of its police power, and prior to and as a condition precedent to annexation of the Property this Agreement, the same will be consistent with the City's General Plan and with Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45. COVENANTS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. 1.1 Definitions. This Agreement uses a number of terms having specific meanings, as defined below. These specially defined terms are distinguished by having the initial letter capitalized, or all letters capitalized, when used in the Agreement. The defined terms include the following: 1.1.1 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement. 1.1.2 "CITY" means the City of Newport Beach, a California charter city. 1.1.3 "Development," whether or not capitalized, means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping and park facilities and improvements. "Development" also includes the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, landscaping or facility after the construction and completion thereof. ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 2 1.1.4 "Development Approvals" means all permits, licenses, consents, rights and privileges, and other actions subject to approval or issuance by CITY in connection with Development of the Property, including but not limited to: (a) General plans and general plan amendments; (b) Specific plans and specific plan amendments; (c) Zoning and rezoning; (d) Tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; (e) Variances, conditional use permits, master plans, public use permits and plot plans; and (f) Grading and building permits. 1.1.5 "Development Plan" means the plan for Development of the Property, including without limitation the planning and zoning standards, regulations, and criteria for the Development of the Property, contained in and consistent with the Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport, as the same are amended by Exhibit "C." "Development Plan" also includes the Mitigation Measures identified in Exhibit "D." 1.1.6 "Development Requirement" means any requirement of CITY in connection with or pursuant to any Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction or improvement of public facilities, or the payment of fees or assessments in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of Development on the environment or other public interest. 1.1.7 "Effective Date" means the date this Agreement is recorded with the County Recorder. 1.1.10 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing Development and use of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the Property. "Land Use Regulations" does not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing: (a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 3 (b) taxes and assessments; (c) the control and abatement of nuisances; (d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain; and (f) the amount of processing fees or Development impact fees. 1.1.11 "OWNER" means Rockwell International Corporation and, where appropriate in context, its successors in interest to all or any part of the Property. 1.1.12 "Mitigation Measures" mean those requirements imposed on the Project contained in Exhibit "D." 1.1.13 "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other security -device, a lender and their successors and assigns. 1.1.14 "Project" means the Development of the Property consistent with the Development Plan. 1.1.15 "Property" means the real property described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" to this Agreement. 1.1.16 "Reservation of Authority" means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to CITY under Section 4.6 of this Agreement. 1.1.17 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with Development of the Property. 1.1.18 "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" means any Land Use . Regulations adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement, other than the Development Plan. 1.1.19 "Term" shall mean the period of time from the Effective Date until the termination of this Agreement as provided in subsection 10.1, or earlier termination as provided in Section 7. ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 4 1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Legal Description of the Property. Map showing Property and its location. Planned Community Development Standards Amendments Mitigation Measures 2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. From and following the later to occur of (a) the Effective Date or (b) annexation of the Property to CITY, Development of the Property and CITY actions on applications for Development Approvals respecting the Property shall be subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 2.2 Ownership of Property. OWNER represents and covenants that it is the owner of the fee simple title to the Property. 2.3 Assignment. 2.3.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et M.), and in so doing assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement as the same may relate to the portion of the Property being transferred, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement. 2.3.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Upon the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a portion of the Property, the transferring OWNER shall be released of all obligations under this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred; provided that the obligations under this Agreement that relate to the portion of the Property being transferred are assumed by and enforceable against the transferee. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 3.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 the Development Plan. 3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, the rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to Development of the Property, shall be those contained in the Development Plan and those Land Use Regulations not inconsistent with the Development Plan. 3.3 Subsequent Development Approvals. CITY shall accept for expeditious processing, review and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters, for all or a portion of the Property at OWNER's option. The CITY further agrees that, unless otherwise requested by OWNER or as authorized by this Agreement, it shall not amend or rescind any Subsequent Development Approvals respecting the Property after such approvals have been granted by the CITY, and that pursuant to Section 66452.6 (a) of the California Government Code, any tentative subdivision map approved for the Property, or any portion thereof, shall also be extended for a period equal to the Tenn of this Agreement. 3.4 Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of OWNER, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of Development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of Development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that OWNER shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. Nothing in this section is intended to alter the standard durational limits of any applicable permits issued to OWNER. 3.5 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that Development of the Project will likely require Subsequent Development Approvals, and that in connection therewith OWNER may determine that changes are appropriate and desirable in the existing Development Approvals or Development Plan. In the event OWNER finds that such a change is appropriate or desirable, OWNER may apply in writing for an amendment to prior Development Approvals or the Development Plan to effectuate such change, and CITY shall process and act on such application notwithstanding anything in this Agreement that may be to the contrary. CITY shall have no obligation to grant any such application by OWNER that modifies the overall ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 intensity or density of Development, or otherwise is a substantial modification of the Development Plan having significant adverse environmental impacts. If approved in a form to which OWNER has consented in writing, any such change in the Development Approvals or Development Plan shall be incorporated herein as an addendum, and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Any change in the Development Approvals or Development Plan made in accordance with the procedures required by the Land Use Regulations and with the written consent of the OWNER shall be conclusively deemed to be consistent with this Agreement, without any further need for any amendment to this Agreement or any of its Exhibits. 3.6 Reservation of Authority. 3.6.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the Development of the Property: (a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by CITY to cover the estimated actual costs to CITY of processing applications for Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued. (b) Procedural regulations not inconsistent with this Agreement relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearing, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure. (c) Changes adopted by the International Conference of Building Officials as part of the then most current versions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, or National Electrical Code, and also adopted by CITY as Subsequent Land Use Regulations. (d) Regulations which may be in conflict with the Development Plan but which are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety. To the extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed consistent with Section 4.6.4 below so as to provide OWNER with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement. (e) Regulations which are not in conflict with the Development Plan and this Agreement. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of Development of the Property, or attempting to assess any additional fees or taxes on Development of the Property, or imposing architectural or landscaping requirements or ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 7 reviews, shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and this Agreement and shall therefore not be applicable to Development of the Property. (f) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to Development of Property. (g) Federal and State laws and regulations which CITY is required to enforce as against the Property or the Development of the Property. 3.6.2 Future Discretion of CITY. This Agreement shall not prevent CITY, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying Subsequent Land Use Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent CITY from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the existing Land Use Regulations or any Subsequent Land Use Regulation not in conflict with the Development Plan. 3.6.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, and this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provision impractical to enforce. 3.6.4 Intent. The CITY acknowledges that OWNER has reasonably entered into this Agreement and will proceed with the Project on the assumption that CITY has adequately provided for the public health, safety and welfare through the Land Use Regulations in effect as of the annexation of the Property to CITY. In the event that any future, unforeseen public health or safety emergency arises, CITY agrees that it shall attempt to address such emergency in such a way as not to impact Development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan, and if that is not possible, to select that option for addressing the emergency which has the least adverse impact on Development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. CITY specifically also agrees that it will not adopt any Development moratorium applicable to the Property except as a last resort response to such an emergency, and then shall maintain any such moratorium with respect to the Property only for so long as required for the CITY to address the emergency in such a way as to permit the Project to be completed according to OWNER's ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 8 timetable. 3.7 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not subject'to control by CITY possess authority to regulate aspects of the Development of the Property, and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. 3.8 Vesting Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with Development of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, et SeMc .), and if this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to OWNER, then and to that extent the rights and protection afforded OWNER under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede the provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above, Development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over any conflicting provision of law or ordinance concerning vesting maps. 3.9 OWNER's Right to Construct Facilities. It is understood and agreed that, subject to CITY review and approval of plans and specifications, the OWNER may elect, and reserves the right, to construct, or cause the construction of, any public or quasi -public facility for which the CITY intends to collect a fee, and to dedicate the completed facility to the CITY, in lieu of payment of the fee. Additionally, subject to CITY review and approval of plans and specifications, OWNER may elect, and reserves the right, to construct or cause the construction of any public or quasi -public facility for which the CITY intends to form a CFD, in which case the CFD shall be formed for purposes of acquiring rather than constructing such public facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 5.1 above. 3.10 Provision of Real Property Interests by CITY. In any instance where OWNER is required to construct any public improvement on land not owned by OWNER, CITY shall first have acquired the necessary real property interests to allow OWNER to construct such public improvements. Costs associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings, if any, shall be OWNER's responsibility, and may be included in the district on a fair share basis. 4 REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE. 4.1 Periodic Review. The City Council shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of the Agreement. As part of that review, OWNER shall submit an annual monitoring review statement describing its actions in compliance with this Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, within 30 ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060"8 9 days after written notice from the City Manager requesting that statement. The statement shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the estimated costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by resolution of the City Council. 4.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any time at CITY's sole cost. OWNER shall cooperate with the CITY in the conduct of such special reviews. 4.3 Procedure. In connection with any periodic or special review, each party shall have a reasonable opportunity to assert matters which it believes have not been undertaken in accordance with the Agreement, to explain the basis for such assertion, and to receive from the other party a justification of its position on such matters. If on the basis of the parties' review of any terms of the Agreement, either party concludes that the other party has not complied in good faith with the terms of the Agreement, then such party may issue a written "Notice of Non -Compliance" specifying the grounds therefor and all facts demonstrating such non-compliance. The party receiving a Notice of Non -Compliance shall have thirty (30) days to respond in writing to said Notice. If the response to the Notice of Non -Compliance has not been received in the offices of the party alleging the default within the prescribed time period, the Notice of Non -Compliance shall be conclusively presumed to be valid. If a Notice of Non -Compliance is contested, the parties shall have up to sixty (60) days to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) occasioning the Notice. In the event that the parties are not able to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s) by the end of the sixty (60) day period, the party alleging the non-compliance may thereupon pursue the remedies provided in Section 7. 4.4 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a periodic or special review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, CITY shall, upon request by OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance ("Certificate") to OWNER stating that after the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the City Manager and City Council that (1) this Agreement remains in effect and (2) OWNER is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. OWNER may record the Certificate with the County Recorder. Additionally, OWNER may at any time request from the CITY a Certificate stating, in addition to the foregoing, which obligations under this Agreement have been fully satisfied with respect to the Property, or any lot or parcel within the Property. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 10 , ,. 5.1 Specific Performance Available. The parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance is a particularly appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to OWNER and CITY because due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER and/or CITY may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize or condition the Property or portions hereof. OWNER and CITY have invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, such that it would be extremely difficult to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER and/or CITY for such efforts. Except as provided in the Section 7.2 below, neither OWNER nor CITY shall not be entitled to any money damages, including attorney fees, from the other party by reason of any default under this Agreement. 5.2 Restitution of Improper Development Fees. In the event any Development fees or taxes are imposed on Development of the Property other than those authorized pursuant to this Agreement, OWNER shall be entitled to recover from CITY restitution of all such improperly assessed fees or taxes, together with interest thereon at the maximum allowable non -usurious rate from the date such sums were paid to CITY to the date of restitution 5.3 Termination of Agreement. 5.3.1 Termination of Agreement for Default of OWNER. CITY in its discretion may terminate this Agreement for any failure of OWNER to perform any material duty or obligation of OWNER hereunder or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "default'); provided, however, CITY may terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Section only after following the procedure set forth in Section 6.3 and thereafter providing written notice to OWNER of the default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 30 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 30 day period but can be cured within a longer time, as reasonably determined by the CITY in its sole discretion, OWNER has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such 30 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. 5.3.2 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITY. OWNER in its ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 11 discretion may terminate this Agreement by written notice to CITY after the default by CITY in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after following the procedure set forth in Section 6.3 and thereafter providing written notice by OWNER thereof to CITY and, where the default can be cured, the failure of CITY to cure such default within 30 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 30 day period, the failure of CITY to commence to cure such default within such 30 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and to cure such default. 5.3.3 Rights and Duties Following Termination. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to (i) any obligations to have been performed prior to said termination, or (ii) any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to said termination. 5.4 OWNER's Right To Terminate Upon Specified Events. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, OWNER retains the right to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to CITY in the event that OWNER reasonably determines that continued Development of the Project consistent with the Development Plan has become economically infeasible due to changed market conditions, increased Development costs, burdens imposed by the CITY or other governmental entity as conditions to future discretionary approvals of the Project consistent with this Agreement, the CITY's exercise of its Reserved Authority in a way deemed by OWNER to be inconsistent with the Development Plan, or similar factors. In the event OWNER exercises this right, it shall nonetheless be responsible for mitigation of impacts to CITY resulting from Development that may have occurred on the Property prior to the notice of termination, on a fair share or nexus basis, and within the thirty (30) day notice period CITY and OWNER shall meet to identify any such mitigation obligation that may remain to be satisfied. If the parties are in disagreement at the end of the thirty (30) day notice period, the Agreement shall be terminated as to all matters except for the remaining mitigation obligation in dispute, and with respect thereto the parties shall have the remedies provided in Section 5. 6 THIRD PARTY LITIGATION. CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any claim, action or proceeding filed and served against CITY to challenge, set aside, void, annul, limit or restrict the approval and continued implementation and enforcement of this Agreement. CITY and OWNER agree to cooperate in the defense of such action(s). 7 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION. ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 12 The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. Subject to compliance with applicable laws, CITY will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitledto receive written notification from CITY of any default by OWNER in the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If CITY timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER's obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; except that (i) to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY's performance hereunder, and (ii) in the event any Mortgagee seeks to develop or use any portion of the Property acquired by such Mortgagee by foreclosure, deed of trust, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, such Mortgagee shall strictly comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements of this Agreement and the Development Plan applicable to the Property or such part thereof so acquired by the Mortgagee. ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 13 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 8.1 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for a period of (_) years from the effective date of that annexation. 8.2 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk upon annexation of the Property to CITY within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. Similarly, amendments approved by the parties, and any cancellation, shall also be recorded. 8.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terns or conditions of this Agreement. 8.4 Severability. Except as provided in section 4.6.3, if any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, then this Agreement shall terminate in its entirety, unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. 8.5 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting parry or in favor of CITY shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 8.6 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 8.7 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural. 8.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 8.9 Waiver. Failure of a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise ROCKMLL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 14 its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such parry's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other parry with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 8.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit for the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 8.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party's control (including the party's employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the parry's control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance shall be extended for the duration of each such event, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years. 8.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the parry benefitted thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefitted parry. 8.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to Development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion thereof. 8.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument. 8.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by any party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court. ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060"8 15 8.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Development of the Project is a private Development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the Development of private property and the owner of such property. 8.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other parry shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 8.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain. 8.19 Amendments in Writing/Cooperation. This Agreement may be amended only by written consent of both parties specifically approving the amendment and in accordance with the Government Code provisions for the amendment of Development Agreements. The parties shall cooperate in good faith with respect to any amendment proposed in order to clarify the intent and application of this Agreement, and shall treat any such proposal on its own merits, and not as a basis for the introduction of unrelated matters. 8.20 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he/they has/have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first set forth above. CITY: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By Mayor ATTEST: ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEhJENT W"8 16 11 1 LM City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney (SEAL) OWNER: ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION By _ Title By _ Title [ALL SIGNATURES SHALL BE NOTARIZED. EXECUTION ON BEHALF OF ANY CORPORATION SHALL BE BY TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS.] ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 17 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Parcel A: Lot 1 of Tract No. 7953, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, Pages 7 to 11 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said county. Parcel B-1: Lot 2 of Tract No. 7953, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, Pages 7 to 11 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said county. Except from Lot 2 all oil, gas, hydrocarbons and other minerals of every kind and nature below a depth of five hundred (500) feet beneath the surface of the above described property, without the right of surface entry, as reserved in the deed recorded,May 7, 1974, in Book 11137, Page 1008, Official Records. Parcel B-2: A non-exclusive easement for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from Parcel B-1 to Von Karmen Avenue, within a strip of land, 30.00 feet in width, located on Lot 3 of Tract No. 7953, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, pages 7 to 11 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California. Beginning at a point in that certain curve in the centerline of Von Karmen Avenue shown on said map as being concave Northwesterly and having a radius of 600.00 feet with a central angle of 890 59' S0" and an arc length of 942.45 feet, a radial of said curve from said point bears North 250 54' 08" West; thence along the Southeasterly prolongation of said radial, South 250 54' 08" East, 95.33 feet to a tangent curve concave Westerly and having a radius of 200.00 feet; Thence Southerly along said curve 104.38 feet through a central angle of29' 54' 08", thence tangent to said curve South 4° 00' 00" West, 198.51 feet to a tangent curve concave Easterly and having a radius of 40.00 feet; thence Southerly and Southeasterly along said curve 37.25 feet through a central angle of 530 21' 34'; thence South 490 21' 34" East, 38.49 fret to a line parallel with and 15.00 feet Northwesterly from the Northwesterly line of Lot of said Tract No. 7953; thence along said parallel line, North 400 38' 26" East, 90.00 feet. The side lines of said strip shall be prolongated or shortened so as to form a continuous strip of land: Excepting therefrom that portion included within said Von Kannan Avenue. Parcel B-3: An easement and right of way to construct, use, maintain and operate an underground electrical power line within a strip of land, 8.00 feet in width, over that portion of Lot 3 of Tract No. 7953, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, pages 7 to 11 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, lying 4.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point in the Southeasterly line of Lot 3, distant thereon South 400 38' 25" West; 3.99 feet from the most Southerly comer of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 7953; thence North 480 30' 22" West, 267.86 feet to a point in the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2, said point being distant along said Southwesterly line North 490 21' 34" West, 267.83 feet from said Southerly comer. The sidelines of said strip of land are to be prolonged or shortened so as to terminate Northwesterly in said Southwesterly line. Parcel B-4: A non-exclusive easement, 40.00 feet wide, for ingress and egress purposes, for the maintenance of the utility spine and buildings located over that portion of Lot 3 of Tract No. 7953, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, Pages 7 to 11 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, the Southeasterly line of sold strip being described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly comer of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 7953; thence along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 2, North 400 38, 26" East, 99.17 feet to an angle point in the most Southwesterly line of Lot 1 of said Tract No. 7953. Parcel C: Easements as set forth in Sections 1.05, 1.06 and 1.10 of that certain Reciprocal Grant of Easements recorded November 6, 1972, in Book 10413, Page 573 of Official Records of Orange County, California. Parcel D: Easements as set forth in that certain Reciprocal Grant and Quitclaim of Easements recorded January 30, 1974, in Book 11966, Page 650 of Official Records of Orange County, California. ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 18 DEPICTION OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT "C" PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AMENDMENTS The Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport are hereby amended as follows: 1. Part I, Section I, is amended to read as follows: PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Statistical Analysis A. Building Sites Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks, within property lines. Site 1: 25.043 acres ................ 25.043 acres B. Allowable Building Area (Itr.6 tisive of vark►ng Comes) Site 1: 442;775.1,004,775 square feet .. 10.16 C. Parking Criteria Fitt 1 Building ' Ilse Category Manufacturing 1✓4=ring/Labs Administrative: ROCKWUL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 20 Parking Requirements' 2,0 spaces/ 'mo square feet 3,Q spaces/1,000 square feef 3.4 spaees/1,000 sgttare feet D. Landscaped Open Space Site 1: Area .............................. 25.04 acres Buildings to f,dexa$e 4046, 52 acres 44-.&& 12,$2- acres Parking Area Strucuires -41-0 '8' 91' acres Net Open Space**: 3.81 acres 2. Part I, Section V., is added to read as follows: �ectliit� V: �:peuia�res Theotlo+itt guidaiiites shall apsl unless citherriseaivad tbrouh file site plan review process; "'I'armhh ree ,god d etbaeks The minimum building and parking sed.)a. ik on,A»zboree Road .691 be 30 feet, In addition, the average building setback across the endxe length of the projeat's Jamboree Road frontage must be a udrdnium of 40 feet In order to avoid any'Aimre struatuxes' Witbij,200 feet of TauiisMee Road from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure 'shall be greater than 400 linear feet i4 length meas=d parallel,to Jamboree toad. Additionally} 20% of the Prnjeet's total liueat frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be opell and unoccupled by buildings, All setbacks shall be measured from'410 edge of curb for Jamboree Road, 2. ii'iirking �rxccPure Cruic%�lries parking; sEr"res 'loeatud along Jawlioxee hood sl6uii'be designed such,that parked cars are not visible from Jamboree Road. The opext portion cif the parking gwvAuxe facade fadug Jamboreo Road .must either be screened from view with vegetation or receive ardbitecturat treatment to give the appeamnoe of an occupied bailding structure rather than a parking structure., ROCKWELL DEVELOPNIENT AGREEMENT 060998 21 Maxjkum binding £votprinta far biiildinga exroetling'foui storW shall be 56po square feet. Buildings four stctrles and tinder shill havo a maximum lxui 4mg footprint of 141400 square feet,; 4.. etrt arty 'Parkin 'Zluria Cons€rho Ulln f4l*� 'I' Mvoxaxy paxidng Oman off -site 166don with pravisions'far sh&6 buses to Situ 1 wjli be pravidod as neodlo duriuo construction to meet parlring demand. 3. Part I, Section N.C., is amended to read as follows: D. Building Heieht ',"ite I has 666 dz`videa infix thTee builaing height lanes, as dep@& in W ibit C-1 and desoxibed below' ' Central Zone (exlstlug Buildings 503 and'501) Bast Zone boast of existing Building $W). Service zone (nof ex.ist4 Buildings 503 acid 501) or. Blinding heights of strictures shall be limifietT as foilovus ixy TieighY.zone, Central roue ................ L+ne hundred fifty (150) feet (Istories) East Zone ................... one ]hundred (100) feet 0 staMs) Service zone......,..,....,,• sevepW AV#..M) feet 3. Part I, Section N.F., is amended to read as follows: Site 1t' Tile folj6wing'signage standards sTtaTl ap aly i a'lteu of lie General Sfgn Sloqu emeuts, Part N.: a. .. r�er� S{gn Siari�r�xds x. All.sigW vlsltil11 e' at the 'extexiar of any building 6ir faeiilt� ii Site k, grouted mounted or can -building, may be Rhiminated by internal or external source. l+To alga shall be constructed ar ROCKwELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 22 installed 11to rotate, g grate, blfr& ai tunve, nor exeate the I tslon of mavemeent, in and fashion H. ml signs. attached to buildiMg or faclhi exteri6is shall be ........ flush or surface mounted as is appropriate to the architectural. design features of the building or facility. iii. Alt signs t*410i with, Tito entirety of their supports,'tar=s guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly, mintalned, legt`bie, functional 404 safe with regard to appearanee, structural intagity and electrical servieo iv. 'ill strafe signs shall be sizlsject 6 review and aiiprrrvai .Of the City Traffic tngirzmer, and shall be In compliance wlth b; ...... �Vl neml Sign Typo And Number's x, pr now zdenaloadonground molftted With sianage'.tin both, silw lvTa imtrm Sign Sizei l00 square l et an e or 200 eacli aid .. ....... §quote fMt Intal . ' "Crateivay" identifiaattnn signs �?u rttimbhree Roidat entry drives, ground tnOunted: Maximum Sias: S0 square feet, each sigh -Maximum `eight: 10:Peet -Maxirz m Number- 4 Maxituuut Mew .5O X. +l »'300'squaw "ieett Settindar.y identification sigh on Biroli Street: �Uaximusa• Sign Size: A5 s(. n :Feet -Maximum iot: 4 feet iv:' Misceitaziectts �reiiicttlar atilt pedestirian c�recta©riot signs: ='it artinttiziz sigh size: $'square; feet per ACC* »Maxhaum Hoot: 7 feet v. " ' l�tuiiling,rrarnnzzze� idt;nti�tilnn sighs ..Iq"a Xquum Si z Vie:" Ott square"lee ROCKMLL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 23 =' aXXiiiit . XAiiu per:. facades " sri:p6m ?den01e4d0n 49hk AA'sigo advlrCzsittg a sale,'lease ot`'liire of ihe'sitd shall be permuted in addition to. the other signs autlimiZed atwvo, not to exceed forty (40) sq� are feet In sire: .. ........ ........ ii. Nbt more tla 6 two (2} constnaCElon signa.denoting architects,: pnghmrs, contractors, and other related subjects, shalt be permitted upon the commencement of and for the duration of construction, riot to exceed fatty (40), sq re Feet in size each. 4. Part I, Section IV.H., is amended to read as follows: H. Parking All parking shall be as specified in mart I,'8jCfilon 'T:C, ab6, rather'thaYi the General Parking Requirements, Part III. 5. Part I, Section W.I., is amended to read as follows: I. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V, OXCept that'the following standaW'sliall apply An 11M Of S'ec€ion 1:D. tiiiereoi!� . A minimum of ftVe peteent t$%} bf the surface parkmi areas shall be de noted a lslantiag areas. Planting areas amund buildings shall wt It Included in parting area. f"Iantlag of trees may be In groups attd need u6i necessarily be in regular spacing. Alternative, landscape programs may be developed, including perlmoler paddag area latadsseaping, berml^ng and depressing parking areas. Alternative landscape programs shall be subject to the review of the Parka, Beaches and Recreation 1?epartmeat and the approval 4f fire?latnti and Public Works I99winents.. ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060"8 24 Service Zone 75' i - I I i Central Z • C one 1 50 r i Jamboree Z 95' ! I I JAMBOREE ROAD BUR.DING LOCATIONS ARE FOR ORMWATION PURPOSES ONLY. 1 L East Zone 80' 7 , r' 1 Ij -- 4.-. J I I w w U 1 lL m I 1 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS DCHIBIT C-1 EXHIBIT "D" MITIGATION MEASURES ROCKWELL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 060998 26 FILE COPY City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96-31' • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement General Plan Amendment No. 96-3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office/lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Senior Planner Campbell noted this application would involve the demolition of one large building and replacing it with two new high rise towers. He noted a change to the proposed Planned Community text is the need to amend building footprint limit. The applicant proposed a limit of 141,500 square feet for a building less than four stories and this is amended to now be 200,000 square feet. The reason for this change is that the 141,500 square feet limit is basically the size of the existing building and they propose to add on. The EIR was done and pointed out air quality, noise and traffic impacts. There are mitigation measures proposed for these impacts, although some impacts remain significant and unavoidable. The consultant who prepared the EIR is here to answer any questions. The fiscal analysis should read a total of net revenue increase of an estimated 1,140, 200. Public comment was opened. Rich Bluth, Director of Facilities for Conexant made a presentation noting the following: • Conexant spun off from Rockwell, January 1, 1999. • Industry is experiencing a growth rate of almost 30%. • We are about a 2.2 billion -dollar company at this point in time. • Five primary businesses dedicated to five different facets of the communication business (cell phone, internet infrastructure, internet access through the PC, convergence of media and computer, and imaging). • Largest facility is in Newport Beach. • Proposed expansion construction will start with the parking structures; manufacturing building; additional office tower, and then the research and development tower. 27 Mi D *1 Item No. 5 GPA No. 96-31' A 898 EIR No. 159 TS No. 110 DA City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 • Existing site is built out at 440,000 square feet and the proposed expansion will be for 566,000 square feet. • Parking is based on a growth of 2700 people, 1100 will be shift workers. • Project has a number of architectural aspects that address massing on Jamboree. The aesthetics of the parking structures will be appointed to keep it pleasing. • Traffic - Conexant analysis was based on a building occupancy of 20% greater than standard ITE office rates. (210 square feet per occupant) • Trip generation rates used in study are higher than multi -tenant office. • Worse case scenario was assumed for the case of the analysis. Two intersections identified (MacArthur/Jamboree and Irvine/Mesa) in the short-range analysis; mitigations have been identified for those with fair share fees of approximately $650,000. • Revenue - Conexant is number three in the City based on property tax for revenue. Net contribution just under one million dollars. Incremental revenue will add 1.1 million dollars to the City. • Industry is growing at a strong rate. This is our world headquarters. Robert Hawkins, Chairman of Environmental Quality Affairs Committee noted the following: • Rendering in staff report should be included in the EIR as part of the project description. • Water quality and run-off. Conexant maintains that it goes into a closed basin, which has no discharge. What happens when basin fills up? Officials from Irvine Company indicate that there is some discharge. • EIR failed to incorporate portions of various reports, i.e., noise report. Chairperson Selich asked if there was any reason why these renderings could not be included in the final EIR? Staff answered no. Dr. Mark Sudall, consultant working with PCR, Services Corporation stated that his expertise is in water quality and the wetlands. He was asked to evaluate the basin to find an outlet to the structure. He walked the entire basin and did not find an outlet. He then called the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Board and talked to representatives of the EPA to talk about the basin and possible discharge. Additionally, there was no evidence of water rising up the side of the basin, therefore, I did not see any way the water could get out of it. The basin is large enough to hold approximately 5-Acre feet of water. It does not look like water has left the basin; it is not filling up with sediment or vegetation. The water is evaporating. At Commission inquiry, he answered that he would have to check the calculations of the runoff when this project is at full build out. Lauren Jue with PCR, stated that in comparing the existing and proposed site plans, there is not a significant difference in the run off, we believe it will be about the same amount that is running off into this drainage area. We did not 28 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 do direct calculations relating to the quantity. Chairperson Selich asked assuming if the quantities are similar, is it within the best management practices to allow this situation to continue? He was answered that the applicant will incorporate into the design of their project, best management practices, both structural and non-structural. They will be in compliance with NPDES permit requirements, which are listed in the draft EIR. Chairperson Selich then requested calculations in the EIR to see if the basin can accept increased run off from the project and to assure that this project will not aggravate the situation beyond its present level. Commissioner Tucker stated that the Water Quality Control Board presented a letter where they ask for similar types of conditions on the project. I don't see where there will be a material increase. Hopefully, the suggestion would cover increases that were not material. Barry Eaton, also representing EQAC noted that the Irvine Company owns the basin and this is the last parcel transferred under the CIOSA Agreement. The City has more than a passing interest in that basin. The Irvine Company tells us that there is an outlet that runs into San Diego Creek, which is protected wetland. Our concern was not the extra flow, but the fact that six layers of parking garage would add extra motor fuels, etc. as part of the flow. Continuing, he noted the following traffic concerns that were not adequately answered in the responses to comments: • Traffic generation and parking was based on daytime shifts. There are five shifts altogether. Those may under represent future population, which is supposed to triple. We have never been told the breakdown of the shifts. • Regarding the revised traffic study - quite a difference which intersections became impacted between the first study and the second study. This was done due to substantial changes in base traffic counts between 1997 and 1999. Why were there such dramatic changes at Jamboree/MacArthur and Campus/Irvine and Bristol south? • Most of new employees are to be research and development. • Significant allocation to Jamboree/MacArthur, the TPO analysis should have included some of the intersections on MacArthur and Jamboree south of the freeway. No intersections were included other than Bristol South and Jamboree. Request that the TPO analysis to include at least a few of the intersections down Jamboree and MacArthur. • We think the EIR does not meet the CEQA requirements. The cumulative impacts have to include those projects, which have been underway. Dunes fits that category and it is not included in the cumulative analysis. • In the long-range analysis, it shows less traffic on Jamboree with the project than without even though 5% of the total 2,700 new employees 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 is assigned to Jamboree. Jamboree and MacArthur is a Congestion Management Plan intersection. The City has to stay consistent with these standards on those intersections. The original traffic study calculated Conexant's fair share of the required improvements at that intersection at 48%. The revised traffic study which used the TPO calculations show it as 25%. Is that consistent with the Congestion Management Plan? The revised traffic study looked at mitigation at the several intersections that were affected that were not included in the first study. Commissioner Tucker noted the distribution and the TPO requiring the minimum of 5%. The original traffic study showed only 1% on Jamboree and MacArthur and 10% on Irvine. What is our concern about an expansion by the airport if it really does not affect the neighborhoods? What I am focusing on is the effect on where people live as opposed to out in the business area of the airport. The changes based on the different traffic counts at a different time are kind of off. Are you suggesting we should count again? Mr. Eaton answered that he does not know the answer. You normally don't see a 100% difference in two years. On the one leg of MacArthur and Jamboree it went up 100% in the morning and down 50% in the afternoon. The counts were done differently, one by staff and one by consultant. Whether that makes the difference, I have no idea. Commissioner Tucker commented on the traffic model. There was a page in the new traffic study that talks about traffic modeling, where they just don't overlay or add on to with a project. They re -distribute, that comes up with a totally different result that can not be matched up with anything. That is the uniqueness of the model, they are incomprehensible most of the time. The one issue on the basin is it seems that when a parking structure is added in place of a parking lot, you might end up with less pollutants as the only floor that is exposed to water is the top floor. This is the one that usually gets the least occupied. Why do you think adding more cars in a parking structure will create a situation where there will be more pollutants? Mr. Eaton answered because they get washed down. Chairperson Selich noted the first point of traffic study is based on the assumption of the shifts. If they were to change, then the validity of the traffic study could change, is this correct? Mr. Edmonston answered that there are two aspects. The rates do incorporate the shifts and when they were projected out, a straight office use was considered a worst case. The traffic study does include an analysis of a regular office and trip rate per person is more conservative for a regular office building. By using these office characteristics, we have done a worst case analysis that would supercede any future changes in shifts. 30 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Mr. Eaton noted that EQAC is pointing out that it was not adjusted for the shifts. It was based on the employees who left the complex primarily from shift one and excluded all the other shifts. We do not know the extent of the problem because we have never been told the ratio of employees on the other shifts compared to shift one. Compared to the general office rate, it is more conservative because the proposal for 2700 employees is a dense population on the amount of square footage projected. At Commission inquiry, he added that more analysis should be done on the prospect that most of the new employees would be on shift one, whether that would affect the number or not. The ITE number is based on a curve of studies done nationwide, which show that the larger an office project is, the lower the generation is per employee. This should be done as a check against the analysis already done. Mr. Edmonston stated that it is being suggested to use the ITE average rate rather than the curve. Again, the consultant asked which way we ought to look at it, and I reviewed what was in the trip generation. I felt the equation was better suited to a project of this size. In fact an argument could be made based on a project of 566,000 square feet, really, it is a growth of a project from 400,000 to one million. This puts you further out onto the curve, where the trip rate would be less based upon the equation. We used the equation and a conservative approach to using that equation. We can do an analysis based on the ITE rate. Mr. Eaton clarified that what staff could do was ask the consultant to look at the current percentage of the main shift employees where they based the projection numbers. As well as the percentage estimate to be of the main shift if they actually grew with the new 2700 employees. This would show why the percentages were so far apart based on the existing base number if still valid. Mr. Edmonston clarified that another way of saying this is that you would like a fuller explanation of shifts on the trip generation, how it was measured and how it impacts than the projection. He was answered yes. Chairperson Selich noted the second point was on the dramatic changes of the intersections. Mr. Edmonston answered that doing counts since the TPO was adopted twenty years ago, every time counts were done by either staff or consultants, there are some intersections that come up as anomalies. In the case of Jamboree and MacArthur, we did re-count the morning and it came back consistent with the original count. We tried to evaluate these counts. There is no count at the other intersection mentioned. We do try to provide some quality control and we will be doing our annual counts in the next couple of weeks and I have asked that these be re-counted. Numbers do change and sometimes it is hard to figure out which is the better number. In some cases, we have re-counted an intersection two or three times in a year. It is hard to get numbers that 31 I:I];/ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 stabilize. There are certainly some daily variations. Mr. Eaton added that if additional counts were done, then obviously all the calculations would have to be re -done. I don't know if it is worth doing all that work over again. Commissioner Kranzley asked when the toll road opened and what impacts it would have on the traffic counts. Could that have an effect on the counts? Chairperson Selich noted the third point of the other intersections on Jamboree/MacArthur. Mr. Edmonston stated that typically for the TPO analysis, he pre -selects the intersections for the consultant to look at. We look to see that we extended far enough from the project. In this case, there was a 500% change, (a change from 1% to 5%). It might be argued that it should have been rounded to 0 rather than up to 5. 