Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/2000• E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Study Session — 5:00 p.m. January 20, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Ashley, Fuller, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich and Tucker - all present 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. Wes Pringle, Traffic Engineer gave an overview of the Traffic Study done for the City for this particular project noting: • A specific study was done to determine what trip generations were of the project including the parking demand. • This type of facility predicates the use of maximum employment figures for trip generations, not square footage. (24 hour operation) • The maximum employment figure is based on the maximum use of the facility, total square footage divided by 210 gross square feet per employee. • Using this process, it takes into account possible changes in types of employment (office and/or manufacturing) • The traffic was assigned to the road system using home zip codes of the employees, which allowed us to determine distribution. • The trip generation and distribution information was reviewed by City staff. • Analysis was done for the TPO including the most impacted intersection at MacArthur /Jamboree. Improvements are planned by the City, which will result in the ICU to be reduced. (project impact was mitigated) • Irvine/Mesa intersection can be mitigated and is currently being done. • Irvine/Bristol south was impacted during the a.m. peak hour and at present, no feasible mitigation measures are planned. • There were a few intersections in Irvine that were impacted, and we did not find mitigation measures for those. • There are relatively minor impacts or changes in the maximum ICU for future use. • • An analysis was done for the long range with and without the Koll Center Project. (adjacent to Conexant) • Commissioner Ashley asked for clarification on comments on Jamboree/MacArthur and how Conexant will impact it and improvements to be made? Mr. Pringle stated that under the existing conditions at MacArthur /Jamboree the capacity utilization values are; AM peak hour is .78 /C, the PM peak hours is .96/E. The existing, plus growth, plus committed projects AM peak hours is .928, the PM peak hours is 1.09/F. When the project is added, the morning goes to 1.01/1' and the afternoon goes to 1.12/F. With the improvements proposed for that intersection with all the traffic from the existing project, regional growth and project, the morning goes down to .86/1) and the afternoon goes back to 1.01/F. Commissioner Ashley then asked about the employment shifts and if they were changed from 6 to 6 what would happen to the afternoon hour impact? He was answered that it would be reduced, but is not a total removal of Conexant traffic. Commissioner Fuller asked about the MacArthur /Jamboree intersection mitigation measures as mentioned in the draft EIR on Page IV -109; regarding the n/b left turn lane and a second sib left turn lane, are these improvements to be within the existing curb face? Traffic Engineer Rich Edmonston answered that the City of Newport Beach and the City • of Irvine have currently identified a project that does require some additional right -of- way on the portion of MacArthur southerly of the intersection. We have applied for some Measure M funding for this proposed mitigation. Another second level mitigation measure in the future will also have an application for Measure M funding. That second level will be the creation of a fourth west/bound lane on Jamboree coming towards the freeway and will provide some additional improvement to this operation. At this time, that mitigation has not been identified, but it will also include the widening of the Jamboree bridge over the 73 freeway. We have not looked at taking any additional land to make this improvement. This analysis is not currently scheduled to be done within the timeframe of deliberation on this matter. Commissioner Tucker referencing Table 11 on page 28 in the Draft EIR noted that the numbers were very close with or without the project. However, there are still a lot of LOS E's and F's. Of particular concern was the directional distribution as indicated in Figure 3 that indicates that none of the traffic goes towards Newport Beach where the neighborhoods are. Rather, it is out in the airport area with distribution on Jamboree, MacArthur and Irvine Avenues. An interesting feature is what is the real impact on where we live? Mr. Pringle answered that this distribution is based on the home address zip codes of the employment population of Conexant. We assume that the distribution in the future will remain relatively the same. This shows that the majority of the people are not going • towards Newport Beach. Upon further questioning, Mr. Pringle stated that he could come back with more detailed information expanding the directional distribution exhibit. 