Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/1999• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 Study Session - 6:00 p.m. • • ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker, - all present Commissioner Tucker arrived at 6:15 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Daniel Ohl - Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin - Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 16, 1999 Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Koll Company /Koll Center Newport Project Koll Center Newport GPA and PC Amendment Planning Director Patricia Temple introduced Consulting Planner, Mr. Larry Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence explained that the project site is located at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Mr. Lawrence commented that the Koll Company has applied for a General Plan Amendment and a Planned Community Amendment to allow an additional gross 250,000 square feet of office use within Office Site B portion of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Mr. Lawrence noted that the purpose of the meeting this evening is to introduce the Planning Commission to the project and to the draft environmental impact report. Mr. Lawrence said that Koll Center Newport encompasses 177 acres, at the far northern boundary of the City, and the proposed building site is approximately five and a half acres of that 177, at the far southern corner where MacArthur and Jamboree intersect. The area is already substantially developed and it contains the Conexant complex immediately adjacent to the site. Mr. Lawrence explained that the applicant desires the amendment in order to provide for the construction of a third ten - story office tower just west of the existing towers. The new tower is shown on the • conceptual site plan that is included with the staff report. The conceptual site plan depicts a 1200 car, 6 -level parking structure that would replace the existing 2 -level structure, which is immediately adjacent to the existing towers. The conceptual site -plan also depicts a 500 car 2 -level parking structure, which would replace the existing surface parking, which is immediately at the intersection of MacArthur and Jamboree. Referring to the applications that would be coming to the Planning Commission, Mr. Lawrence explained the following: An Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to increase the maximum gross square footage allowable in office site B by 250,000. 2. A parallel amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, which is the zoning document for the site, to increase the maximum net square footage allowable in Office Site B by 237,500. That number is 95 percent of the gross square footage per the City's definition. 3. The third application is the Traffic Study and Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis of the project. 4. The draft EIR has been distributed to the Planning Commission and is also available for public review at the Planning Department and in the City library. Among the significant impacts addressed in the EIR are: • Land Use • • Traffic INDEX Item No. 1 Koll Company /Koll Center Newport Project Discussion Only • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 • Aesthetics These are briefly noted in the staff report and are described in much greater detail in the draft EIR. Chairman Selich asked if they know, for the statistical area that the project is in, what the existing allowable General Plan entitlement is versus what is actually constructed? Ms. Temple responded that, in Koll Newport Center Office Site B, the only remaining entitlement is a small increment of retail and restaurant, which totals 15,000 square feet. Chairman Selich asked if that is the statistical area in the General Plan? Ms. Temple responded it is not the statistical area but the Koll Center Newport Office Site B. Chairman Selich reiterated that he was talking about the greater statistical area. Ms. Temple commented that the Koll Center Newport area and the Newport Place area may have some small residual amounts of entitlement but they are largely built out, particularly in the office component. The primary source of remaining entitlement in Statistical Division L4 is in the Campus tract between Campus and Birch abutting the airport. Chairman Selich asked if we know what the actual numbers are if those three areas are added? Ms. Temple responded she did not know but would be sure they are in the staff report prepared for the public hearing. Mr. Tim Strader, a principal with the Koll Center Newport Partnership introduced himself and referred to the exhibit, which was posted and gave a brief history of the development. Mr. Strader said that a year ago the two existing 10 -story buildings were sold to Conexant, who now occupies those buildings and are used for engineering and administrative tasks. Mr. Strader explained that the Conexant project is adjacent to this project and Mr. Pat Allen of Langdon - Wilson Architects did all of the architectural and planning work for the Conexant site as well as their project. Conexant desires to have a campus -like project along Jamboree. Mr. Strader said they have been working together to design this campus and the existing 2 -story parking structure at the corner location prevents this connection to the Conexant site. Mr. Strader said they came up with the concept of building a single story structure at this location, which would create a much better arrival condition for the two buildings. Mr. Strader said that would then give them the opportunity to build the 10 -story building. They would teardown the existing 2 -story parking structure first and put up a 6 -story parking structure to alleviate the parking during construction. Mr. Strader said that they do believe Conexant will be an occupant of this new building but, at this time, they do not have a deal with them. Mr. Strader noted that it would be a natural evolution for Conexant to take the space. Mr. Strader said that Koll Center Newport was approved by the City in 1972 and has essentially been built out. Mr. Strader said the overall site is a .5 F.A.R. Chairman Selich asked how they proposed to treat the two story parking • structures at MacArthur and Jamboree? Will it be sunk like the parking in front 3 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 of Circuit City? Mr. Strader responded that it would and they have an exhibit to show that condition. There is an elevation change on MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Strader said that they asked Langdon- Wilson to put together an exhibit to show how it would really look like pedestal. Mr. Allen of Langdon - Wilson commented that the example of Circuit City is what this concept is all about. Mr. Wilson referred to the exhibit and pointed out that With MacArthur berming at the upper level of the structure it basically appears to be a surface parking lot. Mr. Allen referred to a section and explained that where that section is cut it would have a slight elevation internally to the site. Mr. Allen commented that it looks like the structure but this part is actually on grade. Commissioner Ashley asked where the access to the 2 -story parking structure from Jamboree and MacArthur was and clarified by adding that he was speaking of getting into the building itself. Commissioner Ashley also asked whether there is any possibility that a queuing problem could occur. Mr. Strader responded that there are two entry points to the structure. Mr. Strader commented that there is no connecting ramp between the two levels, thus the queing distance available from Jamboree is substantial, as well from the entrance at MacArthur. . Commissioner Kiser referred to Mr. Strader's statement that Conexant wanted a campus environment and that the 2 -story parking structure is in the way of creating this environment. Commissioner Kiser commented that the 2 -story structure would be a 6 -story parking structure. Mr. Strader explained by referring to the exhibit and pointing to the existing 2 -story structure and outlined the existing parking lot that extends further and blocks the pedestrian access to Conexant's administrative and engineering building. Mr. Strader noted that they have positioned the structure back and, by building the parking structure up, they have given them a linear connection, which Conexant is looking forward to. Commissioner Tucker asked what the parking structure would look like compared to what it looks like today. Mr. Strader responded that it would look the same. Mr. Strader commented that they have put together a computerized study to see what the view would look like from MacArthur and what the view would look like from Jamboree. Mr. Strader commented that what Conexant also likes is where the grade break is and that there will be a small elevation that will be visible. Mr. Strader passed the exhibit to the Commissioners and commented that, at the Planning Commission meeting, they will have full size versions of the picture. Mr. Strader said that this provides Conexant a condition that becomes a visitor parking and below they have their executive, private, covered reserved parking. Mr. Strader said it would be heavily landscaped and that, in construction, they could go deeper because there is not a water -table problem at that location. Mr. Strader commented that if it is the desire to have the structure depressed • more they could do that. The goal is to make it look the some as it looks now, I1i1 *70 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 which, if you drive by, you see a sea of surface parking at that location. Commissioner Tucker asked about the vegetation and how it will work since it is in a parking structure and not on soil? Mr. Allen responded that it would be the berming in the same character of the perimeter of Koll Center Newport. Mr. Allen commented that the trees at the top of the parking structure would be in large concrete containers build as part of the parking structure. Commissioner Tucker asked if it would be a little more limited? Mr. Allen responded a little more limited than the current grade parking but the intent is to soften and create a similar appearance of what it is today. What appears to be surface parking will follow the natural contour. Mr. Allen said behind the height of the berm, on its entire perimeter, a portion of the inside would be about a half level, which is approximately 8 -feet above grade at the driveway. Mr. Allen said the idea for the structure would be all natural daylight like the one at Fashion Island and it is not a basement. The backside of the berm slopes down and provides light and ventilation and landscape on the lower level. Commission Tucker asked Mr. Allen if he would be able to bring to the hearing a section that shows existing versus what is proposed? Mr. Allen responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tucker asked where the people park while this lot is under • construction? Mr. Strader responded that they will be entering into an agreement with Conexant to obtain some temporary parking and construction parking on their site as they have excess parking available. Mr. Strader stated that since Conexant is the occupant of the two buildings, they have agreed to negotiate with them to work the situation out. Commissioner Ashley commented that ordinarily he would be asking a lot of questions had he not been satisfied with the report. Commissioner Ashley rhetorically asked the following: • how many square feet of general purpose office space are at the airport area today • how much of that area is occupied therefore what is the vacancy rate • what has been the annual absorption rate of new general office space per year in the last six years. Commissioner Ashley commented that one of the things he thinks is important in City planning is to try and keep an economy moving towards equilibrium and not allow a particular project to create a handicap for others by either over- saturating the market with office space that will not be absorbed rapidly and diluting the demand that would otherwise have gone to other buildings. Commissioner Ashley referred to the business center in the airport area immediately west of Koll between Jamboree and Bristol, going up to Campus, and noted that most all of the developments there are under -built with respect to their zoning capability. They could still increase their size and not necessarily exceed what the General Plan would permit. Commissioner Ashley observed if they were to allow another developer to come in with this • type of project in another location to exceed their General Plan limits by • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 amending it so they could build more, the amount of additional traffic that would result could impact others that have been built up to their current density and deny an opportunity to them. Commissioner Ashley noted that from his experience felt the 250,000 square feet of additional speculatory office building space that would go up in this project should be absorbed within six months. Commissioner Ashley explained that the firms that service Conexant will want to fill this building rapidly so that they can maintain their market relationship with Conexant. Commissioner Ashley said that he anticipates that this project will not jeopardize any other owners of commercial real estate property in the airport area business center. Chairman Selich asked for a summary of the long -range and TPO traffic analysis. Transportation and Development Services Manager Rich Edmonston commented that the traffic study identifies the intersection at MacArthur and Jamboree as being the intersection that is impacted under the TPO analysis. The mitigation in the study is the same mitigation for the Conexant project with the additional turn lanes on MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Edmonston said that in the long -range there is one identified impact that they are continuing to analyze for which there is currently no mitigation and that is at the intersection of Jamboree and Campus. Mr. Edmonston commented that they are having the modeling consultant take another look . at how the model is performing in that area to make sure he is comfortable that it performed correctly. Mr. Edmonston said those are the impacts identified in terms of intersections in Newport Beach. The report does identify some impacts in the City of Irvine as well. Chairman Selich asked if there are no mitigation identified, would there be a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Ms. Temple said in the affirmative. Commissioner Kranzley asked if they were referring to the intersection at MacArthur and Jamboree? Mr. Edmonston responded that in the short-term TPO analysis that is the intersection but in the long- range, the impact that is identified as not being able to be mitigated is Jamboree and Campus. Commissioner Kranzley asked how it could not have long -range impacts at MacArthur and Jamboree? Mr. Edmonston commented that the study does identify a long -range impact at MacArthur and Jamboree, however it indicates that it could be mitigated through a grade separation and this is a question that has come up with the Conexant study. Mr. Edmonston noted that there are a couple of alternatives that the City has looked at that could mitigate that impact and they are moving forward in analyzing them. At this time though, neither of those has not been adopted by the City Council and is not a part of the General Plan. Mr. Edmonston expressed that they feel one or the other of the mitigation could be done and would therefore mitigate this. Mr. Edmonston commented that they have had contact with the City of Irvine regarding the impact at Jamboree and Campus because most of that section lies within the City of Irvine. Mr. Edmonston observed that the obvious improvement that would help would be a right turn from • northbound Jamboree onto Campus. That property is owned by the 6 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 University of California and, based on past experience, that might be a difficult undertaking to try and acquire right -of -way to make improvements on that corner. Commissioner Tucker asked if Jamboree and Campus was a long -range impacted intersection in the Conexant traffic study? Mr. Edmonston responded that it was not. Commissioner Tucker questioned that the larger project, which is closer to that intersection not being impacted long- range, and the smaller project that is further away impacting that intersection? Mr. Edmonston responded that is what the model is showing and that is the reason they have gone back to the modeling consultant. Mr. Edmonston commented that, at the time he asked the consultnnt to do this, he was not aware that Koll would be at this study session and will not get the report until tomorrow. Mr. Edmonston said that he has reviewed both analysis and they are doing slightly different things but the model appears to be responding rationally to each individual project. Mr. Edmonston commented as to why they are coming out differently in the results is what they are trying to get to by going back to that consultant. Commissioner Tucker asked if there is a long -range impact that is not capable of being mitigated, what is the universe of choices in terms of . action? Ms. Temple responded that it has been identified as a significant environmental impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Because the long -range is not related to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance but just the environmental review. Ms. Temple commented that, if there were no feasible improvement, then the City would either elect not to approve the project on the basis of its environmental impacts. Or, if based on the full aspect of the project, desire to approve it and identify solid reasons why it is in the best interest of the City to do so, then a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be prepared and incorporated in the findings regarding certifying the EIR and approving the project. Commissioner Tucker asked that as long as it is not a short-range impact related to the TPO it would not require a 5 /7}h vote and it is a 417th requirement for Statement of Overriding Considerations? Ms. Temple responded that was correct. Chairman Selich referred to Campus and Jamboree and asked Mr. Edmonston if the long -range impact is something that exists with or without the Conexant project or just with it? If the Conexant project were not going in, would there be an impact on this project at that intersection? Mr. Edmonston responded yes, and explained that the way the analysis is presented in the traffic study is the base long -range numbers compared with the projects that are currently in the General Plan as compared with currently adding the Koll project to that. There is also another table provided in the traffic study, which shows what the cumulative would be with both these projects plus the Dunes plus Banning Ranch. In this case it is an impact with just adding Koll. Chairman Selich commented that it is true that the • bigger project closer does not impact the intersection but the smaller project firlTW.4 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 further away does even when analyzed independently of each other. Mr. Edmonston said that probably the answer to that is the way it adds traffic, the northbound right turn seems to be the increased move that is more of a problem with the Koll study than with Conexant. Mr. Edmonston explained that part of the problem is that the Conexant study shows that there are more total trips out there but because there is a lot more traffic going straight up Jamboree as well, it off -sets the increase in the right turns. Mr. Edmonston said that the applicant has questioned it and they have gone back to the consultant to make sure they are comfortable that their model is behaving correctly in this area in the way it is assigning trips to the street system. Chairman Selich asked from where to where are the right turns? Mr. Edmonston responded the northbound on Jamboree making a right turn on Campus going towards the university. Chairman Selich asked who makes determinations of feasible improvements? Do you decide that University of California is too difficult to work with? How does that work? Mr. Edmonston responded that, at this stage, that is essentially correct. Mr. Edmonston said from personal experience, putting in the traffic signal at Jamboree and Birch and having to deal with thirteen attorneys from the University just to get a simple easement for the detectors for the signal, it is very difficult. Mr. Edmonston said that he has also sat in with . planning teams on the University's long -range plan, and they are extremely possessive of the property they own. Mr. Edmonston said he did not mean that it is not possible but it has never been identified in their analysis or the City of Irvine as a need so nobody has broached that. The concern was if they said it was a feasible mitigation and you conditioned the project with that and down the road you could not do it, that might be a bigger problem than identifying it as being unfeasible. In the meantime, to continue to try to identify if in fact it is feasible or if in fact the model may not be behaving correctly. Any corrections or changes of the model that lead to a different answer may or may not show the need for mitigation there. Chairman Selich asked if the power to make a feasible determination comes from the TPO? Ms. Wood commented that the finding as to whether mitigation is feasible is With the decision - makers. That is part of the resolution certifying the EIR. For every significant impact for which a feasible mitigation measure is not found, there are specific findings that need to be made as to why there are no feasible mitigation measures. Ms. Wood commented said she thought there was a list of three potential ways they may be unfeasible and they must all be addressed. Chairman Selich asked that when they use the no feasible traffic improvement they are taking a broader general concept from CEQA guidelines on feasible mitigation measures and then applying them towards traffic as opposed from coming from the City's code? Ms. Wood responded that is correct. Commissioner Kranzley asked if the Commission was the determinants as to whether it was feasible mitigation and can disagree with staff? Ms. Wood • responded yes, the Planning Commission or City Council could. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 Commissioner Ashley commented that he is concerned with respect to the traffic element that there would be a 6 -story parking garage on the Koll Center project immediately adjacent to the 3 -story Conexant parking garage. Commissioner Ashley noted that a lot of the traffic will be ingression and egression coming off of Jamboree into both of those garages. Commissioner Ashley commented that, in terms of habit, people would tend to come into the parking structure adjacent from Von Karmon. Commissioner Ashley asked Mr. Edmonston, when they do the traffic studies, do they take into consideration the following: • where the traffic is coming from • where it is going to be entering and exiting • which drives they are going to using • is there a need for a deceleration lane • is there a need for a traffic signal because that Jamboree entrance into the project could be a stickler if provision has not been provided for the right kind of traffic control. Commissioner Ashley referred to the 6 -story parking structure and the 3 -story parking structure for Conexant on the exhibit. Commissioner Ashley reiterated that it would be used by everybody at those facilities plus other people going into Koll Center and other traffic going to the 405 therefore there will be a lot • of congestion at that particular entrance point. Commissioner Ashley asked what happens on Jamboree if there is no deceleration lane for the cars that are southbound? Mr. Edmonston commented that the question was also raised during the Conexant hearings and the Commission had asked the consultants to analyze it. The consultants have provided a report, which basically says that the existing curb lane is 22 to 24 feet wide so it is wide enough to have a deceleration area as it is. Mr. Edmonston said that the first note he made during the start of this presentation was to have the consultant go back and look more carefully specifically at the access for this project and how it inter- relates with Conexant. Mr. Edmonston expressed that this is something that needs more analysis and they will have it done before the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker asked if all the queuing and stacking would be in the Conexant /Koll parking lot because that is where the traffic signal is? Chairman Selich said the traffic signal is at Fairchild. Mr. Edmonston said there are two signalized intersections and believed that both that would access this property are signalized. Mr. Edmonston commented that the concern was during the morning peak with a lot of people coming in, particularly office workers. Mr. Edmonston said that part of the supplemental work they had the consultant do for Conexant was specifically to look at the Fairchild intersection in terms of if it would be impacted. They determined that Conexant would not impact it. Mr. Edmonston said they need to go back and add Koll and Conexant and have them look at that. 0 Commissioner Tucker said there might be two owners but it strikes him as one •II'Ir7�:1 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 project and thought that it will not be Conexant vendors filling the space but it will be Conexant. Commissioner Tucker commented that, although the campus feel is being promoted they need to look at each project separately and understand how they fit together because if both projects are approved that will create the most potential for impacts. Chairman Selich invited the public for comment. Mr. Barry Eaton, Vice Chairman of EQAC and Chairman of the Koll Subcommittee of EQAC. Mr. Eaton noted that EQAC has submitted their initial comments on the Koll EIR and suggested the Commission read their comments along with the EIR. Mr. Eaton expressed that EQAC has talked about some of the issues mentioned this evening. Mr. Eaton commented that the traffic analysis for Koll did predict that 50 percent of the Koll traffic would use the Conexant driveway out to Fairchild, and there is a cumulative impact there. Mr. Eaton said that there are a number of cumulative impacts, which they have asked the EIR to look at and assumes they will see responses to their comments from the consultant. Commissioner Tucker asked if the traffic study was prepared in accordance with the revised TPO? Mr. Edmonton replied that this is the first traffic study • done from scratch under the new TPO. Commissioner Gifford commented that she thought that the TPO analysis looked at all the projects that were in the works as an integrated input but now has heard comments that make it sound like this is a new idea to look at these projects together in terms of the signals and intersections on Jamboree. Mr. Edmonston responded that he was referring to two separate things. Mr. Edmonton said that the TPO analysis includes all the projects that have been approved by the City but not yet full occupied. Mr. Edmonston said that, in this case, when they began this and today, Conexant is not fully occupied so those numbers are not in the TPO. Mr. Edmonston commented that he wanted the consultant to look at how these driveway access points are going to function assuming that both projects do get approved. Commissioner Gifford asked for clarification, when they looked at Conexant, it did not have Koll in it. Mr. Edmonston responded not in terms of the TPO. In the long -range there is a regular long -range that does not include Koll and there is the cumulative long- range, which includes Koll, Conexant, the Dunes and Banning Ranch. Commissioner Gifford asked about the TPO. Mr. Edmonston responded that it is one project at a time. Mr. Dan Purcell referred to the northbound traffic on Jamboree, with a right - turn lane onto Campus and the University of California property and asked if it was not possible if Conexant being a good corporate citizen and possibly some synergies of UCI that something could be worked out on that turn lane? • Chairman Selich thanked Mr. Strader, Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Kreitzer for 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session Minutes June 22, 1999 coming tonight and the information they presented. Chairman Selich adjourned the meeting until the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: 6:50 p.m. LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • • 11 INDEX