HomeMy WebLinkAboutNewport Technology Center (PA2003-122)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 2
May 6, 2004
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner, (949) 644 -3210
icampbel lOcity. newport- beach.ca. us
SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center, 500 -540 Superior Avenue
Amendment to Use Permit No. 3679
Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 (PA2003 -122)
APPLICANT: New Superior Group, LLC
INTRODUCTION
This item was continued from March 3, 2004 to complete supplemental traffic analysis.
Additionally, implementation of the applicant's request requires amendments to
conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3679 and these amendments were not
adequately noticed. In conjunction with the additional review, staff discovered that the
applicant's present request would not have complied with the floor area limits. Lastly,
staff discovered that the approved use permit did not consider the fact that the
development exceeded building bulk limitations. Proper notification of each aspect of
the amendment to Use Permit No. 3679 as well as the traffic study has been
accomplished.
DISCUSSION
1. Supplemental Traffic Analysis
The Traffic Engineer has completed additional analysis of the project related to three
intersections in Costa Mesa, specifically Newport Boulevard /191h Street, Newport
Boulevard /17`" Street and Superior Avenue /17th Street. Each of the three intersections
is forecasted to operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak
hours (Exhibit No. 1).
2. Amendment of Conditions of approval to Use Permit No. 3679
Use Permit No. 3679, which was approved by the City Council in early February of
2001, included a condition requiring commercial or office uses to be ancillary or
accessory to research and development uses. Condition No. 35 states:
1
Newport Technology Center (PA2003 -122)
April 8, 2004
Page 2 of 6
"35. The Planning director shall review all building plans and future tenant
improvement plans and shall make a finding that the tenant occupancy is
a use that is consistent with Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, and as further defined in Section 20.05.060 (B), (D), and
(F) and that commercial and office uses are ancillary and accessory to the
research and development uses, and the project is in conformance with
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval." The proposed use of the site
shall remain a research and development use with ancillary commercial
and office use, as defined by Section 20.05 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code."
The condition was based upon the false premise that office uses, as principal uses
within the M -1 -A zone, must be accessory or ancillary to industrial uses. The confusion
may be due to a lack of a clear description of the M -1 -A Zone. Section 20.20.010
provides the specific purpose of the City's industrial zone. According to Section
20.20.010, the purpose of the M -1 -A Zone is to provide "areas for a wide range of
moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial
and office uses." However, the Zoning Code specifically provides that "Offices,
Business and Professional" are permitted uses except that a use permit is required for
medical and dental offices (Section 20.20.020). In the opinion of the Planning Director
and the City Attorney, the more specific section (20.20.020) prevails over the more
general section (20.20.010) which would apply only if the permitted use descriptions
were ambiguous.
A related comment was received from a member of the public indicating that it was their
belief that office uses as principal land uses are in conflict with the General Plan if
located at sites designated industrial uses. The subject property is designated General
Industry, which states that, "this land use category has been applied to those areas that
are predominantly used for research and development, manufacturing and professional
services. Permitted uses include manufacturing, research and development,
warehousing, wholesale sales, professional service offices, service retail and
restaurants." As one can see, the, office uses are included in the list of permitted uses
and are not limited to being accessory or ancillary to an industrial use. It is staffs belief
that Section 20.20.10 as discussed above may be the source of confusion that led to
the comment.
The City Council included Condition No. 37, which limits the maximum number of
employees on the site to 1,965 at one time. The condition was included to ensure that
the traffic assumptions upon which the project was based would not be exceeded. The
employee number was identified from the previous research and development use and
100% occupancy of the site with research and development (R &D) uses. Should the
present request be approved, this number should be reduced by the percent of office
use authorized and it should only apply to the compilation of R &D tenants.
Newport Technology Center (PA2003 -122)
April 8, 2004
Page 3 of 6
3. Floor Area Ratio
Subsequent to the preparation of the previous report, staff discovered that the
applicant's request for 50% office use and 50% R &D use would not comply with Section
20.63.040(A)(2) related to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed. This section
establishes the procedures to implement a variable floor area ratio established by the
General Plan for the site. The Land Use Element establishes a 0.510.75 floor area ratio.
Chapter 20.63 categorizes land uses as reduced, base or maximum FAR uses. Section
20.63.040(A)(2) identifies weighting factors for each use and indicates that the base
development allocation (0.5 FAR) shall not be exceeded. The site is 595,366 square
feet in area and the base 0.5 FAR is 297,668 square feet. The calculation for the
proposed project is as follows:
Use Use Type Gross Floor Weighting Weighted Weighted
R &D Maximum 207,746.5 0.5
103,873 0.174
FAR (50 %)
Office Base FAR 207,746.5 1.0
207,746 0.389
(50 %)
Totals 415,493 sq. ft.