2 • Commissioner Tucker, noting the intersections in both Newport Beach and Irvine, asked if there is any responsibility that the city has concerning approved projects impacting surrounding cities? Planning Director Temple answered that the City has no responsibility under the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to mandate an improvement. However, California Environmental Quality Act requires us to identify potential significant affects of a project and to identify feasible mitigation if in fact it exists. If a feasible mitigation measure was identified in the City of Irvine, the City could impose a mitigation measure requiring that developer of that project to mitigate the project's contribution to the intersection impact. However, cross boundary mitigation is not common. But it is possible and could be done under CEQA. Commissioner Kranzley, noting that a lot of this traffic study is predicated upon Conexanfs current work shifts, asked what type of conditions on this permit that would codify those hours, and what happens if another manufacturing company comes in and their shifts are different? Ms. Temple answered that the primary too] to impose conditions of approval is actually a mitigation measure included in the E1R. The EIR requires a mitigation monitoring program where we can require a property and all subsequent real parties in interest to • produce evidence that the mitigation measure is complied with. The only other strategy in this particular case is actually codifying it in the PC text as a zoning code requirement. It would not be typical to impose that kind of an operational limitation in the zoning code, but we can see how practical that approach could be. • Commissioner Tucker noted that it is troubling approving a facility to be built and then have conditions on it not being able to be used. Sometimes these changes in uses are subtle such as research and development that trends into office use. You don't really notice the changes that happen. Once the facility is there, it is hard to tell people how to run their business. He then asked why Jamboree and MacArthur intersection long -range conditions with the project had an ICU value of PM .94, yet under the ICU short run TPO look it was 1.12? Is it going down over the long haul even though it will be a problem in the short haul? Mr. Pringle answered that is what the numbers show. The data in Table 11 is based on the City's traffic model, which looks at the land uses, circulation system that is anticipated for 2020. It does indicate a wide swing. Ms. Temple noted that staff could look into some reasons for that. Often times, there is some improvement that is anticipated many years hence so that in the short term, the intersection is not working, but in the long term, it does. The long -term analysis also includes the completion of the entire circulation system. 3 • Chairperson Selich; referencing Figure 10 on page 33 of the Technical Appendix, noted that the flyover from Jamboree to Route 73 shows 44,000 cars per day in the long -range projection. What is the status of that? Mr. Edmonston answered that the City is continuing to look at that and options with the Transportation Corridor Agency, as they are the group that would have to construct it. In the new modeling we are doing for the Newport Center Study, we are assuming that in 2020 it won't be there, but at this point since it is still in the City's Master Plan, it is shown here. We have not come to any final conclusions yet but the decision would be brought to the City Council as an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element. The key impact if that flyover is not built, is that the LOS at Jamboree/Bristol north goes down considerably. The flyover creates an off ramp from the corridor opposite Bristol north. For the purposes of this project, we can provide an analysis based on Table I1 without that ramp. Chairperson Selich, referencing page 22 noted that there are no known improvement projects proposed for the intersection of Bristol south/Campus- Irvine. Is there anything that could be done? Mr. Edmonton answered that particular intersection has a number of constraints on it, principally the location of the freeway and the CalTrans right -of -way. The Campus bridge over the freeway was widened once and can not be widened again. CalTrans . needs the open area as well as major utility facilities have been installed, which would be extremely expensive to relocate on the south side. There is a strip commercial development on the east side, which would be eliminated by any further widening in there. It has been looked at, but to date nothing has been considered possible. The ICU indicates the shared use of the intersection, but the primary demand is along Bristol Street, which has to stop when Irvine gets a green light. The bridge has already been widened to accommodate double left turn lanes onto the freeway or Bristol north. There are optional lanes for tuning off Bristol on to Campus north; there is also a double right turn lane. There is doubt from an operational standpoint that adding lanes could be continued for any distance without extensive widening. There are height restrictions associated with the airport flight path. The demand is south from Campus to Bristol north to make the free right tum. The problem dissipates by the time you get to Bristol south and Birch Street. The principal drop at the intersection of Jamboree and Bristol would come from eliminating the on -ramp to the freeway that would start south of Fletcher Jones and come up and swoop down onto the freeway. If that on -ramp were put in you would have to take out the Birch Street off ramp because they would be too close. To get off the 73 Freeway to access that area of Newport Beach the ramp would come up to Jamboree opposite Bristol north. The off ramp traffic would have to go through that intersection. Right now, the northbound traffic never stops on Jamboree at that location, as there is no cross traffic, which would be introduced by an off ramp at that location. In addition to • the Jamboree/MacArthur intersection, we are looking at the possibility of adding a fourth 4 • southbound lane along Jamboree all the way easterly from the MacArthur intersection down across the freeway. Chairperson Selich noted his concern about basing an approval of a project on employees, which may change over time with different uses. This facility has 1,479 employees with an additional 2,695 to be added. The problem is the peak hour traffic being generated. I would like to see a management program for the 2,695 employees to reduce the peak hour traffic. This is a concept worth pursuing and we need to take a look at. There is a lot of infrastructure that has been built that is not being utilized. There are problems with dealing with the conditioning and regulation. This is a large amount of square footage with a large amount of employees under the control of one entity, and not having to deal with coordination between different companies, different projects, or different parcels of land. Commissioners Kranzley and Ashley concurred. Commissioner Tucker noted his agreement but stated his focus is on the real estate and what happens after this use and those conditions and that traffic management plan moves on. What do we do with the physical structures at that point? Maybe one of the alternatives to do is to have the traffic study expand a bit to add more traditional trip generation, perhaps based upon space turning into office space. The manufacturing uses in that area have been replaced with office buildings. Ultimately if Conexant leaves, the • pressure will be there to be office facility. There should be some analysis to give some idea as to what can happen. Ms. Temple noted that the City of Irvine has ordinances on the books that address transportation demand management. Staff can certainly look into the mechanism and programs used. Continuing, she stated that staff is refining the data to understand what the trip generation numbers assume in terms of occupancy and what types of development would compare and could readily occupy under the scenario being presented. Also, as a follow up, we will give a sense of what the impacts would be if this had been analyzed as an office development. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Pringle noted in order to get the employment number used to generate the traffic, the total square footage was divided by 210, which assumed a ratio of one employee per 210 gross square feet. Commissioner Tucker stated this needs to be looked at from a more traditional office building development, if it turns out that the trip generation features are the same, then the numbers will be the same. The documentation will show that it was looked at from both points of view. A purpose of the review under the CEQA is to look at what the possible affects are. EIR's are traditionally challenged on the basis of failing to consider things, this is a very material issue as to the potential change of use from a Conexant use to a traditional office use ought to be looked at. I am not suggesting that the numbers • necessarily be different, but it ought to be looked at. 5 • Public Comment was opened. Barry Eaton noted the following: • Traffic Study is based on number of employees, the rate per employee used is based on the existing traffic generation on the site which has five shifts. • Distribution will be affected as many of the research and development employees are going to be able to live in Newport. Basing the distribution on the existing facilities also does not reflect the proposed project. • Parking was also based on the existing complex with its five shifts and does not reflect the proposed project. • Traffic analysis does not reflect in office use and ought to be modified to come closer to that. Public Comment was closed. ITEM NO. 2. SUBJECT: Newport Banning Ranch 5400 West Coast Highway Mike Schlesinger spoke on the project noting the following: • Great opportunity to implement smart growth policies. • 400 acre fill -in development, brown field having been used for oil production over • fifty years. • Will provide additional parklands, open space, restored wetlands, trails along the bluff edges and circulation improvements as well. • Water quality improvement system to be included for run off generated on site as well as the lard industrial areas of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach that currently train through the project onto the Ox Box Loop and the Army Corps of Engineers project. He then explained and distributed handouts to the Commission noting: • Open space plan • Statistical summary and vicinity map • Draft excerpts from coastal program including a Planned Community Development Map which has planning areas (PA) • Boundary lines • Statistical densities and ranges of densities from medium (up to 6 1/2 units per acre), medium high (up to 18 units per acre), and high (up to 28 units per acre). Time Schedule: • Processing time is about two months away from the publication of the draft EIR • Following through the public hearings for Commission and Council over the summertime and into the early fall. . Commissioner Kranzley asked if the 19th Street bridge would be considered in this project? He was answered that the proposed project is being looked at with the bridge and without the bridge being in place. • Commissioner Ashley asked about the discrepancies in the two documents presented tonight. He was answered that the handout includes a number of open space uses within the residential development. The Local Coastal Plan numbers are generalized. Chairperson Selich asked about the school site. He was answered that the status of the discussions with the school district is that we are still planning on including their property, which is just north of the city Utilities yard. The Candidate School site, which is on the colored site plan, is still a proposal for a school site, although it is a possibility that the school district may not choose to acquire that site. Therefore that site has been defined as a five to ten acre private or public school site and will have an underlying residential zoning in the event that neither school use is developed. Regardless of the school site outcome, there would not be more than 1,750 residential units. Chairperson