1 have not had a chance to do more than a cursory look at MacArthur/Bison, which is the next intersection down and the project numbers were less than 1%. On the Jamboree/East Bluff North intersection, in one period they were less than 1% and in the other they were over the 1% threshold, but I did not have an opportunity to run an actual detail calculation to see if the ICU would have changed. Those are things we can do. The fourth point was on the cumulative impacts, in particular the Dunes. Mr. Edmonston explained that there were three analysis in the report. The TPO has committed projects and included the Dunes based on the 1998 Development Agreement. This is a larger project than what has been approved by the Planning Commission recently. In terms of the Dunes approval, the number went down in total generation and that would be true in the model as well. The Dunes by itself should not lead to anything that is not accounted for in both the TPO and the long range traffic study. The third analysis is a table that shows the cumulative intersection impacts of the reasonably foreseeable projects, and in the case of Conexant we have only Pacific Life and the Newport Country Club. By the time we re -did the traffic study, the Irvine Company and the Teachers' Credit Union had withdrawn from the project. That is the cumulative numbers, which is not the numbers that we based the mitigation upon. The cumulative is less than what we have in the traffic study. Commissioner Kranzley noted that in the March 2000 Traffic study there is a committed project list. It includes Hoag Hospital but does not include Banning Ranch. In the staff report, page 16, it talks about the traffic study done in March 2000- including Banning Ranch. I am confused. Mr. Edmonston answered that the difference is that Banning Ranch is in the cumulative run based on the latest project. There is Banning Ranch in the long- 32 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 range model, but it is not in the TPO because it is not an actual approved project. Mr. Eaton added that the cumulative run was done for information purposes only, there was no analysis or mitigation measures done. The point on the Dunes was that the numbers are down, but the numbers in the original Dunes study did not show 50% all the way up Jamboree, where the new one does. That is why we thought Jamboree was affected. The cumulative table showed three of the four intersections on Jamboree south of Bristol as over the threshold. Something is triggering them over the threshold, we hoped you would ask to find out whether it was a combination of the Dunes and Conexant. Chairperson Selich asked that be checked into. Mr. Edmonston answered that he would have to go back to the model consultant. The long range analysis had the old Dunes in it and so for the model standpoint, the model used its own distribution rather than the 50% that was based on the TPO manual distribution. Mrs. Wood added that on the cumulative run, that it includes all the reasonably foreseeable projects that we had applications for. Those numbers do not reflect any mitigation measures that would have been later applied to these projects to mitigate their traffic impacts. Mr. Edmonston, at Commission inquiry, noted that the long-range model assumes build out of the highway system in the city in terms of through lanes and turn lanes as best we can imagine they would be many years out. It also assumes build out of all the projects that are approved under the General Plan. In this case this project adds that 566,000, then there is an additional column that identifies that additional mitigation is needed, then we start looking at whether there are improvements above and beyond what we currently envision in the General Plan that could be constructed. It is in the cumulative run that we have added the Banning Ranch, Dunes, and the Koll projects. Much like in this project, there are additional mitigations that could be done that help mitigate the project. That same thing might be true for these other projects that are out there and yet to come before you. The sixth point was on the Congestion Management Plan and whether it is consistent with the 49% versus the 25% under the TPO analysis for the Fair Share fees. Mr. Edmonton answered that under the Congestion Management Plan an impact is defined for an intersection that is at LOS F or worse as this intersection was identified in the long range. In order for the project impact, the increase must be .10 (ten times what the City's threshold is). Based on the CMP guidelines, there is no mitigation required at that intersection because this 33 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 does not meet their significance INDEX Chairperson Selich thanked the EQAC members for their work and presentation. Public comment was opened. Ted Windham, 7349 White Oak Ridge, Orange stated that he is an employee in a nearby 8,000 square foot building by Conexant. He noted concerns in terms of building height, natural light blockage, vibrations and odors. His major concern is the mitigation measures of the extra traffic and the ingress and egress of the parking structures. Referencing the exhibit, he noted that he did not know how people were to gain access to Birch or Campus going north. He asked that the Commission take a serious look at the traffic. Doug Stucker, Public Affairs Director of Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce presented a resolution in support of this application noting that Conexant has been a tremendous community leader. Mike Noonan, 113B Via Quinto as Vice President of the Orange County Business Council stated his support for this application. Our opportunity in Orange County is to take businesses like Conexant and allow them to grow. It will be good for Newport Beach and for the Orange County economy. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked if there was additional information needed for the next meeting for staff to work on? Commissioner Tucker - no Commissioner Kranzley - no Commissioner Gifford - no Commissioner Ashley - clarify points brought up by Mr. Eaton and how this project will actually result in less traffic in surrounding intersections; and access off Birch to the parking structures. Commissioner Kiser- existing signage Commissioner McDaniel - no Chairperson Selich - no Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to the next meeting. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None 34 C 0 N E X A N T What's next in communications technologies,. Conexant Systems, 5118/DD C Q N E X A N T' • Largest pure play communications semiconductor company in the world • Broadest product portfolio addressing a family of high growth communications markets • Over 30 years of communications industry experience • Established leadership market share positions with a blue chip, worldwide customer base • NASDAQ 100 company • S & P 500 company Worldwide Communicans Growth Drivers C O N E% A N T' Worldwide Internet Users (M) 27% AAGR LYC:1S. exCite 400 300 AOL.COM 200 100 0 CY98 CY99 CY00 CY01 CY02 CY03 source. IDC 5/1 NO Worldwide Cellular Subscribers (M) 29% AAGR 1000 ® SI(Telecom 800 ( NTT B 6 A'Oe- 400 200 1 L 0 CY98 CY99 CY00 CY01 CY02 CY03 Source: EA C Explosive Growth in Internet Connectivity and Mobile Communications Personal Computing (PCD) C C O N! X A N T' Personal Imaging (PID) Wireless Communications Digital Infotainment (WCD) (DID) snamo �,m/�tvrrr.r.c r 1 � F First In SDSLIHDSL Devices Im First In -•• �Video Decoder/ Encoder Devices First In PC Data Modems First In GPS OEM Components First In Central Site Modems First In Fax Modems First In Digital Cellular Handset Power Amps • First In Digital Spread Spectrum Cordless Telephone Chipsets • Seou�Taegu City Beijing • / *Tokyo Thousand • Boulder • 9 y Newbury Park Ralei h Shanghai l • Huntsville • • Taiwan San Diego • Ilearwater Hong Kong Mexicali Zaso/ I Dallas Austin Houston • Singaore K�.�. Sydney 6 1631 TAO eykjavik 4 Bracknell Munich Paris 40phia Antipot • FY99 Regional Revenue M Americas -39% Europe - 9% Japan =12% Asia - Pacific 40% Delhi e 41 Conexant Site tilso^Y • 1959 Collins Radio purchases 179 acres • 1961 Construct first building (501) • 1968 Construct second building (503) • 1972 Collins Radio acquired by Rockwell International • 1972 Rockwell sells majority of land to Koll C C O N E X A N T- • 1974 Commercial high volume semiconductor manufacturing begins • 1988 Facsimile technology drives business expansion 1994 200mm - 3x production ramp for modem business begins • 1999 Conexant Systems, Inc. formed 5/18/00 1968 - Site —_pay - __ -- - -- C O N E X A N T' 5/18100 AWN NO to 1 � A 4 lot 41 JJ �'4.J4 (.+.�V 1\ `..�` %/�'6 a",'�',Y' 4d 6� 4� �. ^ ( r, S ♦ �:`,.. �JI � / , 4.4 e - � � `Yi'../// � 4ei: /:`.ice ° 4�\� .`� `Q��f - 4, ` .s •k � � y � \ ♦H � to •� % !� �. �F. '—� a �\ C ++"'i try �IY y •i/I L -"`l' i Conceptual Build -Out Phase 2: Office Complex 2-Story - 50K SF 10-Story - 270K SF 2nd Parking Structure 5 Levels, 1550 Spaces 5/18/00 Phase 1: Office Complex 8-Story - 260K SF L B503 Expansion 3-Story -113K SF C C) N F X A N T 1st Parking Structure 5 Levels; 630 Spaces Project Characteds - _ - Lot Area Gross Floor Area Building Coverage Building Height Parking _EXISTING �-PROPOSE-D 1,090,873 SF' 4421775 SF 5667000 SF 25 /o - 75' - - - 75' - 150' 11264 _.11700 Number of Employees 1 17479 21695 ------------- - ---- - -- - - - ----------- -- --- ---- --- -- - - - - (-900 Current Shift Workers, —1100 FutureiShift Workers) 5/18/00 • Building Footprint OK:�-:- C O N E X A N Y- TOTAL__ 110901873 SF 1,0081775 SF 50% 75' - 150, ~3, 000 41174 — Maximum footprint for buildings exceeding four stories shall be 56,000 feet Project Fea-tunes _ C O N E X A N T" • Jamboree Road Setback — Minimum building and parking setback along Jamboree Road shall be 30 feet — Average building setback across entire length of project's Jamboree frontage must be minimum 40 feet — No single structure, within 200 feet of Jamboree, shall be greater than 400 linear feet in length measured parallel to Jamboree Road — 20% of project's total linear frontage within 200 feet of Jamboree Road shall be open and unoccupied by buildings • Parking Structures — Parking structures along Jamboree Road shall be designed to screen cars from Jamboree Road — The open portion of the parking structure facing Jamboree Road must be screened from view with vegetation or architectural treatment 5l70/00 Traffic --- - -_- -- C O N E X A N T' • Conexant analysis based on building occupancy ~20% > standard ITE office rates • Trip generation rates used are higher than ITE standards for multi -tenant office • Assumed worst case scenario, buildout in 5 years • Short range analysis — Impacted intersections - Jamboree/MacArthur - Irvine/Mesa — Mitigations identified to offset project impacts • Fair share fees of $650,000 have been identified as part of the development agreement 5/18l80 Conexant Dem gr- n o C XA N T • 35% of employees have telecommuting capability • Flex hours available to all salaried employees • � 900 employees on Conexant site work compressed work weeks — 5:30 AM / 5:30 PM, 12-hour shift — Commute during only 1 peak period • Population distribution: ^# 70% Professional / Engineer • OW55% of Professional population have Graduate degrees • Key university relationships - UCI, UCLA, USC, CalPoly, UCSB, UC Berkley, CSULB City Re • Revenue C C O N EX AN T- - $19158,000 revenue to the City of Newport Beach in 1998 -1999 — Third largest revenue contributor to the City Marriott Fashion Island Conexant Four Seasons Balboa Bay Club Fletcher Jones Motorcars *Kosmont Study Dated 04/00 5118/00 City R Property Tax Sales/Use/Business Indirect Tax Municipal Services Total: $798,000 $ 83,500 $2765500 186 900) $971,100 Incremental • I 0 $301,000 $815,000 $194,500 170 300 C O N E X A N T- $1,099,000 $898,500 $471,000 357 200) $1,1409200 $251119300 Conexant would be the second largest revenue contributor to the City *Kosmont Study Dated 04/00 5/18/00 In Conclusion 5,1 Bl00 ((c C O N E X A N T' ,oi -4w PERSPECTIVE LONG RANGE EXPANSION Newport Beach, California • Business will continue to grow • World headquarters must grow to meet business demands • Conexant's desire is to remain in Newport Beach • Mutually beneficial to extend Conexant's Corporate presence within City of Newport Beach • Conexant concurs with all matters contained in the Staff Report C Q N E X A N T What's next in communications technologies,, aEwvogr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: t' i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644-3200; FAX (7 L4) 644-3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Expansion August 24, 1998 Marc Myers (949) 644-3210 ACTION: Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Planning Consultants Research (PCR) of Irvine, California, for professional environmental services for a contract price of $164,943.00. BACKGROUND: Council Policy F-14, Authority to Contract For Services, authorizes Department Heads to award contracts for services of less than $30,000.00 without further review. However, contracts in excess of $30,000.00; contracts for service not specified in the approved budget; and contracts for services which exceed the amount authorized by the City Council in the budget must be submitted to the City Council for specific approval before the contract is awarded. Additionally, the City Attorney is required to review all specific contract documents prior to contract award. It should also be noted that the City's standard practice for more than 20 years has been to select environmental consultants from a list of firms previously qualified by the City, when agreed to by the applicant. The City has followed this practice because the time limits on EIR preparation make it impractical to do a full selection process for each case. Attached is a letter from Rockwell authorizing the City to contract with PCR for environmental services. Additionally, no City funds are involved in these contracts, as the applicant is responsible for the cost of EIR preparation. SUMMARY: Planning Consultants Research has provided a proposal to perform professional environmental services for the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of a Program Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems' expansion. Attached is a copy of the proposal submitted by PCR. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of services through the completion of the Draft Program EIR, proposed budget, and time schedule for preparation and processing the environmental documentation. At the City's request, the scope of services for the preparation of the Response to Comments and Final Program EIR will be addressed under a separate agreement after the extent of the public comments on the Draft Program EIR is determined. Staff has reviewed the scope of services and determined that the services that will be provided meet or exceed the minimum requirements set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental consulting fees for tasks described in the scope of services including PCR staff hours, technical studies, direct expenses, and printing have been reviewed by staff and are considered appropriate and warranted. Also attached is a copy of the Professional Services Agreement. The form and content have been reviewed and approved by the Assistant City Attorney. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Attachments: Scop Services Proposal Professional Services Agreement Letter from Rockwell Prepared by: MARC W. MYERS Associate Planner Page 2 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 24, 1998 RESOLUTIONS FOR ADUPTION 4. RESOLUTION NO. 98-59 AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF STOP Res 98.59 SIGNS ON EASTBLUFF DRIVE AT VISTA DEL ORO (SOUTH), AND Eastbluff Drive INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SCHOOL SIGNAGE. Adopt the Stop Signs Resolution and direct Traffic Engineer to install school area pedestrian signs (85) for crosswalk on Eastbluff Drive at Alba Street. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 98-60 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98-17 AND Res 98-60 APPOINTING A MEMBER OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EQAC COMMITTEE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS (24) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Adopt Resolution amending Resolution No. 98-17 and appointing a member of EDC to EQAC. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 6. COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF GALAXY DRIVE PARK C-3196 REHABILITATION (C-3196). Accept the work; authorize the City Clerk to Galaxy Drive file a Notice of Completion; and authorize the City Clerk to release the bonds Park 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with (38) applicable portions of the Civil Code. 7. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE BUCK GULLY/LITTLE CORONA C-3094 BEACH OUTLET MODIFICATION (C-3094). Approve the plans and Buck Gully/ specifications; award the contract to Gillespie Construction, Inc. for the total Little Corona price of $359,762.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Beach contract; and establish an amount of $36,000.00 to cover the cost of materials (38) testing and additional work. S. Removed at the request of Council Member Debay. 9. ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS EXPANSION. Approve a C-3229 Professional Services agreement with Planning Consultants Research (PCR) Rockwell Semi - of Irvine, California, for professional environmental services for a contract Conductor Systems price of $165,443. (38) 10. Removed at the request of an audience member. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 11. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR AUGUST 20, 1998. Receive Planning and file. (68) 12. AMENDMENT TO FINAL TRACT MAPS 15388 AND 15389, PACIFIC Tracts 15388115389 BAY HOMES AT 2300 JAMBOREE ROAD. Approve amendments to the Pacific Bay Homes Final Maps. (TT15388/TT15389) 13. TREE REMOVALS — INFORMATIONAL REPORT. Receive and file. Tree Removals (62) 14. APPOINTMENT TO THE AVIATION COMMITTEE. Confirm Council Aviation Committee Member Thomson's appointment of Mark Q. Thompson. (24) 15. APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA-005) TO INCREASE I BA-005 Volume 52 - Page 152 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting August 24, 1998 - 7:00 p.m to separate agenda from — See written report. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: Thomson, Debay, O'Neil, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Edwards Absent: Hedges Pledge of Allegiance — Council Member Noyes. Invocation by Pastor Warren Olson, Mariners South Coast Church. Presentation of $100,000 Donation by the Friends of the Library. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM): Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil noted that a number of support groups have been established in his District to save the Port Theater. He requested that the owner be contacted to see what his intent is and to determine the City's options if he intends to close the Theater. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES/ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 1998. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 3. ORDINANCE NO. 98-21 ADOPTING MINOR AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE NBMC (DEFINITION OF TERMS, LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS, LAND USE REGULATIONS, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, REGULATION OF SIGNS, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, APPEAL AND CALL FOR REVIEW PROCEDURES, AND REMOVAL OF OBSOLETE, REDUNDANT AND CONFLICTING LANGUAGE). Adopt Ordinance No. 98-21. INDEX Closed Session/ 0-2897 (35/38) Ord 98-21 Title 20 Amendments (94) Volume 52 - Page 151 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: OctoberA 1997 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: g PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Patricia L. Temple �4,c•-� SSA NEV.TORT BOULEVARD 644-3200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9265E (74) 644-S2w. FAX (74) 644-S25- Refer to Council Automatic REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment97-3 SUMMARY: Request to initiate an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, as follows: A. 3300-3336 Via Lido B. Office Site "B"/Koll Center Newport C. NewportVillage/NewportCenter D. Four Seasons Hotel/NewportCenter E. The Pacific Club/Koll Center Newport F. NewportDunes SUGGESTED ACTION: If desired, recommend to the City Council: A. That any or all of the proposed General Plan Amendments be initiated and staff be directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission; or B. That any or all of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unwarranted and should be returned to the originator; or C. That action on the proposed amendments be deferred to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department workloads and project priorities. Backeround City Council Policy K-1 states that: "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the month during which proposed amendments are to be initiated. The request should clearly set forth the reason for which the request is made, and should contain information substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission, after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is worthy of initiation, it may recommend initiation of amendments as set forth above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the City Council with its recommendation that initiation of the amendment is unwarranted. The City Council, after consideration of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission, may either initiate the proposed amendment and direct the Planning Commission to set for public hearing, return the request to the originator without further action, or defer action on the proposed amendment to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department work loads and project priorities." Proposed Amendments 3300 - 3336 Via Lido: The owners of property along Via Lido on the bayfront from the existing "Battaglia" parking lot to the Lido Sailing Club have submitted a request for a General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendment to redesignate the area from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi Family Residentlal." If approved, this would allow the remaining commercial properties within these addresses to redevelop with residential land uses, and to make the existing non -conforming residential uses consistent with General Plan and zoning designations. Office Site "B"Moll Center Newport: The Koll Company has submitted a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the entitlement in Koll Center Newport by 250,000 square feet, with the increase in development intensity allocated to Office Site "B" The increased development is to be primarily general office, but a retail component could be included in the project, The site currently under consideration for the project is at the comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Newt Village/Newport Center: The Irvine Company has submitted it request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the site at the southeast comer of San Miguel Road and Avocado Avenue (north of the Newport Beach Central Library) from "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" to "Multi Family Residential, " and establish a development allocation of 310 dwelling units. This request is made to establish a site appropriate for the construction of an affordable senior citizen housing project which would satisfy the affordable housing requirements of The Irvine Company (CIOSA obligation) and the Ford Motor Land Development Company. Four Seasons Hotel/NenWrt Center: The Irvine Company has submitted a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the development allocation in Block 600. If approved, the project would provide 100 additional hotel rooms, a 600 seat conferencelballroom facility and ancillary uses, and ah expanded hotel spa. Pacific Club/Koll Center Newport: The Pacific Club has submitted a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the development allocation in Koll Center Newport by 15,000 square feet, with the increase in development intensity allocated to Office Site "A" The increased development will provide for improved fitness facilities, additional dining and meeting areas, and an additional level of entitlement to allow for future expansion. Newport Dunes: Newport Dunes has submitted a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to increase the development (kneel Plm Amendment 97.3 October 9.1997 Page 4 Newport Dunes: Newport Dunes has submitted a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to increase the development allocation for hotel development to allow for up to 600 rooms; as well as additional facilites ancillary to the hotel and Newport Dunes resort. Planning Department Workload Appendix "A' attached to this report lists all current programs and projects in the Planning Department (Planning and Economic Development). Included is an analysis of the staffing requirements for the various workload categories of the department. The workload analysis indicates that the Department is currently operating at full capacity. These General Plan Amendments are, however, all associated with currently proposed developments of individual property owners. As such, it is anticipated that these projects can be accommodated within the hours allocated for development review. Given the high level of development activity currently being experienced, there is a need to consider available staff resources when new projects are assigned to the department. Submitted and prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments General Plan Amendment 97-3 October9,1997 Page 3 ALLOCATION OF STAFF RESOURCES (HOURS PER YEAR) 10/97 Workload Category Plannin¢ Econ• Dev TAW Administration 400 I50 550 Development Review 4,500 100 4,600 Plan Check 3,200 0 3,200 Counter/Public Information 3,800 100 3,900 Code Enforcement 2,200 50 2,250 Housing 100 50 150 CDBG 0 150 150 BID Support 0 650 650 Data/GIS/MIS 50 1,300 1,350 Business Retention and Attraction 370 370 EDC 60 340 400 Regional Activities 30 40 70 TOTAL ONGOING 149340 31300 179640 Special Projects Underway Zoning Code Revisions 2,000 0 2,000 LCP Certification 40 0 40 Circulation ElementfTPO 400 0 400 Sign Inventory 1,000 0 1,000 Airport Study 120 150 270 New BIDs 0 130 130 Mariners' Mile Study 130 300 430 NCEO 350 0 350 Permits Migration 0 600 600 Balboa Peninsula Revitalization 200 700 900 Large-scale Development 750 0 750 ED Strategic Plan 200 130 330 TOTAL SPECIAL PROJECTS 50190 21010 74200 TOTAL ALLOCATED STAFF RESOURCES 190530 5,310 24,840 TOTAL STAFF HOURS 18,800 S,400 24,200 STAFF HOURS NOT ALLOCATED -730 90 .640 1 Includes Planning Commission, City Council, Modifications Committee, Development Review Committee, Environmental Review and Staff issued permits. 1 Includes the Zoning Code clean-up, Alcohol Outlet Ordinance, Commercial Business Flours and Service Station Ordinance. Includes Rockwell, Newport Duns Hotel, Newport Village Senior Project, Pour Seasons Hotel, Koli Center Newport. SEP-22-97 MOH 9:41 BWS COSTA MESA FAX H0. 7147555648 P.01 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 Attn: Patricia Temple Dear Ms. Temple: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM SEP $ 3 f997 6 Request is hereby respectfully made for the City to consider an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan for the properties located along the bparkin side or Via Lido, commencing at 3336 Via Lido, which abuts the current "Battaglia' parking lot (formerly Newport Balboa Savings and Loan) and running southeasterly along Via Lido to and including the Lido Sailing Club. The current General Plan and zoning designation for the he predominant uses In this area are multi -family area is Retail and Service Commercial. T residential. Some form of residential use is likely to continue and be desirable to the property owners and the community for the foreseeable future. This request is to amend the general plan designation to Multi -Family Residential (MFR) with the inclusion of sufficient flexibility to Clubaltow the 333r6era n Lido exproperty ty to develop as four single family dwellings and the Lido Sailing to shing The lots in this area are not deep enough to allow for the development of viable retail service commercial use, primarily because the lack of lot depth does not allow for adequate off-street parking. Additionally, there are no off-street parking facilities in the immediate vicinity. Some of the residential owners in the area have just recently become aware of die nott-conforming nature of their uses as a result of efforts to obtain financing or re- financing. The concern is, of course, the Inability of the owners to rebuild their dwellings in the event of destruction. Your consideration of this request will be appreciated. Very truly yours, Owner or agent for: POStit" brand tax transmittal memo oeu+unao364.1 lyK I U ��_ — 117 SEP- 5-87 FRI 10:41 BNS COSTA itESA FAX NO. 7147556648 P.02 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA, 92663 Attn: Patricia Temple Dear tvfs. Temple: RE"IfCN r1 .} ANNINa DEPARTMENT rirf OF NEwRT BEACH SEP, 1119_97�� !1! Request is hereby respectfully dude for the City to consider an amendment to the land use etopnent of the t3onersl Pies for the properties looted along the bayfront side of Via Lido, commencing at 3336 Via Lido, which abuts the current "Battaglia' parking lot (formerly Newport Balboa SavInga and loan) and running southeasterly along Via Lido to NW Including the Lido Sailing Club, The current C4AD rti plan and zoning designation for the area is R t U and Service Commercial, The predowiriant uses in this area are multi -family residential, Some form of midentiai use is likely to continue and be desimble to the property owners and the community for the foreseeable future. Ibis request ie to auaead the general plan designation to Multi-Funlly Residential (UFR) with the inclusion of suf l nt flexibility to allow the 3336 Via Lido property to develop as four single family dwellingi and the t.ido Sailing Club to rotain its ex(sidng ebamew. The lots In this area are root deep enough to allow for the development of viable retail service commercial use, prhwily because the lack of lot depth does not allow for adequate off-street parking. A.dditionslly, ckcre are no ot%streetparking facilities in the Immediate vicinity, Some of the residential owners In the area have just recently become aware of the non -conforming nature of their uses as a result of efforts to obtain financing or re- finanding. The concern is, of course, the inability of the owners to rebuild their dwellings In the event of destruction. 01(MOR 1LLUyt,t Your consideration of this request will be appreciated, Very truly yours, Owner or agent for: _ /%it't.,, o�. 3"& Vj A L18.p A&7wx &A "41 CA S HAV) (?& L.<.C, 6 BAHIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 18 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 104 IRVINE, CA 92718-2350 PHONE (714)727-9090 FAX (714)727-0501 Mam&g ALmt. CONCORD EXEMIVE SERVICES September 8, 1997 City of Newport Beach ATTN: Patricia Temple 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ms. Temple: ItECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPAKMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACN gv 121991 7�9aD�141�ii�141�Is Request is hereby respectfully made for the City to consider an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan for the properties located along the bay&ont side of Via Lido, commencing at 3336 Via Lido, which abuts the current "Battaglia" parking lot (formerly Newport Balboa Savings and Loan) and running'southeasterly along Via Lido to and including the Lido Sailing Club. The current General Plan and zoning designation for the area is Retail and Service Commercial. The predominant uses in this area are "Multi -Family Residential". Some form of residential use is likely to continue and be desirable to the property owners and the community for the foreseeable future. This request is to amend the general plan designation to Multi -Family Residential GAFR) with the inclusion of sufficient flexibility to allow the 3336 Via Lido property, to develop as four (4) single family dwellings and the Lido Sailing Club to retain its existing character. The lots in this area are not deep enough to allow for the development of viable retail service commercial use, primarily because the lack of lot depth does not allow for adequate off-street parking. Additionally, there are no off-street parking facilities in the immediate vicinity. Some of the residential owners in the area have just recently become aware of the non -conforming nature of their uses as a result of efforts to obtain financing or re -financing. The concern is, of course, the inability of the owners to rebuild their dwellings in the event of destruction. Your consideration of this request will be appreciated. Agent for Bahia Condominium Association 3322, 3324, 3326 and 3328 Via Lido. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, FOR BAHIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION usty Blmans, Community Manager cc: Board of Directors City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 Attn: Patricia Temple Dear Ms. Temple: Ail'tiri0 tit( PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT $EACH SEP 12199T Request is hereby respectfully made for the City to consider an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan for the properties located along the bayfront side of Via Lido, commencing at 3336 Via Lido, which abuts the current "Battaglia" parking lot (formerly Newport Balboa Savings and Loan) and running southeasterly along Via Lido to and including the Lido Sailing Club, The current General Plan and zoning designation for the area is Retail and Service Commercial. The predominant uses in this area are multi -family residential. Some form of residential use is likely to continue and be desirable to the property owners and the community for the foreseeable future. This request Is to amend the general plan designation to Multi -Family Residential (MFR) with the Inclusion of sufficient flexibility to allow the 3336 Via Lido property to develop as four single family dwellings and the Lido Sailing Club to retain its exisiting character. The lots in this area are not deep enough to allow for the development of viable retail service commercial use, primarily because the lack of lot depth does not allow for adequate off-street parking. Additionally, there are no off-street parking facilities in the immediate vicinity. Some of the residential owners in the area have just recently become aware of the non -conforming nature of their uses as a result of efforts to obtain financing or re- financing. The concern is, of course, the inability of the owners to rebuild their dwellings in the event of destruction. Your consideration of this request will be appreciated, y�Very truly yours, caner r agent for: J02—,3 fW_041/dod wi°D,e7" A05 ORMUE:10361.1 G City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 Attn: Patricia Temple Dear Ms. Temple: RECtot u of PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN .SEP 19 1997 7�E�11�2�1�?t3�516 Request is hereby respectfully made for the City to consider an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan for the properties located along the bayfront side of Via Lido, commencing at 3336 Via Lido, which abuts the current "Battaglia" parking lot (formerly Newport Balboa Savings and Loan) and running southeasterly along Via Lido to and including the Lido Sailing Club. The current General Plan and zoning designation for the area is Retail and Service Commercial. The predominant uses in this area are multi -family residential. Some form of residential use is likely to continue and be desirable to the property owners and the community for the foreseeable future. This request is to amend the general plan designation to Multi -Family Residential (MFR) with the inclusion of sufficient flexibility to allow the 3336 Via Lido property to develop as four single family dwellings and the Lido Sailing Club to retain its exisiting character. The lots in this area are not deep enough to allow for the development of viable retail service commercial use, primarily because the lack of lot depth does not allow for adequate off-street parking. Additionally, there are no off-street parking facilities in the immediate vicinity. Some of the residential owners in the area have just recently become aware of the non -conforming nature of their uses as a result of efforts to obtain financing or re- financing. The concern is, of course, the inability of the owners to rebuild their dwellings in the event of destruction. Your consideration of this request will be appreciated. Very truly yours, Owner'or agent for: 5,3 a Z V a- &W-0 )RANOH:10364.1 r Koll Real Estate Group September 17, 1997 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department Community and Economic Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Koll Center Newport Dear Ms. Temple: On behalf of KoIVAetna partnership (KCN-10), Koll Real Estate Group requests that the City of Newport Beach initiate a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, zoning and environmental process to Increase the allowable office area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards. The Increase is requested for the Planned Community Office Site B area. The location of the proposed development Is in the vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The allowable building area increase requested is approximately 250,000 gross square feet, less any existing undeveloped office entitlements and will be supported by the addition and possible modification to an existing parking structure to meet or exceed the Koll Center Newport Parking requirements for Office Site B. We have authorized Langdon Wilson Architects (Pat Allen) to prepare a site plan and to initiate the necessary entitlement process on Koll's behalf. Please contact me at (714) 833-3030, if additional information would be helpful or If there are other requirements necessary at this time to initiate the proposed General Plan Amendment Thank you for your assistance and we took forward to working with you and your staff on this Important project. Sincerely, KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP Keith Ross Senior Vice President, Development KAR:jcw cc: Don Koll James Watson Dick Ortwein Pat Allen RECE1Vi0 Illy 'LANNING DEPARTMENT 11TY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEP 2 21997 7tst�t�lSt415 6 4343WnxarmatAmue Newport Beach, G42660 (714) 833.3030 /r� rAX (714) 474-1084 SP THE IRVINE COMPANY Carol A. Hoffman Vice President September 18, 1997 Ms. Patty Temple Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Request to Initiate GPA a Seniors Affordable Housing Project Dear Ms. Temple: The Irvine Company requests that the City initiate a General Plan Amendment for purposes of a Seniors Affordable Housing project. Located at the southeast corner of Avocado and San Miguel, the project will include up to 310 units. The actual total will be determined during the processing. Thank you for your attention to this matter, we will look forward to working with you on this issue. Formal application and fees will be filed at your direction. Sincerely, HoffmanCarol CH:pm cc: Mike LeBlanc Bob Break RECEIVED BY Ken Coulter PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Sakai CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sara -Anderson Jeanette Justus Am SEP 19 1997 PM 71819101111121112131 A6 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658-6370 • (714) 720.2303 0 THE IRVINE COMPANY C" A. Nonmon via Pm wwi September 18, 1997 I& Patty Temple Planning Director City ofNewport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Request to Initiate GPA for Four Seasons Hotel Expansion Dear Ms. Temple: The Irvine Company requests that the City initiate a General Plan Amendment for purposes of the expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel. Located in the 600 block of Newport Center Drive, the proposal is for an additional 100 rooms, a 600 seat conferencelballroom facility and ancillary uses, and an expanded hotel spa. The location map is attached. Thank you for your attention to this matter, we will look forward to working with you on this issue. We will submit the fees and formal application shortly. Sincerely, CH:pm Enclosure cc: Steve Brahs Dave Neish REt1arn0 6V PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5EP 191997 AN18181ti1Ul�l�l�lgl41� 6 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92656.6370 . 1714) 720.2303 2-02-19SI 7:44AM FROtd F_ A;- THF, PACIFIC CLUB October 1,1997 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach DIRECTORS 3300 Newport Boulevard PatrickT. Kendall, Pn sidenr Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 J. Thomas Talbot, Via President Thomas B. Gibson, Secretary Richard M. Ortwein, Treasurer Reference: The Pacific Club DougAmnxm m Koll Center Newport Tad Danz Robert L. Emett William P. Foley, It Marion H. Haltaae Dear Ms. Temple: Thomas W. Knapp James E. Lawson On behalf of The Pacific Club membership, in my capacity as the Club's Genera William J. Popeley rs r, LaSnutA Manager and Assistant Secretary, we request that the City of Newport Beach DIRECTORS EMERITI initiate a General Plan Amendment to increase the allowable building density and intensity standards for our property located at 4110 MacArthur Boulevard. It is our Richard A.Cumutt Herbert W. Kalmbach understanding that this process will also include an environmental determination, Ja""s R. Kr' traffic study, and zoning amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Donald M. Ko Robert B. McLain Community Development Standards. Willard S. Volt FOUNDERS An approximate 16.000 square foot increase is requested to permit expansion of the Club's facilities to better serve the current and future needs of the George L. Argyros William c Bahr membership. Contemplated expansion includes uses such as larger fitness Arnold O. Beckman Brooke B. Bentley facilities for our female members, additional specialized dining/meeting areas, an Donald B. o son flexibility over time to make adjustments to our current improvement. John C. Coelho Richard A. Carnutt Maurice J. DeWaldJ. Please give me a call at (714) 955-1123, or Mr. Patrick Allen of Langdon Wilson at Robat Fluor John F. Grundhofer (714) 833-9193, if additioral information would be helpful or if there are other Richard P. Hausman requirements at this time necessary to initiate our requested General Plan Gavin S. Herbert Charles M. Johnson Amendment. Paul M. Johnson. D.D.S. Herbert W. Kalmbach M. David Kay We appreciate your assistance and look forward to working with you and your lances R. Knapp Donald M. Koll staff. Ron Lane Ralph W. LeathdrbY William Lyon Sincerely, Robert B. McLain Harry R. Martin Anthony R. Moiso-^••.,�� Jerry W. Neely "--- Forest E. Olson John B. Parker Brooke Bentley, CCM Blame F Ovale Carl B. Reichardt General Manager and Assistant Secretary 1. Thomas Talbot Harold S. Voegelin Willard S. Volt cc: J. Patrick Allen, AIA John C. wells PAJBBB:cn .it to A1aeArthur Boulevard Nawporr Bcxh. California 9266UTelephone R 14) 955.1113 PAX (71d) 724.4926 NEIllP RT DUDES October 3, 1997 Ms, Patricia Temple Director, Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: NEWPORT DUNES HOTEL PROJECT AMENDMENT TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN Dear Patty; Newport Dunes requests an amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Plan to accommodate the enhanced hotel project description Which was submitted to the City on August 8, 1997. The original hotel plan envisioned, and the current entitlements provide for a 276 room "family -inn" hotel. The new project description calls for a full -service, destination resort hotel with up to 600 rooms. The project has an expanded site plan, greater height, and additional amenities as compared to the original plan. The full -service amenities Include the appropriate amount of food and beverage and convention and meeting space. As an alternative plan, the project description also seeks approval of a 400t room hotel with a 100t unit time-share component. We believe that the project description is consistent with the interests of the City of Newport Beach, based on our earlier discussions. Please let me know if we need to provide any additional information to you In order to initiate the review process for the amendment. Thank you. Yours truixt TWR"Av_� David L. Cherashore Executive Vice President c: Clara Fletcher, County of Orange Timothy M. Quinn, General Manager, Newport Dunes 1131 Back BaY Drive • Newport Beach. Caliromia 92660 • (71A) 729-DUNE k h CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -UTILITIES 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3011 May 27,1999 Ms. Kim Quinn, Assistant Planner PCR One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92618-3328 Subject: Water and Wastewater Service Information Request - Rockwell Semiconductor System Project Dear Ms. Quinn: This letter is in response to your letter dated November 20, 1998. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with information regarding the City's water and wastewater systems for the subject development. The system information you identified is accurate, based on the City's wastewater atlas. Field verification will be necessary during the design phase of the development to verify exact connection points. Please note that the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) provides water service to the area. The following are responses to your questionnaire: 1. Provide location and size of existing local and interceptor seiner lines serving the project site and vicinity. Include, if possible maps with the location of sewer lines serving the project site and tiny relevant service area boundaries. Attached for you use is the City's wastewater atlas, which defines the approximate location of the local and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewers. 2. Identfij other jurisdictions involved in providing sewer service to the project site. The Orange County Sanitation District provides regional sewer service. 3. Provide the capacity and most recent peak flow data for the sewer lines serving the project site. In 1996 the City completed its Master Plan of Sewers which can be provided to you if necessary. In addition, Rockwell had requested its own evaluation of the City sewers, which was completed in that same year. This evaluation contains the requested flow data for the planned development in 1996. 4. Define age and physical condition of the sewer lines that serve the project site. Provide information on plans for the replacement of antiquated sewers or sewer lines with inadequate capacity. The 12-inch VCP sewer main extending south on Von Karmen Avenue was constructed as part of the tract improvements in the early 1970's. As a result of the Rockwell study done in 1996, a new 18-inch VCP main was constructed that extends to the north and terminates at Campus Avenue. The City has no plans for replacements in this area. e ►, Water Service Information Request for the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Project Letter to PCR May 27, 1999 5. Define factors for estimating current and projected amounts of zvastexvater generated by the light industrial and office space at the project site. Because the Rockwell site is such an unusual and intensive water use facility, it would not be appropriate for the City to define factors for wastewater generation. We would suggest that the 1996 study conducted for Rockwell be re-evaluated to ensure that the uses planned today are similar that was planned in 1996. The City's Utilities Division must review the re- evaluation of the study. 6. Describe infrastructure and/or facilihy improvements that evould be required to serve the project site with implementation on the proposed project. Assuming that the revised 1996 sewer analysis proves the same or less wastewater flow, no new sewer improvements would be required. 7. Define standards used by the Public Works Department to determine adequate level of service and, if required, to define required improvements (i.e. capacity, average daily flow, etc.). Please refer to the City's Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions and Standard Drawings for Public Works Construction,1994 addition. 8. If implementation of the proposed project results in a significant effect on the provision of sewer services, define 7vhat types of measure would be appropriate to reduce the proposed project's effects to acceptable levels. We don t anticipate a significant effect on the sewer system. However, sewer main improvements would be required if capacities were exceeded. Prior to issuance to any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Planning Department that adequate water and sewer facilities will -be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verifications from OCSD, IRWD and the City's Utilities Division. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 718-3400 or Mike Sinacori at (949) 644-3342. Very truly yours, Eldon G. Davidson, P.E. Utilities Manager MJS:sdi Attachments: Sewer Atlas, V-12 & V-13 cc: Mike Sinacori w/attachments Tim Deutsch w/attachments Dick Hoffstadt w/attachments Mark Myers w/attachments F:\Users\PBW\MSinacon\Word\Letters\to developers\PCR Rockwell water & Sewer Service Request.doc N Ea s MEMORANDUM June 8, 2000 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER SUBJECT: CONEXANT PROJECT -SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC INFORMATION Planning Commissioners requested clarification of a number of traffic items at their meeting of May 18, 2000. The following information is provided in response to those requests. 1. There was a question regarding the way the trip generation rate determined for the existing Conexant operation was applied to the proposed project. Based upon further information provided by the applicant, the traffic consultant determined that there would be an increase in the p.m. peak hour trips. The consultant analyzed the impact of the increased trips on the three study intersections that had ICU values between .85 and .90. The ICU remained the same at two of the three and increased from .85 to .86 at the third location. Thus no additional impacts were identified. 2. A question was raised about the ability of the access from Birch Street to handle the traffic from the project. The traffic consultant looked at this and concluded that the design of the parking structure should be done in such a way as to meter the traffic leaving onto Birch Street and to provide better exiting access to Jamboree Road. The attached memo from the consultant discusses these two issues in greater detail. 3. The question was raised as to whether the short-range TPO analysis extended far enough south on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. A specific concern for Jamboree Road was due to the recent approval by the Planning Commission of the Newport Dunes Hotel which would add considerable traffic to Jamboree Road. The 1 consultant was directed to perform ICU analyses of two additional intersections, Jamboree at Eastbluff/University and MacArthur at Bison. These supplemental calculations are attached and show no project impact at these intersections. It should be noted that the Dunes project that was included in the TPO studies generated more trips than the Hotel project that was recently approved by the Commission. The long-range traffic analysis included all of the significant intersections along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and no significant impacts were identified in that study at any intersections south of Bristol Street North. 