311,619 0.523
The resulting weighted FAR of 0.523 exceeds the base development allocation. Section
20.63.040 does provide an exception to the FAR calculation through the approval of a Use
Permit provided that the maximum development allocation (0.75 FAR) is not exceeded.
The applicant has not requested such a Use Permit, and therefore, the only recourse is to
reduce the amount of office space to a level where the weighted FAR calculation does not
exceed the base development allocation (0.5 FAR).
Use Use Type Gross Floor Weighting Weighted
FAR
Office Base FAR 178,661 (43 %) 1.0 178,661 0.30
Totals 415,493 sq. ft. 297,077 0.499
The resulting weighted FAR is 0.499 with reducing the percentage of office to 43% with
the balance of the development devoted to R &D uses. Staff has included the change to
the project within the draft resolution.
rol
Newport Technology Center (PA2003 -122)
April 8, 2004
Page 4 of 6
The reduction in office uses changes the parking tabulation as follows:
Use Area (sq. ft.) Parking Ratio Parking
R &D 236,831 1 space per 474 spaces
500 gross sq. ft.
Office 178,661 1 space per 715 spaces
250 net sq. ft.
Total 415,473 1,189 spaces required
1,336 spaces provided
147 space surplus
As shown, the project will provide sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed uses.
4. Building Bulk
Use Permit No. 3679 established a height limit of 50 feet for the three new buildings that
have since been constructed. The buildings exceed the 35 -foot base height limit and were
permitted up to a maximum height of 50 feet. The use permit did not permit the
development to exceed the floor area ratio and what was overlooked in 2001 was building
bulk. Therefore, the amendment to the use permit includes a request to exceed building
bulk.
Building bulk is measured in a two dimensional fashion where the total gross floor area of
buildings and above grade parking garages are considered. Areas of buildings that have a
clear ceiling height exceeding 18 feet are counted twice since these spaces occupy more
volume. The Newport Technology Center project consists of four buildings and a 4 -level
above grade parking structure. The maximum building bulk is the base floor area (0.5)
plus 0.25 for a maximum of 0.75. The bulk of the development is as follows:
Gross Floor Area:
415,493 sq. ft.
Parking Structure:
222,000 sq. ft.
Total Bulk Area:
637,493 sq. ft.
Max Bulk Area:
446,524 sq. ft.
Bulk above the limit:
190,969 sq. ft.
Section 20.63.060 of the Zoning Code requires 4 findings to be made in order to allow a
development to exceed the building bulk limit.
a. The increased development including above grade covered parking, does not create
abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the
surrounding area.
The buildings are separated from development in the area by streets, parking areas and
open space provided. The scale and bulk of the buildings was considered when the City
approved the increased height of the buildings in 2001. At that time, the bulk and height
of the buildings with the presence of the parking structure were considered acceptable
and not an abrupt scale change even in the light of the proximity of the structures to
A
Newport Technology Center (PA2003 -122)
April 8, 2004
Page 5 of 6
Superior Avenue (15 feet). Mature trees were required to help break up the building
mass on Superior.
b. That the proposed use and structures, including above grade covered parking, are
compatible with the surrounding area.
The use of the site for office and industrial uses is consistent with the General Industrial
Land Use Designation of the General Plan and is compatible with the adjacent
municipal yard. The use and buildings are separated from nearby residential uses by
abutting streets, parking areas and open space provided within the overall campus. The
buildings provide both vertical and horizontal elements that help to break up the visual
mass of the site.
c. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not result in
significant impairment of public views.
No public views exist through the site; therefore this finding does not apply.
d. That the site is physically suitable for the development proposed, including above grade
covered parking, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited
to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources.
With the approval of the Use Permit in 2001, the City considered all physical aspects of
the project including setbacks, site access, landscaping, open space, building height,
available parking, available utilities and that no environmental impacts were predicted.
Staff believes that no environmental impacts materialized through construction,
although recent correspondence would indicate construction - related issues and
concerns regarding increased traffic. The current traffic study predicts that no impacts to
area intersections in the City and in Costa Mesa will result with the implementation of
the present project. Additionally, the City found that the redevelopment of the vacant
former Raytheon facility would provide other economic and aesthetic benefits to the
City, which unfortunately has been only partly realized to date. Staff believes that the
site has proven physically suitable for the project as developed.