Selich asked about and was answered: • the circulation - The Traffic Study was completed in preliminary form for screen check review this past week. • access off 19`h Street - Given the constraints and the narrowness of the land between the restored wetlands, there is an area of Coastal Sage habitat that we are trying to protect. It would be negative to the project and would not add substantially to the traffic flow in the area. • Possible access from 15`h Street onto Bluff Drive - included in the traffic analysis is a • discussion of 15`h Street to serve Planning Area 10; as well as what would happen if that road was extended to Bluff Road as well. Commissioner Fuller asked about and was answered: • Sanitation facility adjacent to project - no problems have arised from that and it has not shown up as a factor in the adjacent air quality issues. • Oil field responsibilities - approximately 400 wells on property that are in various stages of development. A lot of them have been closed per state and county standards. About 100 wells are operated at any given time. This operation will be the subject in the air quality portion in the EIR as well as the noise associated with them as well. The wells will be removed from about 95% of the property and any new wells will be drilled within specific oil drilling areas. (referencing exhibit showed the areas at end of 17`h Street; end of Coast Highway and at one of the parks). There will be underlying open space or residential use under the oil sites for classification when the wells go away. Commissioner Tucker asked about and was answered: • Wetlands - current status is that the Port of Long Beach has retained a consultant to study the lowland area as a candidate site for mitigation for Port expansion impacts. We are working with a state group, the Wetlands Recovery Project to tour the site and will provide an opportunity for public funding to restore some or all of that area in excess of 100 acres. Additionally, we are doing some of the improvement ourselves, • primarily, creating a buffer zone between the development and the sensitive wetlands 7 . area. The buffer zone runs around the willows area where the water quality swale is located. • Village plaza - we have retained Gregory Stoffle and Associates to do a retail market study which is still in the initial draft form. It will accompany the EIR review. An assumption for circulation is off from Bluff Road at the commercial center and assumed to be the most intense use. Commissioner Gifford asked about and was answered: On -going oil operations - at the start of this project oil was at $7 per barrel, more recently it is about $21.50 and is much more active, it is impossible to predict how long those wells will be there. These oil operation areas are going to be within block walls with landscaping on the outside. The access will be taken off outside streets to be developed. Commissioner Ashley asked about access from the project to 190i Street: • A lot of time was spent on the circulation system, and as a land developer trying to enhance the quality of the overall community we are building, as well as provide an impetus for economic growth on the west side, we felt that the benefits of through traffic gained by 190i Street were not balanced by the impact to the quality of the community itself. Our traffic study, which will be analyzed and available, will clearly indicate the difference between a 190, Street connection and our proposed project. We are not doing anything to prevent the 190i Street bridge from being built. • The right -of -way can easily be reserved for the bridge. Mr. Edmonston noted that there is a study ongoing trying to resolve the future of the 190i street bridge. That study is expected in two or three months. Whether it will result in any conclusions or not is unknown as there are four cities involved that have to agree on changes to be made. In the time frame that this project is being processed, there will be additional information on impacts available. Public comment was opened. Barry Eaton, 727 Bellis Street - asked if there was an alternative in the Santa Ana River Crossing study involving a connection between Brookhurst Street and 170i Street? Does the EIR look at this possibility? Mr. Edmonston answered that there is an alternative for a bridge about where 190i Street would cross, but would connect with l7` ". It was identified as an alternative due to the concerns that a bridge at 190i would bring traffic through a more residential neighborhood along 190i versus the more commercial and industrial area along West 170' in Costa Mesa. The applicant and their consultants were advised that if the four cities were to agree that the alignment with 170i was the most desirable and necessary improvement, their project would have a very difficult time getting approved without providing for that connection. • At Commissioner inquiry, Ms. Clauson noted that when a right -of -way easement for roadway purposes is dedicated to a City, there is no reversionary right. A dedication . could be done for a certain period of time that will expire. The other option is that the dedication runs and at some point in time, the public agency could make a determination that public right -of -way is no longer necessary for future uses and then abandon it through abandonment proceedings. Commissioner Tucker added that technically it would be done by an offer of dedication that would be rejected with the reservation of the right to accept it at a later date. That would be preferable to actually having any conditional dedication because once you abandon that dedication, the property splits on either side of the centerline. Chairperson Selich recessed the meeting until 7:00 p.m. RECESSED: 6:45 p.m. • i 0