4. The final traffic related issue was related to the study showing lower Long Range ICU values at some intersections with the project added. While this may seem counter -intuitive, it is a result of the fact that the model must redistribute traffic from other similar land uses in order to assign trips to this project. For example, the model's assumes the employees that will work in the new building area are already in the model area working at other jobs. When some of these employees are routed to and from Conexant, fewer trips are assigned to other employment sites and thus trips can be reduced at certain locations. CONCLUSIONS The March 2000 Traffic Study identified all of the significant traffic impacts of the Conexant project. Further detailed examination of the shift schedule Conexant provided disclosed that the p.m. peak hour trip generation would be somewhat higher than assumed in the Traffic Study. No additional intersections were found to be impacted when analyzed with the higher trip rate. The design of the parking structure will result in a metering of traffic onto the Birch Street access roadway. The design will have more capacity at the Jamboree Road exit, thereby making this the more desirable exit. 2 WILLDAN Serving Public Agencies MEMORANDUM DATE: June N, 2000 TO; Rich Edntonsion FROM: Wes Pringle SUBJECT: Conexant WPA Traffic Engineering A Division of Willdan 23421 South Pointe Di ive, Suite 190 1 aguna I lilts, California 92651 949/460-0110 fax 94914W-011 I www willdan.c om This memorandum is to provide responses to two comments raised by the Planning Commission at their May 18, 2000 meeting. The first question related to potential traffic impact on Birch Street as a result of the proposed expansion and parking structure. Discussion with Conexant representatives indicated that specific design for the parking structure has not been developed at this time. Conceptually, an entry / exit to the structure, with one lane in each direction, would be placed with access to the Birch Street driveway. A second access with two lanes out and one in would be provided at the south end with access to the Jamboree Road driveway. This plan would meter the traffic utilizing the Birch Street access by restricting circulation in and out of the structure. Conexant is further restricted by the limitation of the easement used to access Birch Street which can accommodate only two lanes. The second question related to the distribution of employees by shift at the time that trip generation studies were conducted and the projected condition. At the time of the trip generation studies, the total employment was 1,479. During the PM peak hour there were 924 employees either arriving or leaving the site, which represents 62.5 of the total employment. Z•d ET TO-09ib(Bile 1 *DNA OIAJUNI HdM e60:0T 00 BO unC -2- Conexant representatives have estimated that at buildout 82.3 percent of the employees would arrive or depart during the PM peak hour. This would represent an increase of 31.7 percent (82.3 / 62.5-1) in PM peak hour activity. The traffic study was based upon an assumption that employee shift distribution would remain relatively constant. Ifpeak hour trips are assumed to increase in proportion to employees entering and leaving the PM peak hour, inbound would increase from 160 to 290 and the outbound from 700 to 1,280. Review of Table 10 of the Traffic Study, which summarized the TPO analyses, indicated that Jamboree / Campus, Irvine / University, and Irvine - Campus /. Bristol N. had ICU values that could be increased to unacceptable conditions. These analyses are attached and summarized in Table A. Review of TableA indicates no changes in ICU / LOS for two intersections and an increase of 0.01 in ICU with no change in LOS at the third. These analyses indicate that no additional traffic impacts would be expected with a 31.7 percent increase in project peak hour trip generation. It should be noted that a majority of these employees are on flex time and do not necessarily leave the site at the official shift end. These types of employees tend to work later and would reduce peak hour trip generation. In summary, the conceptual design of the parking structure would meter traffic usage of the Birch Street access. As a result, it is not anticipated that traffic operations on Birch would be impacted. An increase of 31.7 percent in trips during the PM peak hour was not found to have an additional traffic impact. We trust that this additional information will assist City Staff and Planning Commissioners. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. WSPJd Job -912644.3000 WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (A Division ofV111dan) 126443000 rding Conexant Newport Beach g•d 61 TO-09b(sips) swa OIddUNI UdM eOT:OT 00 s0 unr TABLE A INTERSECTION IMPACT COMPARISON CONEXANT ......... . Fffl� f? AM_�T V A,, AS,$ 0.87A:) 0.87AD Jamboree & Campus Irvine & University 0.86/1) 0.86/1) IIrvine - Cam pus& Bristol N. 0.85/D 0,86/D Intersection Capacity Utilization / Level of Service for existing + growth + committed projects + project. (2) Conexant Traffic Study, March 2000, Table 10. (3) With 31.7 percent increase in project traffic. I,-01 ET TO-0910 (6ip6) *DN3 31JAW81 udm eol:oT 00 go unr BR4172PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C 'fUr:oaN wP BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172 INTERSECTION EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ... WINTER/SPRING . .— --- --- --- -- - -------- --------- - _............. .............. 7 g99 PM . _ I EXISTING I ...— ........... PROPOSED I EXISTING 1 EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT PRO C I Movement I Lanes 1 Lanes 1 PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1 w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I 1-•------....._. 1 Volume I I NI. 1 3200 1 - ----•--•- . ..._..__.... __ 1 568 1 0.178 _ . _ .—._.__.— --.- I I0.178« _ _— ............... . .................. .............. . .............. . ............. 178 ............. .... _.._... . ......... . . NT as 1 718 0.149 I --------•------- 88 1 - -----------------• } 0.177 1 1 --------------- } I 0,177 1 I I 1 NR I I --.-.---------- - ---------.._- - .............. ---._......................_....... I I • .................. ....... ---..... _ ............. 1 SL I I I I 1 I-- ........... —.. I .................. ............... 1 I 1 ST 1 6400 1 ................ 1 1149 1 0.1130 « 71 1 40 1 ---------------- - 0.197 -----' '---------_ -- 0197 i _ - . I -- --- --------- - --- ----.-• - SR 1 3200 1 _----•-•• - ----•— ...-- ---••--_..._ ....__..._....—_._....--- I 909 1 0.284 1 ----•-•----•- - ----•----.--_. ' '-----...----• - ----'---..._--- —— 1 128 1 - ----'-----._.... 0.324 ------ -.._.--'......_..----- 1 I - 0.324-1 ----- ------- 1 1 EL I I I I --------------- - -------------- - -------------•............... •••-_._........_.. •----••........--- I-------------- I _... ......... I 1 ET 1 I I I I I 1 ........ ...... . .............. I 1 ER I 1 I I—--•—. ..............•-.. --------•--- I _..._—....._._. I _____............. 1 I ----- WL----- 1 --...1800 _.-._'-.....__ 1 - — 384 1 0.240 1 6 0.245 ---•---_..... — 1 46 _ ....--•.. 1 0.274 - ............. - - - ............... 94 138 WT 1 1 2757 I ................. 0.445 « ---------------- - _ 0.469 -------------- } 0.481 - } 6400 - ----------------- -----.....8. } i I I 1 WR I I I -- — — 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.803 1 - - ---- ------- - ---- —••••••---- - •---•-----• ..... — -... 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. -_ - - - -------- -------- - -------------- ------ _..—. ............................... 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C,U. 1 0.834 1 � I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less then Or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected a project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ... _............................ . ................. Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4172PM g•d ET TO-09b[6b61 FORM II •JN3 31AAUNI ddM e0T:0T 00 80 unr IR4090 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & UNIVERSITY DRIVE 4090 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTE ................ ................ ."' _----------------• .................................................... I EXISTING I .............. ............... . PROPOSED 1 EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1 w/o Project I I I I I I I I Volume 1998 PM ............ ................ PROJECT 1 PROJECT Volume 1 V/C I Ratio NL 1 1600 1 •--•- ----•-••--•-•- - 1 95 1 ----------•--- ---•--•----•-•--- --•----•--•--•---- ---•--- 0.059 • 1 1 --------------- -- ----------- - -------------- - 0.059 • I ----------- -- - •-•-•------ - I-------------- ---------- 1 NT 1 - - ---- ------------ 3200 1 ---- I -------- - - 1 662 1 ------------ .---------------- 0.207 1 48 1 14 1 - -------------- - --•--------------- . -•--------------- 0.226 1 10 1 - ------ .-------- 1 NR 1 ------ 1600 1 -------- -- .----------- -- - I 22 1 --------------- 0.014 1 1 1 ---------------- - ------------ 0.014 1 1 •-----............... . SL 1 1600 1 1 46 1 0.029 I 1 I --- ----- - ---- -- - --- ------- ----- ---- ---- ----- - I-------•-•----•- - ----------- ST 1 - ----- 3200 1 I ---- - --- •- --------------- - 1 2008 1 ------------- - •--•----------- - 0.628 • 145 1 30 1 -------- ------- - - 0.682 46 1 ----- ------ --- . _---..--_----- . 1---------------- ---------••--- 1 SR 1 ----------- 1600 1 .._.... ...... ------ - 1 273 1 -------•------ - ---------------- 0.171 1 1 1 0.171 1 --- - -------------- - EL 1 1600 1 1 80 1 0.050 I I -------- 0.050 4 1 -----•--- - •------------- - 1 ET 1 1600 1 1 22 1 0.014 1 1 I ---------------- - - ------------------ - •------------- - 1 ER 1 . - -------- 1600 1 ------- -------------- - 1 170 1 ----.....-. - __...._.- .... 0.106 1 1 1 --------- ----- --- - ----.. 0.106 1 1 ---------- ------•--•--•-- - 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 42 I ---------- 0.026 ------------- - ------------ - WT 1 I 58 I I 1 ................ 1600 . _.............. . ............. 0.059 ------ -------- ------------------ 0.059 .............. } WR I 1 I 36 I I I I I __-_.._..__... _.- -------- -------- ------- ._ .-------------- - ---- ------- - ----- ............ . __.. I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.796 1 1 ---------------- - ------------- - -•.--_........._- ----- --------- - -------------- ------ ---------- - --- j EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1------------- -------•------ ----------_----- -----••---- • ---•---------• - ------------... _ .._. 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ................... ...... - ... ........ .......... - 0.059 .......... 1 0.229 I 0.014 I 0.029 1 .......... I 0.697 .......... 0.171 01050 .......... 0.014 I 0.106 I .......... i 0.026 1 0.059 _ _...... _........ I . --•. .............. 1 1 0.85 1 I ................................... ............. 1 1 0.865 1 % Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greeter than 0.90 I_.1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement: PROJECT JR409OPM FORM II 9•d EIIO-09b(6ti61 •9N3 OIJAdJl HdPI e0I:0I 00 60 unr JA4305 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC -WINTER/SPRING _ — I EXISTING 1 PROPOSED 1 EXISTING 1 EXISTING 1 REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED 1 Movement 1 Lanes 1 Lanes 1 PK HR I V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT 1 V/C Ratio 1 1 1 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio i Volume i Volume i w/o Project 1 I I 1 1 Volume .._.............. . - - --.._...........__. . -•----.._......__ . --------- ----- ____________ _ NL 1 1600 1 1 59 1 0,037 I 7 0. I _..................—__.--_-___...___...._._....___._._.._....._.-_ _._._ NT 1634 84I 124 6400 -- 0.370 ---•---•---•--- - •-----••----- I 0.348 } .............. 1999. PM PROJECT 1 PROJECT I Volume I V/C I I Ratio I .............. I ............. I 1 0.041 1 450 1 1 I NR 1 - SL 3200I .-.---- I -- `--- ............ i -- ... ....- i 1734 107161 11 1I ST } 0.427 ...._--_ .............- 0.468 _'•--- ...... -.'___'..' ---_- 4800 315 10 1 SR I I 246 10 I I EL I ................ ...-._......._._.. } } 0.191 0.199 ................ 4800 } 4800 - --------------•- - -------671 I 28 1 I 1 -- --ER --- 1 N.S. --- i- 1 60 2 j 1 I � I -----••---••-------••-- . . ................... I . - WL 1 1600 I I 239 I 0.149 ' 1 5 1 0.153 ___..__.._..-• - ----"--• - -__..—..._._._ - . _----------- 417 I 0.130 I 1 15 1 1 WT I 3200 I 1 .... — - - 0.135 1 -----..._. _ I - --- .............._------ WR 1 1600 1 I 247 I 0.154 1 I 10 I 0.161 1 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.804 I _...........__... - ... - - .861 I•--------------- ---------- -------._.._.. - _ _ TS I.C. GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,861 1 j EXISTING + REGIONAL ............... . ................. .... _............ _ ................. _ ._..----- - .. ................................. COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 EXISTING + ..__.... _ _.._..__......._..-__.__....__...._........._............ .................... ........_.._ Split Phase E/W direction +"'t Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 1_1 Projected + project Descripti PROJECT JA4305PM I I 1 0.874 1 FORM II L•d E110-09bf6461 '9N3 OIddU21J. UdM eTT:OT 00 BO unr SUPPLEMENTAL TPO STUDY ICU CALCULATIONS Jun 02 00 04:14p WPR TRAFFIC ENG. (949)460-0113 p.2 BR4155AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BISON 4995 1998 AM INTERSECTION: ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED j EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C j Lanes I PK Hfl I WC I Movement Lanes I Ratio 1 Volume Volume Volume 1 w/o Pro(ect 1 Ratio I Capacity I Capacity I i 1 i I Volume I I 1 1 _ .._.. _.. --- -- ----------' .............................I.___.-_.......__..............--•-5 I I i ..........064 0.064 1 I 1 NL 3200 I I 201 1 0.063 ......... _...... ...... _...... . ___----------- -._.- .----•-............. 1 2409 1 0.376 123 1 ------NT 421 0.402 " 37 1 0.408 .---....._...--- 6400 1 _ _...._............-•'--•..._---- .........._....._ .............. . ....__.-'_.. - ' ''-' ' '''- '- .--'--..._.... � i ............... NRN.S. I 1 61 1 I . _ ..---—'— -------- - ----•----•... • ......'--•--- - ----------------- ' -•----3200 -----•------ 1 --•-- ............. . ............... I OA04 I 0.004 1 .... -SL-•--- 1 1 12 1 0.004 1 __ ................ ...__..-0.313 _.._..__...6 I ....-0.313 --•- - ............. ................... ............... . ............. ............... 96 i 1 i 1 --.--.ST 6400 1 1 1887 1 0.295 1 — — _ - - ............. 20 1 1 I 1 1 SR N.S. i 1 I — .......•--" ••........_. --- • .._—._.. • ............. • ' — I 0.081 _183 1----------••--- - --------- --- - --- —' —' 204 1 0.064 1 32001 0.081 1 ................ 1 I EL - - '...--3200 1 70I 0.022 1 I 1 52 1 0.038 1 1 0.038 1 1 ET 109 1 I 1 _..._._..- ER N.B. 1 _ . 13 1 - I - _ _.. 1 .....-.---- --------------- 1............... . ............. ..._..__._.._.._.. __._.._.....__.. _. ' I 19 1 0.023 1 I 0.023 1 64 1 0.01.. 1 .. .............. _............. ._-__._-.—__._ i .__-.-_._-_.. . ............' _ - " I ---_-�—.- _ __---3200 12 I 0.030 " 1 0.030 85 i 0.027 I . _..__-'--......._7 ...._-"--'. _ ........... ._......0.014 -0.014 1 ............... .....•------_- - ----- ---_----'-' _ _._____._... _ —__......... ' —___...__....._ 1 16 j 0,009 1 I 1 i 1 I 1 WR 1600 1 - •4_._ - _' I---------• - - -••---•----- - --- - j EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.470 j — -- ' - • ___ -- — _ 1 I ------------- - ------------- - ---- ••. — ... -- _ — COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.517 1 I _ ...... -------1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + -- - -' ------ - ----- --_..... - ..... ---•... .—.._......._.._ .. _..._ — 1 1 0.623 1 - + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. _..................... . i EXISTING + COMMITTED _ 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.SO 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 + traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 1_I Projected project •. ............... . ......'--_.... ................._ ................ -•" Description of system improvement: FORM II PROJECT MA499SAM Jun 02 00 04:14p WPR TRRFFIC ENG. f9491460-0113 p.3 BR4155PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BISON 4996 1998 PM INTERSECTION: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SP _ __... ....... . EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON ...--- —......I_ITTE _ - ............ROJE�CTED _ .._Volu_. ... ................ .. ........... .._......... ...... ............... ..:XI "••—_ ....EG "-'10 L PROJECTEDI PROJECT I EXIV1 ING CPROJIECTD PROJECT I VIC 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED EXISTING ING i i GROWTH I I eRING Ratio I Volume I atio LTII V0 Movement I 1 Ratio I Volume Project I I Ratio 1 1 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I i Volume I I .............. _._ --_... I 1 i _.----- - ----= ----- 22 i .................. - - - - -•---•—•—'•-- ' '—'•-----.... •"--•-'----- - --.... 1---------------- - _._...... . 220 1 0.069 " 0.076 i 0.076 NL I 3200 1 1 --- 39 0.321 1 8 I 1I •--•------------ - -----•• 1916 0.299 98 •---'--"......... .......... .... .............. NT6400 — ...... ........ ---- _---------- _..--•-•---•- _ NR N.S. - ......_Si 151 1 1 ...__..__... -- _.._._..._ .... _....'..... . ....... .._....._----..._ - ----•-----••- - ----- I 0.013 0.013 I" ---------------- 3200 1 1 3._ ........... ......... SL . _ _-...-...__ --------- _----- - --•--__.._. '-'--------'•---------'...--•---•--•—•--- .'---........ 126 i'-__...-- 83_..._..._ 0.418 36 I 0.421 2472 0.388� ST 1 8400 I _._...._...... ... -. .._.__.... ..................... ._ ............. 1 II --....—' ........ - ------ _---- - --- — I 79I I I ----••------- 234 SR N.S. ..._._'--.--'•-----....--'—'...............i........0.062"_- .-_._..._.. ---••---•' 1 157 0.049 I 42 ._........._. .._0.322 EL 3200 1 .............. .....__.._..._ ................ 8 i ..__.... 0.022 i 0.022 1 -- 1 620.019 ... _._..__ ......-.._ I ET 3200_............... ..........— i _ i I . _....._...- - ------I..__..__ _ ........209i 10 1 I•-_............ 0 ER 1 N.S. 1 1 2091 I - "'---"'--'-62 -'_....._........_.._-- • 1 . ........................--._........____......_...__....._.— _ ...__.32 _ .. 1 1 i 1 0.062 1 1 .............._ 116 1 0.036 1 WL 1 3200 I I •--"-'-......._ . ............. __.... _ ............. 1 —..--20 _ - _--- — .......... . ............................. . .......... ....... ' 55 i 4 0.048 "- I ...048 I ..._ i 93 1 0.029 WT 1 3200 I I _ .'...._...__.._ .._ ..._ - '..-__._... ' I - •-------- — .---- —_. _ ....-" _ -�._._._ _..'__..._ 1 I 2 i 0.01 t I i 0.011 1 I -----•------ I WR I 1600 1 1 16 I 0.009 1 .. ..........." I 1 ...833 I 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. ._ ................. . _ .... I -....._--------- ------------- ------------------ . ----- ------- _ ._.... IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. COMMITTED WIPROPOSED I 0.6 1 I _ --- EXISTING + REG GROWTH + — •--•••—""'-- 0.805 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. _ .................................. —............... . _.._�-....... .... I . . ............... ............. . I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project .— ... _........... . . Description of system improvement: FORM II PROJECT MA4995PM Jun 02 00 04:14p WPR TRRFFIC ENG. (949)460-0113 p.4 JA4765 CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS cA<rp�µN�r INTERSECTION ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE NORTH/UNIVERSITY DRIVE 4786 1999 AM INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTERISPRI _ ----- _ - _-_.-__-_..- - __--_..___...._ . EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED - . ............... . .___._---__- .._-_-----___-_ ------------- -_--- _--- _--- . ............_.. _COMMITTEDPROJECT PROJECTEDRatio PROJECT _ _ _ __ _ _ . EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING PROJECT GROWTH I V//C R oVolume VIC Movement Lanes I Volume Ratio Volume w/o Project Ratio Capacity Capacity Volume I1 i I I Volume ..................... . .—-------....._..__.._..__ ._•--•— .............._---. I0.030 1 1 0.030 _..I ._..-iI ----._ -47 I0029 .............. NL1600 _--..--'--"-'----"-....----'--".. . — — 123 1 ------ ...i.....1605 0.390 " 22 0.395 ------NT--•-- - --- 1 0.347 " 86 I1 •---•-------•- - _-------•--••- I 4800 I ........ ...... •------ - —.--............. ................. - 7 --•----------- 0.141 1 10.141 I --------------- . ----------- 218 0.136 -••---...... NR 1600 _.. _-..__......_..... .............•...... .....................0 0.029 I 0.029 " .... 94 0.029 1 III __—_.1 SL 3200 1 ............ - ---- -------- --.--- 133 1 ......... 0.245 1 30.246 I -----•--------- ---------- --- 0.207 61 I 1 993 ST 4800 1 ---- -------- 1 I 0,131 I 1............................ .... ..._... ........... ... i Ii I -E - - 1 10 I 471 I 0.180 •--•---••-•-- } 0.186 EL 1 } 0.173 • ._..---•----• - •----'---'--� i 1 1 -- -----.. 2' 3200 - - - _. I I -------- 1 84 I -- -' I 1 • " _-..._. __ ' - ...__. I I - ..._..._.... 3 I i i 1 I - .----- 18 1 ER N.S. 1 I _ _............................. • ............... I 1 272 j WL 0.076 " - '-25'} } 1--------------- - 4800 1 1 4 1 I I 95 — __ — I WT i............ i 1 I ----WR---- - ---N.S. --- . 10' -- — 1 ......- 296 I I i ............. i ..... I 1 I •---••-•------- - --•---------- - -• 1 0.626 1 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I I --- ........... . ... W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.682 1 . ............. EXISTING + BEG GROWTH +COMMITTED —. — - •-••••_--• 1 I GROWTH +PROJECT 1. •---_--_ •---••--__..._ _ . 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED +REGIONAL EXISTING ................. .............. .................. . ............... I _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than i.C.U. without project -- --- -------------- - ------- —'------ - ..._-------- Description of system Improvement: FORM II PROJECT JA4765AM Jun 02 00 04:15p WPR TRFIFFIC ENG. f9493460-0113 p.5 JA4765 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE NORTH/UNIVERSITY DRIVE 4' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE 1999 PM VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING EXISTING TRAFFIC _ Y u I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED j PROJECTED I PROJECT i PROJECT j VIC Ratio I Volume V/C I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I Volume Volume wVoWmect Ratio 1 ( Capacity I Capacity I Volume i Ratio i i i I 1 I I I ....... I I - ---- .._... . .............. . • -......_...............2 I ........................ ... 2 1 30 1 0.019 I 1 - ._..._.. 0.020 I I 0,020 1 1 NI. 1 1600 I 1 ._------------- -------- - . 159 1 1661 1 0.326 80 1 0.375 ` 6 1 0.376 1 NT 1 4800 1 1 . ___.............. _ ..... _.... -...... - .............. .............. i ---••••-•- ------ - _----•........ ............... . .....---...._.. 36 ( 334 1 0.209 I I NR 1 1600 1 . ... __........... _ .-__-_.-_-_--____ _ -------------- _ -__ ....____. _ ___ ................. I---------------- - ------------- - -----— — —" 271 1 0085 . I 6 1 . 0.087 . 1 0.087 ' SL 1 3200 1 1......-•------......-• •.. ........ _........ • ............................ •- ••--- 1 ................ .............. . ._............ _ . - _' - -- - - 1564 1 0.326 1 80 1 181 1 0.380 I 21 1 0.385 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 ......... _' ..... _....... _._... I - -------------- - ---------- . --------------- - ----•—•-- ....0.21_9 .. _ .._- ..... � i I 360 1 .1 1 0.226 I 14 1 0.234 1 SR 1 1600 1 -'--3200 I 181 0.087 I ._........__... I -----------._.6_ } EL 1 I I } 0.089 .............. } 0.090 ._•._.---•-----. ............. 2 1 1 1 I ET I I I .............I I •-•---•---••-.-- - --... -_�._- ...... - ER N.S. n ....._...._.....I ..... _...... WL I I I 264 0.082 ! ------- ---•—— I ----- ----_—. ._ } ---- } 0.089 • .............. } 0.089 ' .-__� ___-. - 4800 __.......... __ ..... ._ 10 1 1 1 i i 128 I 1 I_ ........... .--- _ _ ----- _--- ... _... . ..... _ .............. _ ------------ ................. ............. .------- _--------_ --------------.............. 209 I 1 I .. 1 I I 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 ............. . •...._..................... - _ I ........... . 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.678 1 — — — - -- — — 1 • -1 ---------------- ----- — ----- — - ---- --._... 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .64 1 0.84 1 I I COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 642 .. _ 1 EXISTING + 0....... ...... __.•... ............ _.- -............. ....... 0.......... ............... . ...... ... traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 —1 Projected + project I —1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ....................--- ...... . ......... _....... ............... . _..... Description of system improvement; FORM II PROJECT JA4765PM Authorized to Publish Advertisements of ail kinds including public notices by Occree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214, Scptcmbei 21, 1961, and A•24g31 June 11, 1963. t PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of -eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH -COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT; a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the gity,of Costa Mesa, County - of. Orange, State df California, and that attached Notice is'a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: May 27, 2000 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoifig is true and correct. Executed on _ May 97, 2000 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature FILE -COPY / pMX WICM OF AVA0.AWLII�,OF DRAFT IMPACT IIRI201tT (Oulq POIt To, Kam. P4gJMtIT BMOIBPttON: Tlbprop..raaaorrldwadbrdachvdNwgwl��oarlM.daow" pMnwnmn*nw"rnd..vw wkwd ppp...dbIKOIC.rwNwVMNunYwAlaro*KdC.nMrN.wpatPiww4dCow j;a 'Ya.PO�� p wa 0a d.wbpiant d a 1BibrT. 2M 000 Mum bot paMMMrI OMM hrdbMrP • 1,2*Uw 610vi1 „ Arai.. to �� M =, fit p.rwp swage x ww MO•o.r. dnd.4 WB1 pwMMq Mom, b Mblmd.dbprwbahraddBfw 0 OMM WA B d!u KoI CK.nw = m Pat �!" CoW"* Ml wd b br M tfewdw�a.d PIaM.MdnM OB.. . ..r...iruerd CanwrdMnbMrnoAr.IteHCaM Tta p Ao nvmw pwdod to t w poP, DM M hew OW Zs. 20M, b Ady It 2000. "ON womwo 200 om"propoMd OEMt Aubeub be by 10. NWW BMrh PMadrq O*Wbwd ab LawY N. Lawrwa.. Carulltad b 10 CW 32M2 Vr Cwb. go Am CaptAwa. CA OM Ph' MW M 4116 Fa:m mM14d2B mornt1aI1 m" HaAri MB: TimOEIR wM be WAmW M In CWa MvhaamwdM OuriNv ABm wK Pk lhoMm OW wB IV CoumaM. BpioMe bMrrB daMa lava rat bean m et tN. We.. r da OaN Pool rawMaPw• w b. ncVW d pddb b.wa0 WOW" mwMr I nawa. wM be plmlwl ,. B"rMAMT OWmOIM WAL WAM IONRB M BI" M OW: �• TM DM Id.ntUa. ft "Wim wpahowd WWWAd fM d LA p M, dM owwd be ni2p.b1 to b.bw. Mal Of ��l�od and CMpr I. Tfwk and Caw min • TM polaat wB ow*ou* Iiwt .anb. b.ow+.aaftlofthko dne 1a1.NM✓ aMdM� DiM, wNah r prgaobda.Pwmd m unao"pwm Iva MM idwdlh.d 2. "am" . Camvw bn wrisomm ham.abara dew and h.wy wp�lpraim wB wwAt M raMmn� W" M. AM, opmpW o1 M. Propmd P dhC. 01 wIN r.wdt h .IpdIM.wm oo *Ouoaa d v.hbr and apw.Borat MM"m In. nM40ftlwd wM. LOCATIOl1B TO RNMI Y TtM OM: fThe OEM israftm ON "ft f low d No Chy of NavNwl tl.aoh Pl.r+wi OapwaMmL M 11aq.RBMd• OwiBat I L&" Co*e o1 PN dooanMn may so be twom" tm* ow c* of wwpwt tl.wrr Plwnhq Dapwt.a.l City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 24, 1998 4. RESOLUTION NO. 98-59 AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF STOP 'SIGNS ON EASTBLUFF DRIVE AT VISTA DEL ORO (SOUTH), AND INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SCHOOL SIGNAGE. Adopt the Resoliit�on and direct Traffic Engineer to install school area pedestrian signs for crosswalk on Eastbluff Drive at Alba Street. Z� 5. RESOLUTION NO. 98-60 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98-17 AND APPOINTING `AMEMBER OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO'NjHE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Adopt Resolution amending Resolution No. 98-17 and appointing a member of EDC to EQAC. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 6. COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF GALAXY DRIVE PARK REHABILITATION (C-3196). Accept the work; authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; and authorize t6City Clerk to release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has bee recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE BUCK GULLY/LITTLE CORONA BEACH OUTLET MODIFICATION (C-3094). Approtcp the plans and specifications; award the contract to Gillespie Construction, llz�for the total price of $359,762.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and establish an amount of $36,000.00 to cover the cost chn_aterials testing and additional work. 8. Removed at the request of Council Me: 10-I Res 98-59 Eastbluff Drive Stop Signs (85) Res 98-60 EQAC (24) C-3196 Galaxy Drive Park (38) C-3094 Buck Gully/ Little Corona Beach (38) 9. ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS EXPANSION. Approve a C-3229 Professional Services agreement with Planning Consultants Research (PCR) Rockwell Semi - of Irvine, California, for professional environmental services for a contract Conductor Systems price of $165,443. (38) at the request of an audience member. 11. PLANNI'NG, COMMISSION AGENDA FOR AUGUST 20, 1998. Receive Planning and file. 1 (68) 12. AMENDMENT TO FIN2Uj TRACT MAPS 15388 AND 15389, PACIFIC Tracts 15388/15389 BAY HOMES AT 2300 JAMBOREE ROAD. Approve amendments to the Pacific Bay Homes Final Maps. �"�,, (TT15388/TT15389) 13. TREE REMOVALS - INFORMATIONAL LRRE�PO T. Receive and file. Tree Removals (62) 14. APPOINTMENT TO THE AVIATION COMMITTEE. Confirm Council Aviation Committee Member Thomson's appointment of Mark Q. Thompson. (24) 16. APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA-005) TO Volume 52 - Page 152 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting August 24, 1998 - 7:00 pan. to separate agenda from City Attorney] CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED — See written report. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: Thomson, Debay, O'Neil, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Edwards Absent: Hedges Pledge of Allegiance — Council Member Noyes. Invocation by Pastor Warren Olson, Mariners South Coast Church. Presentation of $100,000 Donation by the Friends of the Library. Mayor Pro Tem. O'Neil noted that a number of support groups have been established in his District to save the Port Theater. He requested that the owner be contacted to see what his intent is and to determine the City's options if he intends to close the Theater. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES/ORDINANCES AND B13SOLUTIONS 1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 1998. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. RDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 3. ORDINANCE NO. 98-21 ADOPTING MINOR AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE NBMC (DEFINITION OF TERMS, LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS, LAND USE REGULATIONS, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, REGULATION OF SIGNS, PU13LIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, APPEAL AND CALL FOR REVIEW PROCEDURES, AND REMOVAL OF OBSOLETE, REDUNDANT AND CONFLICTING LANGUAGE). Adopt Ordinance No. 98-21. INDEX Closed Session/ C-2897 (35/38) Ord 98.21 Title 20 Amendments (94) Volume 52 - Page 151 2fol1owing is the report from our subcommittee on the Rockwell General Plan proposal (dated October, 1998). In general, the draft check list and associated responses reflect the responses and level of information that would be expected for this type of project; however, there are a few responses that merit additional detail: A. Initial Study - Issue XH-b The proposed response of "no impact" relative to whether the project may impact communications systems seems better suited as "less than significant." It would seem that the proposal to more than double the overall square footage of the project and apparently convert much of the existing use from industrial to office may warrant more than a "no impact" response relative to potential impacts to the communication system. B. Project Description - Project Characteristics The written description of the project (Page A-4 last paragraph) and most subsequent references refer to it as "an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space." However, when reviewing the proposed site plan (Figure a-3), the added square footage occurs primarily in 3 to 10 story buildings while one of the two existing two story, buildings is removed. Given the change to multi -story buildings, it would seem that a more appropriate description of the project would be to "convert a portion of the existing light industrial to office and add additional general office uses. This distinction could be significant relative to the project's overall trip generation and peak hour characteristics. Provide full discussion of traffic mitigation measures. 2. Clarify project phasing with market demand noted in NOP so as to confirm traffic impacts. Clarify how the demolition of Building 501 will relate to the occupancy projections of the office building so traffic impacts are understood. 4. Insure that parking requirements are being fully met on -site. 5. Exami=risk of groundwater contamination and any potential impacts drainage into Upper Newport Bay. C. Environmental Evaluation -.Land Use Planning (Ib) The discussion regarding potential conflict with applicable plans or polices (Page B-2) makes no mention of the project's potential impact on the circulation system defined' in the City's Circulation Element. Given that the existing Circulation Element identifies a number of intersections in the project vicinity that exceed the desired Intersection Capacity criteria, it would seem that the additional trip generation from the site should warrant listing this as an issue for further study. /�� �� cQ� 11Y/,7r Page 2 D. Environmental Evaluation - Population and Housing (HA..) The description of the project (Page B-3, last paragraph) indicates that the current employment of 1,479 occurs over five shifts. It is then stated that the number of employees will expand by 2,695 employees. It is important that the traffic analysis of this project consider the differential impact to the surrounding street system considering the probably change in work hour patterns as the character of uses on this site changes from multi -shift industrial to office (see Comment B). E. Hazards (Page B-19 & B-20) Address potential effects of foundation construction on contaminated groundwater. F. Public Services - Maintenance of Public Facilities (Page B-23) The discussion of this issue indicates that the increased trip generation has no significant impact on maintenance requirements for the road system. Given the large amount of daily trips added due to the additional uses being added and the conversion of existing uses, it seems some quantification should be provided. G. Aesthetics - Affect on Scenic Vistas (P. B-26) The discussion focuses on the continuing use of this site by urban uses, but does not point out the conversion from low-rise to mid -rise building types. It would seem this potentially significant difference in the character of uses on this site should be recognized in this discussion. H. Cultural Resources (Page B-27 & B-28) Confirm mitigation measures necessary to address any cultural resources. rockwell.nop .4- 09/07/99 13:23 FAX 949 460 0113 WPA TRAFFIC ENG. 1006 WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGMEEMNG September 7, 1999 Mr. Rich Edmonston Traffic Manager City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: CONEXANTTRAFFICSTUDYREPWON Dear Mr. Edmonston: We arepleased to submitthis proposal to provide additional professional traffic engineering services to revise the Conexant Traffic Study, based upon updated Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). This proposal is based upon information provided by your Staff, discussions with City Staff, and our understanding of the needs of the study. Revisions to the traffic study would include the following: 1. Updated intersection count data, which would be provided to us by the City of Newport Traffic Engineering Staff. 2. Re -calculation ofthe one percent worksheets. Determine ifProjeet trips will increase traffic on any leg of any Primary intersection by one percent (1 %) or more during any Peak Hour Period one year after Project completion. 3. Re -calculation ofthe ICU worksheats. ICU calculations shall be made by calculating the volume to capacity ratios for each movement to three decimal places, and then adding the critical movements to obtain an ICU with three decimal places. 4. Include all Committed Projects, which shall be provided by the Traffic Engineering Department, pursuant to the new TPO guidelines under Section 3(i)(i-iv). 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (949) 460-0110 9 FAX: (949) 460-0113 09/07/99 13:23 FAX 949 460 0113 {YPA TRAFFIC ENG. M -2- 5. Based upon the updated TPO guidelines, prepare cost estimates for any proposed improvements and determine the "effective capacity increase" and "effective capacity decrease" to ascertain the Project's contribution to the cost of the improvement. We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated that approximately three (3) weeks would be required to complete the study. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $4,800.00, without prior approval from you or your representatives. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for additional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project, not mentioned in this proposal, our staff would be available with the fees based upon our Rate Schedule, in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional -work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. invoices shall be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of the work, at our option, and payable within 30 days after submission. After 60 days, unpaid invoices shall have a 1.5 percent per month, service charge added. We shall have the option of halting work on your project when invoices are unpaid and overdue, unless mutual agreement is achieved. In the event that it is necessary for eitherparty to incur legal expenses in connection with the performance of this contract, the prevailing party agrees to pay all court costs and attorney fees. The client agrees to limit WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. 's liability to the client and to all contractors and subcontractors on the project, due to proven professional negligent acts, errors or omissions on the part of WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., to the aggregate sum of $25,000.00, or WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. 's fee, whichever is greater. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Conexant Traffic Study - Revised Per Updated TPO Proposal City of Newport Beach e 09/07/99 13:23 FAX 949 460 0113 WPA TRAFFIC ENG. SM —3— This proposal may be considered as effective for six months from the date of this letter. If the project is not completed within six months after the scheduled completion date (due to no fault of WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.), additional reimbursement may be required due to increased costs. If required, such additional reimbursement would be the subject of negotiation and mutual agreement between both parties. This letter can serve as a memorandum of agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to serving you on this most interesting project. Respectfully submitted, W//P//A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. INC. A Weston S. ingle, P.E. WSP:hn CONTRACTAPPROVAL APPROVED BY., TITLE: FIRM: DATE: WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Conexant Traffic Study - Revised Per Updated TPO Proposal City of Newport Beach 09/07/99 13:23 FAX 949 460 0113 WPA TRAFFIC ENG. 1609 0 ® P � WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. ®A=A t TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective August 11 I997 PROFESSIONAL STAFF HOURLY RATES + Firm Principal $125.00 + Senior Engineer $100.00 + Associate Engineer $ 75.00 ♦ Assistant Engineer $ 70.00 SUPPORT STAFF ♦ Engineering Draftsperson $ 70.00 + Draftsperson $ 50.00 + Secretary $ 35.00 + Clerical / Field Enumerator $ 40.00 GENERAL 1) Hourly rates apply to travel, in addition to work time. 2) Invoices shall be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of the work, at our option, and payable within 30 days after submission. After 60 days, unpaid invoices shall have a 1.5 percent, per month, service charge added. We shall have the option of halting work on your project when invoices are unpaid and overdue, unless mutual agreement is achieved. In the event that it is necessary for either party to incur legal expenses in connection with the performance of this contract, the prevailing party agrees to pay all court costs and attorney fees. 3) Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of the client to receive payment from other parties. Any controversy or claim arising out ofor relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 4) These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineer's, Mmival on Engineering Practice. Number 45, 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (949) 460-0110 • FAX; (949) 460-0113 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH poR @ COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Hearing Date: February 22, 2000 O `• Sy PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: u i 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FILE COPY SUBJECT: Amendment to a Professional Services Agreement for Planning Consultants Research, Inc. SUMMARY: The city contracted with Planning Consultants Research, Inc. (PCR) to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Conexant Systems, Inc. expansion project. Completion of the final EIR requires additional services by PCR that necessitates an amendment to the agreement, and additional compensation ($55,558.00). SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve the proposed amendment to the professional services agreement with Planning Consultants Research, Inc. (PCR). Discussion On August 24, 1998, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with PCR for the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. The agreement set the scope of work and costs for these services at $165,443.00. The scope of work for the contract did not include the Response to Comments and completion of the Final EIR due to the inability of the consultant or city to reasonably predict the amount of work for this portion of the project. The amount of work and its resulting cost can vary widely depending upon the type and amount of comments received. Now that the comments have been received, the consultant has prepared a proposal which is consistent with expected workload. The Planning Department approved an addendum to the agreement on or about November 1" of 1999. The addendum was necessary to expand the scope of work to accommodate new traffic analysis related to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and other cumulative impacts. The addendum for the increased scope of work required additional compensation to the consultant in the amount of $29,800. This addendum was approved by the staff pursuant to City Council Policy F- 13 that authorizes a Department Director the ability to award a contract if less than $30,000. The addendum was also lower than twenty five percent (25%) of original agreement, and therefore did not require City Council action pursuant to City Council Policy F-3. On December 16, 1999, the Planning Department received a proposal from PCR outlining the scope of work necessary for the preparation of the Response to Comments and completion of the Final EIR. The proposal appears as an exhibit to the attached addendum. Additional traffic analysis and printing expenses for the Response to Comments and Final EIR are included. The cost of the proposal is $55,558, and will include all consultant activities through completion of the EIR process. Further amendments should not be necessary unless the project description changes or significant new impacts are discovered through the upcoming public hearing process. This request, along with the previous addendum, exceeds twenty five percent (25%) of the original agreement, and is being submitted to the City Council for approval pursuant to City Council Policy F-3 and F- 13. Approval of this amendment to the agreement, which includes the previously approved addendum, will establish a the new total contract amount at $250,801. The cost of the total agreement is paid by the applicant. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Attachments: PCR Amendment No. 1. Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner PCR Agreement Amendment February 22, 2000 Page 2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Environmental Impact Report for Conxant Systems, Inc. THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 22"d day of February, 2000, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and and Planning Consultants Research, whose address is One Venture Suite 150 Irvine, California, 92618 (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT") is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On August 24, 1998, a Professional Services Agreement was entered into by and between CITY and CONSULTANT, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT" for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. B. On or about November 1. 1999, CITY and CONSULTANT executed an addendum to the AGREEMENT under the authority of the Director of Planning, hereinafter referred to as "ADDENDUM." C. The ADDENDUM increased and amended the scope of work of the AGREEMENT and increased the compensation paid to CONSULTANT by twenty nine thousand, eight hundred dollars ($29,800.00). D. CITY and CONSULTANT mutually desire to amend the AGREEMENT, as modified by the ADDENDUM, as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONSULTANT The scope of services shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect as set forth in AGREEMENT, as modified by ADDENDUM, except as expressly modified herein. 1 CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, contained in attachment "A" for ADDENDUM attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, contained in attachment `B" for AMENDMENT NO. 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT Compensation to the CONSULTANT shall be increased by eighty five thousand, three hundred and eighty five dollars ($85,385.00) for all work performed in accordance with AGREEMENT, as amended by ADDENDUM and AMENDMENT NO. 1. Total payment under the AGREEMENT and ADDENDUM and AMENDMENT shall not exceed the total contract price of two hundred and fifty thousand and eight hundred and one dollars ($250,801.00). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 1 on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: LaVonne Harkless City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation Homer Bludau City Manager CONSULTANT Gregory J. Boughton, President Planning ConsultantsReasearch, Inc. 2 ' SAiNTA MONICA Los ANGELES IaVI`IE October 8, 1999 Mr. Marc Meyers CITY OF NFwpoRT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTtiIEI`IT CITY OF nlF':"PnP EA"'HI AM OCT 13 9990 PNI 718191101111121112131:1510 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 PiR Re: Request for Addendum to the Conexant Systems (Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) EIR Contract Dated August 24, 1998 Between the City of Newport Beach and PCR Dear Marc: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) would like to request an addendum of $29,800 for the Conexanr Systems (Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Contract dated August 24, 1998 between the City of Newport Beach and PCR. Of the requested amount, $12,800.00 is allocated for WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (WPA). The addendum is for the following additional services that PCR and WPA have and/or will provide outside the scope of the contract: • Changes in the scope of work for the traffic analysis as detailed in the attached letter from WPA. • Additional research and data collection with respect to the definition of related projects in the cumulative setting. Included assisting the Public Works Department in obtaining traffic data from the City of Irvine. • Additional work effort related to the analysis of the Long Range General Plan condition with Koll and without Koll for the air quality and noise assessments. • Additional coordination with and additional time frame related to the review of the Traffic Study and changes to the traffic section and the noise and air quality assessments related to the revisions in the scope of work for the Traffic Study. This will include the revisions to the air quality and noise assessments as required to reflect the City's comments on the Traffic Study. Attachment "A" One Venture, Suite ISO, Irvine, Can.orria 3Z613-33=8 • -T, „r,i.9.VCfa2T .OM 9 19. 7 53.7001 ' SANTA MONICA Los AAIGELES Mr. Marc Meyers City of Newport Beach October 8, 1999 - Page 2 • Additional work effort required related to water quality in response to public and agency comments received on the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. It should be noted that the fee amount of the addendum for PCR provided above is expressed as an allowance since the work effort cannot be precisely estimated as it is a process that evolves and is necessarily interactive with the City and the Project Team. Should the actual fee be less than the budget allowance indicated, the remaining balance will not be billed. Any remaining budget from this requested addendum will be forwarded to the Phase 2 work effort (preparation of the Response to Comments document, Final EIR, Certification documents, etc.) which will be requested separately after we have gained an understanding of the scope of work for the Traffic Study and the potential issues that may be raised during the public comment period on the Draft EIR. Please call to discuss any questions that you may have or if you have any requests for revisions to the above. We look orward to working with you on the completion of this work effort. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION Lauren Jue Associate Principal Attachment (1) One Ian rure, Suiu I60. Irene, •:a,iFor 9126'3-a23 vv.v :. .[ co,r .. 929.753.7001 )-).7 a-7, C_ Attachment 'B" SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 4 Preparation of Response to Comments/Final EIR Subtask 4.1 Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final EIR Based on discussions with the City staff, PCR will prepare a Response to Comments document which will respond to all written comments received from agencies, interest groups, and individuals during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR. In addition, PCR will prepare an errata section indicating revisions to the Draft EIR based on information received during the public review period and information provided in the Response to Comments document. It is assumed that the Response to Comments document, including the errata section, will address changes related to the revised Traffic Phasing Ordinance, including revisions to the November 1999 Traffic Study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (WPA). A draft of the Response to Comments document, including the errata section,will be submitted to the City staff and the Conexant Project Team for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will prepare a revised Response to Comments document for final approval by City Staff. The revised Response to Comments document and the documents that will comprise the Administrative Final EIR will be distributed by PCR as directed by the City. In addition, PCR in coordination with City staff will provide, via certified mail, the Response to Comments document to commenting agencies for review ten days prior to action being taken on the proposed project. Subtask 4.2 Preparation of Certification Documents PCR will work with City staff to prepare a draft of the required certification documents. These documents will consist of a Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and, if required, a Statement of Overriding Considerations. PCR will submit a draft of these documents to the City for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will revise and submit these documents to the City for distribution to the appropriate parties. City of Newport Beach Conesant EIR PCR Services Corporation Page 1 December 17, 1999 11 Attachment A: Scope of Services Subtask 4.3 Preparation of Final EIR After action is taken on the project and the EIR is certified as complete and final, PCR will prepare and submit the Final EIR to the City. PCR will work with the City staff to determine the number of copies, the type of originals, and the distribution of the Final EIR. PCR will prepare for City staff review the Notice of Determination and will file the notice with the appropriate agencies. Task 5 Meetings and Hearings for Final EIR PCR and WPA will prepare for and attend meetings related to the Response to Comments document and the Final EIR and hearings related to the consideration of the approval of the project and certification of the EIR. The meetings are estimated to consist of: a maximum of three meetings with the City and the applicant; one Planning Commission Study Session; one Planning Commission meeting; and one City Council meeting. Additional meetings will be attended on a time and materials basis. City of Newport Beach PCR.Services Corporation Page 2 Conesant Ent December 17, 1999 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET The following page provides a not -to -exceed budget estimate for the preparation of the Response to Comments/Final EIR including revisions to the Traffic Study (Task 4) and meetings for the preparation of the Response to Comments/Final EIR (Task 5). The total budget estimate for these tasks as described in the scope of services is $55,558. This includes PCR staff hours, WPA subconsultant fees (refer to attached letter), direct expenses, and printing. As shown in the detailed cost estimate, the remaining budget of $4,268.28 (of which $4,137.69 is remaining budget for WPA and $130.59 is the remaining budget for expenses), will be carried over from the first phase of the contract. It should be noted that, if at the completion of the scope of services the actual fees are less than the budget estimate indicated, the remaining balance will not be billed. The following budget has been prepared prior to the receipt of the comment letters on the Draft EIR. As such, PCR proposes a budget based on,our current understanding of the project and based on the anticipation that an average number of comment letters will be received (approximately 20 letters of one to five pages in length). Should the need arise for additional professional services beyond those set forth in the scope of services and budget provided herein, PCR will request from the City written authorization to proceed prior to the initiation of the additional services. This would include the need for the preparation of additional technical documentation (e.g., technical documentation related to air quality, noise, or biological resources) that is required by the City, changes in the project or the regulatory environment, or the need to respond to a significant number of comment letters or number of comments above those anticipated. Invoices will be prepared for the work completed on a monthly basis. For each billing period, PCR will provide information by subtask for the services performed. PCR reserves the right to transfer fees between the tasks and subtasks, as appropriate. Invoiced amounts are due 30 days from the date of the invoice. Traffic subconsultant invoices will be paid within 30 days of the receipt of payment from the City. City of Newport Beach Conewant Ent PCR Services Corporation Page 3 December 17, 1999 Task Tack 4- Preparation of Response to CommentsfAdn Subtask 4.1- Preparation of Response to Comment! Subtask 4.2- Preparation of Certification Documen Subtask 4.3- Preparation of Final EIR Subtotal Task 4 Task 5- Meetings and hearings for Final CIR (6) Technical Study for Response to Comments/Final E Revised Traffic Study and Response to Comments Expenses (Including postage for cenifted mail with Fe Printing Allowance TOTAL COST ESTIMATE Fnmmntec- * The remaining budget of $4,137.69 will be carried ** The remaining budget of $139.59 will be carried Detailed Cost Estimate for Printing Est. Pages No. of Copies Total Cost Document Screencheck Response to Comments 500 10 $250.00 Revised Screencheck Response to Comments 500 10 $250.00 Response to Comments/Administrative Final EIR (for Public Distribution) 500 60 $1,500.00 Screencheck Certification Documents 50 10 $25.00 Certification Documents (for Public Distribution) 50 40 $100.00 Fins( EIR 550 25 $687.50 TOTAL COST OF PRINTING $2,812.50 im CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 February 25, 2000 Lauren Jue PCR Services Corp. One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618-3328 Re: Conexant Dear Lauren: Enclosed you will find three original copies of the contract amendment approved by the City Council on February 17, 2000. Please sign and return the three copies as soon as possible so we can process payment of the pending invoices once the contract is fully executed. If you have any questions regarding the project, please call me at (949) 644-3210 or contact me via e-mail at icamnbell@city.newoort-beach.ca.us. Since ly, �J C%6/ James Campbell Senior Planner 3300 Newport AMENDMENT NO.1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Environmental Impact Report for Conxant Systems, Inc. THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 22"d day of Febru 2000, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and and Planning Consultants Research, whose address is One Venture. Suite 156 Irvine. California. 