In summary, the following changes to the conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3679
are suggested:
Replace Condition No. 35 with the following:
35. The project site may be occupied by no more than 43% general office use
(178,661 gross square feet) with the remainder occupied with research
and development or industrial uses. The Planning Director shall review all
building plans, future tenant improvement plans and/or business plans for
all prospective tenants proposed to be classified as research and
development uses to make a finding that the tenant occupancy is a use
that is consistent with Section 20.20.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code, and as further defined in Section 20.05.060 (B), (D), and (F).
Newport Technology Center (PA2003 -122)
April 8, 2004
Page 6 of 6
Modify Condition No. 37 as follows:
37.The portion of the development not devoted to general office uses facility
shall be limited to a maximum of 845 44" employees on site at any one
time.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve an amendment to Use Permit
No. 3679 as noted above and approve Traffic Study No. 2003 -001. Staff has received one
piece of correspondence against the project citing numerous construction- related
complaints and concerns of increased traffic. Staff has prepared a draft resolution for
project approval (Exhibit No. 2).
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
W /_
Exhibits
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
1. Supplemental Traffic Analysis
2. Revised Draft Resolution
3. Letter from Ms. Farrington dated April 8, 2004
11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 -1768
(949) 644 -3311
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Campbell
Planning Department
FROM: Richard Edmonston /David Keely
Public Works — Traffic Engineering
DATE: March 23, 2004
SUBJECT: 500 Superior (Newport Technology Center) Supplemental Analysis
City staff has prepared additional analysis for the Newport Technology Center project. In
additional to the intersections that were analyzed as part of Newport Technology Center TPO
prepared by Kunzman Associates, staff has prepared a supplemental analysis for three
additional intersections within the City of Costa Mesa. These intersections were analyzed due
to the close proximity to the Costa Mesa city limits, as well as, the request for these
intersections to be analyzed for past projects at this location. The additional City of Costa Mesa
intersections are:
• Newport Boulevard /191' Street;
• Newport Boulevard /17'h Street; and
• Superior Avenue /17th Street.
City of Costa Mesa staff provided Year 2003 peak hour traffic volumes and corresponding
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values. Table 1 summarizes the existing 2003 ICU and
levels of service (LOS) as provided by the City of Costa Mesa.
Table 7
Existing 2003 ICU and Levels of Service
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Newport Bill Vh St
0.88
D
0.89
D
Newport 131117" St
0.78
C
0.81
D
Superior Av /17th St
0.59
A
0.63
B
As shown in Table 1, all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS D or
better under existing conditions.
Exhibit No. 1
The three study intersections were analyzed utilizing the City of Newport Beach analysis
methodology, which is more conservative in terms of assumptions on right turn on red and
share lanes.
Newport Technology Center was previously approved (2000/2001) as 100 percent Research
and Development (R &D). Minimal occupancy has occurred since the 100 percent R &D
approval. The approved 100 percent R &D project - generated trips were added to existing 2003
peak hour traffic to demonstrate baseline conditions (existing plus approved 100 percent R &D
conditions). Table 2 summarizes the baseline conditions ICU and levels of service.
Table 2
Baseline Conditions ICU and Levels of Service
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Newport BV1 9th St
0.89
D
0.89
D
Newport BI/17` St
0.79
C
0.81
D
Superior Av /1 St
0.73
C
0.76
C
As shown in Table 2, all study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or
better under baseline conditions (existing plus approved 100 percent R &D conditions).
The proposed project is the conversion of the existing 100 percent R &D use to 50 percent R &D
(approximately 207,746 square feet) and 50 percent office use (approximately 207,747 square
feet). The net new project - generated trips were distributed onto the roadway network to
determine the effect of the project traffic at the three Costa Mesa intersections. Table 3
summarizes the with project conditions ICU and levels of service.
Table 3
With Project Conditions ICU and Levels of Service
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Newport BI /19"' St
0.89
D
0.90
D
New ort BI/17` St
0.80
C
0.82
D
Superior Av /17`n St
0.79
C
0.77
C
As shown on 3, all study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better
with the addition of project - generated trips. Therefore, the project is not forecast to significantly
impact any of the three City of Costa Mesa study intersections.
H:1dkeely\Traff1c Phasing Ordinance\TPOWO Superior- Newport Technology Centeyc3- 22 -04mem.doc
N]
The revised resolution was not
complete as of the distribution of
the report. The revised resolution
will be distributed under separate
cover.
Exhibit No. 2
I
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
April 7, 2004 APR 0.8 2004 PM AM $19110111112111213141516
TO: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
FROM: Martha A. Farrington
Resident: 4301 Dana Road Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3027
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -0549
SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center
Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 (PA 2003 -122)
500 -540 Superior Avenue
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of the owners of the three condominium units at Park Lido that are
located directly across the street from the Newport Technology Center at 4301, 4305 and
4307 Dana Road. We vehemently object to any plan for office use that the New Superior
Group, LLC proposes. We request that the Planning Commission NOT approve Traffic
Study No. 2003 -001 and we ask that it NOT adopt the Resolution approving the Study.
Further, we ask the Planning Commission to deny the application of New Superior
Group, LLC to change the allowable uses for 500 -540 Superior Avenue.
While this letter is descriptive of my own personal experience, the other owners join in
my objections. I have never once received notice of a single hearing or public review
scheduled in regard to this project from its inception. Had I ever received any such
notices, I would have been objecting to everything that has occurred since the St. Clair
Company purchased the premises. I learned of the hearing scheduled for March 4, 2004
only by accident from another homeowner who did receive the notice, and I know of the
hearing scheduled for April 8, 2004 only because I was present for the March 4 hearing
that was continued to that date.
The site was zoned M-1 -A and utilized as Controlled Manufacturing when we all bought
our condo units on Dana Road, prior to the current ownership and development. The
Newport Technology Center project was approved for research and development uses
only. Since the ST. Clair Company acquired the property our residential lives have been
a continuing misery to the extent that we fully understand how some people are driven by
circumstances to "going postaL" The expansion of buildings on the site and the
construction have had a very significant negative impact on our quality of life. In
addition, the construction and now operation of the site has diminished the fair market
value of our property and even our ability to find willing buyers.
Dana Road is directly adjacent to the site and our bedroom windows face the street and
the site. Dana Road is used as a shortcut from Hospital Road to Superior Avenue and
11�)17-- No• 3
NO
from Superior Avenue to Hospital Road. Any increase in traffic will also increase the use
of Dana Road as a shortcut. Because Dana Road is residential, we do not understand why
the traffic study did not include Dana Road and the intersection of Dana Road and
Superior Avenue because of the heavy use the residential street already bears.
Traffic and traffic noise and fitter are already a huge problem for us. We have significant
disruption of sleep and constant noise from traffic both on Dana Road and on Superior
Avenue from 5:00 a.m. in the morning until well after midnight at night daily. Any
projected increases in traffic will have a great impact on our quality of life. Because of
the existing level of traffic and parking on Dana Road, we have had continuing difficulty
with trash accumulation and damage to our property by cars and trucks turning around in
our driveways, namely cracks in the driveway pavement due to heavy vehicles, damage
to the metal housing for electrical connections, damage to the garage doors from people
driving into them (the driveways are very short, entry only to the garages), and damage to
the piers in the garages upholding the second story bedroom level of the units.
This traffic use of Dana has caused us untold hours of trash pickup and removal, and in
some cases, great expense. My garage door has been damaged twice in less than five
years. The traffic use consists of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks, delivery trucks and big
rigs, motorcycles, ambulances and fire engines. Although I installed new double -
insulated windows on all of my bedrooms, that step did little to mitigate the traffic noise.
Last year, I was driven to install interior shutters over the windows to shut out the traffic
noise and the light glare from the light standards and car headlights in the Newport
Technology Center parking lots, a very expensive investment.
We think that the residential nature of the properties directly across the street from the
Newport Technology Center on Dana Road has been consistently ignored by the site
owners and the City of Newport Beach. This is demonstrated by the blatant exclusion of
that adjacent residential street from the traffic study. Page 18 of the Kunzman Traffic
Impact Analysis (page 37 of Agenda Item No. 3) alleges that residential areas and
determination of specific routes for traffic and route selections by minimum time and
minimum distance paths have been considered, and that is simply untrue if Dana Road
was not included in the Traffic Study.
Also, the fact that where Dana Road intersects with Superior Avenue at the corner of the
Newport Technology Center is not controlled by a traffic light means that any increase in
traffic on either Superior Avenue or Dana Road will cause traffic waiting to turn either
right or left onto Superior Avenue from Dana Road to back up on Dana Road to a greater
extent than it already does, adding to the noise and inconvenience to residents. Already
there are times when it is difficult to back out of the garage onto Dana Road because of
the traffic coming from both directions. Page 165 of the agenda package indicates that
there is already an awareness of the significant parking problem in the area, with
accompanying difficulties of noise, trash and disturbances to lives of the residents.
It is very important that the Planning Commission and City of Newport Beach be made
aware that the owners, operators and contractors at the Newport Technology Center site
have continuously been in violation of the Use Permit and Municipal Code, as well as the
conditions of approval imposed upon the project, to the detriment of the well -being of the
residents on Dana Road and their quiet enjoyment of their homes. Living across the
street from the project has been a nightmare. We were forced to keep all the windows
closed, no matter how hot it was during construction activities, because of the huge dust
clouds blowing across the street from the site.
The residential area has been plagued with rats and mice since the beginning of
demolition, grading and construction. The placement of waste disposal areas is
incredibly insensitive to the residential nature of Dana Road and inexcusable. Other
areas of the site away from the residential area could have been used for that and it is
unbelievable to us that the City of Newport Beach would have approved a plan to put
trash dumpsters right in our faces. The view from ALL of the windows on the street side
of our condo units is the trash dumpsters inside a chain link fence and the parking lot.
Giant trash dumpsters were placed directly across the street from our bedroom windows,
which smell and continue to attract rodents. Now, flocks of crows are also attracted to
the dumpsters, and carry garbage across the street and drop it on our driveways, roofs
and into our small enclosed patios, adding to the dirt to clean up, as well as the
continuation of rodent and possum problems. Aside from the traffic noise, there is no
way we will be able to open the street side windows during warmer weather because of
the trash dumpsters. Outdoor toilet facilities for construction workers have also been
placed by the fence on Dana Road, right across the street from our windows, too.
There is no screening between the parking lot and our residences. Landscaping and
existing eucalyptus trees are low and sparse. There has been no effort to protect the
residents from noise, dirt and light emanating from the parking lots. Noise bounces off
the buildings and the large areas of pavement directly across the street into our bedrooms.
There is nothing to baffle the sound and no screening to limit the glare of lights from the
light standards and car headlights. Car radios blaring, car and truck doors slamming,
people talking and laughing, and trash being dumped into the bins and being collected by
trash trucks are all magnified by the hard surfaces and lack of landscaping and screening.
The street level of our condo units is all garages. The bedrooms are all on the second
level and the light and noise travels directly up to the windows because there is
insufficient screening and baffling.
During construction on the site, Section 10.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code was
consistently violated, sometimes daily. Trucks and workers began arriving at 5:30 am.
and would start unloading materials and talking and banging around. Work was often
conducted in the evenings, sometimes until 9:00 p.m. or after. Worse, were the constant
big -rig deliveries of heavy equipment in the wee hours of the morning, at 1:00, 2:00 and
3:00 a.m., accompanied by thumps and bangs that shook the walls of our homes, clanking
of metal and chains, the roar of the bulldozer, ditch - digging and earth moving machine
Engines, and beeping as equipment was backed off the trucks and maneuvered around the
site. I lost track of the number of times I telephoned the police to put a stop to those
activities. On one occasion, a driver was cited and fined because he refused to leave and
talked back to the police. The police were always very sympathetic and helpful, by the
way.
I became very frustrated with the sometimes daily interruptions of sleep by the
contractors at the site, and I was not happy about dragging myself to work for early
meetings when I'd had only a couple of hours of uninterrupted sleep. This was not only
harmful to my health, but harmful to my ability to do my job well. On three separate
occasions I personally met with the on -site architect/construction manager to complain
about the nighttime disturbances. In each case, I was assured that it would not happen
again, and yet it continued to happen again and again. It got to the point where I had to
threaten to obtain an injunction and stop construction if the activities at night continued,
which had some impact on the frequency, but it still occurred (and still does occur)
periodically.
There were many Sundays when demolition and construction went ahead as usual,
including operation of grading and earth moving equipment and jack - hammering and
construction hammering. We rarely had any peace at all while the project was under
construction. There has also been continuing work on the she off and on which is often
disruptive. We think it is important that you know these facts because they slow a
blatant and continuous disregard for the law, and deliberate lack of consideration
for the residential nature of the area directly adjacent to the staging areas.
All in all, we have absolutely no trust in the representations the applicants make as to .
proposed use of the site, which was originally approved solely on the basis of research
and development. If enforcement of use or parking are going to be an issue, aside and
apart from the traffic, dirt and noise impact on the residents on Dana Road, then the brunt
of enforcement problems will be borne also by the residents and that is patently
unacceptable.
I apologize for the length of this letter and objection, but we think it is important for the
Planning Commission to realize what the impact of this Newport Technology Center
project has been on the residents directly adjacent to the site. We can only plead with
you not to approve the Traffic Study and proposed 50% office use for the site, as it will
only have an increasingly negative impact on the residents whose quality of life has
already been greatly compromised by this entire project for years.
Thank you in advance for the attention we mist you will give to our concerns.
Sincerely,
1�� -
Martha A. Farrington