HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2000CITY 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 internet 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 an additional 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 set back 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 fmd in the airport area. Conexant is an
owner /occupierlemployer 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
• hundred 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
commercial/industrial 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 front 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 comer 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.
Edmonton 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 further known mitigation, such as Irvine and Bristol Street. There are
0
. 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
7
• 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.
93
• 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
0
• 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
10
• 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.
n
U
•
12