92618 (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT") is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On August 24. 1998, a Professional Services Agreement was entered into by and between CITY and CONSULTANT, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT' for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. B. On or about November 1. 1999. CITY and CONSULTANT executed an addendum to the AGREEMENT under the authority of the Director of Planning, hereinafter referred to as "ADDENDUM." C. The ADDENDUM increased and amended the scope of work of the AGREEMENT and increased the compensation paid to CONSULTANT by twenty nine thousand, eight hundred dollars ($29,800.00). D. CITY and CONSULTANT mutually desire to amend the AGREEMENT, as modified by the ADDENDUM, as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONSULTANT The scope of services shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect as set forth in AGREEMENT, as modified by ADDENDUM, except as expressly modified herein. CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, contained in attachment "A" for ADDENDUM attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, contained in attachment `B" for AMENDMENT NO. 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT Compensation to the CONSULTANT shall be increased by eighty five thousand, three hundred and eighty five dollars ($85,385.00) for all work performed in accordance with AGREEMENT, as amended by ADDENDUM and AMENDMENT NO. 1. Total payment under the AGREEMENT and ADDENDUM and AMENDMENT shall not exceed the total contract price of two hundred and fifty thousand and eight hundred and one dollars ($250,801.00). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 1 on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: LaVonne Harkless City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation Homer Bludau City Manager CONSULTANT Gregory J. Boughton, President Planning ConsultantsReasearch, Inc. 2 i • 'Sarin: iblo:nca L�_ .a:;:etes �• .. October 8, 1999 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPART&IEMT CITY 0= N!:'.k,PnQ- -c ^i_I Ah1 GCT 13 10.9"1 Pfrl 718,9110,11112111213111516 Mr. Marc Meyers CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 PCR Re: Request for Addendum to the Conexant Systems (Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) EIR Contract Dated August 24, 1998 Between the City of Newport Beach and PCR Dear Marc: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) would like to request an addendum of 329,800 for the Co nexant Systems (Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) En v ironmen cal Impact Report (EIR) Contract dated August 24, 1998 between the Cir✓ of Newoorr Beach and PCR. Of the requested amount, $12,800.00 is allocated for NWA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (% PA). The addendum is for the following additional services char PCR and WPA have and/or will provide outside the scope of the contract: • Changes in the scope of work for the traffic analysis as detailed in the attached letter from WPA. • Additional research and data collection with respect to the definition of related projects in the cumulative setting. Included assisting the Public Works Department in obtaining traffic data from the City of Irvine. • Additional work effort related to the analysis of the Long Range General Plan condition with Koll and without Koll for the air qualiry and noise assessments. • Additional coordination with and additional rime frame related to the review of the Traffic Study and changes to the traffic section and the noise and air quality assessments related co the revisions in the scope of work for the Traffic Scudy. This will include the revisions to the air quality and noise assessments as required to reflect the Citys comments on the Traffic Study. Attachment "A" "SAMTA blcmc.a Us ,a iae.es Mr. Marc Meyers City of Newport Beach October 8, 1999 - Page 2 • 'Additional work effort required related co water quality in response to public and agency comments received on the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. It should be noted chat the fee amount of the addendum for PCR provided above is expressed as an allowance since the work effort cannot be precisely estimated as it is a process chat evolves and is necessarily interactive with the City and the Project Team. Should the actual fee be less than the budget allowance indicated, the remaining balance will nor be billed. Any remaining budget from this requested addendum will be forwarded co the Phase 2 work effort (preparation of the Response to Comments document, Final EIR, Certification documents, etc.) which will be requescedseparately after we have gained an understanding of the scope of work for the Traffic Study and the potential issues that may be raised during the public comment period on the Draft EIR. Please call to discuss any questions chat you may have or if you have any requests for revisions to the above. We look tOnvaml ro worlti.^.g'wicH you or, the Completion of this work effort. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION ,17 Lauren Jue Associate Principal Attachment (1) Attachment "B" SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 4 Preparation of Response to Comments/Final EIR Subtask 4.1 Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final EIR Based on discussions with the City staff, PCR will prepare a Response to Comments document which will respond to all written comments received from agencies, interest groups, and individuals during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR. In addition, PCR will prepare an errata section indicating revisions to the Draft EIR based on information received during the public review period and information provided in the Response to Comments document. It is assumed that the Response to Comments document, including the errata section. will address changes related to the revised Traffic Phasing Ordinance, including revisions to the November 1999 Traffic Study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (WPA). A draft of the Response to Comments document, including the errata section,will be submitted to the City staff and the Conexant Project Team for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will prepare a revised Response to Comments document for final approval by City Staff. The revised Response to Comments document and the documents that will comprise the Administrative Final EIR will be distributed by PCR as directed by the City. In addition, PCR in coordination with City staff will provide, via certified mail, the Response to Comments document to commenting agencies for review ten days prior to action being taken on the proposed project. Subtask 4.2 Preparation of Certification Documents PCR will work with City staff to prepare a draft of the required certification documents. These documents will consist of a Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and. if required, a Statement of Overriding Considerations. PCR will submit a draft of these documents to the City for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will revise and submit these documents to the City for distribution to the appropriate parties. City of Newport Beach Cone[ant EIR PCR Services Corporation Page 1 December 17, 1999 Attachment A: Scope of Services Subtask 4.3 Preparation of Final EIR After action is taken on the project and the EIR is certified as complete and final, PCR will prepare and submit the Final EIR to the City. PCR will work with the City staff to determine the number of copies, the type of originals, and the distribution of the Final EIR. PCR will prepare for City staff review the Notice of Determination and will file the notice with the appropriate agencies. Task 5 Meetings and Hearings for Final EIR PCR and WPA will prepare for and attend meetings related to the Response to Comments document and the Final EIR and hearings related to the consideration of the approval of the project and certification of the EIR. The meetings are estimated to consist of: a maximum of three meetings with the City and the applicant; one Planning Commission Study Session; one Planning Commission meeting; and one City Council meeting. Additional meetings will be attended orr a time and materials basis. City or Newport Beach PCR Services Corporation Paoe 2 Cone=t Ent December 17, 1999 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET The following page provides a not -to -exceed budget estimate for the preparation of the Response to Comments/Final EIR including revisions to the Traffic Study (Task 4) and meetings for the preparation of the Response to Comments/Final EIR (Task 5). The total budget estimate for these tasks as described in the scope of services is $55,558. This includes PCR staff hours, WPA subconsultant fees (refer to attached letter), direct expenses, and printing. As shown in the detailed cost estimate, the remaining budget of $4,268.28 (of which $4,137.69 is remaining budget for WPA and $130.59 is the remaining budget for expenses), will be carried over from the first phase of the contract. It should be noted that, if at the completion of the scope of services the actual fees are less than the budget estimate indicated, the remaining balance will not be billed. The following budget has been prepared prior to the receipt of the comment letters on the Draft EIR. As such, PCR proposes a budget based on our current understanding of the project and based on the anticipation that an average number of comment letters will be received (approximately 20 letters of one to five pages in length). Should the need arise for additional professional services beyond those set forth in the scope of services and budget provided herein, PCR will request from the City written authorization to proceed prior to the initiation of the additional services. This would include the need for the preparation of additional technical documentation (e.g., technical documentation related to air quality, noise, or biological resources) that is required by the City, changes in the project or the regulatory environment, or the need to respond to a significant number of comment letters or number of comments above those anticipated. Invoices will be prepared for the work completed on a monthly basis. For each billing period, PCR will provide information by subtask for the services performed. PCR reserves the right to transfer fees between the tasks and subtasks, as appropriate. Invoiced amounts are due 30 days from the date of the invoice. Traffic subconsultant invoices will be paid within 30 days of the receipt of payment from the City. City of Newport Beach Conexent Ent PCR Services Corporation Page 3 December 17, 1999 7 Detailed Budget Conexant Project Response to Comments/Final EIR Task Associate Senior Assistant Graphics/Word Total Principal Planner Planner Processing Cost Task 4- Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final EIR flours Rate Hours Rate }lours Rate Hours Rate Hours Cost Sublask 4.1- Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final EIR $100 100 $70 120 $50 100 $50 440 $30,000 Subtask 4.2- Preparation of Certification Documents $100 0 $70 40 $50 24 $50 88 $5,600 Subtask 4.3- Preparation of Final EIR F24 $100 24 $70 40 $50 24 $50 104 $6,480 Suhtotal Tusk 4 $42,080 Task 5- Meetings and Hearings for Final Ellt (6) $100 20 $70 0 $50 .0 $50 44 $3,800 Technical Study for Response to Comments/Final EIR Revised Traffic Study and Response to Comments (WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.)* $6,200 lixpemes (Including postage for certified mad with FedEa to some agencies)** $665 Printing Allowance TOTAL COST ESTIMATE _ $2,813 Footnotes: $55,558 * The remaining budget of $4,137.69 will be carried over front the first phase of the contract, providing for a total fee of $10.337.69 for WPA. ** The remaining budget of $139.59 will be carried over from the first phase of the contract, providing for a Matt of $795.59 Detailed Cost Estimate for Printing Est. Pages No. of Copies Total Cost Document Screenclieck Response to Comments 500 10 $250.00 Revised Screencheck Response to Connnents 500 10 $250.00 Response to Conunems/Administrative rival EIR (for Public Distribution) 500 60 $1,500.00 Sercencheck Certification Documents 50 10 $25 00 Certification Documents (for Public Distribution) 50 40 $100.00 rival EIR 550 25 $687.50 TOTAL COST OF PRUNITING $2,812.50 im CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 February 25, 2000 Mr. Rich Bluth, P.E. Director Facilities Conexant Systems, Inc. 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Subject: Approval of Agreement Amendment for Environmental Consulting Services for Conexant Systems Expansion Proiect. Ajreement Approval: Approved By: James Campbell Title: Senior Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Consultant: Planning Consultants Research (Lauren Jue) One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Project Address: 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach Date of Proposal: December 16, 1999, copy of budget amendment attached and on file. The amended budget is $63,892.00, due upon receipt with the understanding that modifications do the study may result in additional charges and that the balance will be due upon further notice from the City of Newport Beach. Project Applicant: Applicant Approval: Conexant Systems, Inc. DEPARTMENT James Campbell, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9265&8915 February 25, 2000 Mr. Rich Bluth, P.E. Director of Facilities Conexant Systems, Inc. 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Subject. Agreement Amendment for Environmental Review Services for Conexant Systems, Inc. Expansion Proiect. Dear Mr. Bluth, The City Council has recently approved a contract amendment for Planning Consultants Research, Inc. to complete the Final EIR. The consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. Attached, you will find a copy of the executed contract amendment. As you know, you are responsible reimbursing the City of Newport Beach for these costs. The City charges an additional 15% of the consultants fees to cover increased administrative costs for review and administration of the consultants work. The fees are as follows: Consultant Fees $ 55,588.00 City Fees (15%) 8,334.00 Total Request: $ 63,892.00 Please submit a check (payable to the City of Newport Beach), or a letter which would authorize the City to deduct funds in the amount of $ 63,892.00 from the escrow account held in Conexant's name for the expenses incurred. Also, please sign and -return the, enclosed amendment to the contract agreement for our records. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 644-3210. Sincer ly, es Campbell Senior Planner Attachment: Agreement Amendment approval form Agreement amendment 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 11/19/1999 16:14 9494836140 CONEXANT! PAGE 03 PORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 9265s-9915 °"L,FofL PLANNING ]DEPARTMENT (714)'644-3200 Novei4ber 1, 1999 Mr. Rich Bluth, P.E. Director Facilities - Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Subject: Approval of Contract Amendment for Environmental Consulting Services for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Expansion Project. CONTRACT APPROVAL. Approved By: Marc Myers Title: Associate Planner Finn: City of Newport Beach Consultant: Planning Consultants Research (Lauren Jue) One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Project Address: 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach Date of Proposal: October 8, 1999, copy of budget amendment attached and on file. The amended budget is $34,270,00, due upon receipt with the understanding that modifications to the study may result in additional charges and that the balance will be due upon further notice from the City of Newport Beach. Project Applicant: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Applicant Approval: Signature: <4�? ( Rich Bluth, Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY: Z" Marc ers, Associate Planner 61luecsl4haxeAQ plancotnlpe ding\rock. cllleontrectAmendment 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Bead CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9265&8915 April 7, 2000 Joan S. Golding, Executive Officer Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment for the Conexant Project Dear Ms. Golding: The City of Newport Beach is currently processing a request submitted by Conexant Systems, Inc. for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community text amendment which would authorize 566,000 square feet of light industrial and support office to be constructed at 4311 Jamboree Road. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the airport land use plan for John Wane Airport The City of Newport Beach requests that,the Airport Land Use Commission review the project for consistency with applicable airport land use plans pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. The General Plan Amendment and Planned Community amendment will increase the allowable entitlements for the site as well as increase the allowable building height. The project includes the removal of one industrial building and the construction of four new light industrial/office buildings and two parking structures. Two of the new buildings are office towers, one being 10 stories and the other 8 stories. Attached to this letter is a conceptual site plan and chart of the proposed building uses and areas. In addition, a map is attached which shows the proposed building height zones which will accommodate all the new construction. The project is more thoroughly described in the Draft EIR forwarded to your office in late 1999. Please refer to this document for the full project description. Conexant Systems has submitted the project to the Federal Aviation Administration for review, and a finding of no hazard has been made. A copy of this finding was forwarded to you office directly by the FAA, and a copy is attached for your convenience. The City of Newport Beach has tentatively scheduled public hearings before its Planning Commission in early May, and would like to have the ALUC review in advance if possible. If you have any questions regarding the project, please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 644-3210 or contact me via e-mail at Campbell @city.newport-beach.ca.us. Sincerely, James Campbell Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach EXISTING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT e FIRE LANE �J t ENTRY BUILDING BUILDING S01 LOADING ' 503 DOCKS 0 PARKING LOT 0 W W K x U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 03 PARKING LOT PARKING LOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _. ENTRY ENN TRY JAMBOREE ROAD V Figure II.C-1 Not to Scale Conexant Existing Site Plan Souco. Rockwell arM PCR, September 7998 II.C. Project Characteristics Table MC-1 Existing And Proposed Building Area° Building Area (Gross Square Feet) Structures Land Use Existing Proposed Project Buildout Building 501 Light Industrial • Light Industrial Space 34,202 (34,202) 0 • Supporting Office Space 92,473 (92,473) 0 Building 503 Light Industrial • Light Industrial Space 258,505 103,200 361,705 • Supporting Office Space 52,947 10,000 62,947 2 Story Building Light Industrial • Supporting Office Space 0 50,000 50,000 10 Story Building Light Industrial • Supporting Office/Lab Space 0 270,000 270;000 8 Story Building Light Industrial • Supporting Office/Lab Space 0 259,475 259,475 Parking Structure A 0 5 levels 5 levels Parking Structure B 0 5.5 levels 5.5 levels Subtotal of Building Area 438,127 566,000 1,004,127 Existing Remaining Entitlement 4,648 N/A 4,648 Total Entitled Building Area 442,775 566,000 1,008,775 The existing and proposed building area does not include the square footage far surface parking areas or the parking structures. Source: Conexant Systems, Inc., May 28, 1999. City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse No. 98101090 Conexant Draft EIR November 1999 Page II-9 » -Am im tr M A& M MA*6imA #A A W NEW PARKING STRUCTURES LORY PCR EXISTING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 2 STORY C �� i COMMON$`` )J DOOR,_i — 8 STORY $03 BUILDING EXISTING 2 STORY WITH OPTIONAL PARKING BELOW 3 STORY 1 1 V �j JAMBOREE ROAD Soule qi EXISTING ENTRY V' Not to scale EXISTING I I I II I LOADING DOCKS W W Co f 2 NEW PARKING ' K STRUCTURE A m ■ Figure II.C-2 Conexant Proposed Conceptual Site Plan 771 19 ' -', EXI571NG L�}ECt1AN(CALEDUIP,MEryj ..FIRE'LANE Z 777 .> ■ ENTRY A S+:.•:..:.::.....:.::G•i•:..::••:::•::::::•::oa:G:::•:::}::•::•::::> ?:: :-::.:•:;;•:::sal:;::::•::::-:: :::::::>:::D S::3 -:: w P K G W D F N U oc m - _ ,?.:-:RARKOLG COT.?:: C::}:::::?: }:PA&LY4:1G LOF. ?::: •:•?: :: }:•:: ::?•:: <:.:. ::::::::::.::::.::::.1 ::: a>::>= : a ::o: o:::o<:<::::: .... ENTRY JAMBOREE ROAD ENTRY LEGEND Central Zone (150 Fool Maximum Height) ® East Zone (100 Foot Maximum Height) OService Zone (75 Foot Maximum Height) Figure II_ an Conexant Not to scale Building Height Sauce Langdw Wilson Arctutecture, September 1998 C_ 32�q AMENDMENT NO.1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Environmental Impact Report for Conexant Systems, Inc. THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 22"d day of February, 2000, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and and Planning Consultants Research, whose address is One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California. 92618 (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT") is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On August 24, 1998, a Professional Services Agreement was entered into by and between CITY and CONSULTANT, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT" for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. B. On or about November 1, 1999, CITY and CONSULTANT executed an addendum to the AGREEMENT under the authority of the Director of Planning, hereinafter referred to as "ADDENDUM." C. The ADDENDUM increased and amended the scope of work of the AGREEMENT and increased the compensation paid to CONSULTANT by twenty-nine thousand, eight hundred dollars ($29,800.00). D. CITY and CONSULTANT mutually desire to amend the AGREEMENT by modifying the scope of work and increasing the compensation to the CONSULTANT by fifty-five thousand, five hundred and eighty-eight dollars ($55,588.00), as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONSULTANT The scope of services shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect as set forth in AGREEMENT, as modified by ADDENDUM, except as expressly modified herein. 1 CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, contained in attachment "A" for ADDENDUM attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, contained in attachment `B" for AMENDMENT NO. 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT Compensation to the CONSULTANT shall be increased by eighty five thousand, three hundred and eighty five dollars ($85,385.00) for all work performed in accordance with AGREEMENT, as amended by ADDENDUM and AMENDMENT NO. 1. Total payment under the AGREEMENT and ADDENDUM and AMENDMENT shall not exceed the total contract price of two hundred and fifty thousand and eight hundred and one dollars ($250,801.00). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 1 on the date first above written. APPRO D AS TO FORM: Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney LaVonne Harkless City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation Homer Bludau City Manager CONSULTANT Grefory J. Boughto , President Planning ConsultantsReasearch, Inc. 2 ' 5a,ir.: N1o•.:c; Las A,iaE.E5 October 8, 1999 Mr. Marc Meyers CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 RECEIVED SY PLANNING D_PART&IENT CITY CC . AN1 OCT 13 'VE PIM 7i8i91?Oi11�12;�i�13i:15io Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 I��Illli���illah, PCR Re: Request for Addendum to the Cone --cant Systems (Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) EIR Contract Dated August 24, 1998 Between the City of Newport Beach and PCR Dear Marc: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) would like to request an addendum of $29,800 for the Co nexant Systems (Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) Envirom-nentai Impacr Report (EIR) Contract dated August 24, 1998 between the City of Newport Beach and PCR. Of the requested amount, $12,800.00 is allocated for WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (WPA). The addendum is for the following additional services char PCR and WPA have and/or will provide outside the scope of the contract: • Changes in the scope of work for the traffic analysis as detailed in the attached letter from WPA. • Additional research and data collection with respect to the definition of relared projects in the cumulative setting. Included assisting the Public Works Department in obtaining traffic data from the Cicy of Irvine. • Additional work effort related co the analysis of the Long Range General Plan condition with Koll and without Koll for the air quality and noise assessments. • Additional coordination with and additional time frame related to the review of the Traffic Study and changes co the traffic section and the noise and air quality assessments related to the revisions in the scope oEwork for the Traffic Study. This will include the revisions to the air quality and noise assessments as required to reflect the Cit'v's comments on the Traffic Study. Attachment "A" :l. cr,e �iC^:urt, Sui:" !so, lr',irlr„ .-...... .: - ' S.\:I,, IbI oal IC.\ L:)s A:IVC.-*J •• i Mr. Marc Meyers City of Newport Beach October 8, 1999 - Page 2 • Additional work effort required related to water quality in response to public and agency comments received on the Notice of Preparation/Inirial Study. It should be noted that the fee amount of the addendum for PCR provided above is expressed as an allowance since the work effort cannot be precisely estimated as it is a process that evolves and is necessarily interactive with the City and the Project Team. Should the actual fee be less than the budget allowance indicated, the remaining balance will not be billed. Any remaining budget from this requested addendum will be forwarded to the Phase 2 work effort (preparation of the Response to Comments document, Final EIR, Certification documents, etc.) which will be requested separately after we have gained an understanding of the scope of work for the Traffic Study and the potential issues that may be raised during the public comment period on the Draft EIR. Please call to discuss any questions chat you may have or if you have any requests for revisions cc the above. We look Orward :O w'oLvnQ with you on the completion of this work effort. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION Lauren Jue Associate Principal Attachment (1) Attachment 'B" SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 4 Preparation of Response to Comments/Final EIR Subtask 4.1 Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final EIR Based on discussions with the City staff, PCR will prepare a Response to Comments document which will respond to all written comments received from agencies, interest groups, and individuals during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR. In addition, PCR will prepare an errata section indicating revisions to the Draft EIR based on information received during the public review period and information provided in the Response to Comments document. It is assumed that the Response to Comments document, including the errata section, will address changes related to the revised Traffic Phasing Ordinance, including revisions to the November 1999 Traffic Study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (WPA). A draft of the Response to Comments document, including the errata section,will be submitted to the City staff and the Conexant Project Team for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will prepare a revised Response to Comments document for final approval by City Staff. The revised Response to Comments document and the documents that will comprise the Administrative Final EIR will be distributed by PCR as directed by the City. In addition, PCR in coordination with City staff will provide, via certified mail, the Response to Comments document to commenting agencies for review ten days prior to action being taken on the proposed project. Subtask 4.2 Preparation of Certification Documents PCR will work with City staff to prepare a draft of the required certification documents. These documents will consist of a Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and, if required, a Statement of Overriding Considerations. PCR will submit a draft of these documents to the City for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will revise and submit these documents to the City for distribution to the appropriate parties. City of Newport Beach Conexant Ent PCR Services Corporation Page 1 December 17, 1999 Attachment A: Scope of Services Subtask 4.3 Preparation of Final EIR After action is taken on the project and the EIR is certified as complete and final, PCR will prepare and submit the Final EIR to the City. PCR will work with the City staff to determine the number of copies, the type of originals, and the distribution of the Final EIR. PCR will prepare for City staff review the Notice of Determination and will file the notice with the appropriate agencies. Task 5 Meetings and Hearings for Final EIR PCR and WPA will prepare for and attend meetings related to the Response to Comments document and the Final EIR and hearings related to the consideration of the approval of the project and certification of the EIR. The meetings are estimated to consist of: a maximum of three meetings with the City and the applicant; one Planning Commission Study Session; one Planning Commission meeting; and one City Council meeting. Additional meetings will be attended off a time and materials basis. City of Newport Beach PCR Services Corporettoi ATTACHMENT B BUDGET The following page provides a not -to -exceed budget estimate for the preparation of the Response to Comments/Final EIR including revisions to the Traffic Study (Task 4) and meetings for the preparation of the Response to Comments/Final EIR (Task 5). The total budget estimate for these tasks as described in the scope of services is $55,558. This includes PCR staff hours, WPA subconsultant fees (refer to attached letter), direct expenses, and printing. As shown in the detailed cost estimate, the remaining budget of $4,268.28 (of which $4,137.69 is remaining budget for WPA and $130.59 is the remaining budget for expenses), will be carried over from the first phase of the contract. It should be noted that, if at the completion of the scope of services the actual fees are less than the budget estimate indicated, the remaining balance will not be billed. The following budget has been prepared prior to the receipt of the comment letters on the Draft EIR. As such, PCR proposes a budget based on our current understanding of the project and based on the anticipation that an average number of comment letters will be received (approximately 20 letters of ore to five pages in length). Should the need arise for additional professional services beyond those set forth in the scope of services and budget provided herein, PCR will request from the City written authorization to proceed prior to the initiation of the additional services. This would include the need for the preparation of additional technical documentation (e.g., technical documentation related to air quality, noise, or biological resources) that is required by the City, changes in the project or the regulatory environment, or the need to respond to a significant number of comment letters or number of comments above those anticipated. Invoices will be prepared for the work completed on a monthly basis. For each billing period, PCR will provide information by subtask for the services performed. PCR reserves the right to transfer fees between the tasks and subtasks, as appropriate. Invoiced amounts are due 30 days from the date of the invoice. Traffic subconsultant invoices will be paid within 30 days of the receipt of payment from the City. City of Newport Beach Conerant EIR PCR Services Corporation Pagge 3 December 17, 1999 Detailed Budget Conexant Project Response to Comments/Final EIR Task Associate Senior Assistant Graphics/Word Total Principal Planner Planner Processing Cost Task 4 Preparation of Response to Conunents/Adminlslrative Final EIR Hours Rate Hours Rate Hours Rate Hours Rate Hours Cost Subtask 4.1- Preparation of Response to Coninients/Administrative Final EIR 120 $100 100 $70 120 $50 100 $50 440 $30,000 Subtask 4.2- Preparation of Certification Documents 24 $100 0 $70 40 $50 24 $50 88 $5,600 Subtask 4.3- Preparation of Filial EIR 16 $100 24 $70 40 $50 24 $50 104 $6,480 Subtotal Task 4 $42,080 Task 5- Meetings unit Hearings fur Filial EIR (6) 24 $100 20 $70 0 $50 .0 $50 44 $3,800 Technical Study for Response to Conunents/Fhnal EIR Revised Traffic Study and Response to Comments (WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.)* $6,200 Expenses (Including poblage for cenified mail will, FedEX to scale agencies)** $665 Printing Allowance TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $2,813 Footnotes: $55,558 The renldilling budget of $4.137.69 will W carried over front the first phase of the contract, providing for a [()[at fee of $10.337.69 for WPA. •' The remaining budget of $139.59 will be carried over from file first phase of the contract, providing for a marl of $795.59 Detailed Cost Estimate for Printing Est. Pages No. of Copies Total Cost Document Screencheck Response to Comments 500 10 $250.00 Revised Screencheck Response to Continents 500 10 $250.00 Response to Comniems/Administrative Final EIR (fur Public Distribution) 500 60 $1,500.00 Screencheck Certification Documents 50 10 $25 00 Certification Documents (for Public Distribution) 50 40 $100 00 Final EIR 550 25 $687.50 TOTAL COST OF PRINTING $2,812.50 M—M (( i C O N E X A N T March 9, 2000 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City Of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 62658-8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM MAR 14 2000 PM 7i8i9110 �ll�l�i1�2i3�4i6i6 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 926603095 Subject: Agreement Amendment for Environmental Review Services for Conexant Dear James, You are hereby authorized to withdraw funds from the Conexant escrow account to pay for fees associated with our Application for General Plan Amendment. Yours / Rich Bluth Executive Director Facilities PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 24th day of August, 1998, by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Planning Consultants Research, whose address is One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine California, 92618, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City intends to prepare and process an Environmental Impact Report for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems ("Project"). C. City desires to engage Consultant to provide environmental services for the Project upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. D. The principal members of Consultant, are for purpose of this Project are Gregory J. Broughton President and Lauren Jue, Proiect Manager. E. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to contract with Consultant under the terms of conditions provided, in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 24th day of August,1998 and shall terminate when City Council takes final action on the Environmental Impact Report, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, contained in attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the scheduled billing rates, contained in attachment "B" , and incorporated herein by reference. No rate changes shall be made during the term of Page 3 this Agreement without prior written approval of City. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed the total contract price of One Hundred Sixty-five Thousand Four Hundred Forty-three Dollars ($165 443.00 . 3.1 Consultant shall maintain accounting records of its billings which includes the name of the employee, type of work performed, times and dates of all work which is billed on an hourly basis and all approved incidental expenses including reproductions, computer printing, postage and mileage. 3.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City payable by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice subject to the approval of City and based upon attachment "B". 3.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for extra work without prior written authorization of City. Any authorized compensation shall be paid in accordance with such approval. 3.4 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses which have been specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Such cost shall be limited and shall include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services which Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Approved computer data processing and reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 3.5 Notwithstanding any other paragraph or provision of this Agreement, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement, City will withhold payment of five percent (5%) of each approved payment as approved retention until all services under this Agreement have been substantially completed. 4. STANDARD OF CARE 4.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with the community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City nor have any contractual relationship with City. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals required of its profession. Consultant further represents Page 4 and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits and other approvals during the term of this Agreement. 4.2 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond Consultant's control or without Consultant's fault. 5. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the details in means of performing the work provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement which may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance of the services or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean that Consultant shall follow the desires of City only with respect to the results of the services. 6. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 7. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall assign the Project to a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Project term. Consultant has designated Lauren Jue to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the principal members identified in the Recitals or assign any new or replacement person to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. Page 5 8. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of the services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with the schedule specified in attachment "C". The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule, may result in termination of this Agreement by City, and the assessment of damages against Consultant for delay. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays which are due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 8.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition which purportedly causes a delay, and not later than the date upon which performance is due. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays, which are beyond Consultant's control. 8.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand delivery or mail. 9. CITY POLICY Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 10. CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT All work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable city, county, state and federal law, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 11. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 12. HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnity, defend, save and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, allegations of liability, suits, costs and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, property damages, or any other claims arising from any and all negligent acts or Page 6 omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply even in the event of negligence of City, or its employees, or other contractors, excepting only the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees, and shall include attorneys' fees and all other costs incurred in defending any such claim. 13. INSURANCE Without limiting consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to City. Certification of all required policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Except workers compensation and errors and omissions, all insurance policies shall add City, its elected officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees as additional insured for all liability arising from Consultant's services as described herein. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide: unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. A. Worker's compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of Consultant, per the laws of the State of California. B. Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. D. Professional errors and omissions insurance which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior notice has been given in writing to City. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and Page 7 maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Consultant agrees that, in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or any for the services to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without consent of City shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint -venture. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. Consultant shall, at such time, and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. 16. CONFIDENTIALITY The information, which results from the services in this Agreement, is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. Page 8 17. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of his responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing record information on file at City. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data information provided by City or others without independent review or evaluation. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. 18. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Planning Department. Patricia Temple. Planning Director shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 19. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records during normal business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 20. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 21. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and/or a restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. Page 9 22. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 24. SUBCONSULTANT AND ASSIGNMENT Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services included in this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of City. 25. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3300 Fax 644-3250 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Planning Consultants Research Attention: Lauren Jue One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92618 (949) 753-7001 Fax 753-7002 Page 10 26. TERMINATION In the event either part hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days, or if more than two (2) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the nondefaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 26.1 City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay to the Consultant that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 27. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 28. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 29. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the Parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 32. PATENT INDEMNITY The Consultant shall indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. Page 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: io Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach ATTEST: By:', ;1 t.'rl• I.1.... /P'. LaVonne Harkless City Clerk F:\userslpin\sharedlpendingVockweiRcc-appr.doc 08.24-98 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Municipal Corporation Mom Thomas Edwards Mayor City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT By: Gregory J. Broughton. President Page 12 w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714)i 644-3200 November 1, 1999 Mr. Rich Bluth, P.E. Director Facilities Rockwell Semiconductor, Systems 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Subject: Contract Amendment for Environmental Review Services for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Expausion Prviect Dear Mr. Bluth, Adjustments to our agreed upon budget contract for environmental services are required. The adjustments are necessary to cover the additional time spent on the document outside the scope of the original contract. We are requesting additional out -of -contract costs to cover additional labor charges incurred. The additional environmental consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. A copy of a budget amendment submitted by Planning Consultants Research (PCR) is attached for your review. The fees are as follows: Consultant Fees $ 29,800.00 City Fees (15%) 4470.00 Total Request: $ 34,270.00 Please submit a check (payable to the City of Newport Beach), or a letter which would authorize the City to deduct funds in the amount of $ 34,270.00 from the escrow account held in Rockwell's name for the additional expenses incurred. Also, please sign and return the enclosed amendment to the contract agreement for our records. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 644-3210. Very truly yours, Marc Myers Associate Planner Attachment: Contract Amendment approval signature form Copy of Budget Amendment from PCR F.\USERS\PLN\1 PLANCOM\PENDING\rockwell\COST.DOC 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach v CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 1, 1999 P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT TEACH W. Rich Bluth, P.E. Director Facilities AM NOV 1 5 1999 FM Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 71819110111112111213141316 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 V Subject: Approval of Contract Amendment for Environmental Consulting Services for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Expansion Proiect. CONTRACT APPROVAL: Approved By: Marc Myers Title: Associate Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Consultant: Planning Consultants Research (Lauren Jue) One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Project Address: 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach Date of Proposal: October 8, 1999, copy of budget amendment attached and on file. The amended budget is $34,270.00, due upon receipt with the understanding that modifications to the study may result in additional charges and that the balance will be due upon further notice from the City of Newport Beach. Project Applicant: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Applicant Approval: Rich Bluth, Director Facilities PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY: Marc Wers, Associate Planner \uscm\sh=d\1p1wcom\pe ding\mckwell\contractAmendment 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport BeacK U, I T SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES IRVINE October 8, 1999 Mr. Marc Meyers CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Q!= ^Ir:A!PnPT171=A H Ah1 OCT 13 1999 PNl 7181911011111� 111213141515 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 PCR Re: Request for Addendum to the Conexant Systems (Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) EIR Contract Dated August 24, 1998 Between the City of Newport Beach and PCR Dear Marc: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) would like to request an addendum of $29,800 for the Conexant Systems (Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Contract dated August 24, 1998 between the City of Newport Beach and PCR. Of the requested amount, $12,800.00 is allocated for WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (WPA). The addendum is for the following additional services that PCR and WPA have and/or will provide outside the scope of the contract: • Changes in the scope ofwork for the traffic analysis as detailed in the attached letter from WPA. • Additional research and data collection with respect to the definition of related projects in the cumulative setting. Included assisting the Public Works Department in obtaining traffic data from the City of Irvine. • Additional work effort related to the analysis of the Long Range General Plan condition with Koll and without Koll for the air quality and noise assessments. • Additional coordination with and additional time frame related to the review of the Traffic Study and changes to the traffic section and the noise and air quality assessments related to the revisions in the scope of work for the Traffic Study. This will include the revisions to the air quality and noise assessments as required to reflect the City's comments on the Traffic Study. One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618-3328 INTERNET www.pernet.COM TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753.7002 v , SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES IRVI.NE Mr. Marc Meyers City of Newport Beach October 8, 1999 - Page 2 17 PCR • Additional work effort required related to water quality in response to public and agency comments received on the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. It should be noted that the fee amount of the addendum for PCR provided above is expressed as an allowance since the work effort cannot be precisely estimated as it is a process that evolves and is necessarily interactive with the City and the Project Team. Should the actual fee be less than the budget allowance indicated, the remaining balance will not be billed. Any remaining budget from this requested addendum will be forwarded to the Phase 2 work effort (preparation of the Response to Comments document, Final EIR, Certification documents, etc.) which will be requested separately after we have gained an understanding of the scope of work for the Traffic Study and the potential issues that may be raised during the public comment period on the Draft EIR. Please call to discuss any questions that you may have or ifyou have any requests for revisions to the above. We look forward to working with you on the completion of this work effort. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION Lauren Jue Associate Principal Attachment (1) One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618-3328 INTERNET www.pernet.com TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753.7002 v G :t A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING September 27, 1999 Ms. Lauren Jue Planning Consultants Research (PCR) One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT. CONEXANTSYSTEMS, INC EIR Dear Ms. Jue: As you are aware, there have been a number of changes in the scope of work for the traffic analysis portion of the subject project. These changes include requests by City Staff, additional study requested by the City of Irvine, and changes in the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The City ofNewport Beach requested that analyses be conducted with and without the Koll Center. This required additional traffic model runs as well as revisions to the numerical analyses and text. These were not included in our original scope of work. The estimated fee for this additional work is $3,500.00. Th City ofIrvine has requested the inclusion ofintersections in the analyses. These were not included in our original scope of work as defined by the City of Newport Beach. The work includes having the City of Irvine run their traffic model for various scenarios. 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laquna Hills, CA 92653 9 (949) 460-0110 • FAX: (949) 460-0113 -2- u The additional fee for this work would be $4,500.00, which includes the cost of the model run. Finally, due to the change in the TPO, the traffic study must be revised to reflect the new requirements. The following work would be required to modify the traffic study to conform to the new TPO. 1. Updated intersection count data, which would be provided to us by the City of Newport Traffic Engineering Staff. 2. Re -calculation of the one percent worksheets. Determine whether Project trips will increase traffic on any leg of any Primary intersection by one percent (10/6) or more during any Peak Hour Period one year after Project completion. 3. Re -calculation of the ICU worksheets. ICU calculations shall be made by calculating the volume to capacity ratios for each movement to three decimal places, and then adding the critical movements to obtain an ICU with three decimal places. 4. Include all Committed Projects, which shall be provided by the Traffic Engineering Department, pursuant to the new TPO guidelines under Section 3(I)(iii-iv). 5. Based upon the updated TPO guidelines, prepare cost estimates for any proposed improvements and determine the "effective capacity increase" and "effective capacity decrease" to ascertain the Project's contribution to the cost of the improvement. The fee for this revision would be $4,800.00. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - Conexant Systems, Ina EIR Mr. In summary, a total additional fee of $12,800.00 is requested to cover the work outline above. We have begun the additional work due to the time constraints to complete the model runs. Please sign one copy of this letter, if it meets with your understanding, and return it to us for our files. We look forward to our continuing work with you on this project. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENfsINEERING, INC. West�/P ' gle, P.E. WPSid CONTRACT APPROVAL: APPROVED BY: TITLE: FIRM: DATE: WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - Conexant Systems, Inc. EIR Authotited to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A•6214, September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I. am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of -eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH -COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published' in the City, of Costa Mesa, County of -Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: November 24, 1999 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 24, , 1999 at Costa Mesa, California. �'� ,N • � iaWWxO°A+Wlis 4AWd. e KOLIC NOTICE OF AVAN.AEILITY OF DRAFT �IVIRM�ft M. REPORT (DRAFT EIR) FOR THE CONEXANT fAr1O,llCT'DNClM110N: The Bunn la" M Ma, bested an to rMINAW silo Of JWMWU ROM) b$kmo kbcANW SWA sod Bud Btfr Bases ,blas 1 ydwabWeeowCars♦MFvlttty. The popwedprolsdMWMVAMMOOn0 1 0Val OamM Plan Lard Use Meats wl the Koll Canter NswpoM Palpated Con munMy NO b allow fee 1M da .gene nl d an addllbrW ttn.Moo squaO"for a told of 1.008,T/6 stiletto tea of sMewfM bnr" Norolpow to to ptrMp ota. TM mmakkV aaWoarlMagd Mf+etldr4townWall deopeaopwt papossd���p��^ teeaaee Mnal eddreaa buldrp eamada aksp Jwbaes Road, toaraatit dncMM "W46 e, Md nrt6rwu b d*O hW* and masoaq PUBUIC REVM3W PERIOD: The public nvow period for the proposed Dnfr EIR Is lraa Novembsr22. tt9t. lo.Ww"3.3D00 W~ commernte on the proposed Draft EIR Would be submlted by Jeerry S. 2WO, to - Moro Myere, Associate Pemw Day of Nswpon Beach Plenaaq Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P O. Box 1766 Nawpon Beall, California 92dM-BYt6 Ptona(Fox (949) 644.3210/(/49) 644.32M0 MEETINOSIPUBLIC HEARINOB: 'its Drat EIR will .ne mvW**d by the Csys EnvawnenW Quality Alain ComMItaa, cam" Cam *wm, ad CMY Cauncs, Spacdk MaAny does have notbeen all all a* films. Parsons suamltlaq written oominsnb an the Drat EIN will be "'doled of public boa" dates lard me@" notices Will be prated an the DWy Pilot fwmpspsr. NOMMANT ENVIRONMENTAL EDAM IDIENtBhID Is THB DRAFT MR: The Drall EIR tdentsles the follow" a4r4cad oavdd bte eMrw, Irrgscb tut oervnot ee mMlp ild b a $ M Its"' slpndleM+t level 1. Ak ouslNY_ imillenna all of to MMOW Wood would tss a in sgrWload "l ate We to etdbpated noble erd slo wmy source emMsbra excoedlnq SCAQAID's aVomnos Mmsfnolda Pow ROC sod ND.. MMgMon mourn ward induce Mass s4riftert Impeds to to.rMral lssaft. The propoMd plied M cw*AwVM aft other pest. preasnl, and nuorlsWbte fub y bMewen propab Would rwuA th • aonulatw welso t "Wact to sk quality as a to" of to "andMas of the SCAOMD's elpnM"m Mkwttolda for NO. OW RDC. The props* tncorPo o k d mitigation mMorMpds Isup~ h4md woNd W nA+Md b Mr MNn' be" thr2 TuffAlCkoulston - For Its Now Term Corvtldo, Implemerdslm of to WWO"d WWed WON WA In a slpdtwM Wood -misled impact ro the Imsmestlon d MwArhte BouWaWAmborw Ro" A millplou measure would reduce ON IMPlOct b the a I - IOM"' For the Nov Term Condition, YanpbrrnMBMla1 d tla Wed protect would rMdt Mth sIO OCON Wooc4nNtW MWad b the We e"oft of hvao AvwwlfotAl BdMd Street Tian Is no taeapb MAWW*n For to Long Rape Condition 11fWNt the Kol Centaur Neepal Woo K a OWr06" d ono pfopoMd Fraw Would resultIn apollcw pmlgol•nlm*d arnpasb to to kMaeeolbm d Jw nbOm PWONaN Brlllsl BkaM. kVm AvwreAAfMroy Drive, kvkw AvertinAls a D&V, old kMne Avswxr♦CMnp s DnNanNotth BMW Owl dug to ten Inoresee in the ICU vaM1M. For to Lap Raps CornNors w61 1110 Kati C4fdW to No $wW PM�r d InnpNmea owl d to proposed Wood would f MA In MY MMII poled-rslsNd InnFlds Jertnbaree RWdModh Bristol Ntee1, Jam borM RoaNNwah SbaM. bras AWnMIMMO Orlvs, kvao AvMnue- Camps DMvslfbrth BrIMd Swat, and Jtnmbore l RoalM40/ NwMbotNW Ramp due to an Ytowasee In Mo ICU values Teem are no tees6ls mMtaton moaVxW. TM W,"oW pond b w*ww ton wpm otw pd, peso ard re------ ytofasaMbb halo proof.lvandd nMl an slpAkaut des aalive Impacts r w- b WWAMYlm srd okadMbn. For to Nov teen Condition, mftBgbw Jambor" Road measures would b ft oft NMW. Fte to Long OM CawN4 alon moat 1Ma11ed mnMlpalm "MINING. 7 NWO - The WgMW Wood In 00111911011011 with star POK plied. a rMafWdy kreaeaabM ft" poll" ad worM1A In a aamulelw bupm rul es impact rafald b ksMlMMed rroNe o-M the mmvw soBmMt d No Sheet ham IMn Avws b BdW lit". The pmpwad poodO keftle"adf wriabilen b the asrudslive taped would be NU tan altnMbanL LOCATNN1B TO RBVIEW TNB DRAFT MI TM Dot EIR Is evslfde for pubNo nNaw M Ma Cty d NOaYrat Beall PWkMnp Daimi rent tw NO aI Bwd1 Cwnl UMwry Copts d Mo dwnsnlere may also be p rdwas d MMUP tlo Clgr Of Nw W BOYd1 PWrwB D"WWO@ a. C 1pfch Btuth P.E. C O N E X A N T Executive Director � Facilities November 3,1999 Mr. Marc Myers City Of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Planning Consultants Research Funding Increase Dear Marc,,JZ'1o� You ereby authorized to pay Planning Consultants Research an additional $29 0 .00 for work on the Conexant Environmental Impact Report. You are authorized to wffhdraw the funds from the Conexant escrow account. Yours truly, Rich Bluth Executive Director Facilities PLANNINGED RECEIVED CITY OF NEWP^c- i _- ', AM NOV 0 8 VUB 789II I10I11I1ti11123411II6 k CONEXANT. What's Next in Communications Technologies. CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. • 4311 Jamboree Road • Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 Tel 949.483.4593 • Fax 949.483 6140 • nch.bluth®conexant com Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell International Corporation 4311 Jamboree Road PO Box C Newport Beach, CA 92658-8992 * Rockwell semiconducforsystems RECEIVED BY August 10, 1998 'LANNING DEPARTNIEHd Y OF NEWPORT r,EACri ^UG 13 1998 �. City of Newport Beach Mr. Marc Myers 6 Associate Planner 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Marc, The City of Newport Beach is hereby authorized to deduct funds from the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems escrow account for the purpose of performing an environmental review of the Rockwell project. The environmental review fees are estimated to be $189,684.45. Sincerely, y vv^ 3(��Ke �➢ Rich Bluth Director Facilities Rockm B//semiconductorsystems July 29, 1998 City of Newport Beach Ms. Patricia Temple Director, Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Patricia, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell International Corporation 4311 Jamboree Road Po Box C Newport Beach, CA 92658.8902 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM AUU- Q 3 1998 PM 718�9110111�12111213�41618 Rockwell has reviewed the proposal by Planning Consultants Research (PCR) to provide environmental services to the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of the Rockwell program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Rockwell approves of the City contracting with PCR for the stated services. Rockwell would like to reserve the right to review the need for certain aspects of the EIR. Specifically, the need for review of water, hazards/risk of upset, and recreation. These details can be finalized once PCR has started on the project. As you know, Rockwell is very anxious to get this project started. You have Rockwell's approval to contract with PCR for preparation of the EIR. Sincerely, 19� Rich Bluth Director Facilities CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200 August 4, 1998 Mr. Rich Bluth, P.E. 'Director Facilities Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road, MS 502-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 C. . w" ^ - " ACH Aft M Subject: Contract Approval of Environmental Consulting Services for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Expansion Project. CONTRACT APPROVAL: Approved By: Marc Myers Title: Associate Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Consultant: Planning Consultants Research (Lauren Jue) One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Project Address: 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach PLANNINGEIVED DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM AUG 13 1998 PM 7181913 01111121 l 12131 ¢I B16 Date of Proposal: July 16, 1998, copy of proposal attached and on file. The budget is $ 189,684.45 with the understanding that modifications to the study may result in additional charges and that the balance will be due upon notice from the City of Newport Beach. Project Applicant: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Applicant Approval: Rich Bluth, Director Facilities PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY: .----- Marc Mygossociate Planner \ \shamdUpla m\pe mgkockwell\contmct.doc 3300 Newport Boulevar ;4ewportTeac`1'1 PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, POLICY It RESEARCH July 16, 1998 RECEIVED BY T PLANNING DEPARTMEh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ms. Patricia Temple Director, Planning Department AM JUL 16 Wb PM Community and Economic Development 7 8 g 1011 12 3 4 5 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH III I I i 112 l l l l 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Re: Scope of Services for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Draft Program EIR Dear Ms. Temple: Planning Consultants Research (PCR) is pleased to submit a scope of services to provide environmental services to the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) and the supporting technical documents. The scope of services, proposed budget, and proposed project schedule are provided as attachments to this letter. Three additional copies have been enclosed for your use. Please note that the scope of services and final budget for WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. will be provided under separate cover on Monday. Wes Pringle is working with the City Traffic Engineer to determine the need for a model run. The fee provided in the proposed budget reflects a model run. Based on our discussions, PCR's work effort will consist of the scope of services through the completion of the Draft Program EIR. The scope of services for the preparation of the Response to Comments and Final Program EIR will be addressed under separate agreement after the extent of the public continents on the Draft Program EIR is determined. Please call with any comments or revisions to the attached information. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important project for the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, PLANNBVG CONSULTANTS RESEARCH Gregory J. oughton President Enc. Attachment A: Scope of Services Attachment B: Budget Attachment C: Project Schedule 233 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 130 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 TEL 310 451-4488 FAX 310 451-5279 E-MA .: PCR@IDT.NET �� Lauren Jue Project Manager ONE VENTURE, SUITE 150 IRVINE, CALIFOR-NIA 92618 TEL 949 753-7001 FAX 949 753-7002 E-MAIL: PCR2@IDT.NET ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS PROGRAM EIR ATTACHMENT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES i. ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES OVERVIEW OF APPROACH PCR has developed a scope of services to provide environmental services• to the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) and supporting technical documents. Key aspects of PCR's approach to providing these services include the following: Legally -defensible EIR. The PCR Project Team will prepare a legally defensible Program EIR consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Program EIR will analyze the buildout of the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems (Rockwell) project site while allowing for flexibility in the phasing of development in response to market demands and programmatic needs. Additionally, the Program EIR will be prepared to facilitate the environmental review of future development activities that implement the buildout of the project. Coordination with City staff. The PCR Project Team will coordinate with and serve as an extension of City staff for the environmental review process. This will include the preparation and distribution of all notices and documents, conducting a public scoping meeting, and presenting the environmental analysis process for the project at public hearings. Incorporation of previous analyses. Where possible, the PCR Project Team will utilize previous studies prepared for the City and Rockwell as a basis for the analysis in the Draft Program EIR. This will include design studies, traffic and parking data, geotechnical studies, water quality and stormwater drainage information, noise assessments, and hazardous materials information. Proactive, solution -oriented analysis. The PCR Project Team will work with the City and the Rockwell Project, Team to develop solutions to environmental issues and concerns that can be incorporated into the project design, provided as mitigation measures, or addressed as alternatives to the proposed project. Based on discussion with the City, PCR's current work effort will consist of the scope of services through the completion of the Draft Program EIR. The scope of services for the preparation of the Response to Comments and Final Program EIR will be addressed under a separate agreement after the extent of the public comments on the Draft Program EIR is determined. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Coundtants Research Page t July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services IDENTIFICATION OF TASKS The overall scope of services for the preparation and processing of the Program EIR consists of the five tasks summarized below. PCR's initial work effort would include Tasks 1, 2, and 3. Task Description Task 1 Project Initiation Subtask 1.1 Preliminary Data Collection and Evaluation Subtask 1.2 Preparation of Notice of Preparation/Initial Study Task 2 Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.1 Preparation of Screencheck Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.2 Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.3 Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Program Task 3 Attendance at Meetings for Draft Program EIR Task 4 Preparation of Response to Comments/Final Program EIR Subtask 4.1 Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final Program EIR Subtask 4.2 Preparation of Certification Documents Subtask 4.3 Preparation of Final Program EIR Task 5 Attendance at Meetings and Hearings for Final Program EIR The following provides a description of PCR's initial work effort (Tasks 1, 2, and 3) and the subsequent work effort that will be addressed under a separate agreement (Tasks 4 and 5). Task 1 Project Initiation Subtask 1.1 Preliminary Data Collection and Evaluation PCR will collect and review the previous studies and documentation related to the proposed project and the project site that have been prepared for the City and Rockwell. In addition, PCR will collect and review relevant land use planning information for the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). This information will be evaluated to determine the extent of additional data or studies required. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planning Consultants Research Page 2 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Subtask 1.2 Preparation of Notice of Preparation/Initial Study PCR will prepare a draft Initial Study which includes a Project Description, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Checklist form, and an explanation for the responses on the Environmental Checklist form. The Initial Study preparation process -will be used to define, to the extent possible, the Project Description for the proposed project, the cumulative projects, and the alternatives to the proposed project for purposes of the CEQA analysis. This will include the use of figures and statistical information to illustrate: the potential phases of development and buildout of the proposed project; proposed circulation including access points and internal roadways; and parking. Additionally, the Initial Study preparation process will be used to focus out of the scope of the Draft Program EIR environmental issues such as Biological Resources and Cultural Resources that will not be significant environmental impact of the proposed project. PCR will submit ten (10) copies of the Screencheck Initial Study to the City. After review and comment by City staff and the Rockwell Project Team, PCR will prepare a final Initial Study for public distribution. It is assumed that eighty (80) copies of the Initial Study will be printed and distributed via certified mail by PCR. PCR will prepare a Notice of Preparation for distribution with the Initial Study or as a stand alone document. At the request of the City, PCR will conduct a scoping meeting during the 30-day public review period for the Notice of Preparation. PCR will coordinate the preparation of materials, posting of notices for the meeting, and the presentation of information related to the environmental review process. Task 2 Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.1 Preparation of Screencheck Draft Program EIR The preparation of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR is proposed to be initiated at a meeting with City staff, the Rockwell Project Team, and PCR after the Initial Study has been completed. The agenda for this meeting is proposed to include: (1) refinement of the scope of services regarding the environmental topics and alternatives to be included in the Screencheck Draft Program EIR based on the Initial Study and the most recent information concerning the proposed project; (2) refinement of the schedule for the environmental review process and identification of specific due dates for deliverables; (3) review of the format for the Screencheck Draft Program EIR; and (4) identification of any additional information which may be required to initiate the preparation of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 3 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services The following outline provides the proposed organization and content of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR including the environmental impact categories that will be addressed. It is assumed that the Biological Resources and Cultural Resources environmental topics will be focused out of the scope of the Draft Program EIR based on documentation within the Initial Study. ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS PROJECT SCREENCHECK DRAFT PROGRAM EIR OUTLINE I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A. Land Use and Planning B. Population and Housing C. Geologic Issues D. Water E. Air Quality F. Transportation/Circulation G. Hazards H. Noise I. Public Services J. Utilities and Service Systems K. Aesthetics L. Recreation V. ALTERNATIVES A. No Project alternative B. Design and/or Reduced Intensity Alternatives VI. GENERALIMPACTS VII. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/REFERENCES An Appendix will provide relevant information from the public participation and scoping process for the Draft Program EIR, including the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and public comments received during the 30-day public review period. A Technical Appendix, bound under a separate cover, will include the following: Air Quality Assessment, Traffic Study, Hazards/Risk of Upset Assessment, Noise Assessment, public services and utilities questionnaires, and correspondence. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planning Consultants Research Page 4 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services The following provides a description of the sections of the Screencheck Draft Program I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An Executive Summary will be provided to encapsulate the contents of the Program EIR in order to provide a quick understanding of the proposed project's impacts. The Executive Summary will identify and briefly discuss the proposed project under consideration, the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project's implementation, and the alternatives to the proposed project. The Executive Summary will include a table identifying all of the environmental topics evaluated, conclusions regarding impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation. H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Description will be composed of three subsections: Location and Setting, Statement of Project Objectives, and Project Characteristics. The Location and Setting subsection will provide: a description of the size, location, and boundaries of the project site; the location within the region relative to the City and adjacent jurisdictions; and the existing and planned land uses on and adjacent to the project site. This description will be illustrated with maps and figures, including regional and vicinity location maps. The Statement of Project Objectives subsection will define the City's objectives and Rockwell's objectives for the proposed project. These objectives will generally reflect planning, environmental, programmatic, and socioeconomic goals. The Statement of Project Objectives will be utilized to establish the criteria for the selection of a reasonable range of project alternatives to be evaluated within the Program EIR. It will also provide the basis for any subsequent rejection of alternatives in the Statement Findings and Facts and/or the definition of Overriding Considerations during the decision making process. The Project Characteristics subsection will provide a description of the proposed project including: the phases of development and buildout; population in terms of employment; special design features; circulation elements including vehicular and pedestrian access, internal roadways, and parking; infrastructure improvements; anticipated construction timeframes; and a list of required discretionary actions and approvals. The information will be illustrated with color and black and white graphics and statistical information, as appropriate. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planning Consultants Research Page 5 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section will provide an overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project including: an analysis of the major environmental characteristics and existing development on the project site; the existing land uses and activities in the surrounding the area; and the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that will be addressed in the cumulative analysis for each environmental topic. PCR will work with the City and WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. to identify the projects and other factors which comprise the cumulative setting. This information will be illustrated with graphics and statistical information, as appropriate. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS For the environmental topics identified in the outline provided above, this section will provide the Environmental Setting, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and the Level of Significance after Mitigation. The assessment of environmental impacts will be consistent with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's requirements for implementation of CEQA. It is -assumed that the environmental impact analysis will address two phases and the buildout of the proposed project. An overview of the technical approach for the analysis of each environmental topic to be addressed in the Screencheck Draft Program EIR is provided below. A. Land Use and Planning PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project, including the amendment to the Koll Center Newport Beach Planned Community Text, to result in land use impacts with respect to land use designations and compatibility conflicts with on -site and surrounding land uses. The discussion of the environmental setting for the proposed project will define: relevant land use designations, goals and policies, and zoning; existing land uses on and adjacent to the project site; and existing land use compatibility issues associated with the current use of the project site. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to land use and planning. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program FIR Planning Consultants Research Page 6 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services • Consistency with the City of Newport General Plan land use designations, applicable goals and policies, and zoning. • Compatibility with the land use designations and zoning for the adjacent properties in the City of Irvine and the UCI North campus. • Compatibility with existing on -site and surrounding land uses based on potential conflicts as a result of impacts related to traffic, air quality, noise, hazards, and aesthetics. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. B. Population and Housing PCR will analyze the potential for the proposed project to result in substantial population growth and associated implications related to housing due to increases in employment. The analysis will utilize demographic information provided by Rockwell and local and regional forecasts from the City and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The discussion of the environmental setting for the proposed project will define: local and regional population projections; existing employment on the project site; existing issues related to the balance of employment and housing; and applicable General Plan Housing Element goals and policies. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to population growth and housing. • The incremental increase in population due to employment and potential effects related to local and regional population projections and housing. • Issues related to the balance of employment with housing in the City and adjacent communities. • Consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. City or Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planning Consultants Research Page 7 July 16, M8 Attachment A: Scope of Services C. Geologic Issues PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in or expose people or property to geologic problems. The evaluation will be based on review of existing geotechnical and soils information provided by Rockwell and from other sources. The following information will be defined for the environmental setting for the proposed project: existing geotechnicai conditions on and adjacent to the project site; the location of faults, areas of ground failure, and known and predicted effects of seismic activity; areas of existing fill, excavations, or unstable soil conditions; and soil characteristics. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to geologic issues. • Potential effects of existing geologic hazards and seismic activity. • Changes in topography or potential effects of existing fill, excavations, or unstable soil conditions. • Issues related to erosion during construction activities and ongoing operations. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. D. Water PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in changes to surface drainage, exposure to water hazards such as flooding, and changes to quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater. PCR will also evaluate the availability of an adequate water supply for the proposed project and the potential for the proposed project to result in a reduction of groundwater available for public water supplies. The evaluation will be based on a review of existing information provided by Rockwell and from other sources. The following information will be used to define the existing environmental setting for the proposed project: the existing drainage patterns on and adjacent to the project site; existing water usage and drainage facilities associated with the current use of the project site; and water quantity and quality data from ongoing water monitoring activities. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 8 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to water resources. • Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. • Potential for changes to surface drainage to result in exposure to water hazards such as flooding. • Changes to quantity or quality of the surface water and groundwater due to stormwater runoff, erosion, and water discharges from construction activities and ongoing operations. • Availability of an adequate water supply for the proposed project and the potential reduction of groundwater available for public water supplies. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. E. Air Quality PCR will prepare an air quality assessment for the proposed project that will address the following: regulatory setting, existing air quality conditions, construction emissions, regional mobile source emissions (using regional travel characteristic data obtained from the Air District and the EMFAC7F1.1 emission factor model), regional stationary source emissions, local mobile source emissions (utilizing the CALINE 4 model), and conformity with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Emissions information will be used to model predicted carbon monoxide (CO) at key intersections. All quantitative analyses will be conducted in accordance with procedures set forth by the California Air Resources Board (GARB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and/or other agencies and compared to significance thresholds established by these agencies as well as ambient air quality standards. The following information will be defined for the existing environmental setting for the proposed project: existing climate and regulatory setting; existing air quality conditions; and current emissions from the Rockwell facility. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Assumptions regarding construction activities and the ongoing operations of the proposed project by phase and buildout will be based on information provided by Rockwell. Mobile source emissions will be based on traffic information provided by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. by phase and buildout. The impact analysis will address: City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 9 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to air quality. • Construction emissions and operational emissions by phase and buildout. • Proposed project's contribution to regional mobile source emissions and regional stationary source emissions by phase and buildout. • Local mobile source emissions by phase and buildout, including predicted CO emission levels at key intersections. • Conformity with the AQMP. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. F. Transportation/Circulation PCR will summarize the traffic study and parking information prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. The scope of services for WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. will be provided to the City under separate cover. Additionally, PCR will provide a qualitative discussion of potential issues related to air traffic and alternative modes of transportation. The analysis will generally address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to transportation/circulation and parking. • Existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions without the proposed project, and future traffic conditions with the proposed project by phase and buildout. • Safety issues and hazards related to the proposed circulation improvements including vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site, internal roadways, and parking. • Issues related to air traffic and alternative modes of transportation. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planing Consultants Research page 10 July 16. 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services G. Hazards PCR will prepare a hazards/risk of upset assessment which will evaluate the proposed project with respect to baseline chemical and physical hazards to the public or occupational health and safety that could potentially occur due to construction activities or the ongoing operation of the proposed project. Credible accident scenarios with a greater than one in a million chance of occurrence will be researched and compiled as baseline information. Based on an identified scenario, PCR will evaluate the potential impact of the worst case release of upset. Based on information provided by Rockwell, the potential hazards/risk of upset assessment will consider: solvent storage, distribution, use, recycling, and venting; Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) storage in cylinders and in use; and chemical residuals in soils and ground water from the past use of the project site. Information will be sought from Rockwell, the Fire Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CALEPA, and SCAQMD with regard to known or registered hazards and available plans. The regulations for the production, use, storage, and transportation of chemicals will be defined. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to hazards and risk of upset. • Potential for impacts to occur based on mathematical simulation of upset conditions. • Potential risk of upset which may result in exposure of people to hazardous substances. • Potential for interference with emergency response or evacuation plans. • Potential exposure of people to existing health hazards or the creation of health hazards due to construction activities and operations. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. H. Noise PCR will prepare a noise assessment to address the potential noise impacts associated with increases in noise levels as a result of the proposed project. This will be accomplish by determining the increases in noise levels from the existing ambient noise levels on and in the vicinity of the project site and identifying the impacts of construction, operations, and traffic - generated noise based on defined noise criteria. If it is determined to be necessary, PCR will City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page I July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services conduct ambient noise measurements at a maximum of three locations in the project vicinity in order to establish a baseline for the noise assessment. The following information will be defined for the existing environmental setting for the proposed project: current noise regulations for land uses on and adjacent to the project site; existing noise levels on and adjacent to the project site including noise from current operations and traffic; -location of noise sensitive land uses or functions on or adjacent to the project site. PCR will model noise impacts from construction, project -related traffic, and operations activities. Assumptions regarding construction activities and the ongoing operations of the proposed project by phase and buildout will be based on information provided by Rockwell. Traffic generated noise will be based on traffic information provided by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. by phase and buildout. Modeling efforts, using procedures and algorithms supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and industry standards, will provide for an evaluation of the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to noise. • Potential construction noise sources and distance -based attenuation estimates of short- term noise impacts to on -site and surrounding land uses by phase and buildout. • Changes in noise levels due to the incremental increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the proposed project by phase and buildout. • Changes in ambient noise levels due to the operation of the proposed project by phase and buildout and potential effects to on -site and surrounding land uses. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. I. Public Services PCR will prepare an inventory of existing public services and facilities that serve the project site and vicinity. An analysis of the proposed project's impacts on the delivery of fire protection, police protection, and other public services to the project site and the surrounding vicinity will be provided. PCR will utilize existing documentation and a public services questionnaire sent to the service providers. Assessments of the adequacy of facilities and levels of service will be based upon the judgment of the service provider. The following baseline environmental information will be defined: the existing levels of service, staffing, and equipment City or Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research page 12 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services for the project site; service requirements based on the location, type of land use, and improvements; and fire suppression and security measures currently in place on the project site. Additionally, PCR will analyze the potential for the proposed project to result in an impact to school capacity levels. The analysis will utilize existing documentation and a public services questionnaire sent to the school district(s). Assessments of the adequacy of facilities and school capacity will be based upon the judgment of the respective school district. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to public services and schools. • Changes to the levels of service or the identification of the need for additional staffing, equipment, or facilities for the service providers to serve the proposed project. • Potential conflicts or impacts to emergency response plans or evacuation routes. • School capacity levels and the effect of increases in employment on population growth related to the generation of students. Recommended mitigation measures will be provided consistent with the policies and programs of the service providers to reduce the identified significant impacts. The level of significance after the implementation of the mitigation measures will be defined. I Utilities and Service Systems PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts to the existing and proposed infrastructure systems, including sewer, water, storm drainage, solid waste, electric power, and natural gas systems for the project site. The adequacy of the existing and proposed systems will be based upon information from utilities and service systems questionnaires sent to the providers and information requested from Rockwell. The following baseline environmental information will be defined: the current service provider; the existing capacity and adequacy of the existing on -site and off -site facilities and systems; and proposed generation or consumption rate. PCR will request information from Rockwell regarding the nature and scope of the improvements required to serve the proposed project. PCR will evaluate the potential project - specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 13 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. Changes to the existing capacities of on -site and off -site facilities and systems as result of the proposed project and the identification of any resulting deficiencies. Adequacy of the on -site and off -site utility improvements to service the proposed project. Recommended mitigation measures will be provided consistent with the policies and programs of the service providers to reduce the identified significant impacts. The level of significance after the implementation of the mitigation measures will be defined. K. Aesthetics PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts to aesthetics on the project site and in the vicinity of the project site with regard to views or scenic vistas open to the public, reflective light, and nighttime illumination. The following baseline environmental information will be defined: existing visual quality of the project site and vicinity; views or vistas open to the public; and sources of reflective light and nighttime illumination. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. This will include an analysis of the changes to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards including the "Special Features" which address building setbacks along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building areas and massing. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to aesthetics. Changes to the visual quality of the project site and vicinity, views or vistas open to the public, and reflective light and nighttime illumination. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. L. Recreation PCR will analyze the potential for the proposed project to result in an impact due to an increase in demand for recreational facilities. The analysis will utilize a questionnaire sent to the respective jurisdiction. Assessments of the adequacy of facilities and levels of service will be City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 14 July 16. 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services based upon the judgment of the facility provider. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to recreation. • Changes to the levels of service at existing facilities. Recommended mitigation measures will be provided consistent with the policies and programs of the facility provider to reduce the identified significant impacts. The level of significance after the implementation of the mitigation measures will be defined. V. ALTERNATIVES The Program EIR will include an analysis of alternatives consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and PCR's understanding of current CEQA practice. The alternatives will be based on information discussed at the Rockwell site visit and further refined by PCR, the City staff, and the Rockwell Project Team as a result of the preparation of the Initial Study, comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and the conclusions of the environmental impact analysis prepared for the proposed project. It is anticipated that three design and/or reduced intensity alternatives and the mandatory no -project alternative will be analyzed in the Screencheck Draft Program EIR. For each alternative, this section will provide a description of the alternative, consideration of the alternative's feasibility in relationship to the Statement of the Project Objectives, and a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternative versus the impacts as a result of the proposed project. The alternatives will be evaluated in a more qualitative and comparative manner than the analysis described above for the proposed project. If required, the evaluation of transportation/circulation, noise, and air quality impacts associated with the various alternatives will be presented in terms of percent reduction of impact as compared to the proposed project. VI. GENERAL IMPACTS This section will provide the following CEQA-required analyses: (1) Relationship between Local Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity; (2) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; and (3) Growth -Inducing Impacts. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 15 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services VII. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/REFERENCES This section will provide lists of the individuals responsible for or consulted during the preparation of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR and technical studies. A list of the references used in the preparation of the Draft Screencheck Program EIR will also be provided. At its completion, PCR will submit ten (10) copies of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR and Technical Appendices for review and comment by the City staff and the Rockwell Project Team. After the incorporation of the revisions to reflect comments received, PCR will submit two (2) copies of a revised Screencheck Draft Program EIR for final review and approval. Subtask 2.2 Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subsequent to City staff and Rockwell Project Team review of the revised Screencheck Draft Program EIR, PCR will prepare the Draft Program EIR. PCR will print 80 copies (estimated at 300 pages each) of the Draft Program EIR and 60 copies (estimated at 300 pages each) of the Technical Appendix. PCR will transmit the Draft Program EIR to the State Clearinghouse and distribute the documents for public review via certified mail. PCR will prepare the Notice of Completion for transmittal with the Draft Program EIR. Subtask 2.3 Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Program PCR will prepare a Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for submittal to City staff and the Rockwell Project Team for review and comment. The MMP will contain a compilation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft Program EIR, listed by impact category, with agency monitoring and enforcement responsibility and monitoring phase identified for each measure. The MMP will be prepared consistent with the City's required format. The MMP will be finalized at a time in the environmental process that is determined to be appropriate by the City staff. Task 3 Attendance at Meetings for Draft Program EIR PCR will attend a total of twelve (12) meetings related to the preparation of the Draft Program EIR. This would include: meetings with City staff and the Rockwell Project Team to address project initiation, data collection, and review of the environmental documentation and technical studies; meetings with adjacent jurisdictions and local interest groups; and an agency/public scoping meeting. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor systems Program EIR Planning Consultants Research Page 16 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Task 4 Preparation of Response to Comments/Final Program EIR Subtask 4.1 Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final Program EIR Based on discussions with the City staff, PCR will prepare a Response to Comments document which will respond to all written comments received from agencies, interest groups, and individuals during the 45-day public review period for the Draft Program EIR. In addition, PCR will prepare an errata with revisions to the Draft Program EIR based on information received during the public review period and provided in the Response to Comments document. A Draft of the Response to Comments document and an errata to the Draft Program EIR will be submitted to the City staff and the Rockwell Project Team for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will prepare a revised Response to Comments document and compile the documents that will comprise the Administrative Final Program EIR for submittal to the City. PCR in coordination with City staff will provide the Response to Comments document to commenting agencies for review prior to action being taken on the proposed project. Subtask 4.2 Preparation of Certification Documents PCR will work with City staff to prepare a draft of the required certification documents. These documents will consist of a Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and, if required, a Statement of Overriding Considerations. PCR will submit a draft of these documents to the City for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will revise and submit these documents to the City for distribution to the appropriate parties. Subtask 4.3 Preparation of Final Program EIR After action is taken on the project and the Program EIR is certified as complete and final, PCR will prepare and submit the Final Program EIR to the City. PCR will work with the City staff to determine the number of copies, the type of originals, and the distribution of the Final Program EIR. PCR will prepare for City staff review the Notice of Determination and will file the notice with the appropriate agencies. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planning Consultants Research Page 17 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Task 5 Attendance at Meetings and Hearings for Final Program EIR PCR will attend meetings for the preparation of the Response to Comments document and the Final Program EIR and hearings related to the consideration of the approval of the project and certification of the Program EIR. The number of meetings will be determined at a later date. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 18 July 16, 1998 ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS PROGRAM EIR ATTACHMENT B: BUDGET ATTACHMENT B BUDGET The following pages provide a detailed budget for the preparation of the Draft Program EIR and related technical documentation (Tasks 1 and 2) and attendance at meetings for the preparation of the Draft Program EIR (Task 3). The total budget for these tasks as described in the scope of services is $165,443 including PCR staff hours, technical studies, direct expenses, and printing. As discussed above, the services for the preparation of the Response to Comments and the Final Program EIR (Tasks 4 and 5) will be addressed under a separate agreement after the extent of the public comments on the Draft Program EIR is determined. PCR proposes a cost-effective scope of services based on our current understanding of the project. Should the need arise for additional professional services beyond those set forth in the scope of services and budget provided herein due to changes in the project or the regulatory environment, PCR will request from the City written authorization to proceed prior to the initiation of the additional services. Invoices will be prepared for the work completed on a monthly basis. For each billing period, PCR will provide information by subtask for the services performed. PCR reserves the right to transfer fees between the environmental topics, as appropriate. Invoiced amounts are due 30 days from the date of the invoice. Traffic subconsultant invoices will be paid within 30 days of the receipt of payment from the City. City of Newport Beach Planning Consultants Research Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR July 16, 1998 Page 19 Detailed Budget Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Draft Program EIR Task Principal Hours Rate Principal Planner Hours Rate Senior Planner/ Planner Hours Rate Associate/Assistant Planner Hours Rate Graphics/Word Processing Hours Rate Total Cost Hours Cost Task I - Project Initiation Subtask l.l-Preliminary Data Collection and Evaluation 4 5175 24 $90 16 S80 24 $50 0 S50 69 $5,340 Subtask 1.2-Preparation of Notice of Preparutiodinitial Study 4 $175 40 $90 24 $90 40 $50 32 $50 140 $9,820 Subtotal Task 8 64 40 64 32 208 $15,160 Task 2-Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.1-Preparation of Screencheck Draft Program EIR' • Executive Summary 0 $175 8 S90 8 $80 24 S50 8 $50 48 $2,960 • Project Description 4 $175 36 $90 8 $80 24 $50 16 $50 88 $6,580 • Environmental Setting 0 $175 24 $90 8 $80 40 $50 8 $50 80 $5,200 • Environmental Impact Analysis - Land Use and Planning 2 SI75 24 $90 24 $80 40 $50 8 $50 98 $6,830 - Population and Housing 1 $175 16 S90 16 $80 24 $50 2 $50 59 54,195 - Geologic Issues 0 SI75 16 $90 16 S80 24 S50 4 $50 60 54,120 - Water 0 $175 16 $90 8 $80 24 $50 4 $50 52 $3,480 - Air Quality*' 0 $175 16 $90 8 S80 8 $50 8 $50 40 $2,880 - Transportation/Circulation'* 1 $175 40 S90 16 $80 16 $50 16 S50 89 $6,655 - Hazards" 1 $175 16 $90 16 $80 24 $50 8 $50 65 54,495 - Noise'* I SI75 32 $90 8 S80 16 $50 8 $50 65 54,895 - Public Services 1 $175 16 $90 16 S80 60 $50 4 S50 97 $6,095 - Utilities and Service Systems 1 $175 16 $90 16 $80 60 S50 4 $50 97 $6,095 - Aesthetics 1 $175 24 $90 40 $80 40 $50 16 S50 121 58,335 - Recreation 1 $175 4 $90 4 $80 8 $50 4 S50 21 $1,455 • Alternatives 4 5175 32 $90 24 S80 40 $50 16 $50 116 58,300 • General Impacts I SI75 8 $90 8 $80 16 $50 2 S50 35 $2,435 Subtotal Subtask 2.1 19 344 244 489 136 1231 585,005 Subtask2.2-Preparation of Draft Program EIR 4 5175 60 S90 60 $80 40 $50 40 $50 204 $14,900 Subtask2.3-Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Program 0 5175 8 $90 16 S80 16 S50 8 S50 48 S3,200 Subtotal Task 2 23 412 320 544 184 1483 $103,105 Task 3-Attendance at Meetings for Draft Program EIR (12) 24 $175 48 S90 24 $80 24 S50 0 S50 120 511,640 Technical Studies for Draft Program EIR (Refer to detail below) Air Quality Assessment (PCR) $6,000 Traffic Study (WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.) - 57,500 Noise Assessment (PCR) 56,060 Hazards/Risk of Upset (PCR) $6,280 Subtotal Technical Studies S25,840 "Expenses (Including postage for certified mail) S4 000 Printin AOowance•'• 556" TOTAL COST ESTIMATE 5165,443 Footnotes: * It is assumed that the analysis of Biological Resources and Cultural Resources will be focused out of the scope of the Draft EIR during the preparation of the Initial Study. *' These hour and cost estimates are only for the preparation of the sections of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR. The hours and costs associated with the technical studies are presented below in the Cost Estimate for Technical Studies section ofthis table. *** Allowance is for printing of delivembles as described in the Scope of Services and presented below in the Cost Estimate for Printing section ofthis table. to Rockwell Semi Detailed Cost Estimate for Technical Studies Hours Rate Total Cost Air Quality Assessment • Review Existing Data 8 S75 $600 • Define Existing Conditions 8 $75 S600 • Define Emissions 8 S75 $600 • Predict Carbon Monoxide at Key Intersections 16 S75 $1,200 • Determine Impacts and Mitigation 8 S75 S600 • Address Alternatives 8 S75 $600 • Prepare Technical Study 8 $75 8 S125 $600 • Models $1,000 $200 Subtotal Air Quality Assessment 72 S6 000 Traffic Study • Review and Update Existing Documents • Define Impacts and Mitigation • Address Alternatives • Prepare Technical Traffic Study • Attend Meetings Subtotal Traffic Study $7r 500 Noise Assessment • Review Existing Data 8 $80 S640 • Monitor Existing Conditions 14 S80 $1,120 • Define Existing Conditions 8 $80 $64D • Predict Future Noise Levels 12 $80 $960 • Determine Impacts and Mitigation 6 $80 S480 • Address Alternatives 8 $80 $640 • Prepare Technical Study 16 $80 $1,280 • Noise Instrument Fee $300 Subtotal Noise Assessment 72 S6,060 Hazards/Risk of Upset Assessment • Review Existing Data 8 S75 $600 • Conduct Site Visit and Research 16 $75 $1,200 • Define Existing Conditions 8 $75 $600 • Determine Impacts and Mitigation 24 $75 $1,800 • Address Alternatives 16 S75 $1,200 • Prepare Technical Study 8 $110 $880 Subtotal Human Health/Risk of Upset Assessment 80 56,280 Total Cost of Technical Studies S25,840 Detailed Budget (Continued) Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Draft Program EIR Detailed Cost Estimate for Printing Est Pages No. of Copies Total Cost Document Draft Initial Study 50 10 S56 Initial Study 50 80 S325 Screeneheck Draft Progmm EIR 300 10 S444 Screencheck Draft Prognvn EIR Technical Appendix 300 10 S280 Revised Screencheck Draft Program EIR 300 2 $98 Draft Program EIR 300 g0 S2,840 Draft Program EIR Technical Appendix 300 60 $1,138 10 Percent Administrative Cost $518 Total Cost of Printing SS 698 ROQCWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS PROGRAM EIR ATTACHMENT C: PROJECT SCHEDULE ATTACHMENT C PROJECT SCHEDULE PCR has estimated that the completion of the Draft Program EIR (Tasks 1, 2, and 3) can be accomplished within an approximately 8-month time frame as shown on the proposed project schedule provided on the following page. Prior to finalization of the project schedule, PCR will work with City staff to define more specific time frames and completion dates for deliverables. The PCR Project Team will commit all necessary resources to ensure the preparation of the Program EIR and related technical documents within the desired time frame upon finalization of the project schedule occurs. Through close coordination between the PCR Project Manager and the City staff, any potential changes to the finalized project schedule will be agreed upon and communicated in a manner acceptable to both parties. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planting Consultants Research Page 23 July 16, 1998 -- Y��V�uvVV�WWWWWLLWLLW�WL����W •• son moon■ ■o■m■ss■■■ol ■■■■■■■■■moo Qa■■■■� o�,ewvoRTs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: August 24, 1998 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: _ = PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Marc Myers 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (949)644-3210 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644-3200; FAX (714) 644-3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Expansion FILE C" ACTION: Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Planning Consultants Research (PCR) of Irvine, California, for professional environmental services for a contract price of $165,443.00. BACKGROUND: Council Policy F-14, Authority to Contract For Services, authorizes Department Heads to award contracts for services of less than $30,000.00 without further review. However, contracts in excess of $30,000.00; contracts for service not specified in the approved budget; and contracts for services which exceed the amount authorized by the City Council in the budget must be submitted to the City Council for specific approval before the contract is awarded. Additionally, the City Attorney is required to review all specific contract documents prior to contract award. It should also be noted that the City's standard practice for more than 20 years has been to select environmental consultants from a list of firms previously qualified by the City, when agreed to by the applicant. The City has followed this practice because the time limits on EIR preparation make it impractical to do a full selection process for each case. Attached is a letter from Rockwell authorizing the City to contract with PCR for environmental services. Additionally, no City funds are involved in these contracts, as the applicant is responsible for the cost of EIR preparation. SUMMARY: Planning Consultants Research has provided a proposal to perform professional environmental services for the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of a Program Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems' expansion. Attached is a copy of the proposal submitted by PCR. The proposal contains the scope of services through the completion of the Draft Program EIR, proposed budget, and time schedule for preparation and processing the environmental documentation. At the City's request, the scope of services for the preparation of the Response to Comments and Final Program EIR will be addressed under a separate agreement after the extent of the public comments on the Draft Program EIR is determined. Staff has reviewed the scope of services and determined that the services that will be provided meet or exceed the minimum requirements set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental consulting fees for tasks described in the scope of services including PCR staff hours, technical studies, direct expenses, and printing have been reviewed by staff and are considered appropriate and warranted. The Assistant City Attorney is reviewing the form and content of the Professional Services Agreement. The agreement will be delivered on Friday, the 21" of August. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assist t City Manager Attachments: Scope of Services Proposal Letter from Rockwell Prepared by: MARC W. MYERS Associate Planner Page 2 PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, POLIC` Et RESEARCH July 16, 1998 RECEIVED BY T PLANNING DEPARTMEI` CITY OF NEWPORT !:EACH Ms. Patricia Temple Director, Planning Department AM JUL 'I b Wb PM Community and Economic Development CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 71819110111112111213141516 3300 Newport Boulevard !� Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Re: Scope of Services for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Draft Program EIR. Dear Ms. Temple: Planning Consultants Research (PCR) is pleased to submit a scope of services to provide environmental services to the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) and the supporting technical documents. The scope of services, proposed budget, and proposed project schedule are provided as attachments to this letter. Three additional copies have been enclosed for your use. Please note that the scope of services and final budget for WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. will be provided under separate cover on Monday. Wes Pringle is working with the City Traffic Engineer to determine the need for a model run. The fee provided in the proposed budget reflects a model run. Based on our discussions, PCR's work effort will consist of the scope of services through the completion of the Draft Program EIR. The scope of services for the preparation of the Response to Comments and Final Program EIR will be addressed under separate agreement after the extent of the public comments on the Draft Program EIR is determined. Please call with any comments or revisions to the attached information. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important project for the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH Gregory President Enc. Attachment A: Scope of Services Attachment B: Budget Attachment C: Project Schedule 233 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 130 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 TEL 310 451-4488 FAx 310 451-5279 Lauren T. Project Manager ONE VEA--RE, SUITE 150 IAVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 TEL 949 753.7001 FAx 949 753-7002 E-MAIL: PCR@IDT.NtT E-MA . PCR2@IDT.NET ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS PROGRAM EIR I ATTACHMENT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES OVERVIEW OF APPROACH PCR has developed a scope of services to provide environmental services to the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) and supporting technical documents. Key aspects of PCR's approach to providing these services include the following: Legally -defensible EIR. The PCR Project Team will prepare a legally defensible Program EIR consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Program EIR will analyze the buildout of the Rockwell Semiconductor Systems (Rockwell) project site while allowing for flexibility in the phasing of development in response to market demands and programmatic needs. Additionally, the Program EIR will be prepared to facilitate the environmental review of future development activities that implement the buildout of the project. Coordination with City stag. The PCR Project Team will coordinate with and serve as an extension of City staff for the environmental review process. This will include the preparation and distribution of all notices and documents, conducting a public scoping meeting, and presenting the environmental analysis process for the project at public hearings. Incorporation of previous analyses. Where possible, the PCR Project Team will utilize previous studies prepared for the City and Rockwell as a basis for the analysis in the Draft Program EIR. This will include design studies, traffic and parking data, geotechnicai studies, water quality and stormwater drainage information, noise assessments, and hazardous materials information. • Proactive, solution -oriented analysis. The PCR Project Team will work with the City and the Rockwell Project Team to develop solutions to environmental issues and concerns that can be incorporated into the project design, provided as mitigation measures, or addressed as alternatives to the proposed project. Based on discussion with the City, PCR's current work effort will consist of the scope of services through the completion of the Draft Program EIR. The scope of services for the preparation of the Response to Comments and Final Program EIR will be addressed under a separate agreement after the extent of the public comments on the Draft Program EIR is determined. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page I July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services IDENTIFICATION OF TASKS The overall scope of services for the preparation and processing of the Program EIR consists of the five tasks summarized below. PCR's initial work effort would include Tasks 1, 2, and 3. Task Description Task 1 Project Initiation Subtask 1.1 Preliminary Data Collection and Evaluation Subtask 1.2 Preparation of Notice of Preparationtlaitial Study Task 2 Preparation of Draft Program Ent Subtask 2.1 Preparation of Screencheck Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.2 Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.3 Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Program Task 3 Attendance at Meetings for Draft Program EIR Task 4 Preparation of Response to Comments/FYnal Program Ent Subtask 4.1 Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final Program EIR Subtask 4.2 Preparation of Certification Documents Subtask 4.3 Preparation of Final Program EIR Task 5 Attendance at Meetings and Hearings for Final Program Ent The following provides a description of PCR's initial work effort (Tasks 1, 2, and 3) and the subsequent work effort that will be addressed under a separate agreement (Tasks 4 and 5). Task 1 Project Initiation Subtask 1.1 Preliminary Data Collection and Evaluation PCR will collect and review the previous studies and documentation related to the proposed project and the project site that have been prepared for the City and Rockwell. In addition, PCR will collect and review relevant land use planning information for the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). This information will be evaluated to determine the extent of additional data or studies required. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semkonductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 2 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Subtask 1.2 Preparation of Notice of Preparation/Initial Study PCR will prepare a draft Initial Study which includes a Project Description, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Checklist form, and an explanation for the responses on the Environmental Checklist form. The Initial Study preparation process will be used to define, to the extent possible, the Project Description for the proposed project, the cumulative projects, and the alternatives to the proposed project for purposes of the CEQA analysis. This will include the use of figures and statistical information to illustrate: the potential phases of development and buildout of the proposed project; proposed circulation including access points and internal roadways; and parking. Additionally, the Initial Study preparationprocess will be used to focus out of the scope of the Draft Program EIR environmental issues such as Biological Resources and Cultural Resources that will not be significant environmental impact of the proposed project. PCR will submit ten (10) copies of the Screencheck Initial Study to the City. After review and comment by City staff and the Rockwell Project Team, PCR will prepare a final Initial Study for public distribution. It is assumed that eighty (80) copies of the Initial Study will be printed and distributed via certified mail by PCR. PCR will prepare a Notice of Preparation for distribution with the Initial Study or as a stand alone document. At the request of the City, PCR will conduct a scoping meeting during the 30day public review period for the Notice of Preparation. PCR will coordinate the preparation of materials, posting of notices for the meeting, and the presentation of information related to the environmental review process. Task 2 Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.1 Preparation of Screencheck Draft Program EIR The preparation of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR is proposed to be initiated at a meeting with City staff, the Rockwell Project Team, and PCR after the Initial Study has been completed. The agenda for this meeting is proposed to include: (1) refinement of the scope of services regarding the environmental topics and alternatives to be included in the Screencheck Draft Program EIR based on the Initial Study and the most recent information concerning the proposed project; (2) refinement of the schedule for the environmental review process and identification of specific due dates for deliverables; (3) review of the format for the Screencheck Draft Program EIR; and (4) identification of any additional information which may be required to initiate the preparation of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR. Cny of Newport Beach Rockwell Semieaodoctor Systems Progr m Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 3 July 16. 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services The following outline provides the proposed organization and content of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR including the environmental impact categories that will be addressed. It is assumed that the Biological Resources and Cultural Resources environmental topics will be focused out of the scope of the Draft Program EIR based on documentation within the Initial Study. ROCKWELL SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEMS PROJECT SCREENCRECK DRAFT PROGRAM EIR OUTLINE I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION M. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A. Land Use and Planning B. Population and Housing C. Geologic Issues D. Water E. Air Quality F. Transportation/Circulation G. Hazards H. Noise I. Public Services J. Utilities and Service Systems K. Aesthetics L. Recreation V. ALTERNATIVES A. No Project alternative B. Design and/or Reduced Intensity Alternatives VI. GENERAL IMPACTS VIL PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/REFERENCEs An Appendix will provide relevant information from the public participation and scoping process for the Draft Program EIR, including the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and public comments received during the 30-day public review period. A Technical Appendix, bound under a separate cover, will include the following: Air Quality Assessment, Traffic Study, Hazards/Risk of Upset Assessment, Noise Assessment, public services and utilities questionnaires, and correspondence. City of Newport Beach Rockwell semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Comidtants Research Page 4 July 16. 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services The following provides a description of the sections of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR. I. ExEcmn SummARY An Executive Summary will be provided to encapsulate the contents of the Program EIR in order to provide a quick understanding of the proposed project's impacts. The Executive Summary will identify and briefly discuss the proposed project under consideration, the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project's implementation, and the alternatives to the proposed project. The Executive Summary will include a table identifying all of the environmental topics evaluated, conclusions regarding impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation. H. PRoaEcr DESCRIPTION The Project Description will be composed of three subsections: Location and Setting, Statement of Project Objectives, and Project Characteristics. The Location and Setting subsection will provide: a description of the size, location, and boundaries of the project site; the location within the region relative to the City and adjacent jurisdictions; and the existing and planned land uses on and adjacent to the project site. This description will be illustrated with maps and figures, including regional and vicinity location maps. The Statement of Project Objectives subsection will define the City's objectives and Rockwell's objectives for the proposed project. These objectives will generally reflect planning, environmental, programmatic, and socioeconomic goals. The Statement of Project Objectives will be utilized to establish the criteria for the selection of a reasonable range of project alternatives to be evaluated within the Program EIR. It will also provide the basis for any subsequent rejection of alternatives in the Statement Findings and Facts and/or the definition of Overriding Considerations during the decision making process. The Project Characteristics subsection will provide a description of the proposed project including: the phases of development and buildout; population in terms of employment; special design features; circulation elements including vehicular and pedestrian access, internal roadways, and parking; infrastructure improvements; anticipated construction timeframes; and a list of required discretionary actions and approvals. The information will be illustrated with color and black and white graphics and statistical information, as appropriate. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Pluming Consultants Research Page 5 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services M. ENYIRONmENTAL SETTING This section will provide an overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project including: an analysis of the major environmental characteristics and existing development on the project site; the existing land uses and activities in the surrounding the area; and the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that will be addressed in the cumulative analysis for each environmental topic. PCR will work with the City and WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. to identify the projects and other factors which comprise the cumulative setting. This information will be illustrated with graphics and statistical information, as appropriate. IV. ENY1RoNMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS For the environmental topics identified in the outline provided above, this section will provide the Environmental Setting, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and the Level of Significance after Mitigation. The assessment of environmental impacts will be consistent with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's requirements for implementation of CEQA. It is assumed that the environmental impact analysis will address two phases and the buildout of the proposed project. An overview of the technical approach for the analysis of each environmental topic to be addressed in the Screencheck Draft Program EIR is provided below. A. II.and Use and Planning PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project, including the amendment to the Koli Center Newport Beach Planned Community Text, to result in land use impacts with respect to land use designations and compatibility conflicts with on -site and surrounding land uses. The discussion of the environmental setting for the proposed project will define: relevant land use designations, goals and policies, and zoning; existing land uses on and adjacent to the project site; and existing land use compatibility issues associated with the current use of the project site. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to land use and planning. City or Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Manning Consultants Research Page 6 July 16. 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Consistency with the City of Newport General Plan land use designations, applicable goals and policies, and zoning. • Compatibility with the land use designations and zoning for the adjacent properties in the City of Irvine and the UCI North campus. • Compatibility with existing on -site and surrounding land uses based on potential conflicts as a result of impacts related to traffic, air quality, noise, hazards, and aesthetics. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. B. Population and Housing PCR will analyze the potential for the proposed project to result in substantial population growth and associated implications related to housing due to increases in employment. The analysis will utilize demographic information provided by Rockwell and local and regional forecasts from the City and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The discussion of the environmental setting for the proposed project will define: local and regional population projections; existing employment on the project site; existing issues related to the balance of employment and housing; and applicable General Plan Housing Element goals and policies. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to population growth and housing. • The incremental increase in population due to employment and potential effects related to local and regional population projections and housing. • Issues related to the balance of employment with housing in the City and adjacent communities. • Consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planing Consultants Research Page 7 My 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services C. Geologic Issues PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in or expose people or property to geologic problems. The evaluation will be based on review of existing geotechnical and soils information provided by Rockwell and from other sources. The following information will be defined for the environmental setting for the proposed project: existing geotechnical conditions on and adjacent to the project site; the location of faults, areas of ground failure, and known and predicted effects of seismic activity; areas of existing fill, excavations, or unstable soil conditions; and soil characteristics. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to geologic issues. • Potential effects of existing geologic hazards and seismic activity. • Changes in topography or potential effects of existing fill, excavations, or unstable soil conditions. • Issues related to erosion during construction activities and ongoing operations. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of signific nce afar mitigation will be defined. D. Water PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in changes to surface drainage, exposure to water hazards such as flooding, and changes to quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater. PCR will also evaluate the availability of an adequate water supply for the proposed project and the potential for the proposed project to result in a reduction of groundwater available for public water supplies. The evaluation will be based on a review of existing information provided by Rockwell and from other sources. The following information will be used to define the existing environmental setting for the proposed project: the existing drainage patterns on and adjacent to the project site; existing water usage and drainage facilities associated with the current use of the project site; and water quantity and quality data from ongoing water monitoring activities. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planning Consultants Research Page 8 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to water resources. • Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. • Potential for changes to surface drainage to result in exposure to water hazards such as flooding. • Changes to quantity or quality of the surface water and groundwater due to stormwater runoff, erosion, and water discharges from construction activities and ongoing operations. • Availability of an adequate water supply for the proposed project and the potential reduction of groundwater available for public water supplies. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. E. Air Quality PCR will prepare an air quality assessment for the proposed project that will address the following: regulatory setting, existing air quality conditions, construction emissions, regional mobile source emissions (using regional travel characteristic data obtained from the Air District and the EMFAC7F1. I emission factor model), regional stationary source emissions, local mobile source emissions (utilizing the CALINE 4 model), and conformity with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Emissions information will be used to model predicted carbon monoxide (CO) at key intersections. All quantitative analyses will be conducted in accordance with procedures set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and/or other agencies and compared to significance thresholds established by these agencies as well as ambient air quality standards. The following information will be defied for the existing environmental setting for the proposed project: existing climate and regulatory setting; existing air quality conditions; and current emissions from the Rockwell facility. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Assumptions regarding construction activities and the ongoing operations of the proposed project by phase and buildout will be based on information provided by Rockwell. Mobile source emissions will be based on traffic information provided by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. by phase and buildout. The impact analysis will address: City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent etanniq Consultants Research Page 9 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to air quality. • Construction emissions and operational emissions by phase and buildout. • Proposed project's contribution to regional mobile source emissions and regional stationary source emissions by phase and buildout. • Local mobile source emissions by phase and buildout, including predicted CO emission levels at key intersections. • Conformity with the AQMP. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. F. Transportation/Circulation PCR will summarize the traffic study and parking information prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. The scope of services for WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. will be provided to the City under separate cover. Additionally, PCR will provide a qualitative discussion of potential issues related to air traffic and alternative modes of transportation. The analysis will generally address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to transportation/circulation and parking. • Existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions without the proposed project, and future traffic conditions with the proposed project by phase and buildout. • Safety issues and hazards related to the proposed circulation improvements including vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site, internal roadways, and parking. • Issues related to air traffic and alternative modes of transportation. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. City of Newport teach Roekwea Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 10 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services G. Hazards PCR will prepare a hazards/risk of upset assessment which will evaluate the proposed project with respect to baseline chemical and physical hazards to the public or occupational health and safety that could potentially occur due to construction activities or the ongoing operation of the proposed project. Credible accident scenarios with a greater than one in a million chance of occurrence will be researched and compiled as baseline information. Based on an identified scenario, PCR will evaluate the potential impact of the worst case release of upset. Based on information provided by Rockwell, the potential hazards/risk of upset assessment will consider: solvent storage, distribution, use, recycling, and venting; Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) storage in cylinders and in use; and chemical residuals in soils and ground water from the past use of the project site. Information will be sought from Rockwell, the Fire Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CALEPA, and SCAQMD with regard to known or registered hazards and available plans. The regulations for the production, use, storage, and transportation of chemicals will be defined. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to hazards and risk of upset. • Potential for impacts to occur based on mathematical simulation of upset conditions. • Potential risk of upset which may result in exposure of people to hazardous substances. • Potential for interference with emergency response or evacuation plans. • Potential exposure of people to existing health hazards or the creation of health hazards due to construction activities and operations. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. H. Noise PCR will prepare a noise assessment to address the potential noise impacts associated with increases in noise levels as a result of the proposed project. This will be accomplish by determining the increases in noise levels from the existing ambient noise levels on and in the vicinity of the project site and identifying the impacts of construction, operations, and traffic - generated noise based on defined noise criteria. If it is determined to be necessary, PCR will City of Newport Reach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page I I July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services conduct ambient noise measurements at a maximum of three locations in the project vicinity in order to establish a baseline for the noise assessment. The following information will be defined for the existing environmental setting for the proposed project: 'current noise regulations for land uses on and adjacent to the project site; existing noise levels on and adjacent to the project site including noise from current operations and traffic; location of noise sensitive land uses or functions on or adjacent to the project site. PCR will model noise impacts from construction, project -related traffic, and operations activities. Assumptions regarding construction activities and the ongoing operations of the proposed project by phase and buildout will be based on information provided by Rockwell. Traffic generated noise will be based on traffic information provided by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. by phase and buildout. Modeling efforts, using procedures and algorithms supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and industry standards, will provide for an evaluation of the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to noise. • Potential construction noise sources and distance -based attenuation estimates of short- term noise impacts to on -site and surrounding land uses by phase and buildout. • Changes in noise levels due to the incremental increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the proposed project by phase and buildout. • Changes in ambient noise levels due to the operation of the proposed project by phase and buildout and potential effects to on -site and surrounding land uses. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. I. Public Services PCR will prepare an inventory of existing public services and facilities that"serve the project site and vicinity. An analysis of the proposed project's impacts on the delivery of fire protection, police protection, and other public services to the project site and the surrounding vicinity will be provided. PCR will utilize existing documentation and a public services questionnaire sent to the service providers. Assessments of the adequacy of facilities and levels of service will be based upon the judgment of the service provider. The following baseline environmental information will be defined: the existing levels of service, staffing, and equipment City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program But Pluming Consultants Research Page 12 My 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services for the project site; service requirements based on the location, type of land use, and improvements; and fire suppression and security measures currently in place on the project site. Additionally, PCR will analyze the potential for the proposed project to result in an impact to school capacity levels. The analysis will utilize existing documentation and a public services questionnaire sent to the school district(s). Assessments of the adequacy of facilities and school capacity will be based upon the judgment of the respective school district. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to public services and schools. • Changes to the levels of service or the identification of the need for additional staffing, equipment, or facilities for the service providers to serve the proposed project. • Potential conflicts or impacts to emergency response plans or evacuation routes. • School capacity levels and the effect of increases in employment on population growth related to the generation of students. Recommended mitigation measures will be provided consistent with the policies and programs of the service providers to reduce the identified significant impacts. The level of significance after the implementation of the mitigation measures will be defined. I Utilities and Service Systems PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts to the existing and proposed infrastructure systems, including sewer, water, storm drainage, solid waste, electric power, and natural gas systems for the project site. The adequacy of the existing and proposed systems will be based upon information from utilities and service 'systems questionnaires sent to the providers and information requested from Rockwell. The following baseline environmental information will be defined: the current service provider; the existing capacity and adequacy of the existing on -site and off -site facilities and systems; and proposed generation or consumption rate. PCR will request information from Rockwell regarding the nature and scope of the improvements required to serve the proposed project.' PCR will evaluate the potential project - specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: City of Newport Beach Rockwell semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 13 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. Changes to the existing capacities of on -site and off -site facilities and systems as result of the proposed project and the identification of any resulting deficiencies. Adequacy of the on -site and off -site utility improvements to service the proposed project. Recommended mitigation measures will be provided consistent with the policies and programs of the service providers to reduce the identified significant impacts. The level of significance after the implementation of the mitigation measures will be defined. K. Aesthetics PCR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts to aesthetics on the project site and in the vicinity of the project site with regard to views or scenic vistas open to the public, reflective light, and nighttime illumination. The following baseline environmental information will be defined: existing visual quality of the project site and vicinity; views or vistas open to the public; and sources of reflective light and nighttime illumination. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. This will include an analysis of the changes to the Koff Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards including the "Special Features" which address building setbacks along Jamboree Road, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building areas and massing. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to aesthetics. Changes to the visual quality of the project site and vicinity, views or vistas open to the public, and reflective light and nighttime illumination. Mitigation measures will be provided for significant impacts that are identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be defined. L. Recreation PCR will analyze the potential for the proposed project to result in an impact due to an increase in demand for recreational facilities. The analysis will utilize a questionnaire sent to the respective jurisdiction. Assessments of the adequacy of facilities and levels of service will be city or Newport Beach Rockwell Semtconductor Systems Program UK PlaoWng consultants Research Page 14 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services based upon the judgment of the facility provider. PCR will evaluate the potential project -specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The impact analysis will address: • Definition of significance thresholds to determine impacts with respect to recreation. • Changes to the levels of service at existing facilities. Recommended mitigation measures will be provided consistent with the policies and programs of the facility provider to reduce the identified significant impacts. The level of significance after the implementation of the mitigation measures will be defined. V. ALTERNATIVES The Program EIR will include an analysis of alternatives consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and PCR's understanding of current CEQA practice. The alternatives will be based on information discussed at the Rockwell site visit and further refined by PCR, the City staff, and the Rockwell Project Team as a result of the preparation of the Initial Study, comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and the conclusions of the environmental impact analysis prepared for the proposed project. It is anticipated that three design and/or reduced intensity alternatives and the mandatory no -project alternative will be analyzed in the Screencheck Draft Program EIR. For each alternative, this section will provide a description of the alternative, consideration of the alternative's feasibility in relationship to the Statement of the Project Objectives, and a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternative versus the impacts as a result of the proposed project. The alternatives will be evaluated in a more qualitative and comparative manner than the analysis described above for the proposed project. If required, the evaluation of transportation/circulation, noise, and air quality impacts associated with the various alternatives will be presented in terms of percent reduction of impact as compared to the proposed project. VI. GENERAL IMPACTS This section will provide the following CEQA-required analyses: (1) Relationship between Local Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity; (2) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; and (3) Growth -Inducing Impacts. City or Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Planning Consultants Research Page 15 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services VII. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/REFERENCES This section will provide lists of the individuals responsible for or consulted during the preparation of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR and technical studies. A list of the references used in the preparation of the Draft Screencheck Program EIR will also be provided. At its completion, PCR will submit ten (10) copies of the Screencheck Draft Program EIR and Technical Appendices for review and comment by the City staff and the Rockwell Project Team. After the incorporation of the revisions to reflect comments received, PCR will submit two (2) copies of a revised Screencheck Draft Program EIR for final review and approval. Subtask 2.2 Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subsequent to City staff and Rockwell Project Team review of the revised Screencheck Draft Program EIR, PCR will prepare the Draft Program EIR. PCR will print 80 copies (estimated at 300 pages each) of the Draft Program EIR and 60 copies (estimated at 300 pages each) of the Technical Appendix. PCR will transmit the Draft Program EIR to the State Clearinghouse and distribute the documents for public review via certified mail. PCR will prepare the Notice of Completion for transmittal with the Draft Program EIR. Subtask 2.3 Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Program PCR will prepare a Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for submittal to City staff and the Rockwell Project Team for review and comment. The MMP will contain a compilation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft Program EIR, listed by impact category, with agency monitoring and enforcement responsibility and monitoring phase identified for each treasure. The MMP will be prepared consistent with the City's required format. The MMP will be finalized at a time in the environmental process that is determined to be appropriate by the City staff. 'task 3 Attendance at Meetings for Draft Program EIR PCR will attend a total of twelve (12) meetings related to the preparation of the Draft Program EIR. This would include: meetings with City staff and the Rockwell Project Team to address project initiation, data collection, and review of the environmental documentation and technical studies; meetings with adjacent jurisdictions and local interest groups; and an agency/public scoping meeting. City of Newport nexh Rockwell Semkonductor Systems Program Ent Planning Conudtaots Research Page 16 July 16, 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Task 4 Preparation of Response to Comments/Final Program EIR Subtask 4.1 Preparation of Response to Comments/Administrative Final Program EIR Based on discussions with the City staff, PCR will prepare a Response to Comments document which will respond to all written comments received from agencies, interest groups, and individuals during the 45-day public review period for the Draft Program EIR. In addition, PCR will prepare an errata with revisions to the Draft Program EIR based on information received during the public review period and provided in the Response to Comments document. A Draft of the Response to Comments document and an errata to the Draft Program EIR will be submitted to the City staff and the Rockwell Project Team for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will prepare a revised Response to Comments document and compile the documents that will comprise the Administrative Final Program EIR for submittal to the City. PCR in coordination with City staff will provide the Response to Comments document to commenting agencies for review prior to action being taken on the proposed project. Subtask 4.2 Preparation of Certification Documents PCR will work with City staff to prepare a draft of the required certification documents. These documents will consist of a Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and, if required, a Statement of Overriding Considerations. PCR will submit a draft of these documents to the City for review and comment. Based on comments received, PCR will revise and submit these documents to the City for distribution to the appropriate parties. Subtask 4.3 Preparation of Final Program EIR After action is taken on the project and the Program EIR is certified as complete and final, PCR will prepare and submit the Final Program EIR to the City. PCR will work with the City staff to determine the number of copies, the type of originals, and the distribution of the Final Program EIR. PCR will prepare for City staff review the Notice of Determination and will file the notice with the appropriate agencies. My of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program Ent Plamtng Conndiants Research Page 17 July 16. 1998 Attachment A: Scope of Services Task 5 Attendance at Meetings and Hearings for Final Program EIR PCR will attend meetings for the preparation of the Response to Comments document and the Final Program EIR and hearings related to the consideration of the approval of the project and certification of the Program MR. The number of meetings will be determined at a later date. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Program EIR Planning Consultants Research Page 18 July 16. 1998 ROCKWELL SaucoNDUCTOR SYSTEMS PROGRAM EIR ATTACHMENT B: BUDGET ATTACHMENT B BUDGET The following pages provide a detailed budget for the preparation of the Draft Program EIR and related technical documentation (Tasks 1 and 2) and attendance at meetings for the preparation of the Draft Program EIR (Task 3). The total budget for these tasks as described in the scope of services is $164,943 including PCR staff hours, technical studies, direct expenses, and printing. As discussed above, the services for the preparation of the Response to Comments and the Final Program EIR (Tasks 4 and 5) will be addressed under a separate agreement after the extent of the public comments on the Draft Program EIR is determined. PCR proposes a cost-effective scope of services based on our current understanding of the project. Should the need arise for additional professional services beyond those set forth in the scope of services and budget provided herein due to changes in the project or the regulatory environment, PCR will request from the City written authorization to proceed prior to the initiation of the additional services. Invoices will be prepared for the work completed on a monthly basis. For each billing period, PCR will provide information by subtask for the services performed. PCR reserves the right to transfer fees between the environmental topics, as appropriate. Invoiced amounts are due 30 days from the date of the invoice. Traffic subconsultant invoices will be paid within 30 days of the receipt of payment from the City. City or Newport Beach RoekweG semiconductor systems Program Ent Phumint Consultants Research Page 19 July 16, 1998 Detailed Budget Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Draft Program EIR Task Principal Hours Rate Principal Planner Hours Rate Senior Planner/ Planner Hours Rate Associate/Assistant Planner Hours Rate GraphicsVord Processing Hours Rate Total Cost Hours Cost as — roect Initiation Subtask 1.1—Preliminary, Data Collection and Evaluation 4 $175 24 $90 16 $80 24 S50 0 $50 68 55,340 Subtask 1:2—Preparation of Notice of Pnparation/Initial Study 4 $175 40 $90 24 $80 40 $50 32 S50 140 S9,820 Subtotal Task 1 8 64 40 64 32 209 $15,160 Task 2—Preparation of Draft Program EIR Subtask 2.1—Preparation of Scroencheck Draft Program EIR• • Executive Summary 0 $175 8 S90 8 $80 24 $50 8 $50 48 52,960 • Project Description 4 5175 36 $90 8 $80 24 S50 16 $50 88 S6,580 • Environmental Setting 0 5175 24 $90 8 $80 40 S50 8 $50 80 $5,200 • Environmental Impact Analysis — Land Use and Planning 2 $175 24 $90 24 $80 40 S50 8 $50 98 $6,930 — Population and Housing 1 5175 16 S90 16 $80 24 $50 2 S5o 59 54,195 — Geologic Issues 0 S175 16 S90 16 $90 24 S50 4 $50 60 54,120 — Water 0 $175 16 S90 8 $80 24 S50 4 S50 52 53,480 — Air Quality 0 SI75 16 $90 8 $90 8 $50 8 $50 40 52,880 — Transportation/Circulation•• 1 $175 40 S90 16 $80 16 $50 16 $50 89 56,655 — Hazards** 1 $175 16 $90 16 S80 24 $50 8 $50 65 54,495 — Noise** 1 $175 32 S90 8 $80 16 $50 9 $50 65 54,895 — Public Services 1 $175 16 $90 16 $80 60 $50 4 S50 97 56,095 — Utilities and Service Systems 1 $175 16 $90 16 $80 60 $50 4 S50 97 $6.095 — Aesthetics 1 $175 24 $90 40 $80 40 $50 16 S50 121 58,335 — Recreation 1 5175 4 $90 4 $80 8 $50 4 $50 21 $1,455 • Alternatives 4 $175 32 S90 24 S80 40 $50 16 $50 116 58,300 • General Impacts 1 $175 8 $90 8 $80 16 S50 2 $50 35 $2,435 Subtotal Subtask 2..1 19 344 244 488 136 1231 $85,005 Subtask 22—Preparation of Draft Program EIR 4 $175 60 $90 60 $80 40 $50 40 S50 204 514,900 Subtask 2.3—Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Program 0 $175 8 $90 16 $80 16 $50 8 S50 48 $3,200 Subtotal Task2 1 23 412 320 544 184 1493 $103,105 Task 3—Aftendance at Meetings for Draft Program EIR (12) 24 $175 48 $90 24 S80 24 $50 0 $50 120 SI1,640 Technical Studies for Draft Program EIR (Refer to detail below) Air Quality Assessment (PCR) g6 000 Traffic Study (WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.) $7 000 Noise Assessment (PCR) $6,060 Ha'zards0sk of Upset (PCR) $6.280 Subtotal Technical Studies 525,340 Expenses (Including postage for certified mail) 54,000 Printime Allowance••• $56" TOTAL -COST ESTIMATE _ S164,943 Footnotes: • It is assumed that the analysis of Biological Resources and Cultural Resources will be focused out of the scope of the Draft EIR during the preparation of the Initial Study. •• These hour and cost estimates are only for the preparation of the sections oftho Screoncheck Draft Program EIR The hours and costs associated with the technical studies are presented below in the Cost Estimate for Technical Studies section of this table. ••• Allowance is for printing of deliverables as described in the Scope of Services and presented below in the Cost Estimate for Printing section of this table. Detailed Budget (Continued) Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Draft Program EIR Detailed Coat Estimate for Technical Studies Hours Rate Total Cat Air Quality Assessment • Review Existing Data 8 $75 S600 • Define Existing Conditions 8 $75 S600 • Define Emissions 8 S75 S600 • Predict Carbon Monoxide at Key intersectiom 16 $75 $1.200 • Determine Impacts and Mitigation 8 $75 S600 • Address Alternatives 8 S75 S600 • Prepare Technical Study 8 S75 S600 s S125 s11000 • Models $200 Subtotal Air Quality Asia sment 72 S6,000 Tralfic Study • Review and Update Existing Documents • Define Impacts and Mitigation • AddressAltematives • Prepare Technical Traffic Study • Attend Meetings ' Subtotal TraMc Study $7 000 ' Noise Assessment • Review Existing Data 8 $80 S640 • Monitor Existing Conditions 14 S80 $1,120 • Define Existing Conditions 8 S8o S640 • Predict Future Noise Levels 12 $80 S960 • Determino Impacts and Mitigation 6 Sao S480 • Address Altematives 8 S80 $640 • Prepare Technical Study 16 Sao SI,280 • Noise Instrument Fee $300 Subtotal Noise Assessment 72 $6,060 Hazards/Risk or Upset Assessment • Review Existing Data 8 $75 S600 • Conduct Site Visit and Research 16 $75 sl,2oo • Define Existing Conditions 8 S75 S600 • Determine Impacts and Mitigation 24 S75 $1,800 • Address Alternatives 16 S75 $1,200 • PrepareTechnical Study 8 silo $880 Subtotal Human Health/Risk of Upset Assessment 80 $6,280 Total Cost of TmImical Studies $25,340 • This cost is an estimate. Based on information to be provided by the City Traffic Engineer, this cost may be reduced. Detailed Budget (Continued) Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Draft Program EIR Est. Pages No. of Cgks Total Coat SO 10 $56 50 80 S325 300 10 S444 300 t0 S280 300 2 $98 300 80 S2 840 300 60 $1,138 S518 SS 69A VIPIl I-- A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. July 22, 1998 Ms. Lauren Jue Planning Consultants Research One Venture, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT. - Dear Ms. Jue: Rockwell, Newport Beach TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PLANNINGEIVED DEPBY ARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JUL 2 7 1998 PM 7i61811Oi1� 121112i3i4iSi6. We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional traffic engineering services for the subject project. This proposal is based upon information provided by you, our previous work and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general, the work would consist of completing a traffic impact analysis as required by the City of Newport Beach for an E.I.R. project. Preliminary studies of the project would serve as a basis and be updated to include current data. The study would consider three (3) project alternatives as well as possible phasing of the development. Parking would be also be reviewed. Any potential problem areas would also be identified and mitigation measures recommended. A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (714) 460.0110 • FAX: (714) 460.0113 -2- We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this study. TASK 1 - DATA COLLECTION We would assemble all available information pertinent to the study. This would include development plans and data, previous studies, project alternatives, Committed Project traffic, existing traffic and similar data. We would review the project with you to ensure our understanding. Contact would be made with City Staff to obtain data and specific concerns. It is not anticipated that field data collection would be required. TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Estimates would be made of daily and peak hour trips to be generated by the project and alternatives. These estimates would be based upon land use and trip generation factors previously developed for this use. A geographic trip distribution pattern has been developed and approved by the City. This distribution would be utilized to assign trips to the street system. TASK 3 - ANALYSIS A traffic impact analyses would be completed as required by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. These analyses would include two (2) development phases as well as project buildout. The City's Traffic Model would also be utilized to examine General Plan Level conditions. Any potential problem areas would be identified and mitigation measures recommended as may be required. TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. The report would contain the required supportive data and be suitable for submittal to the City. We would meet with you, City Staff and others as may be required during the course of the study. Attendance at public hearings is not included as a part of this proposal. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc PROPOSAL - Rockwell, NnWort Beach -3— We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated that approximately four (4) weeks would be required to complete the study. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $7,500.00, without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for additional public meetings and/or presentations concerning this project, not mentioned in this proposal, our staffwould be available with the fees based upon our Rate Schedule, in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. Invoices shall be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of the work, at our option, and payable within 30 days after submission. After 60 days, unpaid invoices shall have a 1.5 percent, per month, service charge added. We shall have the option of halting work on your project when invoices are unpaid and overdue, unless mutual agreement is achieved. In the event that it is necessary for either party to incur legal expenses in connection with the performance ofthis contract, the prevailing party agrees to pay all court costs and attorney fees. The client agrees to limit WPA TrafflcEngineering, Inc.'s liability to the client and to all contractors and subcontractors on the project, due to proven professional negligent acts, errors or omissions on the part of WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., to the aggregate sum of $25,000.00, or FPTA Traffic Engineering, Inc.'s fee, whichever is greater. This proposal may be considered as effective for six months from the date ofthis letter. If the project is not completed within six months after the scheduled completion date (due to no fault of WPA Traffic Engineering, Jim), additional reimbursement may be required due to increased costs. If required, such additional reimbursement would be the subject of negotiation and mutual agreement between both parties. WPA Trafio Engineering, Inc PROPOSAL-Rodhvell, Neivporr Beach Il V. I P A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Effective August 1, 199 7 t Firm Principal $125.00 f Senior Engineer $100.00 + Associate Engineer $ 75.00 + Assistant Engineer S 70.00 • Engineering Draftsperson $ 70.00 + Draftsperson $ 50.00 + Secretary $ 35.00' + Clerical / Field Enumerator $ 40.00 1) Hourly rates apply to travel, in addition to work time. 2) Invoices shall be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of the work, at our option, and payable within 30 days after submission. After 60 days, unpaid invoices shall have a 1.5 percent, per month,'service charge added. We shall have the option of halting work on your project when invoices are unpaid and overdue, unless mutual agreement is achieved. In the event that it is necessary for either party to incur legal expenses in connection with the performance of this contract, the prevailing party agrees to pay all court costs and attorney fees. 3) Compensation for services performed mflimj be contingent upon the necessity of the client to receive payment from other parties. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof; shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 4) These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineer's, Manual on Enomering Practice, Number 45. 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills, CA 92653 a (714) 460.0110 • FAX: (714) 460-0113 RoCKWELL SENBCONDUCrOR SYSTEMS PROGRAM EIR ATTACHMENT C: PROJECT SCHEDULE ATTACHMENT C PROJECT SCHEDULE PCR has estimated that the completion of the Draft Program EiR (Tasks 1, 2, and 3) can be accomplished within an approximately 8-month time frame as shown on the proposed project schedule provided on the following page. Prior to finalization of the project schedule, PCR will work with City staff to define more specific time frames and completion dates for deliverables. The PCR Project Team will commit all necessary resources to ensure the preparation of the Program EIR and related technical documents within the desired time frame upon finalization of the project schedule occurs. Through close coordination between the PCR Project Manager and the City staff, any potential changes to the finalized project schedule will be agreed upon and communicated in a manner acceptable to both parties. City of Newport Beach Rockwell Semkouductor Systems Program Ent Planning ConsWtants Research Page 23 July 16, 1998 10 RoCkWell semiconductor Systems July 29, 1998 City of Newport Beach Ms. Patricia Temple Director, Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Patricia Nockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell Intennational Corporation 4311 Jamboree Road PC Box C Newport Beach, CA 92658.8902 F; :CENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY C= `.-NPORT BEACH AM KJ a 0 3 1998 PM 718191:0 �11112111213141818 Rockwell has reviewed the proposal by Planning Consultants Research (PCR) to provide environmental services to the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of the Rockwell program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Rockwell approves of the City contracting with PCR for the stated services. Rockwell would like to reserve the right to review the need for certain aspects of the EIR. Specifically, the need for review of water, hazards/risk of upset, and recreation. These details can be finalized once PCR has started on the project. As you know, Rockwell is very anxious to get this project started. You have Rockwell's approval to contract with PCR for preparation of the EIR. Sincerely, Z I Rich Bluth Director Facilities ®Ii -P A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & March 13, 1997 Mr. Allen J. Shiroma Manager, Facilities Design Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road, MC 504-339 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3095 SUBJECT. TRAFFICFACTORS, ROCK9ELL EXPANSION Dear Mr. Shiroma: This letter report summarizes our initial findings relative to trip generation and distribution for the Rockwell facility on Jamboree Road in Newport Beach. The review was based upon information provided by you and field studies by our staff. Data were collected and analyzed to determine trip generation characteristics of the current employee population. In addition, analyses were conducted to determine the geographic trip distribution for employees and parking demands. These factors will provide tools for planning any expansion of the facility. They will also serve as a basis for the required Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) study by the City of Newport Beach. TRIP GENERATION Traffic counts were conducted for three weekdays at the three driveways serving the site. The location of these driveways are illustrated on Figure 1. Vehicles entering and exiting the site were recorded by 15 minute intervals for the three days. These counts were conducted on February 4, 5 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 9 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (714) 460.0110 • FAX: (714) 460.0113 I Baas aq PAD - pi PAC 1=91 K JAMBOREE ROAD mum rtmn�u ca DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS FIGURE 1 -2- and 6,1997, a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The daily summaries are contained in Appendix A. Driveway 4' serves the delivery area and indicates two-way traffic to this area. Table I summarizes the daily counts by hour for inbound and outbound. It is noted that the outbound volumes are significantly higher than inbound. This is due to truck traffic at Driveway Number 1 (the Birch Street driveway) which resulted in inbound trips being counted as both inbound and outbound. The inbound volumes are felt to be accurate and doubling the total 'inbound would represent the total daily trip ends. The volumes in Table 1 include contractor vehicles which are a temporary condition. Table 2 lists these contractor vehicles by day and times. On an average, 612 daily trip ends are attributable to the contractor vehicles. At the time of these counts, there were 1,479 employees at this site. Based upon doubling the inbound daily volumes and removing contractor vehicles, as discussed above, the total daily trip ends are 3,454 or 2.34 trip ends per employee. This is less than the 3.02 trip ends per employee that would be typical for this use in the City. A similar analysis was done for the AM and PM peak hours as well as the 2.5 hour peaks utilized in the City's TPO. Table 3 summarizes the factors and indicates the factors utilized for studies without specific trip generation factors. Review of Table 3 indicates that for the principal movements, the rates specific to the project are generally less than the typical rates. These are inbound during the AM and outbound in the PM. This condition will be beneficial to any future traffic analyses required for this facility. In order to determine a distribution for the Rockwell site, home zip code information was gathered for all employees. These zip codes were charted on a map to determine where employees trips were originating. Based upon this information, a distribution pattern was established and is displayed WPA Traffic Engineeringlnc. Traffic Factors, Rockwell Expansion Job #961570 City ofNewport Beach -3— TABLE 1 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Rockwell Expansion, Newport Beach ' ,iNB©USA �I1ITa3f7U1�D TIME STARTS . TMN, W.A. MUM At'F4401� TF1SS. W�A. T�iU �Y�i�G1 0000 41 24 39 35 128 84 146 119 0100 14 4 16 11 51 32 37 40 0200 29 2 3 11 81 16 18 38 0300 7 9 11 9 22 11 9 14 0400 29 23 24 25 23 16 11 17 0500 162 176 171 170 161 167 212 180 0600 - 213 230 233 225 99 96 87 94 0700 245 260 232 246 74 89 76 80 0800 181 181 174 179 68 82 84 78 0900 106 124 112 114 64 113 69 82 1000 63 64 88 72 53 75 100 76 1100 93 62 86 80 139 181 161 160 1200 120 106 153 126 206 189 182 192 1300 155 149 140 148 115 114 107 112 1400 112 110 109 110 168 134 155 152 1500 97 112 97 102 208 223 185 205 1600 79 87 87 84 292 309 286 296 1700 91 115 127 ill 364 342 357 354 1800 22 52 31 35 170 187 166 174 1900 24 27 21 24 ill 134 104 116 2000 24 30 23 26 67 88 77 77 2100 24 39 32 32 33 97 42 57 2200 25 30 13 23 26 86 27 46 2300 28 40 35 34 40 59 38 46 TOTALS 1984 2056 2057 2032 2763 2924 1 2736 1 2805 WPA Traffic Engineering,lnc. Traffic Factors, Rockwell Expansion Job #961570 City ofNewport Beach 1 I -4- TABLE 2 CONTRACTOR VEHICLES Rockwell Expansion, Newport Beach Y.EWCZES PtxtE1X3 1)XttEC "XQN .MSDAY WEDIYUSDAY THURSDAY AFTR4GE' 6:00-7:00 AM INBOUND 227 239 246 237 5:00-6:00 PM OUTBOUND 227 239 246 237 4:00-5:00 PM INBOUND 67 68 73 69 2:00-3:00 AM OUTBOUND 67 68 73 69 WPA Traffic Engineering Inc. Traffic Factors, Rockwell Expansion Job #961570 City ofNewport Beach -5- TRIP GENERATION RATE SUMMARY Rockwell Expansion, Newport Beach PPRIOP. TRIP GENERATIONRATTM .iYIELDSTt7MS ITEnj 110 DAILY 2.34 3.02 AM PEAK HOUR IN 0.17 0.37 OUT 0.05 0.07 PM PEAK HOUR IN 0.06 0.05 OUT 0.20 0.37 AM 2.5 HOUR PEAK (7:00 - 9:30) IN 0.33 0.74 OUT 0.13 0.14 PM 2.5 HOUR PEAK (3:30 - 6:00) IN 0.12 0.10 OUT 0.34 0.74 (1) Trip Ends Per Employee (2) Trip Generation per ITE for General Light Industrial, City Standard. Engineering,1nc. Job City of Newport Beach -6- on Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of the employees, 43 percent, are traveling from the north,12 percent is traveling from the south, 19 percent arrive from the east and 26 percent from the west. PARKIlVG Parking surveys were conducted at the Rockwell site on February 4, 5 and 6, 1997, a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM to determine the existing parking demand. Table 4 lists the results of the count data. As shown in Table 4 the peak parking period was on Tuesday (24-97) at 10:00 AM with 995 parked vehicles. Included in the parking count data were contractor vehicles which are there on a temporary condition. Therefore, information was gathered from the construction company to determine how many vehicles were parked in the Rockwell parking lot during the count periods so these vehicles could be subtracted to obtain the correct Rockwell parking demand. Table 4 indicates that 227, 239 and 246 vehicles were contractor vehicles parked in the Rockwell parking lot on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. As indicated in Table 4, the contractor vehicles were subtracted from the parking count data. The peak parking demand for the Rockwell facility is 768 parked vehicles. As mentioned earlier, at the time of this study there were 1,479 employees at the Rockwell site. Based upon the number of employees and the peak number of parked vehicles a parking rate of 0.52 was established. WPA Traffic Engineering Inc. Traffic Factors, Rockwell Expansion Job #961570 City ofNewport Beach 1 L I No Scale J O 6% m r N 5% 7% SAN DIEGO FRWY --N\ 12o 5% /27% PROJECT SITE \ 1% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION 5% MAIN rr 15% FIGURE 2rJ -7- PARKING COUNT SUMMARY Rockwell Expansion, Newport Beach NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES TIIESDAi2-d--9 WEDNESDAY (2-5-9711 THU UDAY 2-6-11 10:00 AM 995 964 951 all)"I (2391c1> 246 a� 768 725 705 2:00 PM 925 949 944 (227 T n- u1 2 6 a) 698 710 698 PEAK PARKING PERIOD: Tuesday @10:00 AM 768 Parked Vehicles PEAK PARKING RATE: 1,479 Employees & 768 Parked Vehicles = 0.52 (1) Contractor parked vehicles that were included in the count data. These vehicles are temporary and must be deducted from the count data to obtain Rockwell employee/visitor parking. WPA Trajjlc Engineering lnc. Trafj?c Factors, Rockwell Expansion Job #961570 City ofNewport Beach -8— After you have reviewed this information, we would be happy to discuss it with you. If it is acceptable, we should submit it to the City. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Al Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C26734 & TR565 WSP:hn #961570 cc. IV&. Phil Bias - Langdon Wilson Architects Job l?a lc Factors, Rockwell Expansion City ofNewport Beach APPENDIX A DRIVEWAY COUNTS 24 HOUR MR RESULT SUMMARY CLIENT: NESTON PRINOLB i ASSOCIATES PROMT: ROCMM - NFliPOET BEACH LOCATION: ROCKWELL DRIVEWAY 1 FILE NUMBER: lA DIRECTION: ENTER EODR DATE Tin 15 30 45 60 TOTALS 2-4-97 0000 6 6 4 5 21 0100 0 2 2 1 5 0200 1 0 2 0 3 0300 0 0 0 1 1 0400 1 2 4 9 16 0500 27 47 17 32 123 0600 52 52 16 16 136 0700 25 17 14 11 67 0800 2 9 8 5 24 0900 5 3 8 8 24 1000 4 4 6 4 18 1100 5 4 10 8 27 1200 10 18 15 8 51 1300 8 10 13 10 41 1400 10 14 15 12 51 1500 6 15 22 7 50 1600 7 7 7 14 35 1700 20 21 4 5 50 1800 0 3 5 1 9 1900 6 2 2 2 12 2000 1 4 2 4 11 2100 4 4 4 3 15 2200 3 2 1 2 8 2300 3 5 2 4 14 TOTAL 812 Wu STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUMMARY RESULTS 2271 PEAK HOUR SUMMARIES am AN PEAK HOUR 05:30.06:30 VOLUMES 153 PN PEAK HOUR 16:30-17:30 VOLUMES 62 EXIT AM PEAK HOUR 05:15.06:15 VOLUMES 154 PM PEAK HOUR 17:00-18:00 VOLUMES 206 DIRECTION: DATE TIME 2-4-97 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 200D 2100 2200 2300 15 30 45 HOUR 60 TOTALS 18 69 0 16 7 15 1 7 5 18 70 136 8 83 22 59 8 35 10 32 7 24 27 59 18 86 15 52 28 112 24 131 51 139 121 206 12 55 8 35 11 33 1 25 3 10 5 22 TOTAL 1459 24 HOUR SURVEY RESULT SDNMARY CLIENT: NBSTON PRIM E ASSOCIATES PROJECT: ROCKNELL - NEW BEACH LOTION: ROCIM DRIVEMAY 1 FILE KRER: iB DIRFX,'OIOR: MR DATE TIME 15 30 45 2-5-97 0000 7 8 2 0100 0 0 1 0200 1 1 0 0300 3 0 0 0400 1 1 1 0500 36 43 15 0600 43 63 26 0700 19 14 17 0800 10 15 10 0900 12 6 8 1000 6 2 1 1100 2 0 0 1200 5 13 16 1300 20 9 7 1400 10 11 13 1500 18 12 14 1600 8 5 10 1700 32 31 4 1800 2 0 4 1900 4 1 0 2000 3 1 0 2100 6 3 2 2200 1 3 3 2300 4 2 4 SURVEY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUlDIARY RESULTS PEAK HOUR SUMMARIES ENTER AN PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR EXIT AN PW FOUR PM PEAK HOUR WAl 2376 DIRECTION: HOUR 60 TOTALS DAN TINE 1 • 18 2+97 0000 0 1 0100 0 2 0200 3 6 0300 6 9 0400 28 122 0500 10 142 0600 9 59 0700 7 42 0800 5 31 0900 0 9 1000 9 11 1100 10 44 1200 8 44 1300 8 42 1400 9 53 1500 18 41 1600 2 69 1700 3 9 1800 0 5 1900 3 7 2000 5 16 2100 1 8 2200 5 15 2300 805 05:45-06:45 VOLUMES 160 16:30-17:30 VOLUHES 91 05:30-06:30 VOLAHES 172 17:00-18:00 VOLUlQS 189 BRIT 15 30 45 HOUR 60 TOTALS 20, 69 3 20 0 8 1 7 3 10 81 148 5 81 10 52 13 52 31 68 15 33 34 110 9 93 17 53 12 79 21 133 54 177 86 189 4 63 2 39 5 25 5 20 5 16 8 26 TOTAL 1571 24 HOUR SURVEY RESULT SOMMARY CLIENT: NESTOR PRINGLE i ASSOCIATES PROW: ROCKM - KENPORT BMCH LOCATION: ROCKWILL DRIYENAY 1 FILE XUKBER: 1C DIRECTION: ENTER DATE TINE 15 30 45 2-6-97 0000 9 6 3 Oleo 3 3 1 0200 1 0 0 0300 0 1 0 0400 0 4 2 0500 25 • 43 21 0600 51 50 21 0700 20 14 13 0800 9 9 6 0900 12 3 7 1000 10 6 6 1100 9 3 8 1200 18 12 13 1300 12 6 6 1400 8 10 14 1500 9 14 12 1600 8 3 8 1700 38 26 9 1800 5 3 2 1900 4 4 3 2000 4 2 1 2100 5 5 3 2200 3 1 1 2300 3 3 4 HORVBY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUKKARY RESULTS PEAK HOUR SUMMARIES ENTER AN PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR EXIT AN PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TOTAL 2386 DIRECTION: NEIT HOUR 60 TOTALS DATE TINE 15 30 3 21 2-6-97 0000 18 16 0 7 0100 4 5 0 1 0200 6 1 1 2 0300 0 2 5 11 0400 1 0 31 120 0500 15 28 20 142 0600 30 23 14 61 0700 9 10 6 30 0800 12 15 6 28 0900 8 11 4 26 1000 17 20 16 36 1100 11 16 6 49 1200 23 20 5 29 1300 14 11 7 39 1400 24 25 11 46 1500 47 23 16 35 1600 56 22 3 76 1700 40 29 3 13 1800 38 12 6 17 1900 17 17 1 8 2000 15 7 3 16 2100 ' 8 4 1 6 2200 6 2 8 18 2300 5 5 837 05:30-06:30 VOLUMES 153 16:45-17:45 VOLUMES 89 05:15-06:15 VOLUMES 205 17:00-18:00 VOLUMES 210 45 HOUR 60 TOTALS 16 74 1 21 2 11 0 4 5 10 113 190 9 72 16 53 7 46 8 37 13 60 34 81 6 66 14 46 22 103 18 104 48 146 91 210 7 67 4 46 4 34 3 26 2 15 5 27 TOTAL 1549 24 HOUR SURVEY RESULT SLlQ1ARY CUBIT: NBSTON PRIM E ASSOCIATES PROJECT: ROC6NELL - NWRT BEACH LOCATION: ROCKNELL DRIVBiD1Y 2 FILE NUNBER: 2A DIRECTION: EXIT DATE TINE 15 30 45 2-4-97 0000 3 3 10 0100 7 7 2 0200 7 1 6 0300 3 2 1 0400 2 2 0 0500 0 0 7 0600 3 4 6 0700 1 2 4 0800 2 3 3 0900 4 3 2 1000 3 2 3 1100 7 4 12 1200 17 10 6 1300 7 5 9 1400 11 6 5 1500 14 13 6 1600 23 10 17 1700 10 7 21 18OD 12 7 7 1900 8 3 7 2000 4 4 3 2100 1 2 1 2200 3 1 3 2300 3 5 3 SURVEY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUlDIAAY RESULTS PEAR HOUR SUMMARIES EXIT AM PEAK HOUR PH PEAK HOUR ENTER AN PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TOTAL 1160 DIRECTION: HOUR 60 TOTALS DATE TM 7 23 2-4-97 000D 1 17 0100 8 22 0200 0 6 0300 1 5 0400 16 23 0500 0 13 0600 2 9 0700 5 13 0800 3 12 0900 3 11 1000 7 30 110D 4 39 1200 4 25 1300 3 25 1400 3 36 1500 13 63 1600 23 61 1700 10 36 1800 5 23 1900 2 13 2000 1 5 2100 2 9 2200 2 13 2300 532 11:15-12:15 VOLUMES 40 16:00-17:00 VOLUMES 63 07:15.08:15 VOLUMES 76 12:15-13:15 VOLUMES 55 15 ENTER 30 4 4 1 2 0 13 13 27 11 8 7 10 11 10 11 7 3 12 4 4 3 1 5 4 45 HOUR 60 TOTALS 3 13 0 9 8 15 0 4 7 12 3 37 12 45 20 74 12 55 7 35 4 21 9 38 15 44 8 40 11 38 6 28 11 27 0 30 1 9 0 9 0 11 2 7 2 15 4 12 TOTAL 628 24 HOUR SURVEY RESULT SUNNARY CLIENT: WESTON PRINGLE i ASSOCIATES PROJECT: ROOM - NEWPOET BEACH LOCATION: ROCKWELL DRIVEWAY 2 FILE MIR: 2B DIRECTION: EXIT DATE TINE 15 30 45 2-5-97 0000 5 1 2 0100 1 5 2 0200 5 0 3 0300 2 1 0 0400 3 1 1 0500 1 4 5 0600 2 3 1 0700 2 5 5 0800 3 3 2 0900 4 5 7 1000 3 6 4 1100 5 7 8 1200 14 6 3 1300 8 9 5 1400 5 6 3 1500 22 8 10 1600 18 12 20 1700 15 11 20 1800 18 11 10 1900 13 18 13 2000 5 3 8 2100 9 5 4 2200 1 5 12 2300 10 1 1 SURVBY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUNNARY RESULTS PEAK HOUR SUEIARIES EXIT AN PEAK HOUR PH PEAR HOUR ENTER AN PEAK HOUR PN PEAK HOUR TOTAL 1275 DIRECTION: HOUR 60 TOTALS DATE TIME 6 14 2-5-97 0000 4 12 0100 0 8 0200 1 4 0300 0 5 0400 9 19 0500 3 9 0600 5 17 0700 4 12 0800 2 18 0900 9 22 1000 9 29 1100 7 30 1200 5 27 1300 10 24 1400 8 48 1500 6 56 1600 16 62 1700 10 49 1800 6 50 1900 14 30 2000• 1 19 2106 8 26 2200 8 20 2300 610 11:15-12:15 VOLUMES 38 17:15-18:15 VOLUMES 35 07:00-OB:00 VOLUMES 86 12:45-13:45 VOLUMES 50 15 a a• 30 3 1 0 1 i 16 18 32 16 9 3 6 7 15 13 5 7 9 6 0 i 3 2 5 1L1 HOUR 60 TOTALS 0 6 2 3 0 0 1 3 7 13 13 50 15 55 16 86 18 62 11 36 7 30 8 24 17 38 12 45 9 45 6 29 13 33' 4 35 3 19 4 11 2 8 4 9 5 8 4 17 TOTAL 665 24 HOUR SURVEY RESULT SUMMARY CLIENT: HBSTOW Poo 4 ASSOCIATES PROJECT: ROCEB6LL - NNW BEACH LOCATION: ROCENBLL DRIVEWAY 2 FILE NUMBER: 2C DIRECTION: EXIT DATE TIME 15 30 45 2-6-97 0000 4 9 10 0100 1 5 3 0200 3 1 2 0300 1 0 0 0400 1 0 0 . 0500 3 2 10 0600 3 1 1 0700 0 2 9 0800 7 1 2 0900 5 5 6 1000 8 3 3 1100 2 6 5 1200 19 3 6 1300 5 8 4 1400 8 2 8 1500 7 7 9 ' 1600 16 9 16 1700 7 9 21 1800 10 8 9 1900 10 7 4 2000 9 4 5 2100 2 4 1 2200 ' 4 0 1 , 2300 5 1 3 SURVEY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUMMARY RESULTS PEAK HOUR SUMMARIES EXIT AN PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ENTER AN PEAK HOUR PN PEAK HOUR 1221 DIRECTION: HOUR 60 TOTALS DATE TIME 4 •27 2-6-97 0000 4 13 0100 1 7 0200 2 3 0300 0 1 0400 6 21 0500 4 9 0600 2 13 0700 5 15 0800 5 21 0900 3 17 1000 13 26 1100 5 33 1200 5 22 1300 7 25 1400 17 40 1500 12 53 1600 22 59 1700 5 32 1800 6 27 1900 5 23 2000 3 10 2100 2 7 2200 0 9 2300 513 11:15-12:15 VOLUMES 43 17:15-18:15 VOLUMES 62 06:4547:45 VOLUMES 89 12:15-13:15 VOLUMES 74 ENTER 15 30 45 HOUR 60 TOTALS 1 10 1 3 0 1 4 9 8 12 7 45 19 62 15 86 14 59 4 29 1 32 11 33 25 59 8 52 11 45 3 26 13 36 8 47 3 10 2 3 5 11 3 15 3 6 3 17 TOTAL 708 24 HOUR SURVEY HBSDLT SUMMARY CLIENT: WESTON PRMU i ASSOCIATES PROJECT: ROMM - NEAPORT BEACH LOCATION: ROMM DRIVEWAY 3 PILE NUMBER: 3A DIRECTION: EXIT DATE TIME 15 30 45 2-4-97 0000 6 1 19 0100 16 0 2 0200 8 3 17 0300 7 1 0 0400 0 0 0 0500 1 0 0 0600 0 2 1 0700 1 1 3 0800 4 5 2 0900 5 6 4 1000 2 3 8 1100 7 11 12 1200 25 26 23 1300 7 7 13 1400 12 8 4 1500 6 9 13 1600 14 30 17 1700 22 34 29 1800 20 29 18 1900 15 13 7 2000 7 10 2 2100 2 1 0 2200 3 2 2 2300 0 1 3 SURVEY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUMLIliY RESULTS PEAK HOUR SUMMARIES EXIT AN PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ENTER AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 1308 DIRECTION: ENTER HOUR 60 TOTALS DATE TIME 15 30 10 36 2-4-97 0000 0 0 0 18 0100 0 0 16 44 0200 1 1 1 9 0300 0 0 0 0 0400 0 0 1 2 0500 0 0 0 3 0600 7 3 1 6 0700 16 20 9 20 0800 26 31 5 20 0900 15 19 5 18 1000 10 9 20 50 1100 3 4 7 81 1200 3 10 11 38 1300 27 18 7 31 1400 9 9 13 41 1500 4 6 29 90 1600 6 6 12 97 1700 4 2 12 79 1800 0 0 9 44 1900 0 0 2 21 2000 1 1 0 3 2100 1 0 0 7 2200 2 0 1 5 2300 0 1 763 11:15-12:15 VOL@ES fib 16:45-17:45 VOLUMES 114 07:30-08:30 VOLUMES 125 13:00-14:00 VOLUMES 74 45 TOTAL ROOK 60 TOTALS 3 7 0 0 4 11 2 2 1 1 1 2 11 32 25 104 11 102 9 47 4 24 13 28 7 25 13 74 1 23 7 19 3 17 2 11 1 4 1 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 2 545 14 HOUR SURVEY RESULT SUMMARY CLIENT: MESTOM PRIM i ASSOCIATES PROJECT: ROCKMELL - REPORT BEACH LOCATION: RUMMME,L DRIVEWAY 3 FILE NUMBER: 3B DIRECTION: EXIT BATS TIME 15 30 45 2-5-97 0000 0 1 0 0100 0 0 0 0200 0 0 0 0300 0 0 0 0400 0 0 0 0500 0 0 0 0600 1 2 1 0700 2 5 5 0800 7 2 5 0900 13 6 3 1000 2 6 7 1100 6 7 14 1200 17 24 ' 20 1300 12 12 3 1400 3 8 9 1500 6 11 14 1600 12 24 20 1700 21 25 25 1800 25 22 26 1900 17 17 4 2000 8 5 10 2100 20 2 2 2200 0 5 26 2300 5 3 2 TOTAL SURVEY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUMMARY RESULTS 1296 PEAR HOUR SUMMARIES EXIT AN PEAK HOUR 11:15-12:15 PK PEAK HOUR 17:15-18:15 ENTER AN PEAK HOUR 07:15-08:15 PM PEAK HOUR 12:45-13:45 HOUR 60 TOTALS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 6 8 20 4 18 5 27 5 20 15 42 5 66 7 34 11 31 11 42 20 76 20 91 2 75 7 45 10 33 1 25 13 44 3 13 710 VOLUMES VOLUMES VOLUUS VOLUMES 53 95 122 60 DIRECTION: DATE TIME 2-5-97 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2106 2200 2300 15 30 45 HOUR 60 TOTALS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 6 33 27 115 15 77 9 57 3 25 7 27 9 24 9 60 6 23 7 30 1 13 3 11 6 24 0 11 10 15 0 14 3 14 2 8 TOTAL 586 CLIENT: NESTON PRINGLE I ASSOCIATES PROJECT: ROM - NNW BEACH LOCATION: ROCKWELL DRIVEWAY 3 FILE NUl03ER: 3C DIRECTION: BIT DATE TINE 15 30 45 2-6-97 0000 1 33 11 0100 0 1 1 0200 0 0 0 0300 1 1 0 0400 0 0 0 0500 0 1 0 0600 2 1 1 0700 1 4 2 0800 9 3 8 0900 1 4 5 1000 3 10 6 1100 5 5 18 1200 27 34 14 1300 15 14 8 140D 4 6 2 1500 13 11 9 1600 10 35 19 1700 21 20 30 1800 19 19 16 1900 12 6 7 2000 7 6 3 2100 2 2 2 2200 1 0 1 2300 1 0 0 SURVHY STATISTICS 24 HOUR MERY RMTS PEAK HOUR SDEWES EXIT AN PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ENTER AN PEAK HOUR PN PEAR HOUR TOTAL 1186 DIRECTION: ENTER HOUR 60 TOTALS DATE TIME 15 30 0 45 2.6-97 0000 0 8 1 3 0100 0 0 0 0 0200 0 0 0 2 0300 0 0 0 0 0400 0 0 0 1 0500 0 1 2 6 0600 3 6 3 10 0700 8 24 3 23 0800 27 25 1 11 0900 13 20 4 23 1000 6 7 26 54 1300 4 3 8 83 1200 4 21 2 39 1300 22 15 15 27 1400 10 4 8 41 1500 7 6 23 87 1600 7 5 17 88 1700 0 1 13 67 1800 4 2 6 31 1900 0 1 4 20 2000 1 1 0 6 2106 0 0 3 5 2200 1 0 1 2 2300 0 0 674 11:15-12:15 VOLO M 76 16:15-17:15 VOLUMES 98 07:30-08:30 VOLUMES 105 12:15-13:15 VOLUMEB 63 45 ROM 60 TOTALS 0 8 5 6 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 6 11 29 23 85 16 85 13 55 7 30 8 17 7 45 10 59 5 25 5 25 1 16 1 4 2 8 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 TOTAL 512 24 HOUR SURVEY RESULT SVM CLIENT: NBSTON PRINGLE i ASSOCIATES PROJECT: ROC1616LL - NEiPORT BEACH LOCATION: ROCENELL DRIVBNAY 4 FILE KUNBER: 4A DIRECTION: TOTAL VOL01ME DATE TINE 15 30 45 2-4-97 0000 3 1 2 0100 1 0 3 0200 1 1 3 0300 2 4 4 0400 0 13 4 0500 0 2 0 0600 5 4 23 0700 5 11 6 0800 10 15 3 0900 19 9 19 1000 14 35 22 1100 28 13 23 1200 33 29 16 1300 39 27 21 1400 19 27 21 1500 40 21 23 1600 10 9 5 1700 15 18 9 1800 9 6 9 1900 0 4 10 2000 8 6 4 2100 8 3 9 2200 3 0 1 2300 6 6 4 TOTAL HOUR 60 TOM 2 8• 6 10 3 8 0 10 1 18 3 5 11 43 19 41 12 40 27 74 14 85 31 95 34 112 18 105 34 101 27 111 19 43 10 52 2 26 18 32 5 23 2 22 1 5 5 21 1090 SURVEY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SOEIARY RESULTS 1090 PEAR HOUR SUMMARIES TOTAL VOLUHE AM PER HOUR 11:15-12:15 VOiUM PH PEAR HOUR 14:15-15:15 VOLOMHS 100 122 c 24 HOUR SURVEY RESULT SOWN CLIENT: N&STON PRINOLE i ASSOCIATES PROVE: ROCANBLL - NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: ROCRNBLL DRIVENAY 4 FILE NUMBER: 4B DIRECTION: TOTAL VOLUME 15 30 45 2-5-97 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 SURVEY STATISTICS TOTAL HOUR 60 TOTALS 1099 24 HOUR SUMMARY RESULTS 1099 PRE HOUR SUNNARIES TOTAL VOLUME AN PEAK HOUR 10:00-11:00 VOLUMES 131 PH PEAK HOUR 14:00-15:00 VOLUMES 117 24 NODE SURVEY RESULT SUMMARY CLIENT: WESTON PRINGLE F ASSOCIATES PROW: ROCENBLL - NEWPORT BRACH LOCATION: ROOM DRIVEWAY 4 FILE NUMBER: 4C DIRECTION: TOTAL VOLUME DATE TIME 15 30 45 2-6-97 0000 4 0 0 0100 2 0 0 0200 0 0 1 0300 0 0 0 0400 0 0 1 0500 0 2 2 0600 17 11 5 0700 8 14 22 0800 22 25 18 0900 13 10 13 1000 23 35 14 1100 11 23 26 1200 19 23 22 130D 14 19 7 1400 14 39 25 1500 26 22 21 1600 27 29 22 1700 17 17 13 1800 20 5 5 1900 6 8 11 2000 8 8 12 2100 5 6 1 2200' 1 3 4 2300 5 1 3 0 SURVEY STATISTICS 24 HOUR SUMMARY RESULTS 1122 PEAK HOUR SUMMARIES TOTAL VOLUME AM PEAK HOUR 09:45-10:45 PM PEAK HOUR 14:15.15:15 HOUR 60 TOTALS 1 5 0 2 1 2 0 0 7 8 3 7 15 48 19 63 19 84 28 64 26 98 30 90 15 79 31 71 25 103 20 89 9 87 18 65 12 42 2 27 4 32 8 20 12 20 7 16 1122 VOLUMES 100 VOLUMES 115 AWPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. March 13, 1997 Ms. Patty Temple Director of Planning City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT. ROCKWELL EXPANSION Dear Rich: TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION nC vitl AY ENS �LANNINd QE►� CH CITY OF NEWPOR"r BFA MAR 141991 to AN9 Enclosed is our report summarizing our findings relative to trip generation and distribution as well as parking at the existing Rockwell facility in Newport Beach. This study was conducted to provide base data for future traffic analyses of site expansion and as discussed at our January 17, 1997, meeting. Please review the report and our findings. We will contact you in a week to set up a meeting to review the report. If you have any questions in the interim, please contact us. Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:hn #961570.1tr cc. Mr. Allen J. Shiroma - Rockwell Mr. Phil Bias - Langdon Wilson Mr. Richard Edmonston - City of Newport Beach 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 0 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (714) 460.0110 • FAX: (714) 460.0113 4 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes November 12, 1996 INDEX expansion of the existing research, development facility. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission to initiate prop amendments A, B, E and F; direct staff to proceed with the preparation of necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before Planning Commission. 23. MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT DENIAL. Accept, approve and adoptMassage Tech Perm the determination of the Hearing Officer as final to deny Massage Technician Hwang (27) \ Permit for Yoonie Hwang. l Mo�'on b Ma or Pro Tem Deba to approve the Consent Calendar except for thos 'tems removed (1, 5-12, 18 and 21). The motion carried by the following roll ca I,vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges Noes: None Absent: one Abstain:e ITEMS REMOVED F ROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. ORDINANCE O. 96.42 AMENDING CHAPTER 12.24.020 THROUGH Ord 96-42 12.24.049 OF THEjNBMC REGARDING INCREASING STATE SPEED I Veh/TrfclSpeed LIMITS. k Limits (85) ORDINANCE NO. 96.4,3 AMENDING CHAPTER 12.24.050 THROUGH Ord 96-43 12.24.130 OF THE NBM REGARDING DECREASING STATE SPEED LIMITS. Motion b Council Member O' 'l to remove the establishment of the 30 mph speed limit for Harbor View D ' e from Goldenrod Avenue to Marguerite Avenue (Section 12.24.080). He wo d like staff (Traffic Affairs Committee) to review this further and meet with the 2mmunity. Council Member Edwards asked the makegr of the motion if he would accept including removal of Santiago Drive from`I�vine to Tustin Avenue to also be reviewed by the Traffic Affairs Committee, toy which the maker of the motion repliedin the affirmative. Council Member Watt asked that the entire length'b Crown Drive be included in the removal, which was also accepted by the maker�f the motion. Hearing no one in the audience wishing to address this7'ssue, Mayor Hedges restated that the motion is to introduce Ordinance No. 96-42. mending Chapter 12.24.020 to 12.24.049 of the Newport Beach Municip Code regarding decreasing state speed limits, with the exception of referral Crown Drive, Harbor View Drive from Goldenrod to Marguerite and Santiag Drive to the Traffic Affairs Committee for further consideration; as well as introduce Ordinance No. 96-43 amending Chapter 12.24.050 through 12.24.�30 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding decreasing state speed limitA and to bring back the ordinances for second reading and adoption. Council Member Glover stated that she believes it is very difficult for the public to understand why the city is raising speeds on the streets, and asked if other cities are doing this. Volume 50 - Page 351 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes November 1201996 Lr- 1 on behalf of the City. 17. ME1�I0 UM OF UNDERSTANDING - NEWPORT BEACH FIRE MANAG NT ASSOCIATION (CONTRACT NO.2946). Approve subject Memorandum Understanding between the City and the Fire Management Association whic era the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997. ti MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 18. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 19. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR NO ER 7,1998. 20. COUNTY URBAN PARK FUND GRANT. Ratify action o ity Manager submitting a grant application for Orange County Urban Parks tiogram, 21. Removed from the Consent Calendar. \\ 22, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-3. Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows; A Newport Diagnostic Center -1605 Avocado Avenue Request to increase the floor area limit in Block 5W of Newport Center by 6,600 square feet to allow expansion of an existing medical office building. B. Koll Real Estate Group - Koll Center Newport Office Site B (vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road). Request to increase the floor area limit in Koll Center Newport Office Site B by 120,000 square feet. C. The Ayres Group - Lower Castaways Site (owned by The Irvine Company, corner of West Coast llighway and Dover Drive). Request to amend the Land Use Element area description to allow hotel development on the Lower Castaways site. D. Magdi R. Hanna - 3900.3956 East Coast Highway. Request to redesignate a portion of a vacated alley from the Single Family Detached to the Retail and Service Commercial land use designation in conjunction with the abandonment of the adjoining alley. The redesignation will increase the commercial site area approximately 1,212 square feet, and increase the floor area allocation by approximately 606 square feet. E. Dahn Corporation -1133 Camelback Street (owned by United States Postal Service - vacant site adjacent to existing Post Office). Request to redesignate approximately two*acres of vacant land from the Governmental, Educational and Instifutional Facilities to the General Industry land use designation to allow for the development of a mini storage facility. Also rr,,.,P.r -d is the establishment of a floor area limit of 99,900 square feet for the proposed development. F. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems - 4311 Jamboree Road. Request to increase the floor area limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 (Rockwell) by 650,000 square feet, to allow for Volume 80 - Page $60 INDEX MOUMB Fire Mgm Asn C-2946(38) Planning (68) County Urban Prk Fnd Grant (54) CPA 96-3 (45) a�yypORT CITY OF NEWPOIEACH b COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT a PLANNING DEPARTMENT C�I,FpPp•� 330 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644.3200; FAX (74) 644-3250 Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: Patricia L. Temple (714) 644-3200 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment96-3 SUMMARY: Request to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue Request to increase the floor area limit in Block 500 of Newport Center by 6,600 square feet to allow expansion of an existing medical office building. B. Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B (vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road) Request to increase the floor area limit in Koll Center Newport Office Site B by 120,000 square feet. C. The Ayres Group Lower Castaways Site (owned by The Irvine Company) (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) Request to amend the Land Use Element area description to allow hotel development on the Lower Castaways site.' D. Magdi R. Hanna 3900-3956 East Coast Highway Request to redesignate a portion of a vacated alley from the Single Family Detached to the .Retail and Service Commercial land use designation in conjunctionwith the abandonment of the adjoining alley. The redesignationwill increase the commercial site area approximately 1,212 square feet, and increase the floor area allocation by approximately 606 square feet. E. Dahn Corporation 1133 CamelbackStreet (owned by United States Postal Service) (vacant site adjacent to existing Post Office) Request to redesignate approximately 2 acres of vacant land from the Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities to the General Industry land use designation to allow for the development of a mini storage facility. Also requested is the establishmentof a floor area limit of 99,900 square feet for the proposed development. F. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road Request to increase the floor area limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 (Rockwell) by 650,000 square feet, to allow for expansion of the existing research, development and manufacturing facility. SUGGESTED ACTION: If desired, sustain the action of the Planning Commission to initiate proposed amendments A, B, E and F; direct staff to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. At its October 10, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the initiation of the requested General Plan Amendments for items A, B, C, E and F above. Item D was removed from calendar at the request of the property owner involved, as the applicant had not secured agreement to pursue the request. A copy of the Planning Commission staff report and an excerpt from the minutes with the Commission's action are attached. Of the proposed General Plan Amendment initiations, only item C regarding a proposed hotel development on the Lower Castaways site was discussed by the Planning Commission. Since the Commission meeting, the applicant has advised staff that he wishes to postpone initiation of this amendment. Submitted by: SHARONZ. WOOD Assistant City Manager Oe Attachments: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director 1. Excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes of October 10, 1996 2. Staff report to the Planning Commission - October 10, 1996 General Plan Amendment 96-3 November 12,1996 Page 2 0 0 DRAFT City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 INDEX 4. SUBJECT: Requests to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: (A) Proponent: Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit in Block 500 of Newport Center by 6,600 square feet to allow expansion of an existing medical office building. (B) Proponent: Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B (vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road) SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit in Koll Center Newport Office Site B by 120.000 square feet. (C) Proponent: The Ayres Group Lower Castaway's Site (owned by The Irvine Company) (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) SUMMARY: Request to amend the Land Use Element area description to allow hotel development on the Lower Castaway's site. (D) Proponent: Magdi R. Hanna 3900-3956 East Coast Highway SUMMARY: Request to redesignate a portion of a vacated alley from the "Single Family Detached Residential" land use designation to the "Retail & Service Commercial" land use designation in conjunction with the abandonment of the adjoining alley. The redesignation will increase the commercial site area approximately 1,212 sq.ft and increase the floor area allowance by approximately 606 sq.ft. (E) Proponent: Dahn Corporation 1133 CameibackStreet (owned by United States Postal Service - vacant site adjacentto existing Post Office) SUMMARY: Request to redesignate approximately 2 acres of vacant land from the Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities to the General Industry land use designation to allow for the development of a mini storage facility. Also requested is the establishment of a floor area limit of 99,900 square feet for the proposed development. Item Newport Diagnostic Center Recommended for Approval Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B Recommended for Approval The Ayres Group Lower Castaway's Site Recommended for Approval Magdi R. Hanna 3900-3956 E Cst Hghwy Removed from calendar Dohn Corporation 1133 CamelbackSt. Recommended for Approval E City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 • DRIFT (F) Proponent: Rockwell SemiconductorSystems 4311 Jamboree Road SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Site i (Rockwell) by 650,000 square feet, to allow for expansion of the existing research, development and manufacturing facility. Ms. Temple reported that City Council has requested that the Commission take separate votes on these issues. She continued, stating that this is -the third cycle of general plan amendments for the year 1996. There were six requested, but Item D regarding 3900-3956 East Coast Highway has been removed from calendar at the request of the property owner. The initiation process is for the city to maintain its compliance with provisions of state planning law which limits the number of times per year which a city may consider amendments to its General Plan. This action of initiation is not an approval of any of these proposals. Initiation only starts the process of staff analysis which would lead to a public hearing and decision by the Planning Commission and City Council. Public hearing was opened with regard to the Newport Diagnostic Center. Mr. Robert Kraft, of Kraft Architects made himself available to Commission to answer any questions adding the intent of this proposal is to add footage to increase the facilities operation based upon the modification of the PC text for that segment of Fashion Island. Public testimony on Koll Real Estate Group. Commissioner Ridgeway asked staff about the location of this proposal. Staff answered that Koll Real Estate Group has not done any precise site design or planning for this request of entitlement. However, they are looking at locating a new structure within the existing parking lot in front of the twin towers at the corner of Jamboree and MacArthur. In association with that they will be building another parking structure. Public testimony on Lower Castaway's Site, The Ayres Group. Mr. Bruce Ayres, said this proposal would involve an upscale, moderately priced, small meeting space and restaurant within a hotel that will fit in the community. Public testimony on 1133 Camelback, Dahn Corporation. None. Public testimony on Rockwell Semiconductor Systems. None. Public Hearing was closed. 12 INDEX Rockwell Semicon- ductorSystems 4311 Jamboree Road Recommended for Approval • • 10RAFT City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Chairperson Adams spoke on the Lower Castaway's site stating he is not supportive of moving ahead with processing the hotel development. Commissioner Ridgeway spoke on the proposal for 1133 Camelback location stating that this is a 99,900 square feet request on a two acre site. Recently approved was an approximate 100,000 square feet on a three acre site for a similar storage facility. He continued by talking about the topography and landscaping differences. He concluded by stating that it appears that 99,900 square feet on a two acre site is very aggressive. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Amendments be initiated: (A) Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None (B) Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None (C) Lower Castaway's Site (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Selich, Ashley Noes: Adams, Gifford Absent: None Abstain: None (D) Magdl R. Hanna 3900-3956 East Coast Highway Removed from calendar (E) Dohn Corporation 1133 CamelbackStreet Ayes: All Noes: None 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10,1996 Absent: None Abstain: None (F) Rockwell SemiconductorSystems 4311 Jamboree Road Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None •*0 • DRAFT INDEX Additional Business a.) ity Council Follow-up- An oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Cou it actions related to planning- Mrs. Wood reported that at the City Council meeting o .September 23rd, Cannery Village was discussed and staff has been requested told a report at the October 28th meeting; Council started their review of the KPMG repor • China Palace wall has been called for review on October 28th; an urgency ordinanc regarding outdoor restaurants on Mariners Mile has been put in effect for another days; and the urgency ordinance regarding condominium conversionson Balboa NQnd has been extended for nine months. b.) Oral report by the lanning Specialty Food Permits,Modific tionP( Temple reported that a Specialt Foc approved. Modifications for 300 Ne I Collins Island, 707 Heliotrope Avenue MacArthur Boulevard were approved. No. 96-7 were called up for review on passed - 6 Ayes, l No. Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, mits and Temporary Use Permit approvals- Ms. I Service Permit for 3441 Via Lido, Suite A was art Center Drive, 202 Newport Center Drive, 3 d a temporary use permit for a tent at 4545 dification No. 4495 and Lot Line Adjustment ::to r24th by Commissioner KranAey. Motion c.) Oral report from Planning Commission's epresentative to the Economic Development Committee- CommissionerSelich at th ext EDC meeting will present a summary of the results of the proposed changes to the ing Code for their review. d.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representati to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee- Commissioner Kranziey reporte hat there have been three meetings regarding the Camp plan and how it effectsIve various districts. October 23rd will be an all day session to compose a final dr t of the BPPAC presentation. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to repo on at a subsequent meeting -Mr. Rich Edmonston reported that the Public Works DeNAn had prepared an application for Major M funding for the Riverside/Tustiproject. At the direction of the City Council, that application was withdrawn packet. The next opportunity to seek funds for that project will be in two years. 14 CITY OF NEWPO BEACH Hearin 8te: O� b COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: C�{„Opp�p 33w NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9265E (r+) 644.32�; FAx (rs) 44-s25o Refer to Council REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment96-3 October 10,1996 4 Patricia L. Temple 644-3200 Automatic SUMMARY: Request to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue Request to increase the floor area limit in Block 500 of Newport Center by 6,600 square feet to allow expansion of an existing medical office building. B. Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B (vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road) Request to increase the floor area limit in Koll Center Newport Office Site B by 120,000 square feet. C. The Ayres Group Lower Castaway's Site (owned by The Irvine Company) (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) Request to amend the Land Use Element area description to allow hotel development on the Lower Castaway's site. D. Magill R. Hanna 3900-3956 East Coast Highway Request to redesignate a portion of a vacated alley from the Single Family Detached to the Retail and Service Commercial land use designation in conjunction with the abandonment of the adjoining alley. The redesignation will increase the commercial site area approximately 1,212' square feet, and increase the floor area allocation by approximately 606 square feet. u �1 u E. Dahn Corporation 1133 Camelback Street (owned by United States Postal Service) (vacant site adjacent to existing Post Office) Request to redesignate approximately acres of vacant land from the Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities to the General Industry land use designation to allow for the development of a mini storage facility. Also requested is the establishment of a floor area limit of 99,900 square feet for the proposed development. F. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road Request to increase the floor area limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 (Rockwell) by 650,000 square feet, to allow for expansion of the existing research, development and manufacturing facility. SUGGESTED ACTION: If desired, recommend to the City Council: A. That the proposed General Plan Amendment(s) be initiated and staff be directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission; or B. That the request(s) be returned to the originator without further action; or C. That action on the requested amendment(s) be deferred to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department workloads and project priorities. Backeround City Council Policy K-1 states that: "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the month during which proposed amendments are to be initiated. The request should clearly set forth the reason for which the request is made, and should contain information substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission, after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is worthy of initiation, it may recommend initiation of amendments as set forth above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the City Council with its recommendation that initiation of the Genaml Plan Amendment 96-3 October 10, 1996 Page 2 amendment is unwarranted. The City Council, after consideration of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission, may either initiate the proposed amendment and direct the Planning Commission to set for public hearing, return the request to the originator without further action, or defer action on the proposed amendment to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department work loads and project priorities." Requested Amendments Newport Diagnostic Center. An increase in the permitted floor area limit has been requested to allow for expansion of the existing medical building at 1605 Avocado Avenue. In doing so, the applicant is intending to make use of available surplus parking in the Block 500 pool parking area created with the adoption of the Planned Community Text for that area. If initiated, this proposal will come forward when all necessary agreements with The Irvine Company in regards to the use of the shared parking area are complete. Koll Center Newport. Office Site B. An increase in the permitted floor area limit for Koll Center Office Site B has been requested to allow for the construction of a 120,000 sq.ft. office building in the vicinity of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The project will also include a related parking structure. Lower Castaways. An amendment to the text of the General Plan Land Use Element has been requested for the Lower Castaways site. The text currently limits the use of the property to marina and support uses only. The applicant seeks to maintain the Recreational and Marine Commercial designation, but add hotel uses to those permitted on the site. A precise development plan has not yet been prepared, but preliminary discussions with the applicant indicate that the project will include over 100 hotel rooms in a three story structure. 3900-3959 East Coast Highway. An amendment to the Land Use Plan (Map) is requested to designate a portion of a to -be -abandoned alley for Retail and Service Commercial use. The applicant is proposing to construct a commercial automobile washing and detailing facility on a site previously occupied by a gasoline service station. In order to accommodate the desired building area under the Floor Area Ratio limits, the applicant has requested the City to consider abandonment of the alley behind the property. The Public Works Department has indicated a willingness to abandon this section of alley, since it serves no other property. When a right-of-way is abandoned, the land becomes a part of the adjoining properties, with the centerline becoming the new property line. When this occurs, the Zoning and General Plan designations of the adjoining properties also apply. In this case, the property across the alley is designated Single Family Detached and zoned R-1. Therefore, that portion of the abandoned alley must be changed to allow the proposed project. It should be noted that the adjoining property owner has indicated a willingness to sell that portion of the abandoned alley. 1133 Camelback Street. The Untied States Postal Service owns a +3 acre vacant site next to its existing facility on Camelback Street. The USPS has determined that it has no current need for two of those acres, and has offered the property for long term lease. The applicant, Dahn Corporation, has requested the amendment to allow the construction of a 99,900 square foot mini General Plan Amendment 96-3 October 10, 1996 Page 3 storage facility on the property. This is the same company which constructed a similar facility at the corner of Camelback and Bison Streets. The remaining 1 acre will be maintained for supplemental post office parking. 4311 Jamboree Road. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems has requested an increase to the permitted floor area limit for its property of 650,000 sq.ft. This entitlement will allow for the ongoing expansion of the existing Semiconductor Systems facility. While no precise plans have yet been developed, this project could include multi -story buildings and related parking structures. Planning Department Workload Apendix "A" attached to this report lists all current programs and projects in the Planning Department (Planning and Economic Development). Included is an analysis of the staffing requirements for the various workload categories of the department. These proposed General Plan Amendments are all applicant requests related to specific development proposals. As such, they can be handled within those staff hours allocated to development review and special studies. The workload analysis also indicates that the Economic Development staff is somewhat over- committed. Additional special projects, such.as implementation of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study, will have to be assigned to Planning staff. Although there is some unallocated time in Planning, this is usually taken by unanticipated special projects, or could be needed by a large development project. As such, there is a need to consider available staff resources when new projects are assigned to the department. Suggested Action The City Council has requested separate consideration and action on each amendment request. Submitted and prepared by: PATRICIAL. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments: 1. Appendix"A" 2. Letter from Newport Diagnostic Center 3. Letter from Koll Real Estate Group 4. Letter from The Ayes Group 5. Letter from The Irvine Company 6. Letter from Maghi R. Hanna 7. Letter from Dahn Corporation 8. Letter from Rockwell Semiconductor Systems General Plan Amendment 96-3 October 10, 1996 Page 4 APPENDIX "A" Planning Department Workload Council Policy K-1 requires that the initiation of General Plan Amendments include consideration of departmental workload and priorities. A list of current projects is provided for the information of the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendments and Major Projects In -Process Following is a list of General Plan Amendments being actively pursued and major projects underway. General Plan Amendments GPA 91-3(E) Circulation element update GPA 92-l(C) Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan GPA 93-2(C) Recreation and Marine Commercial Designation GPA 95-2(B) Newport Center Drive GPA 95-2(C) Newport Village GPA 95-2(E) Newport Harbor Lutheran Church GPA 95-3(C) Newport Beach Country Club GPA 96-1(A) Circulation Element, Master Plan of Bikeways GPA 96-1(F) Housing Element Update General Plan and LCP Implementation 1. Adopt LCP Zoning and Implementing Ordinances 2. Amend Planned Communities (PC's) consistent with new General Plan Special Projects and Economic Development Activities 1. Balboa Peninsula Planning Study 2. Complete Central Balboa Specific Plan - Coastal Commission Processing 3. Newport Information System Implementation including Ongoing Mapping and Database Development 4. Airport Area Study - Market Feasibility and Specific Plan 5. Mariner's Mile Study 6. Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance 7. Corona del Mar and McFadden Square BIDs Regional Activities 1. Participate in preparation of County -wide Congestion Management Plan 2. SCAG Regional Strategic Plan Monitoring and Implementation 3. Various Regional Housing Activities 4. Census - Data Needs Identification and Census Tract Boundary Review 5. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency 6. Air Quality Management Plan review and development of implementation Procedures 7. Orange County Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee 8. Participate in the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) Technical Advisory Committee 9. Review Amendments to OCTA 20 Year Circulation Master Plan 10.Orange County League of Cities/OCTA Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program 11. Administration of Federal Entitlement Funds Allocated through the Community Development Block Grant Program Inactive Projects Following is a list of inactive projects which are on the Planning Department workload list. They are inactive either pending the receipt of a related zoning application from the project proponent, funding from the City Council or the actions of other agencies. These items could become active at any time. GPA 88-2(D) Public Safety Element Update GPA 90-2(A) Santa Ana River Mouth LCP GPA 92-1(D) Regulation XV Facilities Floor Area Amendment GPA 94-1(C) Circulation Element, Dover Drive GPA 94-3(B) 424 Old Newport Boulevard GPA 95-2(D) Newport Harbor Museum FAusersXpin\sharcMgpa P ALLOCATION OF STAFF RESOURCES (HOURS PER YEAR) Workload Category Planning Econ. Dev. Total Administration 500 360 860 Development Review 3,660 0 3,660 Plan Check 1,895 0 1,895 Counter/Public Information 2,975 400 3,375 Code Enforcement 75 0 75 Housing 75 0 75 CDBG 0 120 120 BID Support 0 760 760 Data/GIS/MIS 170 800 970 MRC/GRIPBenchmarks 0 270 270 Marketing 0 280 280 EDC .30 240 270 BPPAC 20 170 190 Regional Activities 120 0 120 TOTAL ONGOING 99520 3,400 12,920 Special Projects Underway Planning 2,000 0 2,000 Airport Study 100 400 500 New BIDs 0 620 620 Mariners' Mile Study 100 400 500 Carts and Kiosks 0 220 220 TOTAL SPECIAL PROJECTS 2,200 It6401 39840 TOTAL ALLOCATED STAFF RESOURCES 11,720 59040 169760 TOTAL STAFF HOURS 121300 45900 17,200 STAFF HOURS NOT ALLOCATED 580 -140 440 t Includes Planning Commission, City Council, Modifications Committee, Development Review Committee, Environmental Review and Staff issued permits. 2 Special Projects in Planning include the Zoning Code, LCP Certification, Circulation ElemenMO, Alcohol Policy Planning and Mini -markets in Service Stations. NE•PORT DIAGNOSTIC CE?WR July 24,1996 PLANNING DEPARTMVi I ry OF NEWPORT BEACP Planning Commission AM PM City of Newport Beach 71g19,WIH112111213141516 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Ms. Patricia Temple Re: REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 1605 AVOCADO AVENUE (PART OF BLOCK 500 OF NEWPORT CENTER) TO ALLOW 6000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING. Dear Ms. Temple: Since the construction completion and public opening of our Newport Diagnostic Facility in September of 1994, we have perceived a need to expand our medical services to the community. We became aware of Ordinance #95-32, Amendment #827 (adopted August 28, 1995) for block 500 of Newport Center which we understand from Staff, increased the potential allowable area by modifying the parking ration thereby establishing 171 surplus parking spaces. With the increased parking availability and under the guidelines of the 'Planned Community District Regulations for Blk. 5W', we respectfully request 6600 gross square feet of Building area be allotted to the existing entitlement to accommodate the need for our site at 1605 Avocado Avenue, (Blk. 500 Newport Center). By this letter, we are requesting initiation of the process to amend the General Plan & Planned Community Text to permit expansion. We also understand from Staff that the initiation Public Hearing could be in October, 1996. We are available at anytime to discuss this request. Sincerely, Hazem H. Chehabi, M.D. President HHC/cko cc: Kraft Architects Jay Garcia 1605 Avocado Avenue / Newport Beach, California 92660-2020 714.760.3025 1 Fax 714.720.3944 Koll u August 27, 1996 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department Community and Economic Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Koll Center Newport Dear Ms. Temple: Real Estate Group RCUIVru tiv PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEP 0 6 1996 ��8i9110iU�12�1�3i41516 Q On behalf of the Koll/Aetna partnership, the Koll Real Estate Group requests that the City of Newport Beach initiate a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, zoning and environmental process to increase the allowable office area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards. The increase is requested for the Planned Community Office Site B area. The location of the proposed development is in the vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The allowable building area increase requested is approximately 120,000 gross square feet, less any existing undeveloped office entitlements and will be supported by the addition of the new parking structure to meet or exceed the Koll Center Newport Parking requirements for Office Site B. We have authorized Langdon Wilson to prepare a site plan to conceptually illustrate the proposed development and will forward a copy to you as a supplement to this letter. Please contact me at (714) 833-3030, or Mr. Pat Allen of Langdon Wilson at (714) 833-9193, if additional information would be helpful or if there are other requirements necessary at this time to initiate the proposed General Plan Amendment. Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to working with you and your staff on this important project. Sincerely, KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP (-� James � mes_C. Watson_' President Western Division JCW:dhn cc: Don Koll Dick Omvein Pat Allen 4343Wn KamimAvenue Newport Beach, CA92660 (714) 833-3030 FAX (714) 474-1084 REturt0 BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SINGE ltnr AN SEP J1996 M 7�8t 6 August 25, 1996 Patty Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Lower Castaway's Site - Southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive .Dear Patty: Ayres Group, who are authorized agents for the Irvine Company, respectively request the zoning on the above mentioned site be changed to accommodate a hotel. Sincerely, 1. Bruce F. Ayres President SINCE190i ;ii B; j>Goi smut. sluic %. Co,1:1 Moa. (.11iIntIl ;t •01,21011:. I )zl U•hI1b0•1"jjl;40-;i0? • 0 • THE IRVINE COMPANY REl,cvrry � ,'CANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACN AIA gEP 0 91996 P4 bpu121 3 7t8t9t t t t t3t t4 t5ls September 5,1996 Ms. Patty Temple Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Lower Castaway's Zone Change Dear Ms. Temple: We authorize the Ayers Group to proceed with the zone change of the Lower Castaway's site to allow a hotel. Please call me at 720-2236 if there are any questions. Sincerely, ` LrWilliamsVice resident, Sales & Marketing P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658-6370 • (714) 720-2200 EP-11-1396 11:11 ERCre4, 114C.- E44 7 44 TEL 14 644 0664 P.01 F Date: September 11, 1996 A To. Mr. Jay Garcia, Planning Department X Of- City of Newport Beach Fax: 714-644-3250 Tel: 714-644-3206 Sub: Alley Auto Spa of Corona del Afar, Inc. 567 San Nicolas Or, Ste 306, Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Fax:714-641-0664 Tel:714-644-73" Ref- 6091 UG Page 1 of 1 Please authorize the procedure to initiate a general plan amendment to designate as commercial, the alley north of the following properties: 1. Lot No. 54 2. Lot No. 55 3. Lot Nos. 56, 57 and 58 3900 E. Coast Hiway 3928 E. Coast Hiway 3956 E. Coast Hiway We are in the process of obtaining the consent of the neighbor to whom half the alley may belong to. Best Regards, Magdi R. Hanna •II'UWC,{CMMU�A,,a •:'i Y•rr • _ •.mot • 1 .. .�. •r. •.. _ .�7 1r�. �.wY.��.-. LM1r •. .. .. .! �•.• .,,,. ,., .__._. rqK.� -eat vu m h .• Jr .>Y1 � ' 50.20' Zd ar ^+ ! REs 62 F J �` •! %2;'. s }t Z/ < /J0 /9 e t � ` ��.3� e v � � •�� L •l.�.�t. 30 Y� h .6 Q�' t PCL iy1 �I JO n_ /% P.M. 283t 49 v 4 t Q d2 C-+^^ TRACT f1038��a `Y 59 t, p `_ I! i • f� WATER EA9E. $ T P.M.7p16z�ysa•K``:c.�F6 a t: 01 9u9.�Vt `ti abQwy Sr P" PIP 56 57 � t , ' 2 S3 5a ��s®r�( L s yx "R,rl N.se�; •a°�o•°ztm Boat' g9o0 pCil�iFtll.)fJI• .jlN. o1i27 - ^ •3' �, . 'Ob• ON'�• "� 'f 0 eat 63 4 , ° -y"tt F 59 S Uil ul iC ants739� - 1 ma�bf•. �� AC / y.CO —� WvrtI� LT ET ��a� et8/ 6 c J A AV 3,3 n ' QOP' � 1•�•' "Q to R 57A' A li% � _ ��f b � •�r`t 10 i/ aoze•,^�' .rt: h se 5PCr i t`2 a 4137 cn_ 2 69 6B (aZ C� R A ,4E'96116_ 508— 1 .1 07 i, • V ,n .n T ti ALl-E�-/ 114 QUES5to_ AV ALLY • CJ ai a MAx I sot WING of sr sow= oou lem" PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 01 FIGURE 2 SRE MAP North UNOCAL STATION NO. 4896 392a EAST PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY NEWPORT SEACN, CA r�o+m wo. aum rr ' 0 20 r t5—al-884 T. VARGAS �.� n,8� Delia9.J GCWA» SGcI-20 z.K fty.lA ono wr ® c*ft % lmV 11 AHN CORPORATION REAL ESTATE INVEST\TENTS & ASSET MANAGEMENT September 15, 1996 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Greetings: Please accept this letter as our formal request to seek a General Plan change for the property located immediately north of the U.S. Post Office on Camelback Street in Newport Beach. The site is known as 1133 Camelback Street, Newport Beach and is approximately 3.04 acres in size. Currently, the property is zoned Government/Education/industrial. We are seeking a change to General Industry to allow for a mini storage facility. Our ptanned development will "mirror" the facilities we have recently created just south of this site, on the northwest corner of Bison and Camelback. Please find enclosed a conceptual site plan for 1133 Camelback. We are proposing to use just over 2 acres (2.04) for 99,900 gross square feet (2 story) of storage facilities which would include an office and Manager's apartment. It is proposed that approximately one acre be used for parking for the Post Office. The traffic utilization will be pro-rata the same as our other site to the south, however, less in actual count as this site is smaller than the existing location. Thank you for your assistance in you have any questions , please at 7141752-1282. Sincerely, DAHN CORPORATION Brian A. Dahn President Enclosure processing this General Plan Amendment. If do not hesitate to call Bob Bradley in my office 18552 MacArthur Blvd.. #495, Irvine, CA 92715 (714) 752-1282 6 FAX (714) 752.0')01 Rockwell SemiconductorRockweSystems . . • 4311Jall oremation+lCorpor+tlon 13i i Jamboree Rad Po Box C Newport Beach, CA 92658.8902 01% RuclaNell Semiconductor Systems September 20, 1996 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-6915 Reference: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Newport Beach Facilities Expansion Dear Ms. Temple: ...4L. .. AG DEPARTMEN'' 6F NEWPORT BEAC+ SEP 2 31996 7MPM 8►9►1U►ll►u►112t3►`�15►6 As discussed at our recent meeting, this letter is to formalize Rockwell Semiconductor Systems request that the City of Newport Beach initiate a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, zoning and environmental review to increase the allowable building area of its property at 4311 Jamboree Road; a part of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development. The allowable building area increase requested is 650,000 gross square feet. This additional entitlement will be for Rockwell's use to accommodate our projected mid and long range growth projections at our City of Newport Beach facility. Please contact me at (714) 2214593 if there is additional information or other requirements necessary at this time to initiate our proposed General Plan Amendment. Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to working with you and your staff on this vital need to facilitate Rockwell's growth at our present location. Sincerely, eA(W Rich Bluth Director, Facilities cc: John Algeo, Vice President, Operations J. Patrick Allen, AIA, Partner/Langdon Wilson Terry Ellis, Director, Die Manufacturing Kevin J. Murphy, City Manager Allen J. Shiroma, Manager, Facilities Design Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 4. SUBJECT. Requests to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: (A) Proponent: Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit in Block 500 of Newport Center by 6,600 square feet to allow expansion of an existing medical office building. (B) Proponent: Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B (vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road) SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit in Koll Center Newport Office Site B by 120.000 square feet. (C) Proponent: The Ayres Group Lower Castaway's Site (owned by The Irvine Company) (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) SUMMARY: Request to amend the Land Use Element area description to allow hotel development on the Lower Castaway's site. (D) Proponent: Magdl R. Hanna 3900-3956 East Coast Highway SUMMARY: Request to redesignate a portion of a vacated alley from the "Single Family Detached Residential" land use designation to the "Retail & Service Commercial" land use designation in conjunction with the abandonment of the adjoining alley. The redesignation will increase the commercial site area approximately 1,212 sq.ft and increase the floor area allowance by approximately 606 sq.ft. (E) Proponent: Dahn Corporation 1133 CamelbackStreet (owned by United States Postal Service - vacant site adjacentto existing Post Office) SUMMARY: Request to redesignate approximately 2 acres of vacant land from the Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities to the General Industry land use designation to allow for the development of a mini storage facility. Also requested is the establishment of a floor area limit of 99,900 square feet for the proposed development. INDEX Yr-ml Newport Diagnostic Center Recommended for Approval Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B Recommended for Approval The Ayres Group Lower Castaway's Site Recommended for Approval Magdi R. Hanna 3900-3956 E Cst Hghwy Removed from calendar Dahn Corporation 1133 CamelbackSt. Recommended for Approval City of Newport beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10,1996 I Proponent: Rockwell Semicondui 4311 Jamboree Road SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 (Rockwell) by 650,000 square feet, to allow for expansion of the existing research, development and manufacturing facility. Ms. Temple reported that City Council has requested that the Commission take separate votes on these issues. She continued, stating that this is the third cycle of general plan amendments for the year 1996. There were six requested, but Item D regarding 3900-3956 East Coast Highway has been removed from calendar at the request of the property owner. The initiation process is for the city to maintain its compliance with provisions of state planning law which limits the number of times per year which a city may consider amendments to its General Plan. This action of initiation is not an approval of any of these proposals. Initiation only starts the process of staff analysis which would lead to a public hearing and decision by the Planning Commission and City Council. Public hearing was opened with regard to the Newport Diagnostic Center. Mr. Robert Kraft, of Kraft Architects made himself available to Commission to answer any questions adding the intent of this proposal is to add footage to increase the facilities operation based upon the modification of the PC text for that segment of Fashion Island. Public testimony on Koil Real Estate Group. Commissioner Ridgeway asked staff about the location of this proposal. Staff answered that Koli Real Estate Group has not done any precise site design or planning for this request of entitlement. However, they are looking at locating a new structure within the existing parking lot in front of the twin towers at the corner of Jamboree and MacArthur. In association with that they will be building another parking structure. Public testimony on Lower Castaway's Site, The Ayres Group. Mr. Bruce Ayres, said this proposal would involve an upscale, moderately priced, small meeting space and restaurant within a hotel that will fit in the community. Public testimony on 1133 Comelback, Dahn Corporation, None. Public testimony on Rockwell Semiconductor Systems. None. Public Hearing was closed. 12 INDEX Rockwell Semlcon- ductorSystems 4311 Jamboree Road Recommended for Approval � • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 INDEX Chairperson Adams spoke on the Lower Castaway's site stating he is not supportive of moving ahead with processing the hotel development. Commissioner Ridgeway spoke on the proposal for 1133 Cameiback location stating that this is a 99,900 square feet request on a two acre site. Recently approved was an approximate 100,000 square feet on a three acre site for a similar storage facility. He continued by talking about the topography and landscaping differences. He concluded by stating that it appears that 99,900 square feet on a two acre site is very aggressive. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Amendments be initiated: (A) Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None (B) Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None (C) Lower Castaway's Site (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Selich, Ashley Noes: Adams, Gifford Absent: None Abstain: None (D) Magdi R. Hanna 3900-3956 East Coast Highway Removed from calendar (E) Dahn Corporation 1133 CameibackStreet Ayes: All Noes: None 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10,1996 INDEX Absent: None Abstain: None (F) Rockwell SemiconductorSystems 4311 Jamboree Road Ayes: All Noes: None Absent. None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL I Additional Business a.) City Council Follow-up- An oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City uncil actions related to planning- Mrs. Wood reported that at the City Council meetin f September 23rd, Cannery Village was discussed and staff has been requested do a report at the October 28th meeting; Council started their review of the KPMG re rt; China Palace wall has been called for review on October 28th: an urgency ordina a regarding outdoor restaurants on Mariners Mile has been put in effect for anothe 45 days; and the urgency ordinance regarding condominium conversions on Balbo Island has been extended for nine months. b.) Oral report by t Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, Specialty Food Permits, Modi ation Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals- Ms. Temple reported that a Speci Food Service Permit for 3441 Via Lido, Suite A was approved. Modifications for 300 wport Center Drive, 202 Newport Center Drive, 3 Collins Island, 707 Heliotrope Avenu nd a temporary use permit for a tent at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard were approved. odification No. 4495 and Lot Line Adjustment No.96-7were called up forreviewon Oct er24th by CommisslonerKranzley. Motion passed - 6 Ayes,1 No. c.) Oral report from Planning Commission representative to the Economic Development Committee- CommisslonerSelich at t next EDC meeting will present a summary of the results of the proposed changes to the ning Code for their review. d.) Oral report from Planning Commission'srepresentati to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee- CommissionerKranzley reporte hat there have been three meetings regarding the Camp plan and how it effects a various districts. October 23rd will be an all day session to compose a final dr t of the BPPAC presentation. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to repo on at a subsequent meeting - Mr. Rich Edmonston reported that the Public Works Dep ment had prepared an application for Major M funding for the Riverside/Tustin Avlhoue project. At the direction of the City Council, that application was withdrawn from IV packet. The next opportunity to seek funds for that project will be in two years, 14 I �gWPORT CITY OF NEWPO BEACH 011�ei COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT u!i PLANNING DEPARTMENT 330 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92656 (714) 644-3200; FAX (714) 644-3250 Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: to Council REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 96-3 October 10,1996 4 Patricia L. Temple 644-3200 Automatic SUMMARY: Request to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: A. Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue Request to increase the floor area limit in Block 500 of Newport Center by 6,600 square feet to allow expansion of an existing medical office building. B. Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B (vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road) Request to increase the floor area limit in Koll Center Newport Office Site B by 120,000 square feet. C. The Ayres Group Lower Castaway's Site (owned by The Irvine Company) (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) Request to amend the Land Use Element area description to allow hotel development on the Lower Castaway's site. D. Magdi R. Hanna 3900-3956 East Coast Highway Request to redesignate a portion of a vacated alley from the Single Family Detached to the Retail and Service Commercial land use designation in conjunction with the abandonment of the adjoining alley. The redesignation will increase the commercial site area approximately 1,212' square feet, and increase the floor area allocation by approximately 606 square feet. • 0 E. Dahn Corporation 1133 CamelbackStreet (owned by United States Postal Service) (vacant site adjacent to existingPost Office) Request to redesignate approximately 2 acres of vacant land from the Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities to the General Industry land use designation to allow for the development of a mini storage facility. Also requested is the establishment of a floor area limit of 99,900 square feet for the proposed development. F. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road Request to increase the floor area limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 (Rockwell) by 650,000 square feet, to allow for expansion of the existing research, development and manufacturing facility. SUGGESTED ACTION: If desired, recommend to the City Council: A. That the proposed General Plan Amendment(s) be initiated and staff be directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission; or B. That the request(s) be returned to the originator without further action; or C. That action on the requested amendment(s) be deferred to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department workloads and project priorities. Background City Council Policy K-1 states that: "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the month during which proposed amendments are to be initiated. The request should clearly set forth the reason for which the request is made, and should contain information substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission, after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is worthy of initiation, it may recommend initiation of amendments as set forth above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the City Council with its recommendation that initiation of the General Plan Amendment 96.3 Octabcr 10.1996 Page 2 amendment is unwarranted. The City Council, after consideration of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission, may either initiate the proposed amendment and direct the Planning Commission to set for public hearing, return the request to the originator without further action, or defer action on the proposed amendment to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department work loads and project priorities." Requested Amendments Newport Diagnostic Center. An increase in the permitted floor area limit has been requested to allow for expansion of the existing medical building at 1605 Avocado Avenue. In doing so, the applicant is intending to make use of available surplus parking in the Block 500 pool parking area created with the adoption of the Planned Community Text for that area. If initiated, this proposal will come forward when all necessary agreements with The Irvine Company in regards to the use of the shared parking area are complete. Koll Center Newport, Office Site B. An increase in the permitted floor area limit for Koll Center Office Site B has been requested to allow for the construction of a 120,000 sq.ft. office building in the vicinity of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The project will also include a related parking structure. Lower Castaways. An amendment to the text of the General Plan Land Use Element has been requested for the Lower Castaways site. The text currently limits the use of the property to marina and support uses only. The applicant seeks to maintain the Recreational and Marine Commercial designation, but add hotel uses to those permitted on the site. A precise development plan has not yet been prepared, but preliminary discussions with the applicant indicate that the project will include over 100 hotel rooms in a three story structure. 3900-3959 East Coast Highway. An amendment to the Land Use Plan (Map) is requested to designate a portion of a to -be -abandoned alley for Retail and Service Commercial use. The applicant is proposing to construct a commercial automobile washing and detailing facility on a site previously occupied by a gasoline service station. In order to accommodate the desired building area under the Floor Area Ratio limits, the applicant has requested the City to consider abandonment of the alley behind the property. The Public Works Department has indicated a willingness to abandon this section of alley, since it serves no other property. When a right-of-way is abandoned, the land becomes a part of the adjoining properties, with the centerline becoming the new property line. When this occurs, the Zoning and General Plan designations of the adjoining properties also apply. In this case, the property across the alley is designated Single Family Detached and zoned R-1. Therefore, that portion of the abandoned alley must be changed to allow the proposed project. It should be noted that the adjoining property owner has indicated a willingness to sell that portion of the abandoned alley. 1133 Camelback Street. The Untied States Postal Service owns a +3 acre vacant site next to its existing facility on Camelback Street. The USPS has determined that it has no current need for two of those acres, and has offered the property for long term lease. The applicant, Dahn Corporation, has requested the amendment to allow the construction of a 99,900 square foot mini General Plan Amendment 96.3 October 10, 1996 Page 3 storage facility on the property. This is the same company which constructed a similar facility at the corner of Camelback and Bison Streets. The remaining 1 acre will be maintained for supplemental post office parking. 4311 Jamboree Road. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems has requested an increase to the permitted floor area limit for its property of 650,000 sq.ft. This entitlement will allow for the ongoing expansion of the existing Semiconductor Systems facility. While no precise plans have yet been developed, this project could include multi -story buildings and related parking structures. Piannin¢ Denartment Workload Apendix "A" attached to this report lists all current programs and projects in the Planning Department (Planning and Economic Development). Included is an analysis of the staffing requirements for the various workload categories of the department. These proposed General Plan Amendments are all applicant requests related to specific development proposals. As such, they can be handled within those staff hours allocated to development review and special studies. The workload analysis also indicates that the Economic Development staff is somewhat over- committed. Additional special projects, such as implementation of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study, will have to be assigned to Planning staff. Although there is some unallocated time in Planning, this is usually taken by unanticipated special projects, or could be needed by a large development project. As such, there is a need to consider available staff resources when new projects are assigned to the department. Sueeested Action The City Council has requested separate consideration and action on each amendment request. Submitted and prepared by: PATRICIAL. TEMPLE Planning Director n Attachments: 1. Appendix "A" 2. Letter from Newport Diagnostic Center 3. Letter from Koll Real Estate Group 4. Letter from The Ayes Group 5. Letter from The Irvine Company 6. Letter from Maghi R. Hanna 7. Letter from Dahn Corporation 8. Letter from Rockwell Semiconductor Systems General Plan Amendment 96.3 October 10,1996 Page 4 APPENDIX"A" Planning Department Workload Council Policy K-1 requires that the initiation of General Plan Amendments include consideration of departmental workload and priorities. A list of current projects is provided for the information of the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendments and Major Projects In -Process Following is a list of General Plan Amendments being actively pursued and major projects underway. General Plan Amendments GPA 91-3(E) Circulation element update GPA 92-l(C) Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan GPA 93-2(C) Recreation and Marine Commercial Designation GPA 95-2(B) Newport Center Drive GPA 95-2(C) Newport Village GPA 95-2(E) Newport Harbor Lutheran Church GPA 95-3(C) Newport Beach Country Club GPA 96-1(A) Circulation Element, Master Plan of Bikeways GPA 96-1(F) Housing Element Update General Plan and LCP Implementation 1. Adopt LCP Zoning and Implementing Ordinances 2. Amend Planned Communities (PC's) consistent with new General Plan Special Projects and Economic Development Activities 1. Balboa Peninsula Planning Study 2. Complete Central Balboa Specific Plan - Coastal Commission Processing 3. Newport Information System Implementation including Ongoing Mapping and Database Development 4. Airport Area Study - Market Feasibility and Specific Plan 5. Mariner's Mile Study 6. Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance 7. Corona del Mar and McFadden Square BIDS Regional Activities 1. Participate in preparation of County -wide Congestion Management Plan 5N 0 2. SCAG Regional Strategic Plan Monitoring and Implementation 3. Various Regional Housing Activities 4. Census - Data Needs Identification and Census Tract Boundary Review 5. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency 6. Air Quality Management Plan review and development of implementation Procedures 7. Orange County Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee 8. Participate in the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) Technical Advisory Committee 9. Review Amendments to OCTA 20 Year Circulation Master Plan 10.Orange County League of Cities/OCTA Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program 11. Administration of Federal Entitlement Funds Allocated through the Community Development Block Grant Program Inactive Projects Following is a list of inactive projects which are on the Planning Department workload list. They are inactive either pending the receipt of a related zoning application from the project proponent, funding from the City Council or the actions of other agencies. These items could become active at any time. GPA 88-2(D) Public Safety Element Update GPA 90-2(A) Santa Ana River Mouth LCP GPA 92-1(D) Regulation XV Facilities Floor Area Amendment GPA 94-1(C) Circulation Element, Dover Drive GPA 94-3(B) 424 Old Newport Boulevard GPA 95-2(D) Newport Harbor Museum F:Wscrs\pinshucMgpe ALLOCATION OF STAFF RESOURCES (HOURS PER YEAR) Workload Category Planning Econ. Dev. Total Administration 500 360 860 Development Review 3,660 0 3,660 Plan Check 1,895 0 1,895 Counter/Public Information 2,975 400 3,375 Code Enforcement 75 0 75 Housing 75 0 75 CDBG 0 120 120 BID Support 0 760 760 Data/GIS/MIS 170 800 970 MRC/GRIPBenchmarks 0 270 270 Marketing 0 280 280 EDC 30 240 270 BPPAC 20 170 190 Regional Activities 120 0 120 TOTAL ONGOING 9,520 3,400 12,920 Special Projects Underway Planning 2,000 0 2,000 Airport Study 100 400 500 New BIDs 0 620 620 Mariners' Mile Study 100 400 500 Carts and Kiosks 0 220 220 TOTAL SPECIAL PROJECTS 21200 1,640 3,840 TOTAL ALLOCATED STAFF RESOURCES 119720 5,040 16,760 TOTAL STAFF HOURS 12,300 49900 17,200 STAFF HOURS NOT ALLOCATED 580 -1401 440 1 Includes Planning Commission, City Council, Modifications Committee, Development Review Committee, Environmental Review and Staff issued permits. 2 Special Projects in Planning include the Zoning Code, LCP Certification, Circulation Element/TPO, Alcohol Policy Planning and Mini -markets in Service Stations. July 24, 1996 NEOPORT DIAGNOSTIC CEP&It Al, 1L'V.d 14.✓ b. ,'1.ANNING DEI Ak 7%IEN I s 'TY OF NEWPORT BEACH. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard NewportBeach, CA 92658 Attention: Ms. Patricia Temple AY f a v 1996 PM 7181911ID112111213141M Re: REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 1605 AVOCADO AVENUE (PART OF BLOCK 500 OF NEWPORT CENTER) TO ALLOW 6000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING. Dear Ms. Temple: Since the construction completion and public opening of our Newport Diagnostic Facility in September of 1994, we have perceived a need to expand our medical services to the community. We became aware of Ordinance #95-32, Amendment #827 (adopted August 28, 1995) for block 500 of Newport Center which we understand from Staff, increased the potential allowable area by modifying the parking radon thereby establishing 171 surplus parking spaces. With the increased parking availability and under the guidelines of the "Planned Community District Regulations for Blk. 500", we respectfully request 6600 gross square feet of Building area be allotted to the existing entitlement to accommodate the need for our site at 1605 Avocado Avenue, (Blk. 500 Newport Center). By this letter, we are requesting initiation of the process to amend the General Plan & Planned Community Text to permit expansion. We also understand from Staff that the initiation Public Hearing could be in October, 1996. We are available at anytime to discuss this request. Sincerely, Hazem H. Chehabi, M.D. President HHC/cko cc: Kraft Architects Jay Garcia 1605 Avocado Avenue I Newport Beach, California 92660.2020 714.760.3025 1 Fax 714.720.3944 r August 27, 1996 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department Community and Economic Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Koll Center Newport Dear Ms. Temple: Koll Real Estate Group RECEIVrD 10 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEP 0 61996 po 7 8191VIU112111213141516 t On behalf of the Koll/Aetna partnership, the Koll Real Estate Group requests that the City of Newport Beach initiate a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, zoning and environmental process to increase the allowable office area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards. The increase is requested for the Planned Community Office Site B area. The location of the proposed development is in the vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The allowable building area increase requested is approximately 120,000 gross square feet, less any existing undeveloped office entitlements and will be supported by the addition of the new parking structure to meet or exceed the Koll Center Newport Parking requirements for Office Site B. We have authorized Langdon Wilson to prepare a site plan to conceptually illustrate the proposed development and will forward a copy to you as a supplement to this letter. Please contact me at (714) 833-3030, or Mr. Pat Allen of Langdon Wilson at (714) 833-9193, if additional information would be helpful or if there are other requirements necessary at this time to initiate the proposed General Plan Amendment. Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to working with you and your staff on this important project. Sincerely, KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP �ialozl James C. Watson President Western Division JCW:dhn cc: Don Koll Dick Ortwein 4343Uon Kaamm Avenue Pat Allen Newport Beaeh, CA 92660 (714) 833-3030 FAX (714) 474-1084 a E SUVT i9o; August 25,1996 Patty Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 PLANNING DEPARTMENT C+Ty OF NEWPORT BEACH SEP 0;19% Re: Lower Castaway's Site - Southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive Dear Patty: Ayres Group, who are authorized agents for the Irvine Company, respectively request the zoning on the above mentioned site be changed to accommodate a hotel. Sincerely, Bruce F. Ayres President 51X(;1i 19p5 iii 11r1,G+k Slmq NI:!, 11'od,f 1l+>d, t',d+l+mtte •+_+�.u'+h• lye THE IRVINE COMPANY Wx-'a OLANNING DEPARTMENT' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SE►P 0 91996 PM �'►8►g►10ju►]2►1►2►3►4►5r;6 September 5,1996 Ms. Patty Temple Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Lower Castaway's Zone Change Dear, Ms. Temple: We authorize the Ayers Group to proceed with the zone change of the Lower Castaway's site to allow a hotel. Please call me at 720-2236 if there are any questions. Sincerely, LWilliams Vice resident, Sales & Marketing P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658-6370 • (714) 720-2200 \ \ 3EP-11-1996 1T:11 ERCH14t I14C.- 644 7344 TEL Ti4 644 W64 P.01 F Date: September 11,1996 Auto Spa of Corona del Mar, Inc. A To: Mr. Jay Garcia, Planning Department 587 San Nicolas Or, Ste 306, Newport Beach, Ca 92660 X Of- City of Newport Beach Fax: 714.6"-0664 Tel: 714.644-7344 Fax: 714-644-3250 Tel: 714-644-3206 Ref- 60911JIG Page 1 of 1 Sub: Arley Please authorize the procedure to initiate a general plan amendment to designate as commercial, the alley north of the following properties: 1. Lot No. 54 2. Lot No. 55 3. Lot Nos. 66, 57 and 58 3900 E. Coast Hiway 3926 E. Coast Hiway 3956tCoast H/way We are in the process of obtaining the consent of the neighbor to whom half the alley may belong to. Best Regards, --t t Magda R. Manna N+ Yu1*1600eftsdoaf l,p l ■" 37 ZY Q I '• m P-ly 2"o i ! _ li 36 " .r . � 1 .Y � vim, .L 'vos •Y• v i o r _ 54l1 a _'—as—" REsu6 6Z zr /9 V a I b sr9.3w' O Op Y I •� `` ;�aia3(% R /7PN 283/aa9 r14026 Z4 �59038-40 ►"; 9� — — !3 e 47 'M.fA. ��� ,{� — m CLG / Vit 31-eS5v3v• I f�1 I/ n•�1 a RfSOB. B f\ I WATER EASE.�� Pad l i -I' del a 7 P.b1.72/S 4:G(F.6 x ...t. r ,QSf.Sv:�A4`: JZ 4 e , �Q eu6r EM'i' - a• C :.ie7.�s . 55 5le 37 oR.; 9W/ f CT, jj N Qom, •sorot °3a' "east 390o F. G.sf S pct. 66 W.,NWy .el0 n°,a;J2 OORNr,�%F as ^ rw1 r `O NO Ql `.`1n, '•�1t. ,fix. •leab• n yO �,' 6 � .3ea:. rae�r' G! 6Z ; 63 8J/ y r• r r°`� . P. M� /08/ln 59 (� �' r0.z f vuer/c - .,r I / t1 , oaiz` a I i9 IrE --J y' x kl Naicr_ACT 1 N I y us RIB• �e� _ -'" plu. G� f� � '°' 1// � 0 .5 t• e r 'v, 57A io `� y L-1 33 = _s_ p 1o9,r os yr ab !37 �3 4O8t" a—` _ 'rc 2 0 on ? y�PC69 .2 69 4 ' V 4z J R` r � ./ Po: r• LQ S * ALLEY IN QUft�t opj ALLFY m m .a i .a W w or FIVA I =C vorac (fl OM 0r OCKOM emu 30CM0 �oTona Tta-i'� �a- 926'z6- PACMC COAST HIGHWAY I FIGURE 2 SITE UAP North UNOCAL STATION NO. 4895 392E NE �RT BEkf R, �WCHWAY 0 20 I . s ADeltn � c /j AHN CORPORATION REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS & ASSET MANAGEMENT September 15, 1996 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Greetings: Please accept this letter as our formal request to seek a General Plan change for the property located immediately north of the U.S. Post Office on Camelback Street in Newport Beach. The site is known as 1133 Camelback Street, Newport Beach and is approximately 3.04 acres in size. Currently, the property is zoned Govern ment/Education/Industrial. We are seeking a change to General Industry to allow for a mini storage facility. Our planned development will "mirror" the facilities we have recently created just south of this site, on the northwest corner of Bison and Camelback. Please find enclosed a conceptual site plan for 1133 Camelback. We are proposing to use just over 2 acres (2.04) for 99,900 gross square feet (2 story) of storage facilities which would include an office and Manager's apartment. It is proposed that approximately one acre be used for parking for the Post Office. The traffic utilization will be pro-rata the same as our other site to the south, however, less in actual count as this site is smaller than the existing location. Thank you for your assistance in processing this General Plan Amendment. If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call Bob Bradley in my office at 714/752-1282. Sincerely, DAHN CORPORATION lh. Dahn President Enclosure 18552 MacArrhur Blvd., #495, Irvine, CA 92715 (7141 7 32.1282 • FAX (714) 752.0301 \5 ez Ll N�xkwNlMml�m�dtla I SCayaillon �tt�JrnDotn NoW Newpal8each,CAba35b•b902 Rockwell semfconductorsystems September20, 1996 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Reference: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Newport Beach Facilities Expansion Dear Ms. Temple: ;iNG DEPARTMEN OF NEWPORT BEACI SEP 2 31996 7 PM 181911011214218141516 At As discussed at our recent meeting, this letter is to formalize Rockwell Semiconductor Systems request that the City of Newport Beach Initiate a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, zoning and environmental review to Increase the allowable building area of its property at 4311 Jamboree Road; a part of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development. The allowable building area increase requested is 650,000 gross square feet. This additional entitlement will be for Rockwell's use to accommodate our projected micband long range growth projections at our City of Newport Beach facility. Please contact me at (714) 2214593 If there is additional information or other requirements necessary at this time to initiate our proposed General Plan Amendment. Thank you for your assistance and we took forward to working with you and your staff on this vital need to facilitate Rockwell's growth at our present location. Sincerely, 4(1&eK Rich Bluth Director, Facilities cc: John Algeo, Vice President, Operations J. Patrick Allen, AIA, Partner/Langdon Wilson Terry Ellis, Director, Die Manufacturing Kevin J. Murphy, City Manager Allen J. Shiroma, Manager, Facilities Design Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 1�n 0 Q� ROCkVVO/1 Semiconductor Systems September 20, 1996 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Reference: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Newport Beach Facilities Expansion Dear Ms. Temple: • Rockwell Semiconductor Systems Rockwell International Corporation 4311 Jamboree Road Pit Box C Newport Beach, CA 92658-8902 ..-AG DEPARTMEN, OF NEWPORT BEAD SEP 2 31996 7 181911001144213141516 k As discussed at our recent meeting, this letter is to formalize Rockwell Semiconductor Systems request that the City of Newport Beach initiate a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, zoning and environmental review to increase the allowable building area of its property at 4311 Jamboree Road; a part of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development. The allowable building area increase requested is 650,000 gross square feet. This additional entitlement will be for Rockwell's use to accommodate our projected mid and long range growth projections at our City of Newport Beach facility. Please contact me at'(714) 221-4593 if there is additional information or other requirements necessary at this time to initiate our proposed General Plan Amendment. Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to working with you and your staff on this vital need to facilitate Rockwell's growth at our present location. Sincerely, /'in" t &eK Rich Bluth Director, Facilities cc: John Algeo, Vice President, Operations J. Patrick Allen, AIA, Partner/Langdon Wilson Terry Ellis, Director, Die Manufacturing Kevin J. Murphy, City Manager Allen J. Shiroma, Manager, Facilities Design Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager