The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 - Newport Technology Center - 500 Superior Avenue�EaPOq, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: February 27, 2001 o° T PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 12 �= 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: None REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barker for The St. Clair Company, applicant) 500 Superior Avenue SUMMARY: A use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration. The project will include: • Demolition of 208,926 sq. ft. of the existing 416,499 sq. ft. • Remodel of two existing buildings totaling 214,210 sq. ft. • Reconstruction of 201,283 sq. ft. for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. of research and development use. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hold a public hearing and Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Use Permit No.3679 and the Negative Declaration ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to deny the project or modify the project. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot 169, Block 2, Irvine Subdivision GENERAL PLAN: General Industry ZONE: M -1 -A (Manufacturing, Industrial) OWNER: The St. Clair Company, Newport Beach Introduction On January 4, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for Use Permit No. 3679 and accompanying Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission continued the item to January 18, 2001, in order to obtain additional information from the applicant. On January 18, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3679 and a Negative Declaration which authorized the proposed buildings to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site. The project site is located at 500 Superior Avenue. Councilmember Heffernan requested that this project be brought before the City Council for review. Proiect Description The project involves the rehabilitation of the research and development site located at 500 Superior, which was formerly occupied by Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon. The project will include the demolition of two buildings and the removal of all exterior manufacturing infrastructure. Three existing buildings will be remodeled and two, three -story buildings will be constructed on the site to replace the buildings demolished. The total gross square footage of all buildings currently on site is 416,499 sq. ft., of which 208,926 square feet will be demolished, 214,210 sq. ft. will be remodeled, and 201, 283 sq. ft. will be new construction for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. The proposal will result in a decrease of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. and the use of the site for research and development/office uses will continue. The new project will provide additional setback area than currently exists on three sides of the property, and a new roadway circulation system around the site. Parking spaces will be added and additional landscaping within and along the perimeters of the site will be included. The location of the new structures will provide interior parking areas that are shielded from public view by the buildings and landscaping. The new and remodeled buildings will be constructed with painted concrete tilt -up panels, stone veneer and a light reflective tinted glass in a mullion system. The two new buildings proposed would be 50 feet in height and exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet within the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone. The 50 -foot height of the proposed buildings requires the approval of a Use Permit. The applicant chose to design the buildings at this height in order to accommodate a third story on each building to create comparable building area as currently exists and to locate parking more conveniently project occupants. The existing Building E and the existing parking structure to remain were previously approved by use permit to exceed the 32 -foot height limit up to 50 feet. Discussion Building Height In order to approve the a building to exceed 32 feet height up to 50 feet, the following findings must be made: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Use Permit No. 3679 & Negative Declaration February 27, 2001 Page 2 In approving the project, the Planning Commission found that increased public visual open space is provided in and around the buildings and at the perimeter of the site. The architectural treatment of the buildings was found to be desirable and a significant enhancement over the existing buildings constructed within the basic height limit. The Commission made this finding with the understanding that the buildings could be remodeled at their present height that exceeds 32 feet or reconstructed within the 32 -foot height limit. In either of these re -use scenarios, a majority of the site would remain covered. The Commission believed that the increased open space was sufficient to warrant the increased building height. The Commission focussed attention to the scale of the buildings related to their surroundings especially to Superior Avenue, and believed that the landscaping along Superior softened the height of the proposed buildings. Lastly, the increased height does not permit additional floor area beyond the General Plan limit. The Commission considered each of these areas in detail and found that sufficient facts related to the overall design were present to approve the project. Traffic & Parking The issue of traffic and parking was also of primary concern for the Commission. Expansion of the facility was previously approved in 1981 relying upon "research and development" uses and manufacturing employees commuting outside of traditional peak hours. Concern was expressed about potential increases in traffic with the proposed redevelopment of the site creating what appears to be office buildings. A comparison analysis between the former Hughes Aircraft facility and the proposed project was performed to determine the difference in trip generation, if any, and any resultant project related traffic impacts. The project will decrease total average daily trips (ADTs) by 1,844 when compared to the previous use. However, the project will increase trips compared to the previous use by 229 in the AM peak and 163 in the PM peak period due in part to the elimination of manufacturing employees working in special shift arrangements. Due to the reduction in ADTs, no Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) review is required. The increase in traffic during the peak hour was analyzed as part of the environmental review of the project to determine if area intersections would be impacted. The baseline traffic assumptions included all committed projects including Phase 1 of the Hoag Hospital Expansion. Two intersections were evaluated due to the proximity of the site: Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road. Both of these intersections' volume will increase by more than one percent with this project. Based upon this increase, the traffic consultant performed an ICU analysis to determine if the project would create a significant impact. With the project, the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road intersection is projected to have an ICU of 0.605 and 0.711 during the AM and PM peak hour respectively and no significant impact is predicted and no mitigation is required. The Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue intersection is projected to have an ICU value of 0.920 (0.92) and 1.015 (1.02) during the AM and PM respectively. When the project is included, the intersection is projected to operate at 0.924 (0.92) and 1.023 (1.02) during the AM and PM respectively. Based upon the performance and impact criteria of the TPO, which is Newport Beach's standard for environmental review /CEQA compliance, a less than significant impact is predicted. Use Permit No. 3679 & Negative Declaration February 27, 2001 Page 3 The City of Costa Mesa expressed concern about potential traffic impacts to several intersections. The intersections they identified were analyzed and were found to operate at acceptable levels of service with the project. The project will result in a 0.01 increase in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value for the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 19th Street which presently operates at Level of Service D (0.94 ICU). This increase is considered a less than significant impact based upon OCTA regional significance thresholds. The trips resulting from the project will be added to the committed project list if the project is approved, and will be included in the baseline traffic assumptions for any future traffic studies commenced after the date of project approval. The City is currently preparing a traffic study pursuant to the Hoag Expansion EIR and TPO for the second phase of the expansion of Hoag Hospital. The study was commenced in August of 2000 and the screen -check draft will be submitted to staff for its initial review within the next several days. Since this study was commenced prior to the proposed project, the Hoag Phase 2 study will not include the increased traffic resulting from the project. The proposed project was on file at that time but the traffic analysis and a trip generation characteristic was not completed until early December. The Commission was concerned about the facility being used as a general office complex rather than a research and development complex, thereby potentially increasing the amount of traffic generated. The General Plan specifies the use of the facility for industrial uses and staff is confident that through the review of tenant improvement plans and business licenses, the city can ensure that only appropriate uses occupy the site. The Commission applied a condition of approval that limits the total number of employees at a single time to 1,965. This limit will further ensure that the actual traffic volumes associated with the use of the site will not exceed projected volumes and impacts. The applicant agreed to the limitation on the number of employees on site at any one time. The Planning Commission concluded that project approval was acceptable as the previous use of the site by the Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon operated with the same employee limitation. Parking for the site will be provided within the existing parking structure and several reconfigured surface lots. A total of 1,421 parking spaces will be provided which exceeds the minimum number of spaces (83 1) using a 1 space per 500 square feet ratio. This parking ratio is used for research and development uses. The Commission applied a condition of approval that requires all employees and visitors park on -site in an effort to avoid exacerbate existing parking issues in the area. Negative Declaration An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for public in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. In considering the proposed project, the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, thirty -one mitigation measures were identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached to the Planning Commission staff report dated January 4, 2001. Comments on the Use Permit No. 3679 & Negative Declaration February 27, 2001 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration were received and responses were provided in accordance with applicable procedures. Summary In making this decision, the Planning Commission recognized that the applicant could reconstruct the same amount of square footage as currently exists on the site within the 32 -foot basic height limit without discretionary review by the City. That development would result in more site coverage and the opportunity for additional landscaping and open space would be lost. A full discussion of the project and staff's analysis is contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit No. 2). As noted previously, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Use Permit No. 3679 and the acceptance of the Negative Declaration. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Directory Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES CAMPRF.iJ. 1. Planning Commission Staff Supplemental Report dated January 18, 2001. 2. Excerpt of minutes from the January 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. 3. Planning Commission Staff Supplemental Report dated January 4, 2001. 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 4, 2001 with attachments. 5. Excerpt of minutes from the January 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. 6. Excerpt of minutes from the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Newport Technology Center presentation re -print (separate spiral bound document) 8. Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations (separate bound document) F:\Use PLNlShured \ICITYCNL\2001\0227\up3679ouncil report 2- 27.0I.doc Use Permit No. 3679 & Negative Declaration February 27, 2001 Page 5 Exhibit No. 1 �cwoogr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT �= 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD V'+ NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center (MarkBarker for The St. Clair Company, applicant) 500 Superior Avenue January IS, 2001 Eugenia Garcia 614 -3208 SUMMARY: A use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration. The project will include: Demolition of 208,926 sq. ft. of the" existing 416,499 sq. ft. • Remodel of two existing buildings totaling 214,210 sq. ft. Reconstruction of 201,283 sq. ft. for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. of research and development use. APPLICATION: • Use Permit No. 3679 Negative Declaration This item was continued from the meeting of January 4, 2001, in order to provide staff and the applicant time to provide additional information. Staff is providing responses to questions raised by members of the public and the Planning Commission, and additional recommended changes and clarificationsto staff's report for the project. The Planning Commission directed staff to further analyze the findings that are required to be made in the approving a use permit for additional height, specifically, finding No. 2. The finding states: "The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. " Staff s report analyzed the public visual open space and views as viewed from Dana Road and did not include an analysis from Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The proposed building No. 1 will be located within 15 feet of the front property line and will result in more building mass as viewed from Superior Avenue, which will diminish the openness provided by the existing large surface parking lot at the front property line and will result in more building mass as viewed from Superior Ave. The proposed building No. 3, although set back further from the top of the slope above New Boulevard than the existing buildings, with the proposed increase in height, will be more prominent as viewed from Newport Boulevard. However, in both cases, the increased height of the buildings '1 will result in a smaller building footprint, than the same area spread over the site at a lower height. If building No. 3 wefe constructed without the additional height, the building could be built to the property line because the required setback is zero. If the building were built to the property line, a retaining wall would need to be constructed and the public visual open space from Newport Boulevard would be greatly reduced, in addition to the negative aesthetic appeal that would result. Further, if the site coverage was reduced due to larger building footprints and lower height, it is possible that a portion of the open space in the parking lot adjacent to Dana Road would be lost, which also provides some visual relief from Superior as well. When viewing the site from Superior Avenue looking back toward Newport Boulevard, a portion of the existing building is located to the rear of the site in the proposed open parking area, but with the new design, that area will be opened up and cleared for landscaping and parking, which will add to the visual appeal from Superior .avenue as well as Newport Boulevard. Additionally, the required enhanced landscape plan %%:th mature trees and shrubs that is required for the Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard streetscape, should soften the height of the buildings. The following is in answer to questions were received in writing from Commissioner Selich and Barry Eaton, member of EQAC. At the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant has provided information in support of the request and provided additional answers to questions raised at the public hearing. Attached to this report is a copy of the applicant's response. .A. R & D USE /. The argument is made that the present property owners could use the site for any permitted M- I -A use . ................ Under the M -1 -A Zoning, Section 20.20 allows for Industrv. Custom, Industrv. Limited, and Industrv. Research and Develooment, which are further defined in Section 20.05.060 (B), (D) and (F). Neither the Zoning Code or past approvals for the property limit the use of the property to a single use. As long as any tenant on the property falls within a defined use, they can develop the site as proposed. So long as they are also within the use limitations of the General Plan and the existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval. The authorized uses are detailed as follows: Industrv. Custom Establishments primarily engaged in on -site production of goods by hand manufacturing involving the use of hand tools and small -scale equipment. 1. Limited. Includes mechanical equipment not exceeding two horsepower or a single kiln not exceeding eight kilowatts and the incidental direct sale to consumers of only those goods produced on -site. Typical uses include ceramic studios, candle- making shops, and custom jewelry manufacture. Industrv. Limited Manufacturing of finished parts or products, primarily from previously prepared materials; and provision of industrial services; both within an enclosed building. This classification includes UP3679 , 500 Superior Page 2 processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, and packaging, but excludes basic industrial processing from t'aw materials and Vehicle(EquipmentServices. 1. Small Scale. Limited to a maximum gross floor area of 5,000 square feet. Industry, Research and Development. Establishments primarily engaged in the research, development and controlled production of high - technology electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale, but prohibits uses that may be objectionable in the opinion of the Planning Director, by reason of production of offensive odor, dust, noise, vibration, or storage of hazardous materials. Uses include biotechnology, films, and non -toxic computer component manufacturers. 2. ...........Why was the traffic not analyzed under the worst case traffic scenario? ... ... office use....... Because the original traffic study assumed traffic generation factors for an R & D and manufacturing facility, the R & D use is the basis for the TPO approval. With the Dunes project, the applicant had proposed to use the "time- share" units for conventional hotel rooms part of the.time and that was why it was analyzed as such, a worst -case scenario. 3. Single tenant vs. multiple tenants & D use............ Because the Code does not make a distinction between single tenant R & D use and multiple tenant R & D use, it is difficult to assume that greater impact will exist with multiple tenants, as long as the use stays the same, as per the Traffic Study. None of the past approvals for the site or conditions have limited the property to a single tenant. Staff recognizes that not all tenants will require permits for a tenant improvement plan. However, it possible to review the uses though the Revenue Division's business license program. Further, a process has previously been established on other project in the City (i.e., Fashion Island, commercial uses in Mariner's Mile) through Plan-Check that when a tenant improvement is submitted, a log is kept of each tenant. Where there is doubt as to the use being consistent with the zoning, a letter is required of the proposed tenant describing the operational characteristics of the business. Of course, there will be some tenants that will not require a tenant improvement plan and, in that case, business licenses would be another source for compliance. B. PARKING Staff is conducting further research on the relative parking demands for office and research development business parks of a size similar to the proposed project, and will present modified information prior to the meeting. The following are additional staff clarifications and recommendations to the staff report. Items No. 1 -6 were included in staff s supplemental report dated January 4, 2001, with changes to Items No. 4 and 5 included below and additional Item No. 7. UP3679. 500 Superior Paee 3 1. On page 18, item number 10 in the listed attachments should be corrected as follows: "Traffic Analysis, Pirzadeh Associates, dated December 6, 2000 and December 20, 2000. Both Traffic Studies were included in the attachments, although the correct dates were omitted from the list on page 18. 2. On page 22, delete Conditions 15 and 17 due to the receipt of a letter, dated 1/4/01, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board notifying the City of their oversight of the on -going remediation of the soil and groundwater on the subject property. See attached letter. 3. On page 22, Condition No. 16 should be amended to read: "Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion oj'the remediation as determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. " 4. On page 24, Mitigation Measure No. 31 should be moved to the Use Permit conditions as Condition No. 35, and corrected and amended to read: "The Planning Director shall review all buildingplans 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 farther 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. " This change will clarify the permitted uses for the site and cite the appropriate section of the Code. 5. On page 27, Condition No. 16 should be clarified to read: "On -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system, or other system of equal effectiveness designed to filter and clean on -site drainage to meet water quality standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the NPDES requirements shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay and shall be approved by the Public Works, General Services and Building Departments. " Because there are a variety of methods in which to meet this requirement, this will allow the applicant and the City an opportunity to utilize the most effective solution. 6. On page 27, Condition No. 20 should be clarified to read: "The landscape plan shall include the slope area along Newport Boulevard located on the subject property, which shall be modified to include drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering." The majority of the slope is owned by Cal Trans and a small portion of the slope area is located on the subject property. 7. Condition No. 36 should be added that states "The mitigation measures identified in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of Use Permit No. 3679, are required as part of and incorporated herein as a condition of approval and shall UP3679 , 300 Superior Page 4 10 be implemented and completed prior to final occupancy of any building for the proposeduse." RECOMMENDATION If the Use Permit is granted, staff recommends that the Planning Commission incorporate the above changes and conditions to attached Exhibit "A." Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE EUGENIA GARCIA, AICP Planning Director Associate Planner P044"d' lGC �- Attachments: Comments and questions from Planning Commission Chairman Selich Response to the Planning Commission from applicant Comments received from Barry Eaton, member of EQAC Letter, dated January 10, 2001, from City of Costa Mesa UP3679 , 500 Superior Page 5 Exhibit No. 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX JECT: Newport Riverboat Promoters Item No. 1 151 East Coast Highway Use Permit No. 3684 • Use Permit No. 3684 Accessory Outdoor • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 78 Dining Permit No. 78 A use permit to perms e use of the outdoor stem and bow sections of the boat Continued to to be used for accesso utdoor dining for lunch and evening food service, 02/08/2001 closing at 10:00 p.m. Acoustic kentertainment is proposed. Planning Director, Patricia Temple note at the applicant is requesting that this item be continued for two weeks for further r fipement of the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to co 'nue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 8th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: The St. Clair Company 500 Superior Avnue • Use Permit No. 3679 A request for the approval of a Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit of buildings of 32 feet up to 50 feet, in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves the demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 square feet. Associate Planner, Eugenia Garcia noted that the applicant has been informed that a Sign Program for the site is required because it is a multi - building site on a single parcel. Currently, the Code requires a Sign Program to be approved by the Modifications Committee. However, the Planning Commission could allow the Sign Program to be approved by the Modifications Committee with the option to call it up for review. The Planning Commission could also condition the project that the Planning Commission reviews the Sign Program. A letter from the applicant's engineer regarding the storm water quality protection system that answers questions regarding one of the conditions on the on -site retention of low flow diversion system was presented. Ms. Temple added that in the list of questions asked by the Chairman, further information on the issue of consideration of the appropriate number of parking spaces would be provided. I have worked with Mr. Edmonston in trying to see whether there was any logical way to connect projected daily traffic trips or peak hour traffic trips to some relationship with required parking and could discover no relationship between those two factors. We looked at codes for Item 2 Use Permit No. 3679 Approved r^ 1-� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 various forms of industrial and Research and Development (R & D) types of land uses from various agencies that range from the City's Code requirement of 1 space for 500 square feet or 2 per 1,000 ranging up to what is our standard office rate of 4 spaces per 1,000 or 1 space for every 250 square feet. Looking at the number of parking spaces on site, which numberwas based on the peak shift characteristics of the Hughes facility that formerly occupied the site, we discovered it was somewhat less but similar to the higher range of that potential occupancy and therefore the higher range of what could be considered an appropriate parking requirement. We concluded that parking requirement in the range of 3 per 1,000 seemed to make sense although we do not have anything more than our knowledge and some additional commentary by Commissioner Tucker that today's R & D type facilities do reflect a portion of office style occupancy in terms of the number of employees per square feet. Therefore, we do believe that providing higher than the Code compliment of parking would be necessary to support the facility over time. The second issue was related to the question of standing approvals for the project in that the particular approvals involved for exceeding the basic height limit for the existing parking structure and the existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) approval were based on a project that included a single tenant occupancy of the project site. I consulted with the Assistant City Attorney about whether the construction of those approvals was such that in order to be found consistent with the prior approval, most particularly the TPO approval, that the site necessarily should be occupied by a single tenant. We first went to the Zoning Code to try and discover whether the City had any authority through its Zoning regulations to impose a requirement of single tenancy, there is no such authority therein. We felt that the only existing approval that a reasonable construction between single tenancy and the project requirement could be through the TPO approval. We looked at that approval and it did not include a condition that required exclusive tenancy and again went through the ordinance to determine if there was any factor to conclude differently than our current determination that no further TPO approval is required for this project. In fact, Ms. Clauson concluded that due to the construction of the TPO and the fact that it sets out thresholds to determine whether traffic studies are required and the fact that the new traffic circumstances surrounding the property didn't trigger any of the thresholds necessitating a new TPO approval, that in fact the project was consistent with the existing approval. No TPO approval was required for this project. We believe that there is no requirement under the existing approvals that the project remain in single tenancy. So long as the use characteristics of the occupancy remain the same, the City does not have the authority to compel single tenancy on the basis of prior approval. Commissioner Gifford noted that she was not present at the last meeting where this project was first discussed, however, she listened to the taped record of the meeting. She noted a few clarification issues: • Parking - the classification of industry research and development was defining and yet I presume we need to be assured that this is going to be used for industry research and development (R & D), which is 3 INDEX N City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 defined under the Code as establishments primarily engaged in the research, development and control production of high technology, electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale. I am not sure that the staff report and all the discussion seems to just say this is an R & D facility. I haven't seen any facts that appear to support why this is an R & D facility even if it is just statements from the applicant as to specifically the characteristics of the businesses that are going in there. If someone comes in as an applicant and they have a restaurant, we know what that business looks like and we accept the fact that they say they are going to put a restaurant there. Someone comes in and says I want to park this as R & D because it is going to be used as R & D, for most of us that is more ephemeral, we can't recognize it as easily as we can a restaurant. I don't see anything in here that says exactly how the conclusion that this is R & D is supported. • 1 heard on the tape the question about relating to the aspect establishments primarily engaged in, whether primarily, does it mean less than 50 %, what does it mean as opposed to the ancillary use of office and administration? With respect to those two things, I would like to get more information. Ms. Temple noted that this was and is part of the crux of the Commission's concern and questioning at the last meeting. Clearly when you are dealing with buildings that are open, leasable tenant spaces with the characterization to a particular kind of use in order to maintain consistency with prior approvals, I think the question really is a good one and the City needs to feel comfortable with and can be assured, monitored and maintained on into the future. Because of that concern, we have attempted through conditioning, page 4 item 4 where we made further modifications to originally proposed conditions. It is up to the City to monitor the ongoing use as to this property. That is done at several junctions of the project development and ongoing administration at the City level. When the initial tenant improvements come in, it is up to staff to look at what is being proposed and to make sure provided space is for the type of activities that one might ordinarily find in businesses that are doing product research and development and prototyping. Commissioner Gifford asked if someone is reviewing a permit to see that the improvements and determining from looking at the building plans and improvements that it is primarily research and development, what are the characteristics of those plans and improvements that are looked for that would say, absolutely this is R & D? Ms. Temple answered that typically you find more open floor areas that have different characteristics for electrical service, maybe mechanical ventilation service, perhaps more storage areas for parts and assembly, things of that nature. I agree that it is not a simple thing; there is not a set pattern of floor area that really would be a determining factor. That is why beyond just the simple review of tenant improvement plans, there needs to be ongoing administration and look at the actual tenants themselves to determine whether 4 INDEX 1Z' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 they fall within the use characteristics. Commissioner Gifford asked as you look at those tenants, what characteristics are you looking for that are going to give the answer as to whether they are R & D under this definition? Ms. Temple answered basically how we would do it is at such time a business license was requested, we would simply require all of the tenants to come to the Planning counter in order to receive information as to the types of permitted uses in the tenant spaces and to discuss with the business what the nature of their operation was. Through that discussion we can inform them as to whether they would be considered a permitted use. We would ask what the business is and would look for some type of manufacturing, product design, or product fabrication for resale. Commissioner Gifford noted that it is mainly the applicant's statement and no evidence to the contrary based on tenant improvements. Ms. Temple answered that when we deal with applicants, we have analyzed them based on how they have characterized the operation would be. I agree it is difficult in this case, but there are industrial areas that remain predominately industrial and we haven't experienced that kind of degradation to any notable degree. Ms. Garcia noted that during the plan check process, many times when staff is in doubt as to the use, will ask for a letter of operational characteristics and product information brochures, information about the company before we will approve the use. Those are scrutinized when there is a question and a lot of times the applicant if they truly are an R & D use, they will be able to supply that information, even if they are a start up company. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that the construction of Mitigation Measure No. 31 and Condition 35, represented in item 4 on page 4 of the Supplemental report has been set up to be as liberal as possible as to the permitted uses that fall within the use classification, but also as careful as we could be to ensure consistency with the prior approvals, particularly the TPO approval. It contains three components: • Refers to Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which is the MIA zoning district. There are many permitted uses within the MIA district that may not fall within the parameters of the prior approval. • Additionally, we have added a parameter that is use classification descriptions B, D and F. They are described earlier in the report as industry custom, industry limited and industry research and development, all of which we feel would contain uses that would qualify under the parameters of the existing approval. What that does is to provide a palette of permitted uses rather than creating a single use zone but dealing with all those uses that we consider qualified under the existing approvals and to show the applicant that there are 5 INDEX 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 many types of businesses that fall within this categories. • It needs to be considered in conformance with the TPO approval, which is the one that sets the prior existing use as being a manufacturing and R & D type of use. It included a lot of ancillary offices in support of that principle permitted use. Hughes Aircraft did have a personnel office, accounts receivable and payable office and an administration type of office use but were part of a business that is a qualified use. The intent of that condition is intended to provide and give us the ability to enforce over time as we review not only tenant improvements but also the re -use even if a tenant improvement is not part of the request. Commissioner Gifford noted those ancillary office uses are built into the R & D parking ratio and would be part of the R & D facility. Ms. Temple agreed noting that this type of business use to be more distinctly manufacturing and industrial but the use itself as a qualified use has changed over time. There are a lot of businesses that we feel would be qualified which may have somewhat different characteristics and therefore greater occupancy. An example might be a software developer, where they don't need big rooms full of electronic equipment to do chemical experiments, but still in fact are developing a product to prototype and ultimately market. Therefore it would be a qualified use. Because of that, in order to make sure the project is not under parked that we probably should hold with the higher parking as provided on site and not reduce it. Commissioner Gifford noted that is what we are struggling with, how do you know when you see it. The Code isn't much help. If we have the ability to make the finding that this use is in fact an office use and not in fact an R & D use if that was the case. I have not heard enough about what they are doing there, because it is not rented and who knows? Ms. Clauson noted to the extent you make a finding that it is an office use you have to have facts in evidence in the record that would show it is going to be an office use. We have facts that show it is going to be an R & D use from the point of view that is what the zoning authorizes. If the finding that it is going to really be an office use is based upon the fact that you don't think it is possible for any R & D use to be anything other than an office use, it is a way to make a finding that you are changing the Zoning Code. We have to work within the constraints of our Code and the way it is drafted. If the constraints of our Code are not drafted in a way to deal with the change in technology or the change in what an R & D use is, it still makes it difficult for us by this process to amend the Code to address that. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that office use is a permitted use in the MIA District, however, it would not be consistent with the General Plan or with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval. The land use designation on this property is general industry and provides for industrial uses and other use that is 6 INDEX Ir City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 supportive of those uses. Commissioner Tucker noted that when you look at all of the General Plan and the Zoning text provisions, MIA allows or permits office. When I first looked at that, I thought that as long as it wasn't medical or dental there would be nothing further required. The Code says the MIA District provides areas for wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. It has that limitation on it and I think that what we are grappling with is that R & D has changed over time. Either they put uses in that comply with the code or they don't. I don't think there is anything that we can do tonight to pre -judge or pre - establish if the applicant uses the property in compliance with the code. That will have to be decided as it comes up. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the MIA District allows for limited accessory. There is some limit to the ability to have an office building there. Ms. Temple stated that what is being referred to is the intent and purpose of the MIA District. When there is some judgement involved determining the meaning and intent of that section, those are the guiding principles upon which the zoning district is based. The permitted use section lists these types of office uses as permitted uses. That probably was not an intention to just allow general office development in the district. I believe adjustment to that Zoning Code section should be made such that it is evident that those offices are permitted as ancillary or accessory to the otherwise permitted uses. A change of that nature certainly would strengthen the consistency between the Zoning District, the General Plan and the intent of the City in approving this project. The only other area that has M I A zoning is in this surrounding area on Industrial Avenue and Production Place. The uses are industrial and R & D type uses. Commissioner Agajanian asked if the principle concern for this definition between R & D and office uses is an operational one related to parking or are there other issues? Commissioner Gifford answered that is the principle context in which she was bringing this up, with regards to the parking. Commissioner Agajanian stated that there is a condition that states that all employees of the facility shall park on site. If the ratio of parking there now eventually becomes under - supplied more parking would be required and would spill over onto the streets. Under that condition, they would be violating the Use Permit. We can address the operational issue of parking spillover with this condition and avoid the hassle of trying to define R & D and office if all we are concerned about is parking related aspect as opposed to other issues. Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement but from the applicant's perspective. I think reading a definition of what constitutes R & D and what keeps that applicant in conformance with the Zoning Code would be a little 7 INDEX i�r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 scary because I think it is very subjective interpretation as to whether you are meeting the criteria with a particular tenant or not. I would like to propose that we have a discussion item to come up with some distinctions in R & D that give a Planning Director or whoever might be in a position to decide looking at building permits and applicants' statements to try to come up with criteria that might have some modernization in terms of R & D definitions. Continuing, Commissioner Gifford noted that when she looked at the site, she noticed the mature trees. I am hoping that the window material will give some degree of reflectiveness in it to mirror the view of those trees. The project people told me that staff had guided them away from anything reflective. I am assuming that is on a basis of the general concept to reduce the glare of headlights and signs that might reflect. I think that might be a nice way to enhance the landscaping that is there, but I want to hear from staff. Ms. Garcia answered that early on when we discussed the design of the building, we had talked about light and glare on the site. The applicant is very sensitive to that issue as the residential areas and public streets are located close to this site. We did not guide them to any particular design pattern or materials but the applicant did keep in mind the glare issue. Public comment was opened. Carol Hoffman spoke representing the St Clair Company noting that there is a need for this type of use in the area. I know how much you have struggled with office versus R & D, but the demand for R & D tenants is such that it is simply not going to be an issue from a leasing standpoint. The architecture of the building is defined by the color renderings of the LPA firm along with a colored elevation that attempts to provide more detail as to the landscaping on the parking structure from a standpoint of the size of the trees as well as the vines that will be placed on a large portion of the structure that does not have the openings into the parking levels. Referencing the exhibits she noted: • The building has definition with an awning and a different third floor. • Windows are slightly reflective. • The materials board depicts colors and stone to be used. Continuing, Ms. Hoffman noted that she had asked staff to bring along a copy of the Sign Program for 888 San Clemente, which is the latest office building the Irvine Company constructed and is right next to the Police Station. That Sign Program has the quality that we are all interested in modeling. It does limit the number of major tenant signs and the secondary signs that are permitted (eyebrow signs). To the extent that we can craft something similar, we would be happy to do that if you wish. The water quality is a concern and commitment of the St. Clair Company. The condition language allows for the flexibility of doing the best solution, whether fossil filter or something else. Referring to the exhibit she explained the site drainage. We looked at whether or not there was an opportunity to do a detention basin, but the combination of the elevation, the existing grade, slope and parking are such that to create INDEX K City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 a retention basin large enough to carry the volume on the basis of our preliminary analysis did not appear to be feasible. We recognize the interest in that being a solution but we are anxious to work with staff in the final designs and we are subject to the approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The parking structure is at one corner of the property and we recognize that it is perhaps not as convenient to some of the buildings. That is why we are providing these parking bays more convenient to each of the buildings. Because of the complaints of area parking and the spillover by other uses, we wanted to make sure that this property was not guilty of that. Lastly, with the evolution of R & D uses, the kinds of tenants we are looking at, this parking ratio is much closer to what the real demand is for those kinds of uses. A combination of all those things is reflective of the parking that is being provided even though we have added only about 100 spaces to what is existing there today. The reconfiguration, the design and the relationship between the parking and the buildings all result in that which is being provided. We look forward to a favorable resolution of this issue tonight. Commissioner Kranzley noted that he had spoken to the applicant's representative earlier regarding the issues we have talked about, the issue of how to define this as an office or an R & D use. As long as we have some type of condition that limits the impact of whatever is there, the applicant made some proposals to my concerns. The first condition is that the project shall be limited to 5,214 average daily trips consistent with the previous approval for Hughes. The second condition is that the project shall be limited to a maximum of 1,965 employees, consistent with the previous approval for Hughes. I understand it is a nightmare for Code Enforcement, however, if we have issues in the surrounding areas with overflow parking or traffic, we at least have two clear -cut conditions that we can point to and call up this Use Permit. With the Hughes Aircraft Company, the assumptions were based on three shifts; however, this is based on all arriving at one time. Ms. Hoffman noted that the analysis that was done under the TPO has given us the limit on the number of trips that can be generated in the peak hour. To the extent that the owner was able to attract a tenant who did work on shifts, we would like the flexibility of being able to live within the previous average daily trip generation factor as long as we did not exceed the peak hour. That is the reason why we chose the figure from the previous approval since what you are really asking was how to make sure we were not going to exceed that which had been previously operating. Commissioner Kranzley agreed noting that under the TPO for instance, they leased out all their space and it is one shift. We allow for 1,965 employees and 5,214 average daily trips. They all came in one shift, what would the impact the TPO have on issues where the project is generating more than the study and more than the use peak hour trips? Ms. Temple answered that the project actually generates substantially less daily trips, which is the first TPO threshold of determining whether a traffic study is 9 i1.1MI )d City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 required pursuant to the ordinance. The CEQA traffic work did find that because it was not a shift operation and not a single tenant who could control the hour at which the larger segment of employees would arrive and depart that the conventional peak hour traffic attributable to R & D was appropriate. The project has more peak hour trips than identified in the previous analysis, however, since it didn't trigger the threshold for a TPO report, we did analyze the impact of that change in the CEQA analysis and used TPO methodology to determine whether that would result in a significant effect and found that it did not. We felt that because the TPO analysis was not required, it did not increase the traffic in the area by more than 300 average daily trips, which is the first screening threshold. Even though analyzing the increase in trips, it did not trigger any TPO significant type effect, we could find it consistent with the TPO and did not create any significant environmental effect and make the Negative Declaration valid. Commissioner Kranzley noted that if I propose a condition and it is approved that we allow 5,214 daily trips, would we have a problem since these would be all in one shift? Ms. Temple noted that if you have that many daily trips attributable in a single shift, then I think there could be a problem. A reason for the limitation in the original approval was for the adequacy of the proposed parking. Ms. Hoffman noted that if you did not exceed the number of trips allowed for Hughes previously, you might want to consider adding language that you can go up to the 5214 as long as you don't exceed the TPO peak hour of this particular use. We are required to comply with the TPO and this states what we are required to do. Ms. Temple stated this would be an enforcement problem. Either the City would have to proactively hire some consultant to go out and do both daily and peak hour driveway counts on some annual basis or the applicant would have to submit such data prepared by a qualified professional. Once again, we would be relying on the applicant for the accuracy of the data. It is something of a monitoring issue. Commissioner Kranzley noted if this condition combined with the other conditions with the review process as you are reviewing the business licenses, etc., I understand it is a monitoring nightmare, no matter what we do there is uncertainty here. I am trying to get to defined point that we can point to and say you are in violation of this condition in the Use Permit. At 1965 employees there was only 1536 on the first shift the rest were on the other shifts. I want to mirror the impacts of Hughes and I don't want to make it worst. I am struggling with micro - managing your business, but on the other hand, I want to make sure we have ways of shutting down a business that is negatively impacting the community. Commissioner Tucker stated that the Use Permit before us has to do with design 10 INDEX )I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 features, and now we are trying to attach conditions that have to do with operational characteristics. Do we have a nexus type of problem here; do we have any ability to do any of these things that the applicant seems to be willing to consider? Ms. Wood answered that the nexus is through the TPO rather than the Zoning Ordinance because this is a development that is not doing a new traffic study, not getting a new TPO approval. It is trying to stay within that and your concerns about traffic, parking and occupancy of the building have to do with staying within the TPO approval. Ms. Temple added that the TPO approval is its own entity and if the project became something other than what was approved pursuant to the TPO, the City would be within its rights to either conduct enforcement of that approval or to require new approvals. If it were to become 100% office accidentally because staff did not do a good job, that would be more than 300 additional trips beyond the existing approval. You couldn't approve that because you could not make the finding of General Plan consistency. Therefore, they would need to come back for a General Plan Amendment and probably a Zoning Amendment. Commissioner Tucker noted that the use either complies with what the property is in general planned and zoned for or it does not. It may be a challenge trying to figure out exactly what that compliance is, but I don't see how that can be pre- conditioned now. The applicant has heard us discuss this for two meetings, they understand the risks of coming in and getting an R & D project approved and then building and leasing an office project. I am not sure what else we can do. Commissioner Kranzley asked that if we don't have any of these conditions about head count, or average trip generation, the TPO in essence provides protection prospectively as well? If we start seeing problems there and generating more average trips than greater than 300 average trips, the permit can be called up for review. Ms. Clauson noted that Commissioner Tuckers issue is that this is a Use Permit for height and so there are certain findings that have to be made by the Commission for that. There are also provisions of the City's TPO that talk about that no permit shall be issued except under certain circumstances. If you go by the City's code, we are meeting the TPO, then if this project meets the TPO then the permit can be issued. Staff's point is that the R & D designation, the conditions limiting to specific R & D uses within that R & D designation is what the TPO is based upon. The nexus still goes back to the TPO and that is the only connection that I think you have to condition your approval on. Other then that, the height or the use, I agree that there isn't any condition. Continuing, Ms. Clauson added that there is a Use Permit for height and then there is a requirement for an environmental document that has mitigation 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 measures. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the project approvals, as they need to be. That is one nexus or requirement and then again, the TPO. Staff's concern is that under the provisions of the TPO that we're adopting these conditions to make the project look like the approvals that look like the traffic that is being generated by that study. The problem is the some kind of issue that the Planning Commission grapples with all the time. How do we know this restaurant is not going to turn into a bar? How do we know this office building is not going to turn into medical office? We have our Code Enforcement issues and we can always look at our ordinances and update and require maybe floor plans in the future, but we have what we have now to work with and that is all we can enforce. At Commission inquiry, Ms Clauson added that there are provisions in the Use Permit for looking into the design of the project. You can make a nexus. Ms. Temple added that the other Use Permit for this property was for the height in relation to the parking structure. That approval remains in place. The TPO approval was for the increased square footage at the some time the parking structure was approved. They are reconstructing that square footage so the TPO approval still remains relevant and enforceable. The prior approvals were used as the basis of this analysis. Commissioner Kranzley asked if we do the findings regarding the TPO and it doesn't trip any of the issues then when the project is built out whether it is this one or another one, but does not act the way the applicant proposed or the TPO proposed, does the TPO gives us any recourse? Ms. Clauson answered no it does not. The TPO is not done for the purposes of conditioning projects. It is done for the purpose of analyzing the traffic impacts of the projects. If we have a situation where staff comes to us and says we have all kinds of problems with parking, traffic then we are going to have to look at what the tenants are and if we find 100% or nothing but office tenants that do not qualify then we are going to court. We would ask for an injunction to keep them from leasing outside of the zoning as they are in violation of the zoning approvals. The zoning in this permit has limited their use to certain types of uses and that is the only use they can have in there. Ms. Temple added that when we approve a project pursuant to the TPO, we do not set a condition that thou shall monitor and assure that you don't create any more daily trips or peak hour trips as analyzed in the traffic study. We simply say you have to stay a use as categorized by ITE or SANDAG, etc. use characteristics under which we analyzed your project. If a use change comes about at a later point in time for instance a retail space wants to become a restaurant, then we compare the two use rates, look at the thresholds for requiring a new traffic study and determine whether a new report is required. That is why we set that it has to be uses that qualify and are considered similar for traffic generating purposes to the existing approval in order to determine consistency. 12 INDEX i�.i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Commissioner Tucker noted that therein lies the problem. We have a parking ratio of 2 per 1,000; traffic features that are industrial, on average; and we know that neither of those things is how the property is really going to operate. Under the TPO the traffic engineer tells the applicant here is how you study this project. If it doesn't trip the TPO, it is not an issue based on the zoning that is there. We have a code versus operational inconsistency and we need to sort out these details. I don't think we have everything that we need in our Codes today to have that internal consistency. It is not the applicant's fault; they are playing by the rules. We know what this thing is likely to be, yet we are studying it based upon what the Code says it is today even though we know that use is not likely. Commissioner Gifford asked if we put a condition limiting the number of employees in the use permit and that condition was violated, would the remedy be to go to court to make them take off the excess height? Ms. Clauson answered that the remedy would be to enforce the conditions of the approval. We can not make them take away the excess height. The number of employees would be difficult to establish. I would have a hard time to do an investigation to go into court and say that they have this many employees. We would have to bring all of the businesses and tenants and document payroll records. I would rather look at the type of businesses that are operating in there. The permit stays in effect, it is not to take away the use permit, just to limit the number of employees. Commissioner Kranzley asked the applicant's spokesperson if they would be willing to accept a condition that limits the number of employees to 1965 with a maximum of 1536 on any one given shift? Ms. Hoffman answered that extended hours of operation would allow for traffic to be dispersed differently than what might have occurred under shifts. For example, a lot of these hi -tech firms may start at 7 in the morning and go through 3 in the afternoon. Is that a shift in your mind; it is not quite the some as having 3 eight hour shifts that do not participate at all in the peak hours. It seems to have as strict a condition over that one period might be more limiting than is necessary pursuant to the traffic limitations. In terms of the nexus between some of those conditions, if all we did was come in and ask for a building permit and ask for the square footage we would be allowed without that additional height, a lot of those conditions would be established and made pertinent to this project as part of the building permit. These conditions are listed here rather than have them just on a plan check at such time when we come in. With regard to the rest of it, there are R & D uses all over the County. Good people like the Irvine Company and others are leasing those buildings, they are operating and are kept that way. This company comes in and says we recognize that is what the zoning is and we are willing to live with that. We are going to have leasing plans that deal that way and work with brokers to look for R & D uses. In R & D uses, consistent with what happened in 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Hughes, there was a 55% office related to R & D and a 45% that was a more technical manufacturing, assembly, fabrication. Some of the discussion that talks about if there is going to be office here is purely academic because frankly, there is office for this part of that. You can't have R & D without human resources and all those other elements of running a business. Yes, there will be office elements just as there were previously as listed in the staff report on page 5. Commissioner Kiser asked if you could give us an idea of what an R & D tenant is today; what are the types of uses; how large would you expect these companies to be; how many employees and what do you foresee as a mix of office and R & D type manufacturing space? Mark Barker noted that the R & D tenant of today is different than the ones in the past. There is no typical tenant out there, it is the tenants we hope we are lucky enough to attract and hoping to get similar ones to those in University Research Park. Those tenants are more office tenants as more research and development happens on computers today. However, they are still qualifying R & D uses. If we were getting an approval for an office, we would not be limiting it to 4 employees to 1,000 square feet as a maximum. If we bring in an R & D tenant and it is going to put us over, I don't think we should be held responsible and not be allowed to have the occupancy. We are responsible developers. Commissioner Kiser asked for an idea of what kinds of tenants are expected for these buildings? Will a tenant occupy an entire floor, two floors or an entire building? Are we expecting to have 18 - 20 tenants in one building? Should we expect that today R & D means someone in a cubicle on a computer developing software? I would like to get an understanding. Mr. Barker answered that your guess is as good as mine. R & D tenants are not typical. Ms. Hoffman added that there are companies that come in using computers to figure out new products, whether it is new software or hardware. There are companies that may be looking at a new car wash product doing testing with chemicals, bio- medical types of looking at data and developing cancer testing. It is the ability to test for some ways in which cancer patients can give their own medication and how is that packaged and develop the information doctors can give to the patients. It runs the whole gamut; some things are done on computers, some in test tubes, in cubicles, in a collaborative setting and /or done on an individual basis. Mr. Barker added that we do not have any information or statistics. We are hoping to have no more than two tenants per floor in any one given building. We would like one tenant to take the whole park, but the reality is one tenant would have more bodies than multi tenants. You would add a multi tenant corridor that uses up useable square footage. 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked staff if this project in your opinion are you convinced it will not create outside of the additional 163 peak hour trips that it has than what the existing approved facilities will do? Are you confident that you can keep it occupied in that fashion? Ms. Temple noted that in terms of additional impacts of CEQA level of significance it could be different, but I believe it will fall within the parameters of what had been there historically. Yes, I am confident that we can keep it occupied in that fashion. Mr. Edmonston answered that if it is occupied in the fashion that we have been told it would be and based the analysis on, I am confident that it will not create any significant impact from traffic over what is there now assuming it was occupied. Chairperson Selich added that I have obviously gone into this in depth by all the questions that I have asked. I come to the some conclusions that Commissioner Tucker has that we have some things that we need to deal with in our R & D regulations. We don't need to burden this applicant with them. I am satisfied with the conditions that staff has put forth, the only thing I would like to see is the landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission for review. Motion was made by Commissioner KranzJey to approve Use Permit No. 3679 and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration with the additional conditions: • that the project shall be limited to a maximum of 1965 employees • that the landscape plan comes back to the Planning Commission for review • Condition 16 that talks about on site retention or low flow diversion is changed to add language that if fossil filters is what ends up being finally approved by the Public Works Department, that the filters are subject to a yearly maintenance requirement. • Condition 5 shall be revised to say that all employees and visitors to the facility shall park on site. • Add that the signage program as well as the landscaping plan come back for approval. Ms. Temple noted that the Sign Program approval is an actual condition approval normally dealt with by the Modifications Committee. Ms. Hoffman, speaking for the applicant accepted the conditions as proposed. She asked for specifics to be included with the landscape plan. Chairperson Selich answered that you should get with staff and take a look at the plan that the Lange Homes did on the Shores Apartment. It was an 15 INDEX �� 19 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 excellent plan and accepted unanimously. It shows plant sizes and particulars. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3679 Mitigated Negative Declaration A. Mitigated Neqative Declaration: Findinas: 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the in d; City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot located on the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road and the residential areas. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. 3. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. 4. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a.) Use of low- emission construction equipment b.) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c.) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d.) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e.) Use of low- sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment f.) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g.) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from construction activities. b. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur, fuel for stationary construction equipment. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 8. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy- efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements 17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 The project shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.64). 10. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. It significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 11. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. 12. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive provisions of AB952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 13. All earthworks shall comply with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Building Department, and may include the following: • Soil engineering report • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans • Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and irrigation plans 14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and over - watering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services, Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan. 15. Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediation as determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 16. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous 18 INDEX a O� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan and its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. 18. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. The SWPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a SWPPP shall be provided to The City of Newport Beach for approval. 20. The applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. 21. The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. IE �'J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 23. All construction equipment fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. 24. Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent facilities at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. 25. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. 26. All equipment installed for all uses on site shall be screened from view and noise associated with the use of the equipment shall be attenuated as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be based on the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 27. The applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 28. The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. B. Use Permit No. 3679: Fndin s: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" commercial use, and a research and development facility is permitted within this designation. 2. The proposed height of the two new research and development buildings is appropriate in this case, and meets the intent of Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: The increased building height results in a reduction in site coverage and more public visual open space between buildings. 20 1` City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 • Increased ground cover and landscaping throughout the site will soften and partially screen the buildings along Superior Avenue. • By constructing separate buildings, instead of one large building, as currently exists on the site, the buildings provide greater architectural articulation. • The new location of Building 1 provides a more interesting project as viewed from the public streets, rather than viewing an open parking lot. • The increased building height results in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the building is in scale and balance with massing and height of the existing structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. • The glass mullion system design breaks up the fapade of the buildings to create buildings that appear less bulky. • The new buildings are in scale with the commercial buildings in the vicinity and are in scale with the existing parking structure. • Because the new buildings are of similar size and proportion, abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. • The proposed design of the buildings includes both vertical and horizontal articulation, which breaks up the building mass. • The increased building height will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit and redesigning the buildings to the basic height limit would result in changes to the building mass articulation and architectural style of the buildings that would be more bulky, or the overall building footprint would potentially increase and many of the benefits of the open areas between buildings would be lost. • The proposed project represents an aesthetic improvement on the site. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3679 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further, the use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Therefore, the increase in height for the proposed project will not be detrimental to surrounding properties for the following reasons: The construction of the two new buildings is a reuse of existing square footage that is being demolished on the site. There is no increase in square footage, rather a slight reduction in the overall square footage of the site. The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code 21 `7.1�7�:1 f �, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 with the exception of height. Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed uses. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation on the site is being provided with the proposed project. No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. Conditions of Approval: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. A minimum of 1,421 parking spaces shall be provided on site. The Planning Director may authorize a reduced amount based on the City Traffic Engineer's review of the on -site parking striping plan. 3. A detailed parking plan shall be submitted for approval by the Traffic Engineer. The plan shall show all surface and parking structure spaces. The plan will reduce the number of compact parking spaces to the extent feasible. Disabled parking spaces shall conform to current standards. 4. Construction workers shall park their vehicles and all equipment on site at all times. 5. All employees and visitors to the fociiity shall park on site. b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. 7. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 8. Plans for the existing buildings and proposed buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to ensure adequate fire prevention and fire suppression systems are provided. 9. All deliveries and storage shall be restricted to the site and shall not utilize any public rights -of -way. 10. Intersections of the private drives and Superior Avenue shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 landscape, walls, and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 11. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 12. The drive approaches along Superior Avenue shall be reconstructed to meet handicap standards and any displaced or deteriorated sections of curb, gutter or sidewalk along the Superior Avenue and Dana Road frontages shall be replaced, all under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 13. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 14. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct site hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments for approval. 15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study (including groundwater data) to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments. The study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program subdrain system if deemed necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. 16. On -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system, or a fossil filter system, or other system of equal effectiveness designed to filter and clean on -site drainage to meet water quality standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the NPDES requirements shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay and shall be approved by the Public Works, General Services and Building Departments. If a fossil filter system is what the Public Works Department chooses, then the filters shall be subject to a yearly maintenance program. 17. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction 23 I.Is7�:1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 schedule. Prior to occupancy of the buildings, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 18. The landscape plan shall be subject to the approval of the General Services Department, the Planning Department, and the Public Works Department. The plans shall include a berm along the Superior Avenue street frontage; the utilization of existing trees on both the Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages, with any replacement trees to be a minimum of 24 inch boxed trees; ground cover and shrubs shall be planted along Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages to fill in the areas between the existing and proposed trees. 19. The landscaping shall be regularly maintained and shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 20. The landscape plan shall include the slope area along Newport Boulevard located on the subject property, which shall be modified to include drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 21. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 22. The facility shall be limited to a maximum of 1,965 employees on site at any one time. 23. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Commission. 24. The applicant shall submit a sign program for the site, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Standard Requirements 25. The project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 26. All mechanical equipment, including roof -top mechanical equipment, shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building materials and noise associated with the equipment shall be sound 24 INDEX �: i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance. 27. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 28. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 29. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 30. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 31. Each building shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 32. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department for the removal of all construction materials, excavated dirt and debris from the site. 33. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 34. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 35. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and related structures shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 33. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 25 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 34. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 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. 36. The mitigation measures identified in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of Use Permit No. 3679, are required as part of and incorporated herein as a condition of approval and shall be implemented and completed prior to final occupancy of any building for the proposed use. .a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported t t on January 9th, the Council referred the Fluter Mixed Project back to the nning Commission for review; the Novai residence was approved; the Ba a Inn expansion was approved with an amendment; the Starbucks m was continued to January 23rd as well as the signs for Jiffy Lube. b.) Oral report from PI ing Commission's representative to the Economic Development Commit - Chairperson Selich reported that the EDC is continuing to meet to revi projects. The energy crisis was discussed at the last meeting and the co ittee may be coming up with some ideas to be presented to the City ouncil. The EDC has moved the Development Plan Ordinance ba towards the Planning Commission that will be brought for consideration in bruary. C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center 113kneral and Specific Plan program - a brief commentary was given bq the Banning Ranch regarding resources being finalized for their land use an. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to ort on at o subsequent meeting - update the Planning Commission o the Santa Ana River Crossing Study; a presentation on the Hoag Hospital helw east addition -and seismic updating for the existing towers is scheduled ring 26 INDEX Additional Business /j r" Exhibit No. 3 ,�Ew'POgr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANING DEPARTMENT / a 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (945) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barkerfor The St. Clair Company, applicant) 500 Superior Avenue January 4, 2001 Eugenia Garcia 644 -3208 SUMMARY: A use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration. The project will include: • Demolition of 208.926 sq. ft. of the existing 416,499 sq. ft. • Remodel of two existing buildings totaling 214.210 sq. ft. • Reconstruction of 201,283 sq. ft. for a total of 415.493 sq. ft. of research and development use. APPLICATION: • Use Permit No. 3679 • Negative Declaration Staff is providing responses to questions raised by members of the Commission and suggested changes and clarifications to staff s report for the project. The following questions were received in writing from Commissioner Selich and staff s response follows: A. General I. Overall my greatest concern is that the proposed project not create any greater impact than the existing approved Hughes Facility does through its approved use permit. If the proposed project creates any additional impact over the Hughes project or over what it could do as a ministerial project 144thout a use permit then I would want to see a project that is demonstrably superior to the existing Hughesfacility. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment as demonstrated by the traffic analysis, the adequacy of the parking, and the findings for the approval of the use permit. Absent the request for additional height, the project with the proposed uses and parking provided could proceed with no City discretionary review. B. Land Use 1. HOw is use limited to R &D? A11- A =oning regulationspermit many uses....... Because the original traffic study assumed the R & D use traffic generation factors. the R & D is the basis for the TPO approval. Any change to a greater traffic generating use would require a new TPO analysis. Therefore, office uses that are not ancillary or accessory to the R & D uses are not permitted. Additionally; all construction plans and tenant improvements will be reviewed to assure the project does not become predominantly offices. Staff will also monitor business licenses to insure compliance with this limitation. 2. Why are ive not limiting maximum number ofemployees... (1, 536Day Shift). The employee limit was possible with a single employer and was specifically related to availability of on -site parking as provided. A condition of this nature is difficult to monitor for multiple tenants. Additionally, the prior limitation reflects an approximate 4 employees per 1000 sq. ft., which is typical of most business establishments. 3. Why are Nye not lintitingratio ofoffice to manufacturing ............. In the R & D classification, for either zoning or traffic generation purposes, there is no set percentage of the ratio between manufacturing and office floor area. However, both allow R D uses to include ancillary and accessory office use. 3. if St. Clair desired to use the existingfacility as it presently exists ................. There is no use limitation with the existing use permit as it was required for additional height only. No discretionary action is required for the square footage proposed. The primary limitations to use are founded in the Traffic Study approval where the trip rates reflected the R & D use. Additionally; the parking requirements and employee limits would stay in effect. C. Parking 1. Lt 199 i, the parking ratio for R & D was ............... at 1 space per 500 sq. ft. Hole much was asstttned to be office .............. One space per 500 sq. ft. is from a standard parking manual and no specific ratio of office to laboratory, fabrication or warehousing was assumed How does this relate to the current 11500 sq..f. standard ................... The parking standard in effect at the time of the prior use permit approval was 3 /100 for R & D use. A higher parking standard was imposed (1/225 for administrative use) because of a concern at the time that the parking standard was inadequate. Despite those concerns, new standards were adopted by the City in 1997 (2 /1000). Using any of these calculations, the project exceeds the Code requirement and staff feels that the parkin, is adequate. 2. id'hy are all the compact car spaces not being removed .................. The City Traffic Engineer is requiring a new striping plan (see Condition No. 3 of the use permit) for the purpose of reducing to the extent feasible, the number of compact parking spaces currently on -site. The applicant has indicated a willingness to eliminate surface compact ('application* Page 2 1 parking spaces but the reduction of compact spaces in the parking structure may be limited due to its structural design. 3. Doesn't the 590 space surplus equate to additional potential square footage for office space....... As stated in B -1 above, the project must conform to uses as analyzed in the TPO approval. Any intensification of trip generating uses would require a new TPO analysis. D. Traffic 1. 97hy not •adjust or limit use so peak AM and PM traffic does not exceed the Hughes......... impact... This is a use permit to allow increased building height and the use itself does not require discretionary approval. A new TPO study was not required because the first TPO study threshold was not exceeded (did not add 300 ADT)..Since the CEQA traffic analysis did not show an impact, there is no nexus for imposing such a condition. The following are additional staff clarifications and recommendations to the staff report: 1. On page 18, item number 10 in the listed attachments should be corrected as follows: 'Traffic Analysis, Pirsadeh Associates, dared December 6, 2000 and December 20, 2000. Both Traffic Studies were included in the attachments, although the correct dates were omitted from the list on page 18. 2. On page 22; delete Conditions 15 and 17 due to the receipt of a letter; dated 1/4/01, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board notif},ing the City of their oversight of the on -going remediation of the soil and groundwater on the subject property. See attached letter. 3. On page 22, ConditionNo. 16 should be amended to read: "Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediarion as dererminedby the Regional Water Quality Control Board." 4. On page 24. Mitigation Measure No. 31 should be moved to the Use Permit conditions as Condition No. 35, and corrected and amended to read: "The Planning Director shall review all building plans and future tenant improvemenrplans and shall make a finding that the project is consistent with Section 20.20 of the Nei+porr Beach Municipal Code, 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 aapplicalionu Page 3 i + Ordinance approval. " This change will clarify the permitted uses for the site and cite the appropriate section of the Code. On page 27, Condition No. 16 should be clarified to read: "On -site retention or low ,/low diversion into the sanitary sewer system shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Building Departments." Because there are a variety of methods in which to meet this requirement; this allow the applicant and the City and opportunity to utilize the most effective solution. 6. On page 27; Condition No. 20 should be clarified to read: "The landscape plan shall include the slope area along Newport Boulevard located on the subject property, which shall be modified to include drought- resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoffand over - watering. " The majority of the slope are is owned by Cal Trans and a small portion of the slope area is located on the subject property. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director P, 7 Prepared by: EUGENIA GARCIA, AICP Associate Planner ,,applicatiom, Page I'� ent By: Land Development & Management; 949 721 9464; Jan -4 -01 11:57AM; Page 213 Comments and Questions On St Claire Project A. General Overall my greatest concern is that the proposed project not create any greater impact than the existing approved Hughes Facility does through its approved use permit. If the proposed project creates any additional impact over the Hughes project or over what it could do as a ministerial project without a use permit then I would want to see a project that is demonstrably superior to the existing Hughes facility. B. Land Use 1. How is use limited to R &D? M1 -A zoning regulations permit many uses, including Office and Professional (excluding medical and dental) without discretionary approval. Without limitations in conditions could not any office use permitted under M1 -A be established be established without discretionary review (except medical and dental)? 2. Why are we not limiting maximum number of employees at any one time as in the existing permit for Hughes Aircraft Facility? (1536 Day Shift) 3. Why are we not limiting ratio of office to manufacturing as the existing permit does? (55% Manufacturing, 45% Office) 4. If St Claire desired to use the existing facility as it presently exists would they have to adhere to all requirements of the Hughes Use Permit or could they abandon that use permit and establish multi tenant uses with each subject to ministerial or discretionary approval as appropriate under M1 -A zoning? If they can establish multi tenant uses outside the Hughes Permit what is the parking and traffic impact compared to the existing use and proposed project? C. Parking In 1997 the parking ratio for R &D was established at 1 space per 500 sq. ft. F— How much was assumed to be office in arriving at this. Logic seems to dictate that 25% is office space. Example for 10,000 sq, ft.: 10,000/500 = 20 7,5001750 (Industry Limited) = 10 2,500/250 (Office) = 10 10+10 = 20 Is 25% the ratio? If so, how do you limit that 25% ratio or whatever the ratio is? ent ay: Land Development & Management; 949 721 9464; Jan -4 -01 11:57AM; Page 313 Also, I am having trouble reconciling this with page 5 and 14 of the staff report where it states that parking requirement is 1 space for every 225 sq. ft. (4.411000 sq. ft.) for office and 3 spaces per thousand sq. ft. for Assembly and testing. If you take 55% of 416,000 sq. ft (existing rounded off) you get 226,800 sq. ft. = 4.4/1000 x 229 = 1008 spaces required for office and 45% _ 187,200 sq. ft. = 3/1000 x 187 = 561 spaces required for assembly and testing. This totals 1569 spaces but only 1206 were required and only 1338 were provided (the staff report is confusing to me on how many were actually provided with the last modification to the use permit). How does this relate to the current 11500 sq. ft. standard? How did we go from 55% office to an apparent 25% office? 2. Why are all the compact car spaces not being removed when there are 590 surplus spaces over R &D? (1421- 831 =590) 3. Doesn't the 590 space surplus equate to additional potential square footage for office space? Worst case example - 416,000 sq. ft. and 1421 parking spaces: 294.500 sq. ft. Office at 411000 = 1178 spaces 121,500 sq. ft. R &D at 2/1000 = 243 spaces 416,000 sq. ft. total 1421 spaces total D. Traffic 1. Why not adjust or limit use so peak AM & PM traffic does not exceed the Hughes Aircraft Cc facility impact? In other words adjust or regulate the uses so the 229 AM trip and 163 PM trip excesses over the Hughes Facility impact are eliminated. EDS 01 -04 -01 i, Exhibit No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH O��E�RT PLANNING DEPARTMENT y � SSoo NEWPORT BOULEVARD r n U S NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658 o�c�FOar`r (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item: Staff Person: Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barker for The St. Clair Company, applicant) 500 Superior Avenue 4, 2001 Eugenia Garcia (949) 644 -3208 14 days SUMMARY: A use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration. The project will include: • Demolition of 208,926 sq. ft. of the existing 416,499 sq. ft. • Remodel of two existing buildings totaling 214,210 sq. ft. • Reconstruction of 201,283 sq. ft. for a total of 41.5,493 sq. ft. of research and development use. ACTION: Approve, modify, or deny: • Use Permit No. 3679 • Negative Declaration LEGAL Portion of Lot 169, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision DESCRIPTION: ZONING: M -1 -A( Manufacturing ,Industrial) /General Industry OWNER: The St. Clair Company, Newport Beach POINTS AND AUTHORITY • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" uses. This land use category has been applied to areas which 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. The proposed project is consistent with this land use category. • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental OualityAct) A Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection the application. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. The analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies thirty-one mitigation measures that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. It is the intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The Negative Declaration is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are attached to this report and are also available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department. • Use Permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4. 2001 Page 2 IJ � I Fe 0 200 Feet D 0 qP it SUBJECT PROPERTY G VICINITY MAP 1 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses XC� N W E I Current Development: ::::.. - ssi r X11 :, ee, To the east: wee.. "" _......... To the south: Across Dana Road are a residential condominium project, apartments, and a convalescent facility. To the west: Across Superior Avenue are the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center, the Harbor Homes Trailer Park, and the Superior Medical Center. L .. ... un t � P Fe 0 200 Feet D 0 qP it SUBJECT PROPERTY G VICINITY MAP 1 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses XC� N W E I Current Development: Former Hughes Aircraft/Raytheon Research and Development facility To the north: City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard To the east: Landscaped slope and Newport Boulevard To the south: Across Dana Road are a residential condominium project, apartments, and a convalescent facility. To the west: Across Superior Avenue are the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center, the Harbor Homes Trailer Park, and the Superior Medical Center. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4. 2001 Page 3 BACKGROUND City Building Department records indicate that the original buildings on the site, Buildings "A," "B," and "C," were constructed in 1958 and 1959. The property was owned and occupied by the Hughes Aircraft Company, which operated as Hughes Aircraft Company Solid State Products Division, specializing in electronic testing, and assembly of hybrid components and administrative activities. The facility operated 24 hours with three work shifts. On June 17, 1965, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1141 to install a helipad on the subject property. On February 20, 1975, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1748 to permit the installation of a gasoline pump island and underground gasoline storage tanks within the existing parking lot in front of the Hughes Aircraft Company. On January 20, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1810 to permit the temporary use of a relocatable building as an office facility. One of the Commission's primary concerns with the request for additional office space on the site was that no additional staffing be added to the day shift because of the traffic congestion in the Hughes parking lot and on the adjoining streets. However, the parking situation was improved with the paving of a previously dirt lot and restriping to increase the parking spaces from 859 to 1,090 spaces. At that time, the total number of employees had decreased from 1,641 employees in 1974 to 1,491 employees, because some of the employees moved to other facilities located in the Irvine Industrial Complex. The day shift included 1,472 employees under this proposal. In May, 1979, building permits were issued to construct Building "D," an annex to Building "C," the total square footage of the addition was 22,670 sq. ft. On July 9, 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit, and on August 24, 1981, the City Council sustained the action of the Planning Commission to approve a Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 1994, for a proposed 110,000 sq. ft. office /laboratory addition to the Hughes Aircraft facility (Building "E "). The two -story building is located adjacent to Buildings "A" and "B." The request included the construction of a five -level parking structure with automobile parking on the roof that was to exceed the basic height limit within the 32/50 -Foot Height Limitation District, and the acceptance of an environmental document. A modification to the Zoning Code was also approved to permit a portion of the off - street parking spaces as compact spaces. The building height of the parking structure is 40 feet to the top of the parapet and 50 feet to the top of the elevator. The office/laboratory building is 32 feet to the top of the parapet its mechanical penthouse structure is 41 feet. Building records indicated that the total square footage of all buildings on site was 286,054 sq. ft., although the applicant represented a lower number of 228,000 sq. ft The traffic study and use permit analysis were based upon the applicant's five year forecast of staffing and space requirements, but the critical factor was the 110,000 sq. ft. limitation on the gross floor area and a 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on the day shift). The city issued building 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 4 permits for the addition for 109,893 sq. ft. and the applicant's agreement to provide staffing reports —... to the Planning Department twice yearly. The parking structure contained 918 parking spaces and remaining surface parking provided 438 parking spaces, for a total of 1,356 parking spaces on site. Required parking was based on an assumed office use associated with the research and development use of 55 %, and 45% for assembly and testing use. Parking was based on one parking space per 225 sq. ft. for administrative use, and three spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for manufacturing and assembly use. The total required parking was 1,163 spaces with 11% (132 spaces) compact spaces and 1,031 standard spaces. On September 9, 1982, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to Use Permit No. 1994 and a revised Traffic Study. Although the building permit was issued for 109,893 sq. ft. and approved for 110, 000 sq. ft., 112,916 sq. ft was actually constructed. The additional square footage was approved with the finding that the office floor area would not increase the previously approved traffic figures since the five -year staffing forecast (used for the traffic projection) would not be increased. The same off - street parking requirements were applied to the expanded project. A total of 1,160 parking spaces were required and a total of 1,356 parking spaces were provided. On October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3169 to permit the installation of a temporary modular building with 9,925 sq. ft. of net floor area to be used for interim office space in conjunction with the Hughes Aircraft facility. The proposal included a modification to the Zoning Code to allow a portion of the structure to encroach to within 4 feet of the front property line adjacent to Newport Boulevard, and the acceptance of an environmental document. The approval was granted for a period of three years. A total of 1,206 parking spaces were required and 1,338 parking spaces were provided on site. On October 20, 1988, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to Use Permit No. 3169 to permit the installation of a temporary modular building with 9,924 square feet of net floor area to be used for interim office space. The request was also to delete Condition of Approval No. 2 that limited the use of said modular building to 3 years and to allow the continued use of the temporary building for office purposes. The approval was granted for an additional three years and included a condition that the buildings were to be removed by November 11, 1991. The temporary buildings were subsequently removed on November 2, 1990. In 1997, Raytheon Company merged with Hughes, and subsequently acquired the site. Raytheon continued the established operations. The types of operations that occurred during Hughes' and Raytheon's ownership of the property include: 1. The manufacture of semiconductors and other solid state components in clean room environments. 2. Packaging of microelectronic devices. 3. Mounting of completed electron components on circuit boards or other assemblies. 4. Administrative offices and engineer's offices for research and development use. Raytheon has discontinued its operations within the last six months and has sold the property to the St. Clair Company. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 5 J Site Overview The project site includes 13.7 acres of improved land located at 500 Superior Avenue. The site is the location of the former Hughes Aircraft Company's Solid State Products Division and later, the Raytheon Company. The property consists of five buildings, A, B, C, D, and E, and a five -level parking structure covering approximately 3.6 acres of the 13.7 acre site. There are several small tank storage areas surrounding the building and a security office. Most of the site's remaining area is paved and devoted to employee parking with small landscaped islands scattered throughout. EXISTING SITE PLAN Proiect Description The project involves the remodel of an existing research and development site with the demolition of Buildings A, B, F, and G and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure. Existing Buildings C, D, and E will be remodeled; and two new three -story buildings will be constructed on the site, to replace Buildings A and B (see proposed site plan, page 8). The total gross square footage of all buildings currently on site is 416,499 sq. ft. The proposal is to demolish 208,926 square feet, remodel 214,210 sq. ft., and reconstruct 201, 283 sq, ft., for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. The proposal j 500 superior, U9 3679 January 4. 2001 Page 6 will result in a decrease of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. The use of the site will continue with the previous research and development/officeuse. The applicant has requested the approval of a use permit to allow the new buildings to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet within the 32/50 Basic Height Limitation District because the increased height is needed to accommodate a third story on each building, and to construct comparable building area as currently exists. The existing Building E and the existing parking structure to remain were previously approved by use permit to exceed the 32 -foot height limit up to 50 feet. The proposed new buildings will be consistent with the height of the existing buildings. PROPOSED SITE PLAN 9 The new project will provide additional setback area than currently exists on three sides of the property, and a new roadway circulation system around the site. Parking spaces will be added and additional landscaping within and along the perimeters of the site will be added. The location of the new structures will provide interior parking areas that are shielded from public view by the buildings and landscaping. The new and remodeled buildings will be constucted with painted concrete tilt -up panels, stone veneer and a light reflective tinted glass in a mullion system. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 7 Wit`. is i � auaurgr i'� eulnune y aweurewelwa � eioaweivan rve — -' F. _ � euuroa cao wr¢wonue. ;. i , o �__.— � A ,�L �! 1 -ft," uu �p Ili I R 1 _ Hill nilniui>�1uLU1L' Proposed Site Plan Exhibit a Newport Tachoology Center ` CON /alrvne The new project will provide additional setback area than currently exists on three sides of the property, and a new roadway circulation system around the site. Parking spaces will be added and additional landscaping within and along the perimeters of the site will be added. The location of the new structures will provide interior parking areas that are shielded from public view by the buildings and landscaping. The new and remodeled buildings will be constucted with painted concrete tilt -up panels, stone veneer and a light reflective tinted glass in a mullion system. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 7 Wit`. Proiect Characteristics Table Authorized underthe TPO and previoususe permits. For research and developmentuse the code requires 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 8 Required/Permitted Proposed : Site Area 10,000 sq. ft. 595,336 sq. ft. (13.69 acres) Floor Area 416,499 sq. ft.' 415,493 sq. ft BUILDING I -• 100,407 Setbacks: -- 111,980 Front(Superior) 15 ft 15 ft. Side (on Dana Rd.): 15 ft 101 ft Side (north): 10 ft. 44 ft. Rear: 15 ft 75 ft BUILDING F 2,449 DEMOLISHED Floor Area Ratio .75 (446,502 sq. ft.) .69 (F.A.R): 211 DEMOLISHED Building Height 32 ft. average roof height or flat roof Building 1 (new): 48 ft. 6 in. to top of roof 37 ft. maximum ridge height parapet With Use Permit: 50 ft. average roof height or flat roof Buildine2(extg.Building "E "): 32 ft. 5 in. to 55 ft. maximum ridge height top of roof parapet and 41 ft. 1 in. to top of penthouse parapet Building3 (new): 48 ft. 6 in. to top of roof parapet Buildin24 (extg. BuildingsC and D): 43 ft. to top of roof parapet Parking Structure(extg): 40 ft. to top of roof parapet and 50 ft. to the top of the elevator structure on top of the roof. Parking Spaces 8312 1,421 Authorized underthe TPO and previoususe permits. For research and developmentuse the code requires 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 8 EXISTING GROSS AREA PROPOSED GROSS AREA BUILDING A 93,105 DEMOLISHED BUILDING B 104,708 DEMOLISHED BUILDING I -• 100,407 BUILDING 3 -- 111,980 BUILDING C/D (4) 86,723 — BUILDING 4 (C/D) — 86,077 BUILDING E (2) 129,227 — BUILDING 2 (E) -- 117,029 BUILDING F 2,449 DEMOLISHED GUARD STATION 1 76 DEMOLISHED GUARD STATION 2 211 DEMOLISHED TOTAL 416,499 415,493 Authorized underthe TPO and previoususe permits. For research and developmentuse the code requires 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 8 Conformancewith the General Plan and Zonin j The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" uses. This land use category has been applied to areas which 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. The project is located in Statistical Area A3 (Hoag Hospital). Development in this area is limited to a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. The permitted floor area ratio for this use is 0.75 FAR. Increased or Maximum FAR is allowed by the General Plan for uses with low traffic generating characteristics, and Research and Development is in this category. The project as proposed is 0.69 FAR. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan policies and guidelines. The project is located in the M -1 -A Zoning District which provides for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. Newport Technology Center is proposing to continue with the previous research and development use, which the Zoning Code defines as "...areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses." The Code further defines the use classification "Industry, Research and Development" as "Establishmentsprimarily engaged in the research, development, and controlled production of high - technology electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale, but prohibits uses that may be objectionable in the opinion of the Planning Director, by reason of production of offensive odor, dust, noise, vibration or storage of hazardous materials. Uses include biotechnology, films, and non -toxic computer component manufacturers. " Construction of the proposed three -story buildings with a height of 50 feet will require the approval of a use permit to exceed the Basic Height Limit of 32 feet. In accordance with Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the height limit for the subject property is established by the 32/50 -Foot Height Limitation District. The Code provides that structures may exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to a maximum average height of 50 feet, subject to the approval of a use permit. This section also provides that in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit, the Planning Commission shall find that In accordance with Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the height limit for the subject property is established by the 32/50 -Foot Height Limitation District. The Code provides that in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit,. the Planning Commission shall find that each of the required four points have been complied with. ANALYSIS Building Height The applicant is requesting the approval of a use permit to allow the construction of two new buildings that will exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet. Two of the existing buildings, (Building E and the parking structure) were previously approved in 1981, to exceed the 32 -foot height limit by Use Permit No. 1994. The Building "E" (to be redesignated as Building 2) is 32 feet to the top r 500 Superior. Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 9 i) .J of the parapet above the roof its mechanical penthouse structure is 41 feet in height. The parking structure is 40 feet to the rooftop parking level and 50 feet to the top of the elevator /wall on top of the roof. The proposal is to construct the two new buildings (Buildings 1 and 3) from 48 to 50 feet to the top of the roof parapet. Staff has provided the following analysis related to the required findings to exceed the basic height limit. 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. The increased height of the buildings will result in smaller building footprints than the same area built to the basic height limit, thereby providing more open areas between buildings and a reduced site coverage. The open areas between buildings 1, 2, and 3 will be parking and landscape areas, and will provide additional open view corridors than currently is provided, when viewed from Dana Road. The buildings will be set back approximately 100 feet from Dana Road, which will also provide additional visual open space on the property. From Superior Avenue, a landscaped corridor through to the slope above Newport Boulevard will be more open than the mass of buildings currently in that location. Additionally, the buildings will be located further back on the lot from the top of the slope above Newport Boulevard. This will result in less visible building mass at the top of the slope as viewed from Newport Boulevard below the site. Additionally, landscaping will be added along the sides of the buildings along the Newport Boulevard slope to further soften the height of the buildings. The proposed project expands the pedestrian spaces by providing open areas between the buildings creating a campus -like setting. The project includes enhanced paving materials at the building entrance and throughout the open areas of the project. The parking areas are designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicleconflicts by providing two parking area entrances on the south side of the site. The project is designed to visually fit in with other commercial buildings in the area and the proposed building located close to Superior Avenue (Building 1) will continue with the same landscape treatments as the parking structure landscaping, and will not create gaps in the streetscape system. The 15 -foot setback on Superior Avenue has an existing berm with mature pine trees, which will be enhanced with shrubs, additional trees, and increased ground cover. The landscaping will result in a more visually appealing site with the existing mature trees and proposed new trees used to soften and partially screen the building along Superior Avenue. Vine plantings are proposed to be planted around the parking structure to further soften the look of the structure from the public streets. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in anyzone. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 10 The increase in the height of the buildings is necessary in order to construct separate buildings. By constructing separate buildings, instead of one large building, the buildings provide greater architectural articulation. The new location of Building 1 provides a more interesting project as viewed from the public streets, rather than viewing an open parking lot. Additionally, the increased building height results in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the building is in scale and balance with massing and height of the remaining other structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. The building articulation of the new buildings draws attention away from the existing parking structure to create a more aesthetically pleasing project. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The site is surrounded by a mixture of uses (the City's Corporate Yard, multi - family residential, a mobile home park, light industrial, and two and three -story medical offices). The proposed three -story buildings (Buildings 1 and 3) are taller than the residential neighborhood to the south, as are the existing buildings on the site. The proposed project maintains the existing open parking along Dana Road, adds new open parking between the new buildings, and enhanced landscaping along Dana Road. These features make the difference in scale at Dana Road less abrupt. The proposed project maintains the existing ` scale with the commercial buildings across Superior Avenue and the general area, and the existing parking structure and existing remaining buildings. Because these existing buildings are of similar size and proportion, abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. The proposed design of the buildings includes both vertical and horizontal articulation, which break up building mass. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Finally, the increased building height, if approved, will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the use permit. In conclusion, staff believes that the request for the additional height is necessary to obtain a more aesthetically pleasing project with enhanced perimeter and internal landscaping, and the benefits of the project offset the additional building height. However, if the proposed project were not approved, the buildings could be redesigned with two stories, although the building mass articulation and architectural style of the buildings would change, or the overall building footprint would potentially increase and many of the benefits of the open areas between the buildings would be lost. The applicant has also submitted a statement related to these four findings, which is attached ( #5). 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 11 .i Traffic Circulation The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires special analysis and mitigation of traffic impacts if project - generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing traffic, projected regional traffic growth, and traffic generated by "committed" projects (i.e. approved projects requiring no further discretionary review) on any approach to any of the study intersections during the morning and/or evening peak hours. The City's traffic standard is for intersections to operate at no greaterthan 90 percent of intersection capacity, or level of service "D." For those intersections already above the 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value, an increase of 0.01 in the cumulative ICU necessitates traffic mitigation. In 1981, the TPO traffic analysis determined that, after project completion, traffic generated by the project would contribute to the short-range cumulative degradation of the West Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue intersection during the a.m. peak hour, and mitigation was required of Hughes Aircraft. In 1981, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kununan Associates for an expansion of the Hughes facility, per the requirements of the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates was for a proposed 110,000 square foot expansion (Building E) and the parking structure. The study indicated that there were 1,285 employees currently at the site and analyzed the addition of approximately 680 employees that would work in Building E (the 110,000 sq. ft. addition). The Traffic Impact analysis was based on three employee shifts and a projected five -year forecast of staffing and space requirements. The project information critical to the City was the 110,000 square foot limitation on gross floor area and a 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on the first shift). The City issued building permits for the addition on the basis of a reduced gross floor area of 109,893 square feet, and the applicants' agreement to provide staffing reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. The use permit was subsequently amended in 1983 to increase the square footage for the addition to 112,916 square feet and a revised Traffic Study for the Hughes expansion project was approved because staffing forecast remained unchanged despite the revisions to the final square footages of the project. The applicant and the City entered into an agreement to fund improvements to the one impacted intersection identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which was jointly funded with two other projects. A cap on the total number of employees and building square footage was determined by the study and Hughes "fair share" costs were paid to the City. At the request of staff, a Traffic Analysis was conducted in December, 2000, as part of the environmental review for the proposed remodel of the site. The purpose of the study was to quantify any new impacts on the circulation system assuming the same land use. The applicant provided a supplemental traffic analysis conducted by Pirzadeh Associates, dated December 8, 2000 that is attached to this report. The analysis shows that, using the trip rates shown for Research and Development Centers (760), the proposed project is expected to generate 3,370 daily trips. (The City of Newport Beach uses the Trip Generation, 6°i Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Pagc 12 (ITE) to determine the appropriate trip generation rate for projects within the City.) The average daily trips for the previous Hughes and Raytheon uses were 5,214 trips. The Hughes Aircraft Company operated three shifts daily with a large percentage of the work force arriving and departing between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., which proportionately decreased the amount of project traffic during the PM peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Because the 1981 Traffic Study and 1983 Revised Traffic Study did not analyze the AM peak hour or provide an AM peak hour trip generation rate, the 286 PM peak hour trips that were identified in the study were assumed in the new study to be generated during the AM peak hour. The assumption is based on the staggered work hours created by the shift work during the morning and evening, which causes the peak hour of the site to occur outside the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Based on the comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the Hughes Aircraft Company facility and the trips that are expected to be generated by the Newport Technology Center, the Traffic Analysis concluded that the proposed use will generate 229 more AM peak hour trips, 163 more PM peak hour trips and 1,844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. To assess the potential impact from the additional peak hour trips being generated, two intersections were identified by staff to be analyzed: West Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. /Superior Ave., and Newport Blvd./Hospital Road. The analysis was performed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The completion date for the proposed project is expected to be in 2002 and the traffic volumes were projected to the year 2002. The regional traffic projections are consistent with the City's methodology and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for the Newport Blvd./Hospital Drive intersection shows that the intersection, including the project's traffic, is projected to operate at 0.61 and 0.71 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This is well below the TPO limit of 0.90 and no mitigation is required. The West Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue intersection is projected to have ICU values of 0.92 and 1.02 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. When the project's peak hour traffic volumes are added to the ICU value, the ICUs remain at 0.92 and 1.02. Therefore, there is no project impact to the West Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue intersection identified when analyzed in accordance with the City's performance criteria for determining project impact. As a response to comments on the Negative Declaration received from the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Department, and the close proximity of the site to the City of Costa Mesa boundary, staff directed the consultant to further study the impact the project could have on the three additional intersections located within the City of Costa Mesa: ' Superiorand 17" Street 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 13 • Newport Boulevard and 17' Street • Newport Boulevard and 19" Street The City of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the conditions without project ICU, or the baseline condition. The net new project volumes were derived from the percent of project traffic distributed onto the roadway network. The peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the project were distributed on the roadway network to determine the additive project traffic at the study intersections. A copy of the study, as performed by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc, dated December 18, 2000, is attached for reference. The study concluded that all of the study intersections, with the exception of Newport Boulevard and 19' Street, would continue operating at Level of Service A, B, or C. Newport Boulevard and 19" Street will operate at LOS E during both the AM peak hour (ICU = 1.00) and PM peak hour (ICU 0.95). The PM peak hour ICU value of 0.95 represents an increase of 0.01 from the baseline ICU of 0.94. The significance of this ICU increase on an intersection outside the City of Newport Beach was assessed on the regional impact criteria established by OCTA. OCTA has established the regional significance criteria, used to assess out -of- jurisdiction impacts, at 3% of total capacity. The 0.01 ICU increase equates to a 1 % increase. Therefore, this change is not significant. On -Site Parkin In accordance with Section 20.66.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, off - street parking in the M -1 -A District for research and development use is based on one parking space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed project will require 831 parking spaces (415,493 sq. ft. /500 sq. ft. = 830.99 or 831 spaces), and is providing 1,421 parking spaces. In 1985, when the use permit for temporary modular buildings was approved, the Code required parking was based on one space per 225 sq. ft. of net floor area for administrative offices and three parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for manufacture, research and assembly use. At that time, 1,206 parking spaces were required, although 1,338 parking spaces were provided. In reviewing the history of the site, staff discovered that in 1981, when Use Permit No. 1994 was approved, Hughes Aircraft facility requested a modification to the Zoning Code for the use of compact parking spaces. The Planning Commission approved 347 compact parking spaces of the 1,163 requiredparking spaces. In March, 1997, the City adopted Chapter 20.66 for new off - street parking regulations. The requirement for research and development and industrial use was changed to one space per 500 sq. ft., which actually resulted in a decrease in the number of parking spaces required for the site (from 1,206 spaces to 831 spaces). Under current Code requirement, the proposed project will have 590 surplus parking spaces. Staff would like to point out that it is possible that some of the surplus parking spaces are compact and the City Traffic Engineer has indicated that a thorough review of the proposed parking plan, both surface parking and the parking structure, will be required. A new striping plan would most likely result in a reduction in the amount of surplus parking spaces. 500 Superior, Up 3679 Jawary 4, 2001 Page 14 The 1983 Traffic Study by Kunzman Associates indicated that the Hughes Facility operated with approximately 1,179 employees on the daytime shift with 1,338 parking spaces. Staff believes that since the use is not changing and the proposed project has approximately the same building area as the previous Hughes facility, the approximate 1,421 parking spaces are adequate to serve the proposed project. Negative Declaration An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for public review in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. In considering the proposed project and the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, thirty -one mitigation measures were identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached for the Commission's consideration. This project application was deemed complete on September 6, 2000 and the Permit Streamlining Act and California Environmental Quality Act require a decision on the negative declaration within 180 days from the date the project was deemed complete which is March 4, 2001. The review period was from November 3, 2000 to December4, 2000. Copies of the DMND were distributed to the following agencies and departments: California Coastal Commission l California Highway Patrol J Caltrans, District 21 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Toxic Substances Control Integrated Waste ManagementBoard Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9 Resources Agency State Lands Commission Staff believes that, with the mitigation measures included in the approval of the project, the Negative Declaration adequately addresses potential environmental impacts. Additionally, because the site is devoid of significant resources and can be developed as proposed, without adversely affecting sensitive resources, the proposed remodel of the research and development facility will not result in significant impacts on the environment. No significant cultural, scientific, or biological resources will be adversely affected if the project is approved. Staff has identified an area of concern regarding site lighting. Because the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road is primarily parking area only, there is the potential for the l proposed lighting in that area to have an adverse impact, such as glare and light spillage, onto the 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 15 I <, residential neighbors across Dana Road. Staff has included additional language in Mitigation Measure No. 1 to address this concern. The additional language is in bold type. "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot located on the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road and the residential areas." It should also be noted that the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration contains mitigation measures that will be required to be satisfied "prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit" as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program in order to ensure timely implementation and conformity with mitigation measures. Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments and Responses The 45 -day public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ended on December 4, 2000. Five letters were received from public agencies and citizens regarding the Draft MND at the end of the public review period. The agencies that commented on the Draft MND include: A. California Department of Transportation B. City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) C. California Department of Toxic Substances Control D. Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) E. Owen Minney, Business Owner, Westport Marine, Inc., Newport Beach Responses to each of the comments in those letters have been prepared and are included with the attached Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in the attached Exhibit MND -1 accompanying this report. A subcommittee of the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed the DMND. The subcommittee report was accepted by EQAC on November 20, 2000. EQAC's comments and the responses to those comments by BonTerra Consulting, the City's environmental consultant on the project, are contained in Attachment 1. The comments 500 Superior, Up 3679 3wuary 4, 2001 Page 16 received by EQAC are the most extensive and detailed of all the agencies commenting on the DMND. Therefore, these comments and responses have been placed in tabular form, with the �) comment on the left and the response on the right, as shown on Attachment 1. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that, in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff believes that the findings for approval of this use permit can be made since the increased height of the buildings will allow for smaller building footprints in order to provide additional open view corridors between each building. The open corridors will be parking areas and landscape areas, which, when viewed from Dana Road, appear more open than with the current design. From Superior Avenue, an open landscaped corridor through to the slope above Newport Boulevard will be visibly more appealing. Additionally, the increased building height results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the buildings and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the buildings are in scale and balance with massing and height of the remaining structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. The proposed buildings are taller than the residential neighborhood to the south, as are the existing buildings on the site, although the proposed project maintains the existing open parking along Dana Road, adds new open parking between the new buildings, and enhanced landscaping along Dana Road. These features make the difference in scale at Dana Road less abrupt. Because the buildings are in scale with the existing remaining buildings on the site and the commercial buildings across Superior Avenue and the general area, abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. Finally, the increased building height, if approved, will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the use permit. However, if the use permit were not approved, a redesign of the buildings would be necessary and many benefits of the project would be lost, such as open view corridors and additional landscaping areas. Issues related to parking and vehicular circulation have been reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and a supplemental traffic analysis has been conducted and finds that the proposed project will not adversely impact vehicular circulation in the area and that adequate parking is provided for the project. The Traffic Engineer looked at the project's potential traffic impacts consistent with the methodology of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and has determined that there will be a reduction in daily trips from the previous use of the facility. Therefore, a Traffic Study pursuant to the TPO is not required because the proposed project does not result in an increase of greater than 300 trips to the site. Additionally, although the project will result in an increase in AM and PM peak hour trips, no significant effects will result based on local (TPO) and regional (OCTA) significance criteria. } 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 17 �vi Additionally, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for public comment in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public comment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Thirty-one mitigation measures are identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. If approval of the Use Permit is granted, staff recommends that the Commission make the necessary findings related to the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the attached Negative Declaration. Suggested findings are attached as Exhibit No. "A" for this course of action. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3679, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should information be presented at the public hearing, or if it is the desire of the Commission to deny or request modifications of this application, the Planning Commission may wish to take such action and direct staff accordingly. Although staff s analysis and conclusion supports approval, testimony received and Commission discussion could raise issues not analyzed by staff. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny Use Permit No. 3679, suggested findings for denial are set forth in the attached Exhibit `B ". Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE EUGENIA GARCIA, AICP Planning Director Associate Planner r _ c Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" 2. Exhibit `B" 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program 5. Applicant's Statement of Support 6. Responses to Comments/Letters 7. Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Traffic Study, Kunzman Associates, dated, May, 1981. 9. Traffic Study, Kunzman Associates, dated, September, 1983. 10. Traffic Analysis, Pirzadeh Associates, dated December 8, 2000. 11. Chapter 20.20, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Industrial Districts. 500 Superior. Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 18 .s " 12. City of Newport Beach Zoning Map. 13. Project Characteristics Chart. I .i 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 19 I EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3679 Mitigated Negative Declaration A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findings: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot located on the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road and the residential areas. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 20 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will i be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. 3. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. 4. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a) Use of low - emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e) Use of low- sulfurfuel for stationary construction equipment f) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from construction activities. 6. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur, fuel for stationary construction equipment Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 8. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy- efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements 9. The project shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's TransportationDemand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). 10. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 11. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be 1 the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 21 Y' 12. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive provisions of AB952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 13. All earthwork shall comply with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Building Department, and may include the following: • Soil engineering report • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans • Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and irrigation plans 14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services, Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan. 15. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, owner of the property shall provide a "closure letter" from the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for completion of soil remediation activities, to the City of Newport Beach. 16. Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediation if it is determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that no adverse effect would occur to occupants. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a closure letter regarding the groundwater remediation, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach. 18. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Bach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan and 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 22 (, I its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. 20. A stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. The S WPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a S WPPP shall be provided to The City of Newport Beach for approval. 22. The applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (S WRCB) general permit for storm water discharges.associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. # 23. The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the l Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. >I 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 25. All construction equipment fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. 26. Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent facilities at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. 27. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 23 28. All equipment installed for all uses on site shall be screened from view and noise associated with the use of the equipment shall be attenuated as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be based on the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 29. The applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 30. The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. 31. The proposed use of the site shall remain a research and development use with ancillary commercial and office use, as defined by Section 10.05 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Use Permit No. 3679: Findines: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" commercial use, and a research and development facility is permitted within this designation. 2. The proposed height of the two new research and development buildings is appropriate in this case, and meets the intent of Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: • The increased building height results in a reduction in site coverage and more public visual open space between buildings. • Increased ground cover and landscaping throughout the site will soften and partially screen the buildings along Superior Avenue. • By constructing separate buildings, instead of one large building, as currently exists on the site, the buildings provide greater architectural articulation. • The new location of Building 1 provides a more interesting project as viewed from the public streets, rather than viewing an open parking lot. • The increased building height results in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the building is in scale and balance with massing and height of the existing structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. • The glass mullion system design breaks up the fagade of the buildings to create buildings that appear less bulky. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Pagc 24 Li • The new buildings are in scale with the commercial buildings in the vicinity and are in scale with the existing parking structure. • Because the new buildings are of similar size and proportion, abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. • The proposed design of the buildings includes both vertical and horizontal articulation, which breaks up the building mass. • The increased building height will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit and redesigning the buildings to the basic height limit would result in changes to the building mass articulation and architectural style of the buildings that would be more bulky, or the overall building footprint would potentially increase and many of the benefits of the open areas between buildings would be lost. • The proposed project represents an aesthetic improvement on the site. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3679 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further, the use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Therefore, the increase in height for the proposed projectwill not be detrimentalto surrounding properties forthe following reasons: • The construction of the two new buildings is a reuse of existing square footage that is being demolished on the site. } 0 There is no increase in square footage, rather a slight reduction in the overall square footage of the site. • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code with the exception of height. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed uses. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation on the site is being provided with the proposed project. • No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. Conditions of Approval: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance, with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. A minimum of 1,421 parking spaces shall be provided on site. The Planning Director may authorize a reduced amount based on the City Traffic Engineer's review of the on -site parking striping plan. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 25 r'1 �j A detailed parking plan shall be submitted for approval by the Traffic Engineer. The plan shall show all surface and parking structure spaces. The plan will reduce the number of compact parking spaces to the extent feasible. Disabled parking spaces shall conform to current standards. 4. Construction workers shall park their vehicles and all equipment on site at all times. 5. All employees of the facility shall park on site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 8. Plans for the existing buildings and proposed buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to ensure adequate fire prevention and fire suppression systems are provided. 9. All deliveries and storage shall be restricted to the site and shall not utilize any public rights -of- way. 10. Intersections of the private drives and Superior Avenue shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls, and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 11. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 12. The drive approaches along Superior Avenue shall be reconstructedto meet handicap standards and any displaced or deteriorated sections of curb, gutter or sidewalk along the Superior Avenue and Dana Road frontages shall be replaced, all under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 13. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 14. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct site hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments for approval. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 26 r', Ii 15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical/hydrologic study (including groundwater data) to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments. The study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program subdrain system if deemed necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. 16. On -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmittedto the Newport Bay 17. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy of the buildings, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 18. The landscape plan shall be subject to the approval of the General Services Department, the Planning Department, and the Public Works Department. The plans shall include a berm along the Superior Avenue street frontage; the utilization of existing trees on both the Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages, with any replacement trees to be a minimum of 24 inch boxed trees; ground cover and shrubs shall be planted along Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages to fill in the areas between the existing and proposed trees. 19. The landscaping shall be regularly maintained and shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 20. The landscape plan shall include the slope along Newport Boulevard, which shall be modified to include drought— resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 21. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. Standard Requirements 22. The project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 23. All mechanical equipment, including roof -top mechanical equipment, shall be screened from ' view in a manner compatible with the building materials and noise associated with the 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4. 2001 Page 27 equipment shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance. 24. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 25. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 26. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 27. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 28. Each building shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewersystems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 29. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department for the removal of all construction materials, excavated dirt and debris from the site. 30. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 31. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 32. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and related structures shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 33. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 500 Superior. Up 3679 January 4. 2001 Page 28 34. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 29 EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 3679 Findings: 1. The approval of Use Permit No. 3679 will, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • Adequate parking is not provided on -site for the proposed use. • The research and development facility will generate noise and traffic that will adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. • The project could be constructed utilizing the Code required height limit. • The increased height is not necessary in order to accommodate the construction of a comparable size project. 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Pagc 30 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form C. To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth Street Street, Room 121 P.O. BOX 3044 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 -3044 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Tel. No.: 916/445 -0613) (Orange County) Contact Person: Eugenia Garcia, AICP, Associate Planner SCH # Ph.# (949) 644 -3208 Project Location: 500 Superior Avenue Cross Street: Superior Avenue/ Newport Blvd. /Hospital Road Total Acres: 13.69 A.P.No. 425 181 01 _Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy �. Pacific Coast Highwav Waterways: Pacific Ocean Airports: Railways: Schools: _ Present Land Use /Zoning /General Plan Use: MIA (Manufacturing, Industrial) /General Industry Project Description: The proiect involves the approval of a use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existin¢ 416.499 square foot research and development site The proiect involves the demolition of 208.926 square feet of existin¢ development and the construction of 707'970 square feet for a total of 415.493 square feet. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER ❑ NOP ❑ Supplement/Subsequent ❑ NOT O Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ EIR (Prior SCE No.) ❑ EA O Final Document 0 Neg Dec O Draft EIS O Other Loc2I Action Type ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ .- Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Sub- ❑ Other division Parcel Map, Tract map, etc.) Development I ype ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: Sq.ft. 415.493 Acres 13.69 Employees_ ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sq.R Acres_ Employees_ ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres _ Employees_ ❑ Power: Typc Want ❑ Educational: ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type Project Issues Discussed in Document 0 Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities 0 Water Quality ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Forest Land/Fire hazard ❑ Septic Systems 0 Water Supply /Groundwater 0 Air Quality 0 Geolozic/Scismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian 0 ArcheoloeicMisioric ❑ Minerals ❑ wildlife ❑ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Gradin ❑ Coastal Zone 0 Noise ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing 0 Drainage /A bsoption ❑ Population[Housing/Balance 0 ToxicfHazardous 0 Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding Land Use ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Service/FaciIities 0 Traffic /Circulation ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Vegetation ❑ Other C C. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: ❑Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento. CA 95814 -3044 F1 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.Q. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period. November 3, 2000 to December 4, 2000 Name of Project: Newport TecknoloU Center Project Location: 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, California Project Description: The project involves the approval ofa use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves the demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 square feet.. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the Califomis Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and detemtined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. �f A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further info mation, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3200. 4uge.,afci, 1 ! � Date November 2. 2000 , AICP , late planner and NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the applicationof The St. Clair Company, property owner, for Use Permit No. 3679 and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration on property located at 500 Superior Avenue. The project is a request for the approval of a Use Permit from the City of Newport Beach to exceed the basic height limit of buildings, of 32 feet up to 50 feet, in conjunction with the remodel of an existinz 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves the demoliton of 208.926 square feet of existing development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 square feet. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 -day public review period is November 3, 2000 to December 4, 2000, The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659 -1768 (949) 644 -3200. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 7th day of December, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Steven Kiser, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Newport Technology Center 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Eugenia Garcia, Planning Department (949) 644 -3208 4. Project Location: 500 Superior Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: St. Clair Company 4001 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: Industrial 7. Zoning: M-1 -A 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) PROJECT LOCATION The Newport Technology Center project is located in the County of Orange, within the City of Newport Beach. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the project's regional location and local vicinity, respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project site consists of a 13.69 -acre property bounded by the City of Newport Beach Corporation Center to the north, Dana Road to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and Superior Avenue to the west. The site currently contains five connected buildings and a detached five -story parking structure occupying 416,499 square feet, and landscaped employee parking. Exhibit 3 (Existing Conditions) shows the current building configuration. The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon has discontinued its operations at the site and the existing facility is vacant. Remediation of contamination associated with these operations is on going and is covered in more detail in Section VII of the Initial Study checklist (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Raytheon is responsible for decontamination and removal of equipment and contaminated soils prior to releasing the property to the buyer for demolition and redevelopment. CHECKLIST Page I Regional Location Mar Newport Technology Center Not To Scale Exhibit 1 J�CAO�elf CONSULTING . .. . , �Ilv-r ........ LL ............. co. ..... . ......... CT, \I v 0 L co 0 z 25 jT co D 00 CO 47� =C01 211 Lj LU .............. co Ir Pit 41, R CJ EL obi 0 .. ...... IIj ..... .... ... ... ..... .... ........ ...... IA♦ WGIM31,111, TTT....... Lu Zo PROJECT OBJECTIVE The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of the Raytheon Microelectronics Facility as a research and development office complex. The main goals of the project are: the demolition of existing buildings A, B. F, and G (Exhibit 3), and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure; the reuse and renovation of existing buildings C,D, and E; and the construction of two additional three -story buildings. The total square footage of development would be reduced by approximately 1,007 square feet with project implementation. The proposed three -story structures, buildings 1 and 3, would be approximately 98,210 and 109,710 square feet in size, respectively. Additional project features include the reconfiguration of existing parking, provision of an additional 127 parking spaces and 9 motorcycle spaces, provision of an employee -use linear park and basketball court, and landscaping improvements. A Use Permit is requested to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel and addition to the previous research and development site. The proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 4. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Raytheon Microelectronics Facility: 5 connected buildings and a detached five -story parking structure occupying 416,499 square feet of a 13.69 -acre site. To the north: City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard To the east: Sunbrid e Care and Rehabilitation Center To the south: Apartments and Flagship Medical Care Center To the west: Harbor Homes Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Implementation of the proposed project does not require land use or CEQA approvals from any other agencies. CHECKLIST Pale 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,'and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will.be prepared. El I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ CHECKLIST Page 3 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ % C � S C4(_ Submitted by: Eugenia Garcia, AICP Signature Date Associate Planner Planning Department Prepared by: Thomas E. Smith, Jr. AICP Principal BonTerra Consulting Signature Date F:\USERSIPLMSHARED\1 FORMSWEG- DEC100CKLIST.00C CHECKLIST Page 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant Impact AESTHETICS. Would the project: Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The proposed project is not located in a scenic vista or along a scenic highway; therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ EI ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project involves the demolition and reuse of the site for a technology center including the construction of two new buildings. Currently, the existing structures range in height from 26 to 46 feet. The proposed structures would be 50 feet in height. The increase in building height would not impact views from surrounding buildings. The reconfiguration of the buildings and design features such as landscaping would result in an improved visual appearance for the project site compared to the existing conditions. See Exhibits 5 and 6 for existing conditions and project simulation respectively. The proposed project would construct additional window area thereby resulting in a potential increase in daytime glare. However, this increase would not constitute a significant impact to adjacent land uses because of building orientation and landscaping trees. Existing exterior nighttime lighting will be reconfigured to meet the City's required foot - candle radius for emergency and security purposes while avoiding potential negative glare impacts on surrounding properties. Less than significant impacts are anticipated and the following conditions of approval would be implemented: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. U. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CHECKLIST Page 5 �1 .1 .:, i� -•.: •��.:. r, dry. .;.. r��: k i Aii NOW MOW 'lIF.. Ii• .. 1. %1' � .a \.:::�J�.�...r0 .1 .:, i� -•.: •��.:. r, dry. .;.. r��: . .' . _. ::j.. _�f, ^: .•.tee? MIA •iAl: 4. l 1 .:I.: •21.y3C �ai Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? 0 0 0 0 The proposed project consists of the reuse of an existing technology center. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be impacted as a result of project implementation. The project site is zoned for industrial use, and is not covered under a Williamson Act contract. No impacts are anticipated. lit. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 o Q 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 o Q o The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides California into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The City of Newport Beach is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB); a 6,600 square male area comprised of Orange County and the non - desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The Basin's climate and topography are highly conducive to the formation and transport of air pollution. Peak ozone concentrations in the last two decades have occurred at the base of the mountains around Azusa and Glendora in Los Angeles County and at Crestline in the mountain area above the City of San Bernardino. Both peak ozone concentrations and the number of exceedances have decreased everywhere in the SCAB throughout the 1990's. Carbon monoxide concentrations have also dropped significantly throughout the air basin as a result of strict new emission controls and reformulated gasoline sold in winter months. A project's air quality impacts can be separated into two categories: short -term impacts from construction and long -term permanent impacts after completion of project construction. Both types of impacts may occur on a local or regional scale. To determine whether emissions resulting from construction or operation of a project are significant, the South Coast Air Quality Management District recommends significance thresholds in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, as revised in November 1999. The SCAQMD's emission thresholds apply to all federally regulated air pollutants except lead; thresholds for lead have not been exceeded in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Construction and operational emissions are considered by the SCAQMD to be significant if they exceed the thresholds shown in the Table 1. In addition, the SCAQMD considers any increase in carbon monoxide concentrations in an area that already exceeds national or state CO standards to be significant if it exceeds one part per million (ppm) for a one -hour average or 0.45 ppm for an eight -hour average. TABLE 1 EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Constructi operations Pollutant Pounds/day Tonon s( uarter Poundslda Carbon Monoxide CO 550 24.75 550 Sulfur Oxides (SOJ 150 6.75 150 Nitrogen Oxides NO 100 2.5 55 Particulate Matter PM 150 6.75 150 Reactive Organic Compounds 75 2.5 55 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 CHECKLIST Page 6 �� 6 'A"f Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated The project involves reuse of existing buildings, and the demolition and construction of two office buildings. The total square footage of office uses onsite under the proposed project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses. The project would therefore not add new long -term regional or local operational emissions. The only air quality impacts to be evaluated are those from demolition and construction. Construction impacts may result from: airborne dust stirred up during grading, excavation, demolition and dirt hauling; gaseous emissions from heavy equipment, trucks, and employee vehicles; and application of paints and coatings. These emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the construction phase and weather conditions. Construction of the project is estimated to take approximately 10 months, divided between demolition, grading /excavation and building construction /rehabilitation. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook estimates that each acre of disturbed soil creates 26.4 pounds /day of PM,,. Although the project site is approximately 13.69 -acres in size, less than 8 acres will be graded /excavated with project implementation. Since the PM,o threshold is 150 pounds per day, impacts resulting from grading activities would be approximately 109.52 pounds per day, a less than significant impact. All other impacts relating to demolition /construction equipment operation emissions and employee vehicle emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level by the following City of Newport standard conditions of approval: 1. All grading activities shaft comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. 2. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a) Use of low- emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e) Use of low- sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment f) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 3. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from construction activities. 4. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 431.2 which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. 5. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 6. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements. 7. The project shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ Cl Cl Q CHECKLIST Page 7 1^)z otentially Potentially Less than No gnificant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Daily operation of the proposed project would not produce emissions that exceed applicable thresholds. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project is adjacent to the Flagship Medical Care Center, a convalescent home, located approximately 100 feet southwest of the southern corner of the existing buildings A & B in the southern portion of the project site. This sensitive receptor could be exposed to some increased pollutant concentrations compared to existing conditions during demolition of buildings A & B and to a lesser extent during construction of buildings 1 and 3. However, implementation of the standard conditions listed in response 3B would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. No significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation is required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 The proposed project would not involve any uses that would create objectionable odors associated with daily operations. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 CHECKLIST Page 8 gnificant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated The proposed project site is developed with office and industrial buildings. No native vegetation or habitat occurs onsite. Existing vegetation consists of native and non - native ornamental species planted as landscaping. Species consist of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), pine (Pious sp.), bottlebrush (Ca /istemon sp.), Ficus ( Ficus sp.), Locust bean (Robinia sp.), and Palm (Phoenix sp.). The site has been maintained and manicured and offers little habitat value to native wildlife species. In addition, the site vicinity is highly urbanized and does not contain viable contiguous habitat for any endangered, threatened, or rare plants, or wildlife. The only native wildlife species observed during site visits included northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American crow (Corvus brachyrynchus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), yellow - rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), white- crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). No locally designated species, natural communities, or wetland habitats occur onsite. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ D b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ d d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No historical, archaeological, paleontological or geologic features are known or expected to occur onsite. The project site was first developed as an industrial /manufacturing complex in the early 1950's. The proposed project would not require extensive grading or excavation and, therefore, is not expected to result in the disturbance of unknown historic/prehistoric; archaeological, and /or paleontological resources. No impacts are anticipated. However, in accordance with City of Newport Beach standard conditions of approval, the following measures shall be implemented: 1. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 2. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. 3. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive provisions of AB952 related to the Cily of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. CHECKLIST Page 9 y """"'� CI Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Vt. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ Cl Z Cl iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Cl ❑ Z ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ Z Cl b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ The project site is located in Southern California, a seismically active region which is exposed to an ongoing threat of strong seismic ground shaking from major earthquakes. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting a site are dependent on the distance to active faults or seismic sources. The immediate site vicinity contains several inactive or bedrock faults. Known potentially active faults within three miles of the project area which are capable of inducing seismic hazards include the Pelican Hill fault and the Shady Canyon fault. The closest known active faults are the Newport- Inglewood Offshore fault (5 miles northwest), Palos Verdes - Coronado Bank fault (15 miles southwest), and the Whittier -North Elsinore fault (18 miles northeast). Due to the distance between the proposed project site and these active faults, the potential for the occurrence of onsite fault rupture is less than significant. The proposed project is not listed in Division of Mines and Geology Seismic Hazard Zone Maps (Newport Quadrangle) as an area where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. Additionally, the proposed project would not require extensive grading and would therefore not expose soil to the threat of substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. No significant geology and soils impacts are anticipated. However, the project shall comply with the following City of Newport standard conditions of approval: 1. All earthwork shall comply with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Building Department, and may include the following: • Soil engineering report • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans CHECKLfST Page 10 C, < Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and irrigation plans 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services, Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The proposed project would not involve the storage, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or substances, or emit hazardous wastes. No impacts are anticipated. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ The proposed project site has been used by the Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon Companies in the manufacture of semiconductors and other solid state components, packaging of microelectronic devices, and mounting of completed electronic components on circuit boards or other assemblies. Hazardous materials were used in these operations. In April 1999, Phase I and II Environmental Assessments of the property were conducted by Environ International Corporation ( Environ). Environ identified twenty one areas of potential environmental concern, two of which were former underground waste solvent tanks known to have impacted soils onsite. The remaining areas consisted of former and existing below grade process waste drain lines, wastewater neutralization or acid pits /tanks, a plating shop, and a spill containment tank. Soils in these areas were tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The compound detected most frequently in soil gas was trichloroethene (TCE). CHECKLIST Page 11 C' � Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Raytheon is responsible for decontamination and removal of equipment and contaminated soils prior to releasing the property to the buyer for demolition and redevelopment. Three underground storage tanks (USTs); a solvent tank, a diesel tank, and a gasoline tank; their associated piping, and any related contamination must be removed. In addition to removing the USTs, Raytheon will: • Decontaminate and remove all manufacturing and process equipment; • Remove all hazardous materials stored onsite (fuels, chemicals, compressed gases); • Decontaminate and remove all hazardous materials storage containers; and • Decontaminate and remove gas and drain lines that formerly contained hazardous materials. Risk based screening criteria developed for the site show that measured soil contaminant concentrations pose no health risk to future users of the property (i.e., occupants and construction workers who prepare the site). Nevertheless, Raytheon implemented soil remediation as a conservative measure. The RAP selected, and the RWQCB approved, soil vapor extraction (SVE) as the preferred technology for remediating site soils. SVE utilizes thermal destruction, catalytic oxidation, or carbon absorption to destroy or reduce VOCs to acceptable levels before discharging treated vapors to ambient air. The progress of the soil remediation program will be documented through routine monitoring of soil conditions and SVE system monitoring equipment. Raytheon also has a contingency plan to prevent delay of development of the site in which impacted areas which have not been remediated will be excavated, and the impacted soil treated or disposed of off -site. Groundwater samples collected since 1982 have indicated that groundwater beneath the site has been impacted by VOCs including TCE, dicloroethene (PCE), vinyl chloride (DCE), and acetone. Although groundwater beneath the site is brackish and would otherwise not be suitable for domestic use, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has indicated that groundwater remediation would be required based on the Inland Surface Waters Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Policy due to the project site's proximity to Newport Bay, approximately 2,500 feet to the south, and the general direction of groundwater flow to the south. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP), prepared by Dudek and Associates, detailing Raytheon's approach for dealing with impacted groundwater and soil at the site was prepared and submitted to the RWQCB in December 1997, and approved in early 1999. The RAP found that groundwater data compiled since 1982 show a decreasing trend in the concentrations of TCE, PCE, and acetone. The sources of these contaminants were removed in 1983, and since that time, concentrations of these compounds have decreased by over 90 percent. Analytical groundwater data indicate that the cause of this decrease is due to the natural anaerobic biological degradation of these compounds by indigenous microbial anaerobes. These anaerobes are responsible for degrading PCE and TCE and are using acetone as a "food" source during the biodegradation process (Dudek 1998). Acetone concentration in the groundwater will be regulated and augmented in certain wells as needed because degradation appears to correspond with its presence in the groundwater. The biodegradation process will be monitored on a routine basis to determine the progress of the remediation. Raytheon is responsible for the enhanced in -situ bioremediation and routine monitoring of groundwater beneath the project site. For this reason the project applicant would provide Raytheon with access to the property for continued groundwater sampling and monitoring well inspection. With the exception of groundwater contamination, the proposed project site would be fully remediated by the previous occupant, Raytheon Company, prior to occupation by the applicant. Because the groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, contamination would have no impact on future users of the property, and remediation will continue regardless of site occupancy. However, the project shall comply with the following City of Newport Beach standard conditions of approval: 1) Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediation if it is determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that no adverse effect would occur to occupants. ,l i CHECKLIST Page 12 D Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2) In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. 3) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan and its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed project site is located in a highly urbanized, industrial zone of the City of Newport Beach. The site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. Furthermore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, nor would it expose people or structures to wildland fire risk. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ R ❑ Demolition, construction, and renovation associated with the proposed project would increase the potential for erosion and release of sediment, and construction and post- construction pollutants into storm water runoff. Demolition, construction, and renovation associated impacts would be temporary in nature and implementation of the following conditions of approval would reduce impacts to a less than significant level: CHECKLIST Page 13 i. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. The SWPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach 2. The applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an industrial /business complex and would not result in increased impervious surfaces. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q The proposed project site consists of approximately 80% impervious surface. Storm water runoff drains primarily to the eastern edge of the project site into an existing gunnite terrace cut into the embankment facing Newport Boulevard. The terrace directs flows into a stormwater drain in Newport Boulevard. To a lesser extent, some flows drain to stormwater facilities in Superior Avenue. The proposed project would not substantially modify the site's existing drainage patterns. However, the following standard conditions of approval shall be implemented: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct site hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments for approval. 2) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study (including groundwater data) to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments. The study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program subdrain system if deemed necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. CHECKLIST Page 14 `i I Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ EJ ❑ See response to a) above. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an industrial /manufacturing complex and would not be located within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The project site is not located in a dam inundation zone and is not at risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts are anticipated. Ix. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing industrial /manufacturing complex as a technology center. It would not result in community disruption or impact neighborhood cohesiveness. No impacts are anticipated. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ EJ ❑ The proposed project is located in the City of Newport Beach and is designated in the General Plan and zoned for industrial use (M -1 -A). The project site is located in the Hoag Hospital Area (Statistical Area A3) as specified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and is designated for General Industrial uses. Development in this area is limited to a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. Therefore, construction of the proposed three -story buildings, with a designed height of 50 feet would require the issuance of a conditional use permit. The M-1 -A Industrial District provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The project is consistent with these designations. No other land use plans, policies, or regulations apply to the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 CHECKLIST Page 15 �o Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated The proposed project site is not within the boundaries of any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impacts are anticipated. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an industrial /business complex. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, nor would it displace people. No impacts are anticipated. XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a description of the noise levels that occur over a 24 -hour period. CNEL is the sound level, in decibels (dB), usually measured with an A- weighting scale and denoted as dBA that corresponds to the average energy content of the sounds (or noise) being measured over a 24 -hour period. Certain periods within the 24 -hour cycle are weighted to account for the sensitivities of humans to noise events in the evening hours: a 5 dB weighting is assigned for the period of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and a 10 dB weighting is assigned for noises that occur during the period 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance requires that noise levels in the exterior areas of single - family residences not exceed 65 CNEL, and not exceed 45 CNEL in the interior areas. Where the ambient noise level is higher than the measured noise condition, the ambient becomes the relevant standard. Development of the project site would occur over an approximate 10 -month period. Noise would be generated by building demolition and by grading, excavation, and construction. Noise levels generated by construction activities are based upon the type of equipment, the number of each type of equipment, the time of day the equipment is used, and the percentage of the day each activity occurs. Approximate noise levels from construction equipment is known from previous studies. Table 2 summarizes typical noise levels at 50 feet from the noise source. 1 CHECKLIST Page 16 , Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Noise generated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels, ranging from 68 to 105 dBA depending on the type of equipment being used. At 50 feet, grading activities commonly have average.noise levels (e.g., Leq noise levels) of 85 dBA with noise level peaks as high as 95 dBA. General construction is considered to be quieter than grading operations. The same peak noise levels are often reached during general construction as during grading, but the average noise levels are approximately 5 to 10 dBA less. TABLE2 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Equipment Type Noise Level Range, dBA Average Noise Level, Leg at 50 feet Front Loader 71 -96 82 Bulldozer 72 -96 86 Truck/Trailer 70 -92 82 Paver 80 -92 89 Truck 76 -85 81 Roller 76 -84 79 Water Truck 79 -88 I 84 Backhoe 71 -93 85 I Concrete Mixer 70 -90 85 I Concrete Pump 74 -84 82 Compressor 68 -87 81 Source: Colia Acoustical Consultants, 1999 The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance does not allow construction activities between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday; construction activities that occur at other times (e.g. between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday) are exempted from the noise ordinance thresholds. Compliance with the noise ordinance is required 'and would reduce potential short-term noise impacts to a level considered less than significant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. The project would comply with the following conditions of approval: 1) The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 2) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 3) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. CHECKLIST Page 17 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4) Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent facilities at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. 5) Stationary equipment shall be placed such. that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. 6) Noise levels in the residential areas located across Dana Road shall not exceed 110dBA for more than 30 minutes at a time. C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project would result in reduced noise levels compared with the previous industrial /manufacturing use. Existing exterior manufacturing equipment associated with the previous use will be removed. No impacts are anticipated. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ (See response to a and b above) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 The proposed project site is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport or the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project is not located Within an airport land use plan. No impacts are anticipated. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial/business complex. The project would not induce substantial population growth, or displace housing or people. No impacts are anticipated. '1 CHECKLIST Page 18 r Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Lessthan No Significant Impact Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Police protection? Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial /business complex. The project would not result in an increased need for public services such as fire and police protection, schools, or other facilities, beyond that already supplied to the previous use. No impacts are anticipated. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial /business complex. The project would not result in the increased use of local and /or regional recreational facilities. Project design includes provision of a linear park and half basketball court for employees onsite, No impacts are anticipated. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic from the previous use as a manufacturingfindustrial complex. Although project related demolition and construction activities would temporarily increase truck traffic on Superior Boulevard, this impact would be less than that of employee trips to and from the site's previous use. Additionally, although long term operations could potentially result in additional employee trips, increases would.not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The project would comply with the following conditions of approval: CHECKLIST Page 19. cj Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1) The applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 2) The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ❑ C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project would not result in an exceedance of road or highway levels of service, changes in air traffic patterns, increased hazards due to design features, inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No impacts are anticipated. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial /business complex. The project would not require expansion of existing utilities and service systems such as wastewater treatment. No impacts are anticipated. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ CHECKLIST Pale 20 I K Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than No Significant Impact Impact The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industriallbusiness complex. The project would result in modifications in site hydrology and utility configuration /use. No significant impacts are anticipated. However, the project shall comply with the following conditions of approval: 1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall ensure that site hydrological analyses are conducted to verify that existing drainage facilities are adequate. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for approval, verifying the adequacy of the proposed facilities and documenting measures for the control of siltation and erosive runoff velocities. A copy of this report shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a plan of water and sewer facilities for the project site. The applicant shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modifications or facilities necessitated by the proposed project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ ❑ O e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ O f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ❑ O g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial /business complex. The project would not require expansion of existing utilities and service systems such as wastewater treatment, water supply, and /or solid waste disposal beyond that already provided for the previous use. No impacts are anticipated. However, the project shall comply with the following condition of approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) El El El 0 CHECKLIST Page 21 j6.� Potentially potentially Less than No Significant significant significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 v'L:✓ CHECKLIST Page 22 SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available for review at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 9. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Fuscoe Engineering, 2000. 10. Remedial Action Plan, Dudek & Associates, Inc., 1997 CHECKLIST Pa .ae 23 C Q N Q� K d y a: z d no U C z ~ T d G c Q O Q z o O O ` '- w wW r O E a Do s d 2 °zw U a) (L ¢> d G m c O F F- 7 N m z_Q tfn 7� CO p0 Oz GCD 3 O y E z z O 4 a H F 0 I 2 U m w o m > m V C � C m C m C c v°i c v c v c E as m o. a m a mm' d m s p 0 p p N o _N ° °E 0 °E m m m m E' cwC �hv a a m m c O V z c c O V Z C C l°. o l°. s t° U s t m U mL w L m L U a5 m C C LL> C C LL m o m o UL a C O o m C c C O C > 0 Q r° O E° s c a a a 04 op U a E m O C m C m C_ m OIL N o L OI OI F o J s s C V N L m OIL r d•�i°9mof •- cisc =��OV c�33d N m0cO m e N r - o UC -mN� , Omvm U m aJ> m m m aL m EwV _ cc oJ -N' N coo Oc Mt m Cv._ U C-m.- w M-O aL C a - om owN E d m a U a m m - m C O N mom— mp= a m N c d g momm mm ma m-'m m um= �`0 --w!E amc� r_ao�C am acmcr m= EOV'�>. dp cc w m a= U�amc um O a c E E 0 w E 3 t o m m 0- E mS m u m v dtmwr amadyEaC mmw m w E CC.aE m arz 0a�? — m mm mmd0W =mciF c a s c W L N �Up C ° c c.- o °o oy mt ml m j O U= m m N . $ m °m .mo old OC-L E �m oEmr °y U O L Nm �° o lw 3 o0 �O oh i 0 cr m C E —Xcui ~-5 mE0 ouiCaUc m m m m O O W mas mcE�m 0.2 —'- o 3 U N N N d w �_ `O m m U mww 3m�Oiw w a m _CEoiv- {p- DL O C 0 o= m c a m m > mvo o c J 0 a E m o i m cc m mm CN o� �U a - wmwOa 2 MA c Q :i p E a a N a C U m ao M 1,'• 1.7 J ;c. 1 . Y K Q m F N �Q K d O � � C . Z a0V C Z ~ d >Z °o Q O Q _ wV o` Eo Wot'�mZ Lu0 F F N N za.Ctn�"� m oZ o CD z 3: CL o y z Z z 0 FF c m v a c m v C 0 o H L c E —@ F L c E= m 0 m U — 0 m m V C V C V C V C c c o FF c m v FF c m v FF c m v c m v C o L c E —@ L c E— m L c E= m c E m 0.0 m a @ C J O, d nm m @ C J a d nm m @ C J d nm an @ V'S d nm m 0 0 0 0 c o O m � C U E= �j m m m m Z c c Z c c Z c c Z c c m W.2 m m o m m o Y m m o a v v cU cci Y m c U c c i Y v c QQ v m'C Uayy Uayy Uay mU L @ != amy c LL> c c Q LL> c `O lL> O O`IL> a a a a C O E U mQ v a `O¢ v a `O¢ v a `O¢ v a p`p¢ U U U V E a v a w o y v 3 0 w Od t y 0 L -- m 'S > = c m a o y — J '> C m E c rev yyc o-:- m m w m�� m` OE . M O O C O m U = m m N T•r0 J�� NC Oy m C CU aU� N` � >N J E � may mmmom cd 'gym @LC � c`v m coin cOi LwJ cE>m.a10�c m3 2,t mr cg M� @mc - 0 0 O E @ 0 m E E w 3 o m m m m mom o a v �O - mv p r wcm mo w Z 'r T� ,w E o v e O U o m— '6.S :og - c m 3 r N > > — O a 0 Q E E O m U m a V J O .- U 1 m.- L) fq J @ a tea �E�a o�mj ML) `m 2m m @ wm we m� O w`caci o wo� v m v = ° �mmO >6 O ` m 6 O` c c a m m U ° S m �wm U Uv q a c U�c7 'Om , wo na ° 3na @wwof0 a N N an (S. �Ij a N Q� K d Ld C C Z d d a0U C Z� > d C� ag a)> <Z0 wU o c o E�* mt CLZ o W v y a 7d> d Q m c 0 W O O �Z G� 0 3 2 d z Z O F a F_ 0 _ m �m .o m m v c v c v c v c v c v c ac N o c ar m wm c c c E E015 c wr m wm c c c E m c wr wm c c c EF Emv2 m c wr mm c c c E m c °i --wm c c c E Em�C m c wr mm c c c F Cmv2 C` O c E- CmvC c E. c E- cm'vC c E- c m c E- m a m m O, dm mm m m C J O, (L amm m m C J O, d mmm m m C J O, M d tu �F. m n d amm m C J n d atum O$ O O O w mU ocma 0 o0m:o.E O m U 0 a m aE F> a`hm a`yo» � w m m m m m m Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov C `o o Z C U C m m op Z C U C m m o Z C U C m m o Z C V C m m o Z C V C m m o Z C U C m m o O U ( d U U U N= { b U U U N= m U U U N= { rp U U U N= { rp C U U U N= { rp m C U U =c C L mv!=_ m C L10 -c m C = mac m C L1 -,E m L 10�c L m� c m'c U am U am m U am m U am m U am m U am m > c cji> c cji> c cji> c cji> c c�> c cji> m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 FL a a a a a C O O_ O_ O_ O. O_ O_ A C C m O> C m O C m O C m O C m O Q C m c 0 a Q Q Q .r0- p E � a va C n v C n va C n va C n va C n va C n m U a Ua Ua Ua Ua a U E = c c 3v `o -"U c'mv ao �m m ct yt`o� _dam m = N U C_ ._+ C U U m m r m n m N N- m N O m E E Z O O O N V ° mC = w EE n o c d �n 0 3JC N m a E= r n ETm c c° J d c m a o-C °m a °° -m m �E tm` O m N - 0 m- ' N r ° Wv 00 cNN O OD _ C O m M Om � o= m V O C C n m O n L m O J m m O m m - U m a N 'w Cl a Ot m E d m �U > 0 d a>.vo� m?w o` o my o d U'�Edm ="dam m aEi =Jm 2'LGo UVL NLC `mm h O ac L_m0 -cmmc $ a Mo- o =a m 3�� >0c mcmoNc �r m.NOE om'`�- �.mmE wL CJLO� � °o `M0dc c on oV E 'o p " c ° cE 't O m a d O D m .mO m M X c 10 > m m v E w !N a aE - U N N Cm w` Z m 3 E m m m � U m wN m C- m o w O m m m m a U J m C U C O O N O m T N d, - m r l0 C z N O o�mNm 'a morn E °nd o_Nm =mo; > m C'cmN"'' d_oEo _ -cZo 'Dom.0mm E m 0 0 ` c � O'G 5 a a O a88 :2 i�vo�.=_ai��L)0 uviam��tuvis�hmE�aia`mi�`ma M O e uV r C a O F N � L d y 47 C z aoU a) J z C > m FW a 0) > 00 O 0-j- wW L N 0 p Ev °W = V C � C 0 aa)a m E m�mm Oc " F- 3 N W cc E � m ma O W Fz O O GCD ammo 3 O i y z z O p a w C O � V � w . p m > m V C � C "Oc m E m�mm Oc " cc E m cc E � m ma ad nm ammo p p w 01 U O U d 'Em W Q M c H m > c J v a " m N � m m C 0 0 O V Z C U C m 0 z C Y C m 0 0 -0 W t° m U N L -r, mcUo Y .-. t- :6 0u � != m �> U a d m c cji> U a d d m O c cji> m O a a c O m _ C O W- a O O s a E Ua Ua L a U C C m C N L m L L m O CM 'a m" C m Z L " �0C.m V . E U N NN c._. d ��- mN m Z v o m L�dO.0 o o c m E E `o v °m a`�3�a"iHL�c ° L O O A g L C ac= m m° m C m ... N W m C 0 w= C c''- 3� as o U c O Ewm o°,� >.V c wmc°1p.'c_d m m m C E cmi c C m m m U o y= Ec_. 0��m m -.o-mc d J w.= S' "cc >� . Oo c�vv� m mOn mmv � m E vm `v2`ma E: c- m °° ° a m m 3: " N N C m m j o E o W O d U Q U 0 o t2 N a m w 7 nQwU�wp aa a w !C a m nw 4) 00 P. r f N Q� K d y n0 3 H ag o¢Zo '0 i oot'cmZ Z w U a) 0. U' P: F- J N N Z¢ a U 0 O OZ QLO 3 o y z Z Z 0 0 2 c O N m C m D m m Q cO c c m E m C m E m C m E N c E� rm c E� rm c F� a m N 1 m C J O. d m m p� m C J p, d man d m '� m a m m N c 02 N y° E C� U U v N v Ol l0 O _c O w E -° m v c o- O 0 E j r N m a w w `o- E `O- o`_ E a a` d d d c `L o O Z Z Z c Y c p 0 m o NL U L o U U L -a 0,� U z m U a > c c LL m 0 c c LL m 0 car c c LL m 0 a a a c O O _ O _ 0— 0— m O O° O O O O O> E Q c a c a a c a < p E E76 O E O c N J N O m` d a 2 c- W N N 0 N 0 C d c J J C d m c L C L N N N O y> d O U r O -m N O U N O c U D. m Scvmcm E m m m J Ud> L� � D.��p= O' T`O and NNL vmNE L) c E 0 am>mU O c ° 00- N L OmOm -- ay�o.0 ° -�`mUm mEv 0c�p0 c�oc0� 0ca-60 Z ° O a Q O D E �O m O> �" 0 N N c c E m J m m N Z J d U' O c n 0 N 0 C O U M N y O V _ a ¢O` o L NL °L=_.pO a N _ � > Wj ` O O U - U O O w E c U O c O ' m �U O mm ? J N 0 a O J C N O ° L - m c c J a 0 O O d 0 j� O O N° V ° O O O N 0 m _ c > NV ° N C Lc3 d V � O DN EE UCa mp mN L_C30 o m U U Om A�r mN.. 0 - Q= " > N r- LjU c J L rd U U O J OU C C N O= ZEE ' a:V v 0 o m m�?v ` 0 Q �a 60 m 'v O ° � = a C N N ° 0 � 6 E V °� E v 3D LN � ° E wc E x m U v�a 3 o�30 m -61 Ua°6 v U:(03(0-c- �mZ-��> ` d; a a� E°U6`ooUVaVEa UO 0 m d N an .1 __i � 2 & §§\ ;. �§0 2�0 Z © °ca E® � LuF- z t § k \M\ g CEM' CL � MW / </ ! 6E \M\ CEM' CL CL k( j{ OU ) §/) \ //) k� > cE> )e )e f` }) |\ 0< ) \. \ { / \ {) \/) {[ §kk!)k� `- {¥ §k \() \ \0 %!(�_20CL -, M --CL ]{ jzf ==0000 »E 27 {$ {J § §f j�o. kS7; /_2;)& - �£ CLv= ,E7� \ :�fi ` \® ! ; k) / « CL 0a }f \S » -6> ƒ( °a ! \ { 7! - art`_§«§ /4FE®f§ ! \ /§) ){ -� ` \ §( _ §2f)/§0" \ \� \ »\ }) \\ ®�7 2tE; - - \�0 ) 0O�fcr!- j - 2� ! d- ()) }77))- `�k k)0 aA=0, §k ° --0 R « t ;E> 0 )wE0 \ -E` `«Saa�7 --C-a §!2; -! ■5E0 §§ k }k ®e 3�,n,�f« "E�`\#�!N a =ter!!; /# <- ,;$)� ,E » \ | &r5lf,2,; ,- B)2EE wo ffle)�> «a)/ ( /k{f -l�.E2 0 _fE£C§= /«7 =§�#:s = <!SE«Etw wco0- �EB[!{f(,/ MW / </ C Q N f a4 d Y a: z a0U C O Q Z o wg r O_ Ev LL, �oL o E iw v da m z < t I Ow 0 C z z 3 Ln CD O 2 47 z Z 0 a 0 H `o _m cm _o m m v c v c v c v c v c v c c ° c ° c ° c jq o C C c ._ E C C c ._ C C C N ._ C C C ._ E C C c '- ._ E C C '- E 0 c E� V c F c E c E c E= c E d m ma m C J O, ammo m tom' p, aamd 2 C J ammoammoaamoamm A C J A C J l0 C J a d C C) C) o ° . _ 5 °00 O m O U d c U C E'- c 0 m ch` p: 5 'a d d d d d d 0.0 O V Z C U c m 0 O V Z C-6 c m 0 O V Z c U c m o O V Z C U c m O V Z C V m O V Z C U c m, 0 Or a 0 U N'C r a U N'C r�p '.0 U N'C r�p 0 0 U N L r �L U N L r m V d mV Q d 6 L mVO- Q mV�•O- V a 0 L mV V a 0 mV V a-5 d �> N 0 c cjL> 0 c cjL> c cjL> N c cjL> N c c E > c cjL> m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 a a a a a a `o `0— `0— `o— - a c ° o °_ o °- E u mQ v a v a v$ v a v a v$ 0< 0< OQ 0 0< �Q E V °00 -Q2'L -W-0 ow °LL MU �O > mm �� aw 0 NC NL a a dm 00Ea�ou0D. N> C -° m'- m= 0 E° m0a0 .E d m E m C" d o� m w° d w �L+ 'c 0` h N V m : mcU 0E c ° Em 0 d v°'i m =cG5�3'dS a 3G m m0 oz $ a 00 m 0 Lw or a - o - IE� O ° m m E ; a ° w M E mo ° 0 d d N o w m �rL��a- o�0'm�3v 'EC v m= mw JN�v m L30 me EgOO dacc°� mm Kc' `m °'� -�°� aaci hmm �v m3NSowMZa =3L m" 0 o00oo c'v omv�,m U -= ') m�mc 'N ca Dace �o o0 L) 0 V O N m C - N O m Jmc>c�°c'mEL =o h m Jm E w d N O c a _0 a r d UU T m N 0 O 0 m 0 0 O N w L V Z o _CO U V a 0 m ) 'E d �° q o >N iN J 'm cN i c.dw m O m J O O 0 N -i _ O M N d X N O E N _ w d m „ C ° N 0 N N p� [D N °0 U J O m c3 �m 2 _ 0 V � m C ° � N N J 0 J C or c or 0 cmo- U a ocEo W Q c d 0- .50 000 V -ULz 5a �r ico 0 co avmdw�Q EE�>Z��cc w J (0Qz N � l' 1 !� k § : )§\ §. §)0 Z0 E)s /7} «±� \ «/ \\§ !\\\�, (�f2 ; 2 E. {E � !� P. 7 _E§ {E ( r/§ \ # � 0. -�J fƒ m .} . 3 3 2( �; • t /J\ \ /J) ) }� {)) } �0 > }) M0 #e §\ 0 \/ 0 ƒ - -_° 0 0 _ {f§ /\ = _ .e \��c8 w \: �E \\� o0M V ��, _ ;�72& §i{ )0 �j $�� -5- ,- . }�� / \/\ - \fa7772\( §\ i {If4a� \��ik |/ ! \ -w °� \ !& /fek / #y ) 7� �`R - }\ /z!� \ -_ /tee \o f 2\ g 0 - _ _ �7k)2 $) #i - aO�O _))�))f{�&F,\)22! `*@_ |, =; §(fG( {)\ E 0 - 2( \)k)\�k \) / \j / } /k \\ / \\\ P. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEwpnRT BEACH LP? October 26, 2000 NOV s ZQQ� Ms. Genia Garcia AM Planning Department PM ' City of Newport Beach 71819110111112111213141618 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92663 - Re: Newport Technology Center - - Response to Section 20.65.055 LPA Project No. 20068.10 =ss€ Dear Genia: The Newport Technology Center project complies with the four points of section 20.65.055. Below P P please find our response to each section identified by section letter. a Section 20.65.055 item A. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. The existing conditions are a single massive multi -story building with no visual public space other than a parking lot. The proposed three story components of the Newport Technology Center increases the visual public open area on the site by reducing the building footprints and providing greater distances between the structures. The three story components are arranged at the ends of the property to frame the visual open space, provide definition of the public courts and provide views within the project and towards the ocean. These public spaces are landscaped and furnished to enhance the views and provide for outdoor activities creating a professional class A campus type atmosphere while reducing the percentage of the site covered by the buildings. Section 20.65.055 item 0. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. The existing conditions consist of a massive multi -story structure set deep on the property providing no sense of presence on the street or property. Surrounded by parking and dominated by a 5 level parking structure at the street the current building has no significant scale defining elements or architecture. The proposed three story components of the project provide an architectural frame to the street, project site and court spaces. The components of the building facades break the height of the building into the classical base and top with scaling components to provide visual interest and shadows. These components combined with location provide the project with architectural presence framing the street and visual public spaces within the site while drawing attention away from the existing parking structure. MS Genia Garcia October 26, 2000 Project No. 20068.10 page 2 Section 20.65.055 item C. The increase building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The existing streetscape consists of a 5 story parking structure tight to the street and a row of mature pine trees fronting a large parking lot. The proposed three story components will complement the scale and street face created by the existing parking structure. Placed behind the mature pine trees, the buildings will provide a backdrop for the street trees and frame the visual public space of the streetscape. Space between the structures will generate public vistas as one passes along the street. From Newport Blvd. the buildings will balance the height of the slope and mature eucalyptus trees, enhancing the visual corridor of the highway and providing architectural definition to the site from both the street and visual public spaces with in the site. Section 20.65.055 item D. The structure shall have no more area than could have been achieved without the use permit. The existing building consists of multiple attached buildings constructed over a period of several years, creating one massive multi -story building surrounded by a vast parking lot. In contrast the proposed configuration of multiple buildings consists of two 2 -5tory buildings and two 3 -5tory buildings. Although two new structures are being constructed, the total area on the site has not significantly changed from the existing project. The three story components allow for increased visual public space, broader vistas for the building occupants and an enhanced professional campus atmosphere. It is our hope this addresses your concerns related to the sections noted above. Please contact our office you have any further questions or clarifications. Sincerely, LPA, INC. Orange County Office r LEA James Raver Architect CC: JA20068.10MG131026dot r LEA M E M To: Froth: Subject Date: ,vov -ei -uu e:aorm; rage 2 O R A N D U N1 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach Newport Technology Center; 500 Superior Avenue (the "Project ") November 21, 2000 Thank you for the opportunity to comment.on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "DMND ") for the Newport Technology Center (the "Project ") which is located at 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, California 92663. In addition to other comments which you have received during the comment process in connection with the Project, winch we incorporate herein, as well as our specific comments below, we offer the following general comments: the DMND fails to satisfy the requirements of CLQA for the specific reasons set forth below. For the specific reasons discussed below, we recommend that either a new DMND with a complete Project Description and a Traffic Study or an Environmental Impact Report ( "E1R ") be prepared for the Project which document(s) should address our comments and concerns, and that such document(s) be re- circulated for additional comments. Among other things, the EIR or other document should include, for the reasons set forth below, a concise and complete description of the Project including the conversion of the current manufacturing facility to office use as well as a discussion of the traffic impacts of such a conversion. As to specific comments on the DMND, we offer the following: 1. Introduction: Legal SianAud show that CLQA Ouidelines section 15070(6) requires that a mitigaied.negatiye declaration "project plans or proposals ... would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur." i Ent By: Hawxins taw offices: r: 949 650 1181: Nov -21.00 2:58PM: Page 3 Planning Commission Ciry ot'Newport Beach Page 2 November 21. 2000 Id. (Emphasis added.) Further, environmental documents such as the DMND are reviewed using the "fair argument standard:" "Under this test. the agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. [Citations.) If such evidence is found. it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary." Gentry v City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359. 1399 -1400. However, as discussed below, the DMND fails to satisfy this "fair argument standard:" as discussed below. the Project threatens to have many impacts including traffic. %eater quality, hazardous materials and others which have not been mitigated to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. hence. as concluded below. the Project requires a more complete environmental analysis: the Project requires either the re- circulation of new DMND with a complete Project Description and a Traffic Study. or the preparation of a full EIR. !1 Draft Notice of Completion Environmental Document Form and the "Preiect_Descrintion." The Project description is one of the key parts of any environmental document. As the Court of Appeal in County-of noted long ago. "Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision - makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost. consider mitigation measures. assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e.. the `no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate. stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." Count • of Inyo_v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 135, 199. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires that an environmental document describe the project "in a way that will be meaningful to the public. to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision - makers." Discussion. Guidelines section 15124. The "Project Description" contained in the Draft Notice of Completion fails to inform the public of the nature of the Project. The notice of completion states there will be a total of 415,493 square feet of office space in the project. The checklist and impacts discuss repeats that this description: Planning Commission C'iq• of Newport Beach Page 3 November 21. 2000 "The total square footage of office uses onsitc under the proposed [P]roject is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses." DMND, page 7, paragraph 1. However, the current use is not office use. For instance, the Project Description in the Noticc indicates that the current use is "MIA (Manufacturing, Industrial) /General Industry." The Project proposes to change or convert the use of the Projcct site from manufacturing and industrial use to office use. However, nowhere in the Project Description or elsewhere in the DMND are the impacts of such a change in use analyzed or evaluated. Further. as discussed below, because the DMND tails to analyze such impacts, it fails to consider mitigation for such impacts. Further, as discussed below, the "Draft Environmental Checklist Form," "General Plan Designation," paragraph 6, states that the general plan designation is "Industrial." In addition. "Description of the Project," paragraph 8, subsection titled "Project Objective," "the total square footage of development would be reduced by approximately 1,007 square feet with [P]roject implementation." Two sentences later, the "Project Objective" subsection describes la]dditional [P]rojcct features," which include additional parking, recreational facilities and landscaping improvements. From the current Project description, the DMND fails to explain the need for these additional facilities given the reduction in total square footage. We recommend that any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should include a table which shows existing and proposed square footage as well as a table comparing in detail current and proposed land uses by individual buildings and type of use. Further, the square footage of the parking structure should be separate front the other uses on site. This information is necessary to quantify and evaluate project impacts. Ill. Environmental Checklist including Paraerauh 8; "Description of Project." "PROJECT LOCATION" purports to orient the Project within the community, and provide orientation for the DMND. Unfortunately, the location of the directional arrows for all maps is confusing: the legend of each map contains the northern directional arrow, not the map itself. That is, this notation appears to be something connected to the legend and does not appear to apply to the maps. This application leads to confusion. For instance, the table regarding surrounding land uses on page 2 of the DMND mistakenly locates the Sun Carc and Rehabilitation Center to the east of the Project. We believe that this facility is located to the northwest of the Project. Heucc, because the DMND fails to provide clear orientation, we recommend that the directional arrows be clearly and prominently placed in each of the maps, not in the legend, to avoid confusion and to facilitate orientation. enI uy: nacmine LdW vi iiueei Planning Commission Ciry ol'Ncwport Beach Page 4 tiovcmber 21. 2000 y wu iioli 14uv -41-UU e:oarmi rage oia "ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING" states that: "The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company." Notwithstanding this general statement, this section fails to discuss any existing or current office uses of the site. As indicated above, the description of the Project is unclear: the Project seems to include a conversion of manufacturing facility to office use. "PROJECT OBJECTIVE" attempts to explain the objectives of the Project. In addition to the above comments, this subsection fails to provide a concise description of the project objective_ The proposed use of the Project is "a research and development office complex." (Emphasis added.) As indicated above, this subsection fails to explain clearly and. concisely the nature of the changes or the additions proposed by the Project. As stated above, the DMND should include a tabulation of the changes and comparisons between existing and proposed uses and buildings. "SURROUNDIL4G LAND USES AND SETTINGS" again fails to provide any orientation of the Project. Although current development is oriented on the points of the compass, this orientation appears to be in error. The DMND should orient all of the [naps on the points of the compass, and then the public and the City may evaluate the orientation and any Project related impacts. "ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED" and "DETERMINATION" fail to address the impacts discussed below. Because the DMND fails to satisfy the legal standards set forth above for such documents, we recommend that "DETERMINATION" should require that either a new DMND with a complete Project Description and a Traffic Study, or an EIR be prepared. IV. "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST." A. "AESTHETICS." The purpose of the DMND and the Project's use permit which requires the environmental document is the Project's proposed height increase. Despite this stated purpose, the DMND contains no discussion to support the conclusion that the increase in height would not impact surrounding buildings. A subsequent environmental document including an EIR should include a detailed discussion regarding the requested height increase. Further, a subsequent environmental document including the EIR should state the height of each and every building in l ti Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 5 November 21. 2000 .1 the Project: the heights of the buildings on adjacent properties. the height restrictions for this zune and the rationale for increasing this restriction. Further, Exhibit 4 shows Building 1 adjacent to Superior Avenue. Neither the DIvIND nor the Checklist contain any discussion of this new building on the neighborhood. A subsequent environmental document including an EIR should discuss the view and aesthetic impact of this multistory building which is planned close to Superior Avenue on the environment. R. "AIR O LITY " This subsection states that the Project and its long term operation will not create new emissions. However, as indicated above, and discussed below in the "TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC" subsection on traffic impacts, the Project includes the proposed conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park. As discussed below in "TRANSPORTATIONIrRAFFIC" impacts, office use typically generates more traffic that manufacturing. Without more analysis of this conversion and the impacts on traffic and air quality. the DMND fails to satisfy CEQA standards. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should discuss in detail the previous manufacturing activities and numher of employees as well as the projected future activities and numbers of employees. C. "HAZARD-S AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS." The Project site is subject to a Remedial Action Plan ( "RAP "). To further the RAP. the Project includes allowing Raytheon access to the property "for continued groundwater sampling and monitoring well inspection." However, the DMND fails to discuss in detail the RAP and current remediation activities. Further, in addition to access for sampling and inspection. Raytheon may require access for further remcdiation. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should discuss the RAP, current remediation activities and propose as further mitigation allowing Raytheon access to the Project site for further remediation if necessary. Further, as indicated below in `WATER QUALITY," this area may be subject to high groundwater. The Project should facilitate the clean up of such groundwater resources. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should address this issue. , D "HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY." The DMND states that the existing site is approximately 80% impervious surface. However, the DMND contains no such percentage or other discussion regarding the impervious surface of the Project. Such information is necessary for a determination that the quantity of runoff is not impacted. " 4flt By: HariKins Law urrices; a4a DOU 1101; NOV•41-uu J.Uurr", reye Planning Coinmission City of Newport Beach Page 6 November 21, 2000 Further, we understand that the Project area has historically experienced springs and rising groundwater. Given this historic high groundwater, the Project should include extensive maintenance of drainage facilities in order to prevent surface flooding. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should discuss the impervious surface of the Project, the groundwater table of the area, and any mitigation for the high groundwater. L "LAND USE AND PLANNING." This subsection discusses the conversion of the site from manufacturing and industrial to office use. However, without any analysis or discussion, the next sentence states that this conversion "would not result in community disruption or impact neighborhood cohesiveness." The DMND must clearly state nature and extent of the conversion and fully discuss any differences between the current and the proposed use. The DMND states that the current zoning is for industrial use (M-1 -A). The DMND should confirm that the conversion of the site to office use is permitted under the current TO- 1 -A zone. Indeed, various statements in the DMND appear to generate a conflict: the area is zoned for "industrial use." see id_, but also allows "a wide range of moderate to low intensity r . industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial office uses," see DMND, Page 15, subsection IX, paragraph b). As indicated above, the Project appears to convert the site into a total office use. not limited accessory and ancillary office use. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should clearly state current zoning restrictions and explain the compatibility of the Project's office conversion undercurrent zoning restrictions. Further. this subsection states that "fd]evelopment in this area is limited to a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75." Id at page 15, subsection IX, paragraph b). However, the following sentence purports to conclude: "Therefore, construction of the proposed three -story buildings ... would require the issuance of a conditional use permit." Id. The DMND fails to explain this conclusion. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should clearly explain the nature of the Project, should discuss the rationale for the use permit and current regulations as well as the standards for exceptions. In particular, such a document should refer to and explain any regulation permitting increased floor area ratio and/or increased height subject to a Use Permit. _ .. .. - - - -• - Planning Commission City of NCwport Beach Page 7 _•, November 21, 2000 '. F. "NOISE." The DMND discusses noise impacts of the Project but fails to explain adjoining land uses bmcluding any noise sensitive land uses. Further, the DMND applies the single family noise standard. However, the DMND fails to explain why this standard is appropriate or whether the area has single family residences nearby that might potentially be affected. Further, the DMND discusses noise impacts for construction activities but fails to address noise impacts of the Project due to increased traffic impacts. As discussed below, the Project conversion from industrial to office use may generate traffic impacts which may require analysis. "POPULATION AND HOUSING "'and "PUBLIC SERVICES." These subsections conclude that the Project will have no impacts under these items. Homvcyer, the DMND provides no information or analysis to support the statements in these sections. A subsequent environmental document including an EIR should provide some discussion to support any conclusion regarding impacts. 11. -TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC," ) As discussed above, the Project involves conversion from industrial and manufacturing to office use. For traffic generation and impacts, the difference is substantial. Trio Generation, Sixth Edition, ITE addresses some general traffic statistics for various uses. First, the ITE description for the light industrial category ( #I 10) applies to facilities which "employ fewer than five hundred (500) employees" and includes "printing plants, material testing laboratories, assemblers of data processing equipment and power stations." Tr'D Generation, Sixilt Edition, ITE. Presumably, this is appropriate standard for the current use. The industrial rate (ITE # I I0) is .92 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the morning peak hour and is .98 per one thousand (1000) square feet in the afternoon peak hour. In contrast, the corporate offices generation rate (ITE #714) is more than one hundred -fifty (150 %) percent of the light industrial: 1.47 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the morning peak hour and 1.39 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the afternoon peak hour The multiple- tenant office space generation rate (ITE #710) is even higher: 1.56 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the morning peak hour and 1.49 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the aftemoon peak hour. These general figures indicate that the Project threatens it) increase traffic in the area and may have a significant traffic impact. Yet the DMND fails to discuss any long term nt By: HaWKinS Law UTTicesi y4y UOU I 16 i NOV-21 -UU J:UIt-tdi rage y/a Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page S jl November 21,2UW traffic impacts or to analyze the impacts of the office conversion. Further, the DMND contains no information or analysis to support the presumed traffic generation of the project. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should include detailed information on the previous manufacturing activities and number of employees, the projected future activities and numhers of employees, and finally and importantly, a detailed discussion of overall traffic impacts and probably a detailed traffic study which should address the following issues: the City's traffic models treatment of the existing facilities and the Project; long term traffic impacts and trip generation for the Project; and discussion of the items under discussion in subsection XV, subparagraphs b) through g) rather than simple check marks: any subsequent environmental document including an EIR must explain these items rather than simply check the boxes. 1. "UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS." Since this summer, California in general and Southern California in particular. have become increasingly subject to brownouts or power outages in the peak seasons. Cumulative additions or changes such as the Project may affect this problem. The DMND contains no discussion of these impacts or proposed mitigation. Further, the DMND does not serve to inform the public or the City's decision - makers regarding the Project impacts on utilities including mitigation for power conservation, and the cumulative impact analysis of the Project and probable future projects on utility demands including electric and other power demands. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should include a discussion of the increasing demands for power and the increasing numbers of power outages in the peak seasons. V. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the DMND is insufficient: we recommend that a new DMND with a complete Project Description and a Traffic Study, or an EIR be prepared. .r i 0,7 WESTPORT MRRINE INC. 447 NORTH NEWPORT BLVD., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • (714) 645 -4520 Vq i 6419(r111 j CAF JAN i V. 6 1L (bpi GG nn�'. s4-9Z 11-74i9 -iY /t'�/�/Y'��i9 C77Ji2��✓� 5-vo �ii E' Zri �9- f �GT 771;797- /✓E � � 'r77-NV /AI cc vR4-r o //V .L 3) 112c v10.- Olr?Ztiu� o 11V G�nr�/t�G ��FI /r/icff G�DOGLs� WESTPORT MRRINE INE, 447 NORTH NEWPORT BLVD., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • (714) 645 -4520 77- poc �.� ,Ts 7�17z�7- .v Imo/ X07- Z-/ pVo77 �//8 A/C_ / /�y9.�T �, y 9 9 f�,,'9� Y'CVT lR�r% � L4AI7�LIZ �rK��.�p `� 7'�LL �� vr�f• - P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFV,1DrRT BEACH November 28, 2000 AM NOV 2 7 2000 PM 7181911011111211121314 15 16 Newport Beach Planning Commission }` 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -6915 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 500 SUPERIOR; USE PERMIT #3679 Dear Planning Commissioners: SPON has received and reviewed the draft mitigated negative declaration prepared for the above ) referenced project. This document is inadequate for understanding the project and therefore is , not an appropriate tool for the City's decision- makers. It appears that the consultant does not wish to address issues that may be controversial SPON believes the analysis of the following items remains unclear: • Project description — There is insufficient information to enable the reader to understand the nature of this project. A complete, clear description of the existing and proposed uses and square footage need to be provided. • Transportation/traffic — Because of the lack of information in the project description, the traffic impacts cannot be evaluated. This project seems to, be a conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park. A statement under IX b. states that this zone allows industrial uses with "limited ancillary commercial and office uses but this project is described as a research and development office complex. There is a sentence stating ".::long term operations could potentially result in additional employee trips..." However, no quantifiable method is used to conclude what the traffic impacts might be. What traffic analysis has been performed for this project? If City regulations allow an increased floor area ratio and height under a Use Permit, the impacts of approving such a Use Permit need to be thoroughly explored. 1 i� i Newport Beach Planning Commission November 28, 2000 Page 2 Noise and Air Quality - Because the traffic analysis and trip generation are unclear, it follows that the noise and air quality discussions are incomplete. • Aesthetics — This use permit requests a height increase. What is the justification for such an increase, and what will be the impacts on surrounding buildings as well as on the streetscape? Why is the regulatory height in this district not appropriate for this project, especially given that the project seems to be an, expansion of site uses? • Water Quality— Given the region's current concerns about coastal water quality, this section should provide more quantifiable information to justify the conclusion that the quantity and quality of runoff is not impacted. Thank you for your careful consideration of the proposed project. Please continue to send project information to SPON at the address above. Sincerely yours, CLAUDIA OWEN ANDREA /INGLE SANDY GENIS Co- presiding officers, Stop Polluting Our Newport Steering Committee � J v Winston H. Hickox Agency Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control November 29, 2000 Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Ms. Eugenia Garcia Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard . Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 AVI DEIC 0-:) = FRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, 500 SUPERIOR AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SCH #2000111016) Dear Ms. Garcia: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative Declaration (ND) for the above - mentioned Project. Based on the review of the document, DTSC's. comments are as follows: 1) The ND indicates that soil and groundwater at the site is contaminated with hazardous substances. Risk based screening criteria developed for the site show that measured soil contaminant concentrations pose no health risk to future users of the property. Additionally, Raytheon implemented soil remediation as a conservative measure. It also indicates that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). If the RAP indicates no health risk from the soil contaminants, address the needs of the soil remediation. 2) The ND needs to identify when will the construction at the site will be initiated. No construction should be allowed before the completion of removal or remediation of the contaminated soil at the site. 0 Gray Davia \� Governor 3) The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the close proximity of the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. DTSC's CalSites database indicates that the project site is adjacent to the Newport Beach Corporate Yard, located at 592 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach. This site is also a contaminated property and that RWQCB is investigating. 0 Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Michael Philbrick, AICP November 29, 2000 (� Page 2 4) The ND indicates that the proposed project site would fully be remediated by the previous occupant, Raytheon Company, except groundwater contamination. Though groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, RWQCB already indicated that groundwater remediation would be required. The ND should identify who will remediate groundwater after the applicant's occupancy. 5) The ND indicates that because the groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, contamination would have no impact on future users of the property, and remediation will continue regardless of site occupancy. Before the construction and occupancy of the site, engineering designs should be completed for groundwater remediation and that adequate space should be allocated to carry out groundwater monitoring and remediation. 6) Site occupancy before groundwater remediation should be consulted with the RWQCB. The suitability of the site occupancy is depending on the depth to groundwater. Volatilization of contaminants in groundwater may occur and that will be a threat to the occupants in the future. 7) No soil disturbance should be allowed before the completion of contaminated soil removal or remediation and that a regulatory agency certified that the site is clean. 8) If during construction of the project, soil contamination is suspected, stop the construction in the area and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil exists, the ND should identify how any required investigation and /or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham, Project Manager at (714) 484 -5476 or me at (714) 484 -5463. Sincerely, `� Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office Mr. Michael Philbrick, AICP November 29, 2000 Page 3 cc: Govemors Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812 -0806 November 29, 2000 CITY OF COSTA MESA CAUFORNIA 926781200 3.- « ��• - Eugenia Garcia, AICP Associate Planner City of Newport Beach PO Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658 -8915 P.O. BOX 12(10 RNG DEPARTMENT PLAN ARTMENT CITY OF: PLANNING �pO PT REACH 01 2000 P AM M RE: NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Ms. Garcia: The City of Newport Beach has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed redevelopment project at 500 Superior Avenue. The Planning and Transportation Services Divisions reviewed the Negative Declaration and offer the following comments: J� Traffic /Circulation: The site will be redeveloped as a technology center, which potentially could have multiple tenants. This will change the use significantly, resulting in higher vehicular trip generation to and from the site. A 1981 traffic study analyzing the expansion this facility indicated that the facility was operating in several shifts distributing trips throughout the day. The estimated trip generation during the p.m. peak hour for the expansion of this facility by 110,000 square -feet was 77, yielding a trip rate of 0.70 trips per 1,000 square feet during the p.m. peak hour. The evening peak hour trip generation for the entire site with the expansion was estimated to be 291 vehicle trips translating to a rate of 0.70 trips per 1,000 square feet (based on total square- footage of 416,499). This rate of 0.70 trips per 1,000 square feet during the p.m. peak hour is very similar to that for a "Manufacturing" facility provided in Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 6" Edition. The number of trips expected by this site according to ITE is 305 during a.m. peak hour, 310 during the p.m. peak hour and 1,590 during an average weekday. The conversion of this site to a "Technology Center" would change the use to a different category. The most likely type is "Office Park" with multiple tenants. According to ITE, the trip generation for 415,493 square -feet Office Park is 725 during the a.m. peak hour, 625 during the p.m. peak hour and 4,745 during an average weekday. Therefore, redevelopment of the above manufacturing facility to office park use will result in an additional 77 FAIR DRIVE Building Division (714) 754 -5273 Code Enlomemenl (714) 754-5623 Planning Division (714) 754 -5245 �! FAX (714) 754 -4856 TDD (714)'.•51 -5244 420 trips during a.m. peak hour, 315 trips during p.m. peak hour and 3,155 trips during an average weekday. This increase in trip generation could potentially result in significant traffic impacts at several intersections and roadway segments in the vicinity, contrary to the findings in the Negative Declaration. As such, the City of Costa Mesa requests a full traffic analysis based on the above to determine the exact impacts and necessary mitigations to the surrounding roadway system /intersections. The extent of this analysis in Costa Mesa should include all signalized intersections in the area bounded by Victoria Street /22nd Street, Newport Boulevard, Placentia Avenue and City of Newport Beach. The intersections to be analyzed in Newport Beach would be identified by their staff. Air Quality: The increased traffic volumes will also result in a corresponding increase in vehicular emissions. The impacts of the increased emissions need to be addressed in the air quality analysis. Population /Housing /Employment Balance: The Negative Declaration also needs to address the degree to which the redevelopment of the site as a multiple tenant technology center would impact the employment generation assumptions for the site. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Newport Technology Center Negative Declaration. Please forward a copy of your responses to our comments prior to ' Planning Commission consideration of the related land use entitlement applications. Since the Notice of Public Hearing attached to the Negative Declaration indicates the Planning Commission is scheduled to hear the request just three days after the close of the public review period (December 7 and December 4, respectively), I am hopeful that your responses will be provided in a timely manner to allow full review, consideration, and disclosure prior to final action by your Commission. Please feel free to call my office at (714) 754 -5610, or Raja Sethuraman, Associate Transportation Engineer, at (714) 754 -5032, if you have any questions on the above comments. Sincerely, 9RMIACHAEL ROBINSON, AICP Planning & Redevelopment Manager cc: Raja Sethuraman, Associate Transportation Engineer 1rTr i,ia AND TRANSPORT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 Michelson Drive Suite 100 ne, CA 92612-0661 December 6, 2000 Eugenia Garcia City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Subject: Newport Technology Center Dear Ms. Garcia, DFI� 1 g 2p00 File:' IGR/CEQA SCHM 2000111016 Log #: 830 GRAY DAMS. Governor Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration on Newport Technology Center. The project involves the approval of a use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The proposed project is located on 500 Superior Avenue. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans right way an encroachment permit is required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our Transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us please do. not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sincerely, Robert F. Jos ph, Chief Advanced Planning Branch cc: Terry Roberts, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning M� - : t, �-%l December 1, 2000 Ms. Anne Gifford City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA Re: Newport Technology Center 500 Superior Boulevard Use Permit 3679 Dear Ms. Gifford: We would like to'thankyou for visiting the proposed Newport Technology Center at 500 Superior Boulevard. I would like to emphasize that the existing Zoning of M -1 -A Research and Development would be maintained. With respect to the building area, the net effect of the proposed demolition and new construction will not exceed the existing entitlement of 416,499 square feet. You had expressed interest in the proposed tinted and reflected green glass, if you would like to see an example of this glass please visit 280 Newport Center Drive, Fashion Island. It is a two story brick building at the corner of Avocado Avenue and Farallon. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 949 - 260 -1180 x159. Sincerely, LPA, INC. Orange County Office Auto �3� Gloria Broming Director of Entitlement Services un Cc: Mark Barker - SL Clair Company Chris Torrey — LPA, INC. 1 Y LPA :a V P a m � �o 0 o E 0 aa> p p O n . ' 3: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER 500 SUPERIOR AVENUE REVIEW PERIOD NOVEMBER 3, 2000 TO DECEMBER 4, 2000 COMMENTS FROM NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS CITIZENS Letter dated November 21, 2000 COMMENT RESPONSE EQAC —1 Proiect Description. The Project Description Section of the Negative Declaration and Section 8 of the Draft Environmental The project threatens to Checklist Form, respectively, indicate that the proposed project have many impacts, which involves the demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing have not been mitigated to development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a a point where clearly no total of 415,493 square feet and consists of the redevelopmentof significant effects would the Raytheon Microelectronics facility as a research and occur. The Notice of development facility. A use permit is required because the at Completion states that n proposal includes the construction of two replacement buildings 4states sq. there there will ft. that will exceed the 32 foot Basic Height Limit up to 50 feet; space in the project. The DMND fails to The project site is limited by the Newport Beach General Plan and explain the need for Zoning to research and development use with ancillary office use additional project facilities. associated with the research and development uses. There is not proposal to change the General Plan. A general office project is not permitted by the General Plan or the Zoning. The project is located in the M -1 -A Zoning District which allows for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. See response to comment below concerning land use for additional responses on this topic. Project features include additional parking, recreational facilities, and landscaping improvements that will contribute to a campus - like setting. EQAC — 2. Project Location. Comment noted. The maps are oriented as printed in maps of the site produced by Thomas Brothers Maps. The location of the directional arrows for all The project site contains approximately 13.69 acres and is maps is confusing; the bounded by Dana Road to the south, Superior Avenue to the legend of each map west, the City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard to the north, and contains the northern Newport Boulevard to the east. directional arrow, not the map itself. The table The location of the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Centerwas regarding surrounding land incorrectly listed in the table on page 2 of the Initial Study as being uses is incorrect. located east of the project site. As noted in the comment, this facility is located west of the project site, across SuperiorAvenue, and north of the Harbor Homes Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center. Landscaped slopes and Newport Boulevard are located east of the project site. A Zoning Map is attached to the Response to Comments of the Negative Declaration. EQAC — 3 DMND fails to discuss any The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, existing or current office and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic uses on the site. Appears components by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon has to be a conversion of use. discontinued its operations at the site and the existing facility is vacant. The proposed use of the site will remain research and development, as well as offices related to the primary use. Hughes and Raytheon operated the site with approximately 55% research and development and administrative use configured in typical office layout, and 45% for assembly and testing use. Parking at that time was based on the 55% administrative use and 45% for the manufacturing and assembly. The proposed reuse of the site will continue with some administrative office use related to the research and development use and some assembly, testing and manufacturing uses. At this time, the percentage is not known because the tenants are not known at this time. EQAC — 4 rroiect uoiective. i ne project oDtective, as renectea in the Environmental Checklist, is to demolish three buildings and The DMND fails to explain replace them with two new, 3 -story buildings, with landscaping objectives of.the project. It and other features. These improvements, as reflected in the should include a tabulation exhibits accompanying the Negative Declaration, would update of the changes and the character of the existing site development to a campus setting. comparisons between existing and proposed uses Existing buildings to be retained currently exceed the 32 foot and buildings. Basic Height Limit under a previously approved use permit. The two new buildings will be 48 feet 6 inches in height, to the top of the roof parapet. The main goals of the project are: 1. The demolition of existing buildings A, B, F, and G, which are a combination of one, two and three -story buildings, and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure; 2. The reuse and renovation of existing buildings C, D, and E (buildings 2 and 4), which are 32 feet to 43 feet in height; and 3. The construction of two new three -story buildings (buildings 1 and 3) to replace buildings A and B that will be approximately 48 feet 6 inches in height. A project characteristics table and building square footage table is attached to the Response to Comments. The M-1 -A District provides for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary � �K `� 1 commercial and office uses. The use of the site is a continuation of the previous research and development use of the site, as permitted under the M -1 -A Zoning District. EQAC — 5 Surrounding Land Uses and Settings. As noted above, the orientation of the site discussed in the environmental document is Provided maps are not correct. The reference to the location of the Sunbridge facility was oriented on the points of incorrect and has been corrected as noted above. The apartments the compass. are located approximately 80 -100 feet southerly of the project site; the Harbor Homes Trailer Park is located across SupedorAvenue from the project site, approximately 100 feet from the project boundary. A Zoning Map exhibit has been added to the Negative Declaration, which shows surrounding land uses around the site. EQAC — 6 Aesthetics. The following discussion is provided for clarification of the points raised in the EQAC letter: DMND contains no discussion to support the The request for a height limit increase from 32 feet to 50 feet is conclusion that the use described in the initial study checklist narrative and its potential permit for the increased impact on visual aesthetics is described on page 5. Exhibit 6 in height of the buildings the Initial Study depicts the finished height of the proposed three would not impact story buildings and the character of the proposed project. The surrounding buildings. increased height is needed to provide for replacement research Should discuss the height and development square footage while allowing for additional of existing and proposed landscaping, reconfiguration of surface parking, the employee buildings and impacts on recreation area between the existing parking structure and neighborhood. existing Building 4 (see Exhibit 4) to create a campus -like setting on the project site. The overall development square footage on the site is slightly less than existing; proposed landscaped areas are increased, as portrayed in Exhibits 4 and 6. The proposed replacement buildings and the professional campus setting that would be provided are designed to be an aesthetic improvement to the site and the adjacent community (see Exhibit 5). The relocation of the buildings will result in a reduction in site coverage due to the reconfiguration of the square footage in five separate buildings instead of one building and the parking structure which provides more open space between the buildings than currently provided. The required 15 foot front yard setback on Superior Avenue and Dana Road will be enhanced with shrubs and ground cover to• complement the existing berm and mature pine trees. Existing and proposed landscaping provided will aid in screening and softening the new building. Building 1 is adjacent to Superior Avenue as shown in Exhibits 4 and 6. The impacts of the new buildings on the neighborhood are described on page 5 of the Initial Study Checklist. The project will include additional window area on the buildings, thereby resulting `� 1 in a potential increase in daytime glare. However, this increase would not constitute a significant impact to adjacent land uses because of building orientation and landscaping. Exterior nighttime lighting will be added and the existing lighting will be reconfigured to meet the City's required foot - candle radius for emergency and security purposes while avoiding potential negative glare impacts on surrounding properties. The site was previously used for research and development activities, including some manufacturing and assembly. The proposed project would continue these permitted uses and is not being converted to office uses. While offices may be included in the buildings, they are permitted in the M -1 -A Zoning District as accessory and ancillary to the research and development activities, and used to support the overall research and development activities on the project site. In approving a.use permit for the project to allow the new buildings to exceed the basic height limit, four findings must be made. Finding A states: "The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas". If the project is approved, as a condition of approval, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required that will aid in screening the appearance of the bulk of the buildings along Superior Avenue and Dana Road. Additionally, the landscaping around the perimeter of the existing parking structure will be required to be improved. The enhanced landscaping along both streets and the increased landscaping within the interior of the project results in more visual open space which enhances views of and from the property. Finding B states: "The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone." The existing structures are set further back on the property and do not provide a sense of presence on the street nor does it provide an appealing visual character. By designing the project with four buildings instead of what is visually, one large existing building, greater architectural articulation is possible. The components of the proposed building facades are designed to break up the height of the building to provide visual interest and shadows. Finding C states: "The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions." The existing Superior Avenue streetscape consists of a 15 foot landscaped setback for the five -level parking structure adjacent to the public street and a row of mature pine trees fronting a large parking lot. Placed behind the mature pine trees, the buildings will provide a backdrop for the street trees and frame the visual public space of the streetscape. Building heights in the general area range from one story to the high rise buildings near Hoag Hospital and the proposed building heights are consistent with the height of other buildings in the general area. Finding D states: The structure shall have not more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit." Although two new structures are being constructed, the total area on the site has not significantly changed from the existing project and is approximately 1,006 square feet less than the existing facility. The three story components allow for increased visual public space, broader vistas for the building occupants and an enhanced professional campus atmosphere. EQAC — 7 Air Quality. The proposed project does not involve conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park. The proposed use of the The project includes a site is research and development. The project involves the reuse discussion of a proposed of existing research and development buildings, and the conversion of demolition and reconstruction of two new buildings for research manufacturing use to office and development use with ancillary office use. use that will not generate The total square footage of development under the proposed additional traffic. Need project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet analysis on air quality with of existing uses. The project would therefore not add new long - traffic impact analysis. term regional or local operational emissions. On page 6 of the Initial Study checklist, it is noted that emissions from daily operations at the project site would not exceed applicable thresholds. At this time, the tenants of the proposed project are not known, and without specific knowledge of the type of research and development tenants proposed for the site, it is difficult to ascertain the amount of emissions that might be generated. However; if any tenant proposes to use equipment that would require permits from the AQMD, the City will require these permits be provided prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the affected tenant. All emissions are subject to the Air Quality Management District Regulations. Further, because the use is not changing, it is not anticipated that the project will create additional emissions beyond that of the former use. � �h EQAC - 7 (continued) As noted in the Initial Study, the square footage of research and development uses proposed onsite will be slightly less than the existing development square footage onsite. As noted in the Transportation Section of this Initial Study, there will not be a substantial increase in traffic to and from the site under the proposed project in relation to the permitted and existing land uses because the project is expected to generate 1,844 fewer daily trips than the previous use. See transportation and traffic section of response to comments. EQAC — 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site has been used by the Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon Companies in the The DMND fails to discuss manufacture of semiconductors and other solid state components, in detail the RAP and packaging of microelectronic devices, and mounting of completed current remediation electronic components on circuit boards or other assemblies, in activities. which hazardous materials were used in these operations. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is summarized on pages 11 -13 of the Initial Study, and is referenced as a document available for review in the City Planning Department. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is the applicable state agency governing the hazardous materials remediation activities at the project site. The City's mitigation measures will insure that all regulatory agency requirements are being met at the project site. A mitigation measure has been added requiring a "closure letter" from the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board after the completion of soil remediation activities. As noted on page 12 of the Initial Study, remediation of groundwater contamination is ongoing and subject to oversight by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A mitigation measure is included requiring a "closure letter" from the Regional Water Quality Control Board after the completion of the groundwater remediation and prior to construction. EQAC — 9 Hydrology and Water Quality. As noted on page 14 of the Initial Study, the proposed project would not substantially modify the DMND needs discussion site's drainage patterns. Since the proposed project contains regarding impervious additional landscaping than currently exists on the project site, surface of the project to there would be slightly less impervious surfaces on -site than the determine quantity of runoff approximate 80 percent coverage that exists today. Therefore and its potential impacts. runoff from the site would also be decreased from existing levels, but not by a substantial level. As stated on page 14 of the Initial Study, a condition of approval of any grading permit to construct the project will require that the applicant submit a hydrological ��5 analyses to the City of Newport Beach, to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City for approval. Additionally, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) is required to be provided to The City of Newport Beach for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. EQAC — 9 continued Because demolition, construction, and renovation associated with the proposed project would increase the potential for erosion and release of sediment, construction and post - construction pollutants into storm water runoff, impacts would be temporary in nature and implementation of included mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. EQAC —10 Land Use and Planning. The comment has incorrectly interpreted DMND appears to generate the opening sentence of. this section. The section does not a conflict between the discuss the conversion of the site to office use. As clarification, zoning of the property and the text referenced in the comment is repeated below: the proposed use of the =The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing property. A discussion of industrial /manufacturing complex as an industrial technology the permitted Floor Area center. It would not result in community disruption or impact Ratio should be included. neighborhood cohesiveness." This statement was provided in response to the Initial Study question that asked whether the proposed project would physically divide an established community." The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" uses. This land use category has been applied to areas which 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. The project is located in the Hoag Hospital (Statistical Area A3) as specified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and is designated for General Industrial uses. Development in this area is limited a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. The project complies with the permitted floor area ratio because it is a Maximum FAR Use (Floor area ratios up to 0.75). Construction of the proposed three -story buildings with a height of 50 feet will require the approval of a use permit to exceed the Basic Height Limit of 32 feet. The existing and proposed research and development use will maintain the existing 0.5/0.75 F.A.R. use, and are proposing a .69 F.A.R. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan policies and guidelines. The proposed uses for the project will continue the research and ��5 1 l� development activities that have historically occurred onsite and would not involve a conversion to office use. As stated in the description of allowed uses in the M -1 -A zone, the following uses are permitted in this zone without use permits: Commercial Uses Research and Development Services Offices, Business and Professional Industrial Industry, R &D The M -1 -A Industrial District provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The project is consistent with these designations. The Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations, Chapter 20.20 is attached to the Response to Comments for further information. EQAC —11 Noise. The Initial Study devotes over 2 pages to the description of potential noise levels that could occur during construction. DMND fails to explain Mitigation measures ( #1 thru #5) are specifically provided to adjoining land uses mitigate potential construction noise impacts to convalescent including any noise facilities and residential areas adjacent to the site. Noise from sensitive land uses. DMND tenants on the project site is not expected to exceed levels fail to discuss noise specified in the City's ordinance. impacts due to increased traffic associated with the Since there are no limits on noise levels during construction, project. mitigation measure No. 6 is eliminated. EQAC —11 (continued) With respect to noise increases from project traffic, since there are no traffic increases anticipated from the proposed project in comparison to the traffic from the existing uses, there would be no increases in traffic- related noise. EQAC —12 Population and Housing and Public Services. The Initial Study explains that the proposed project involves the reuse and ro D MND provides no redevelopment of an existing industrial /business complex. Since information analysis to the project description indicates that the proposed square footage support the statements in to be developed on the project site is slightly less than the existing this section, use and no significant changes in employee population, housing demand and demand for public services is anticipated. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary. EQAC —13 Transportation/Traffic. As noted above in these responses, the The project threatens to proposed project does not involve a conversion of use from research and development to office use. increase traffic in the area 1 l� and may have a significant traffic impact. DMND fails In 1981, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kunzman to discuss any long -term Associates for an expansion of the Hughes facility, per the traffic impacts or analyze requirements of the Orange County Congestion Management the impacts of the office Program (CMP) and the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing conversion. Ordinance (TPO). The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires special analysis and mitigation of traffic impacts if project - generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing traffic, projected regional traffic growth, and traffic generated by "committed" projects (i.e. approved projects requiring no further discretionary review) on any approach to any of the study intersections during the morning and /or evening peak hours. The City's traffic standard is for intersections to operate at no greater than 90 percent of intersection capacity, or level ofservice V. For those intersections already above the 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value, and increase in 0.01 in the cumulative ICU necessitates traffic mitigation. In 1981, the TPO traffic analysis determined that, after project completion, traffic generated by the project would contribute to the short-range cumulative degradation of the West Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /SuperiorAvenue intersection during the a.m. peak hour and mitigation was required of Hughes Aircraft. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, was for a proposed 110,000 square foot expansion (Building E) and the parking structure. The study indicated that there were 1,285 employees currently at the site and analyzed the addition of approximately 680 employees that would work in Building E (the 110,000 sq. ft. addition). The Traffic Study analysis was based upon three employee shifts and a projected five -year forecast of manpower and space requirements. The project information critical to the City was the 110,000 square foot limitation on gross floor area and a 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on the first shift). The City issued building permits for the addition on the basis of a reduced gross floor area of 109,893 square feet, and the applicants' agreement to provide manpower reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. The use permit was subsequently amended in 1982 to increase the square footage for the addition to 112,916 square feet, and in 1983, a revised Traffic Study for the approved Hughes expansion project was approved due to manpower staffing changes and revisions to the final square footages of the project. The applicant the City entered into an agreement to fund improvement to Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /Superior Ave. i I, f analyzed: West Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /SuperiorAve., and Newport Blvd. /Hospital Road. The analysis was performed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The completion date for the proposed project is expected to be in 2002 and the traffic volumes were projected to the year 2002. The regional traffic projections are consistent with the City's methodology and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for the Newport Blvd. /Hospital Drive intersection shows that the ICU at the intersection, including the project's traffic, is projected to operate at 0.61 and 0.71 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This is well below the TPO limit of 0.90 and no mitigation is required. The West Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue intersection is projected to have ICU values of 0.92 and 1.02 during the /AM and PM peak hours, respectively. When the project's peak hour traffic volumes are added to the ICU value, the ICU's remain at 0.92 and 1.02. Therefore, there is no project impact to the West Coast Highway /Balboa Boulevard /Superior Avenue intersection identified when analyzed in accordance with the City's performance criteria for determining project impact. As a response to comments on the Negative Declaration received from the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Department, and the close proximity of the site to the City of Costa Mesa boundary, staff directed the consultant to further study the impact the project could have on three additional intersections located within the City of Costa Mesa. Specifically, the three intersections include: • Superior and 17" Street • Newport Boulevard and 17' Street • Newport Boulevard and 19' Street The City of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the conditions without project ICU, or the baseline condition. The net new project volumes were derived from the percent of project traffic distributed onto the roadway network. The peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the project were distributed on the roadway network to determine the additive project traffic at the study intersections. A copy of the study, as performed by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc, dated December 18, 2000, is attached for reference. IF, � �-I 1 The study concluded that all of the study intersections, with the exception of Newport Boulevard and 19' Street, would continue operating at Level of Service A, B, or C. Newport Boulevard and 19'" Street will continue to operate at LOS E during both the AM peak hour (ICU = 1.00) and PM peak hour (ICU + 0.95). The PM peak hour ICU value of 0.95 represents an increase of 0.01 from without the project ICU of 0.94. The significance of this ICU increase on an intersection outside the City of Newport Beach was assessed on the regional impact criteria established by OCTA. OCTA has established the regional significance criteria, used to assess out -of- jurisdiction impacts, at 3% of total capacity. The 0.01 ICU increase equates to a 1% increase. Therefore, this change is not significant. EQAC —14 Utilities and Service Systems. As noted in the Initial Study, the The DMND fails to discuss proposed project involves slightly less development than has brownouts and power historically existed at the project site. Therefore, demands on all outages in the peak utilities and services will be less than previously generated. seasons and project Further discussion of this reduction in impact is not required by impacts on utilities. CEQA or warranted in the Initial Study. �-I 1 COMMENTS FROM OWEN MINNEY undated letter received November 22, 2000 in the City Planning Department COMMENT RESPONSE MINNEY -1 Trans oortation/Traffic. As noted above in the Response To Comments, EQAC -10 and EQAC -13, the proposed project does Address concerns that not involve a conversion of use from research and development research and development office use. to o generates more vehicle trips per day than manufacturing uses. MINNEY -2 Parking. In accordance with Section 20.66.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, off - street parking in the M -1 -A District for Research and development research and development use is based on one parking space for use would need more each 500 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed project will parking. require 831 parking spaces (415,493 sq. ft./250 sq. ft. = 830.99 or 831 spaces), and is providing 1,421 parking spaces. MINNEY — 3 Need for EIR. The proposed project can be developed without a general plan amendment or a zone change. The determination of Comprehensive EIR is whether an EIR is needed results from preparation of an Initial needed. Study. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project by the City determined that the potential impacts could be mitigated to levels considered less than significant; an EIR is therefore not necessary or required. MINNEY -4 Height limit variance. As indicated in the Initial Study, the proposed project involves the construction two 3 -story buildings, Need for a use permit for approximately 50 feet high; the height limit in this zone is 32 feet. height limit variance. The additional 18 feet of height is needed to accommodate the third story. As a point of comparison and as noted above, the height of the parking structure ranges from 40 to 50 feet, and Building E ranges from 34 feet to 42 feet in height. The increased building height allows additional area onsite for landscaping, surface parking, and a recreation area for employees. Exhibit 4, Proposed Site Plan and Exhibit 6, Project Simulation depict the layout and character of the proposed project. The height variance would allow for improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the project site by creating a professional campus atmosphere. Replacing the current site conditions with a professional campus setting is an environmental benefit to the community. Refer also to Response to Comments, EQAC -6. I �� l MINNEY— 5 "Raytheon High Volume Manufacturing Plant and Not an R & D Facility." Historical use of the site is different than proposed Land Use and Planning. The comment has incorrectly interpreted use. the opening sentence of this section. The section does not discuss the conversion of the site to office use. As clarification, the text referenced in the comment is repeated below: 'The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing industrial /manufacturing complex as an industrial technology center. It would not result in community disruption or impact neighborhood cohesiveness." This statement was provided in response to the Initial Study question that asked whether the proposed project would physically divide an established community." The proposed uses for the project will continue the research and development activities that have historically occurred onsite and would not involve a conversion to office use. As stated in the description of allowed uses in the M-1 -A zone, the following uses are permitted in this zone without use permits: Commercial Uses Research and Development Services Offices, Business and Professional Industrial Industry, R &D The M -1 -A Industrial District provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The project is consistent with these designations. �l COMMENTS FROM SPON (STOP OUR POLLUTION NEWPORT) Letter dated November 28, 2000 COMMENT RESPONSE SPON —1 Environmental Setting. The existing development on the 13.69 - There is insufficient acre site consists of five connected two -story buildings and a detached five -story parking structure occupying 416,499 square information to understand feet, and an open landscaped employee parking lot. The existing the project. parking structure ranges in height from approximately 40 feet at the top of the parapet above the roof to approximately 50 feet at the top of the elevator structure and wall on the top of the roof. Existing buildings A, B, C, and D are approximately 30 feet in height with building E at 43 feet to the top of the roof parapet. The height of the parking structure is 40 feet at the top of the parapet above the roof to 50 feet at the top of the elevator structure and wall on the top of the roof: The existing office /laboratory building (Building E) is 32 feet 5 inches high at the top of the parapet above the roof and the mechanical penthouse structure on top of the roof is 41 feet 1 inch in height. The existing parking structure and buildings C, D, and E will be retained and remodeled. The proposed two new buildings will be three stories (approximately 50 feet) in height. A use permit for the proposed buildings is required since they exceed the 32 -foot height limit of the M -1 -A zone. SPON — 2 Proiect Obiective. The project objective, as reflected in the The traffic impacts cannot Environmental Checklist, is to demolish three buildings and be evaluated based on a replace them with two new, 3 -story buildings, with landscaping and other features. These improvements, as reflected in the conversion of a exhibits accompanying the Negative Declaration, would update manufacturing facility to an the character of the existing site development to a campus setting. office park. The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon has discontinued its operations at the site and the existing facility is vacant. The proposed use of the site will remain research and development, as well as offices related to the primary use. Hughes and Raytheon operated the site with approximately 55% research and development use and 45% for assembly and testing use. Parking at that time was based on the 55% administrative use and 45% for the manufacturing and assembly. The proposed reuse of the site will continue with some administrative office use related to the research and development use and some assembly, testing and manufacturing uses. At this time, the percentage is not known because the tenants are not known at this time. Based on the comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the Hughes Aircraft Company facility and the trips that are expected to be generated by the Newport Technology Center, it can be concluded that the proposed use will generate 229 more AM peak hour trips, 163 more PM peak hour trips and 1,844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. Therefore, there will be a reduction in daily traffic with the proposed project. Existing buildings to be retained currently exceed the 32 foot Basic Height Limit under a previously approved use permit. The two new buildings will, be 48 feet 6 inches in height, to the top of the roof parapet. The main goals of the project are: 1. The demolition of existing buildings A, B. F, and G, which are two and three -story buildings, and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure; 4. The reuse and renovation of existing buildings C, D, and E (buildings 2 and 4), which are 32 feetto 43 feet in height; and 5. The construction of two new three -story buildings (buildings 1 and 3) to replace buildings A and B that will be approximately 48 feet 6 inches in height. A project characteristics table and building square footage table is attached to the Response to Comments. The M-1 -A District provides for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The use of the site is a continuation of those uses permitted under the M-1 -A Zoning District. SPON — 3 Noise. The Initial Study devotes over 2 pages to the description Traffic analysis and trip of potential noise levels that could occur during construction. generation is unclear. Mitigation Measures ( #1 through #5) are specifically provided to mitigate potential construction noise impacts to convalescent facilities and residential areas adjacent to the site. Noise from tenants on the project site is not expected to exceed levels specified in the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. With respect to noise increases from project traffic, since there are no traffic increases anticipated from the proposed project in comparison to the traffic from the existing uses, there would be no increases in traffic- related noise. Air Quality. The proposed project does not involve conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park. The project involves the reuse of existing research and development buildings, and the demolition and construction of two new buildings for research and development use. The total square footage of development onsite under the proposed project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses. As noted in the Initial Study, the square footage of research and development uses proposed onsite will be slightly less than the existing development square footage onsite. As noted in the Transportation Section of this initial Study, there will not be a substantial increase in traffic to and from the site under the proposed project.in relation to the permitted and existing land uses. At the top of page 6 of the Initial Study checklist, it is noted that emissions from daily operations at the project site would not exceed applicable thresholds. At.this time, the tenants of the proposed project are not known; the exact amount and types of emissions that could be generated cannot be specifically determined. However, if any tenant proposes to use equipment that would require permits from the AQMD, the City will require these permits be provided prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the affected tenant. SPON — 4 Aesthetics. The following discussion is provided for clarification of the points raised in the EQAC letter: Justification for a height The request for a height limit increase from 32 feet to 50 feet is increase and impacts on described in the initial study checklist narrative and its potential the surrounding buildings impact to views is described on page 5. Exhibit 6 in the Initial as well as the streetscape. Study depicts the finished height of the proposed three story buildings and the character of the proposed project. The increased height is needed to provide for replacement research and development square footage while allowing for additional landscaping, reconfiguration of surface parking, the employee recreation area between the existing parking structure and existing Building 4 (see Exhibit 4) to create a campus -like setting on the project site. The overall development square .footage on the site is slightly less than existing; proposed landscaped areas be increased, as portrayed in Exhibits 4 and 6. The proposed replacement buildings and the professional campus setting that would be provided are an improvement to the site and the adjacent community (see Exhibit 5). Building 1 is adjacent to Superior Avenue as shown in Exhibits 4 and 6. The impacts of the new buildings on the neighborhood are described on page 5 of the Initial Study Checklist. The site was previously used for research and development uses, including some manufacturing and assembly. The proposed project would continue these permitted uses and are not being converted to office uses. While offices may be included in the buildings, they are allowed in the M -1 -A zone and will support the overall research and development activities on the project site. SPON — 5 Water Quality. As noted on page 14 of the Initial Study, the proposed project would not substantially modify the site's Should provide more drainage patterns. Since the proposed project contains slightly information to justify the landscaped area than currently exists on the project site, there conclusion that the quntity .a a would be slightly less impervious surfaces on site than the and quality of runoff not approximate 80 percent coverage that exists today. Therefore impacted. runoff from the site would also be decreased from existing levels, but not to a substantial level. As stated on page 14 of the Initial Study, a condition of approval to mitigate potential hydrology effects prior to issuance of grading permits requires the applicant to submit a hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City for approval. r:. COMMENTS FROM CITY OF COSTA MESA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Letter dated December 1, 2000 COMMENT I RESPONSE CCM -1 Transportation/Traffic. As noted above in these responses, the proposed project does not involve a conversion of use from It appears that the site is research and development to office use. being converted from manufacturing use to office The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires special analysis use, which would result in and mitigation of traffic impacts if project - generated traffic is an increase of average greater than one percent of the combined total of existing traffic, daily trips. A full traffic projected regional traffic growth, and traffic generated by study should be required °committed" projects (i.e. approved projects requiring no further with an analysis of impact discretionary review) on any approach to any of the study on Costa Mesa intersections during the morning and /or evening peak hours. intersections in the area. The City's traffic standard is for intersections to operate at no greaterthan 90 percent of intersection capacity, or level ofservice "D ". For those intersections already above the 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value, and increase in 0.01 in the cumulative ICU necessitates traffic mitigation. In 1981, the TPO traffic analysis determined that, after project completion, traffic'. generated by the project would contribute to the short-range cumulative degradation of the West Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /SuperiorAvenue intersection during the a.m. peak hour and mitigation was required of Hughes Aircraft. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, was for a proposed 110,000 square foot expansion (Building E) and the parking structure. The study indicated that there were 1,285 employees currently at the site and analyzed the addition of approximately 680 employees that would work in Building E (the 110,000 sq. ft. addition). The Traffic Study analysis was based upon three employee shifts and a projected five -year forecast of manpower and space requirements. The project information critical to the City was the 110,000 square foot limitation on gross floor area and a 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on the first shift). The City issued building permits for the addition on the basis of a reduced gross floor area of 109,893 square feet, and the applicants' agreement to provide manpower reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. The use permit was subsequently amended in 1982 to increase the square footage for the addition to 112,916 square feet, and in 1983, a revised Traffic Study for the approved Hughes expansion project was approved due to manpower staffing changes and revisions to the final square footages of the project. The applicant the City entered into an agreement to fund improvement to Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /Superior Ave. intersection, that was being jointly funded by two other projects during the same time frame. The total cost of improvements was $600,000 with the Hughes project responsible for $312,000 of the total cost. A cap on the total number of employees and building square footage was determined by the study and Hughes Aircraft Company "fair share" costs of the Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /Superior Ave. remained per the terms of the 1981 agreement with the City. . In 1999/2000, the Hughes property was sold to the St. Clair Company, who is proposing to renovate the property. At the request of staff, a Traffic Analysis was conducted in December, 2000, for the proposed remodel of the site as part of the environmental review. The purpose of the study was to quantify any riew impacts on the circulation system assuming the same land use. The applicant provided a supplemental traffic analysis conducted by Pirzadeh Associates, dated December 8, 2000 that is attached to this report. The analysis shows that, using the trip rates shown for Research and Development Centers (760), the proposed project is expected to generate 3,370 daily trips. (The City of Newport Beach uses the Trip Generation, 6t° Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to determine the appropriate trip generation rate for projects within the City.) The average daily trips for the previous Hughes and Raytheon uses were 5,214 trips. The Hughes Aircraft Company operated three shifts daily with a large percentage of the work force arriving and departing between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., which proportionately decreased the amount of project traffic during the PM peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Because the 1981 Traffic Study and 1983 Revised Traffic Study did not analyze the AM peak hour or provide an AM peak hourtrip generation rate, the 286 PM peak hour trips that were identified in the study were assumed in the new study to be generated during the AM peak hour. The assumption is based on the staggered work hours created by the shift work during the morning and evening, which causes the peak hour of the site to occur outside the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Based on the comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the Hughes Aircraft Company facility and the trips that are expected to be generated by the Newport Technology Center, it can be concluded that the proposed use will generate 229 more AM peak hour trips, 163 more PM peak hour trips and 1,844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft 1 To assess the potential impact from the additional peak hour trips being generated, two intersections were identified by staff to be analyzed: West Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /SuperiorAve., and Newport Blvd. /Hospital Road. The analysis was performed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The completion date for the proposed project is expected to be in 2002 and the traffic volumes were projected to the year 2002. The regional traffic projections are consistent with the City's methodology and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for the Newport Blvd. /Hospital Drive intersection shows that the ICU at the intersection, including the project's traffic, is projected to operate at 0.61 and 0.71 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This is well below the TPO limit of 0.90 and no mitigation is required. The West Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue intersection is projected to have ICU values of 0.92 and 1.02 during the /AM and PM peak hours, respectively. When the project's peak hour traffic volumes are added to the ICU value, the ICU's remain at 0.92 and 1.02. Therefore, there is no project impact to the West Coast Highway /Balboa Boulevard /Superior Avenue intersection identified when analyzed in accordance with the City's performance criteria for determining project impact. As a response to comments on the Negative Declaration received from the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Department, and the close proximity of the site to the City of Costa Mesa boundary, staff directed the consultant to further study the impact the project could have on three additional intersections located within the City of Costa Mesa. Specifically, the three intersections. include: Superior and 17'" Street Newport Boulevard and 17' Street Newport Boulevard and 19' Street The City of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the conditions without project ICU, or the baseline condition. The net new project volumes were derived from the percent of project traffic distributed onto the roadway network. The peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the project were distributed on the roadway network to determinethe l additive project traffic at the study intersections. A copy of the study, as performed by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc, dated December 18, 2000, is attached for reference. j The study concluded that all of the study intersections, with the exception of Newport Boulevard and 19" Street, would continue operating at Level of Service A, B, or C. Newport Boulevard and 19' Street will continue to operate at LOS E during both the AM peak hour (ICU = 1.00) and PM peak hour (ICU + 0.95). The PM peak hour ICU value of 0.95 represents an increase of 0.01 from without the project ICU of 0.94. The significance of this ICU increase on an intersection outside the City of Newport Beach was assessed on the regional impact criteria established by OCTA. OCTA has established the regional significance criteria, used to assess out -of- jurisdiction impacts, at 3% of total capacity. The 0.01 ICU increase equates to a 1 % increase. Therefore, this change is not significant. CCM -2 The traffic impacts cannot Air Quality. The proposed project does not involve conversion of be evaluated based on a a manufacturing facility to an office park. conversion of a manufacturing facility to an The proposed use of the site is research and development. The office park. project involves the reuse of existing research and development buildings, and the demolition and construction of two new buildings for research and development use. The total square footage of development onsite under the proposed project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses. As noted in the Initial Study, the square footage of research and development uses proposed onsite will be slightly less than the existing development square footage onsite. As noted in the Transportation Section of this Initial Study, there will not be a substantial increase in traffic to and from the site under the proposed project in relation to the permitted and existing [and uses. At the top of page 6 of the Initial Study checklist, it is noted that emissions from daily operations at the project site would not exceed applicable thresholds. At this time, the tenants of the proposed project are not known; the exact amount and types of emissions that could be generated cannot be specifically determined. However, if any tenant proposes to use equipment that would require permits from the AQMD, the City will require these permits be provided prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the affected tenant. J CCM -3 Traffic analysis and trip Population /Housing /Employment Balance. This is addressed in the transportation and traffic section of the report, as there is generation is unclear. projected to be a decrease in the number of total employees. COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL — Letter dated November 29, 2000 and received December 5, 2000 COMMENT RESPONSE DTSC -1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The remedial action plan was The ND indicates that soil developed prior to the findings of the risked based screening and groundwater at the site and reports, which indicated that soil remediation was not necessary. is with Soil gas sampling conducted in 1997 indicated that VOCs hazardous substances. detected in soil gas were a result of off gassing from the ground RAP addresses health risk water (i.e., soil gas concentrations were lower by an order of from soil contaminants, magnitude than the equilibrium concentration expected based on address the needs of the groundwater concentrations). Since Raytheon intended to vacate soil remediation. the property they decided to implement a SVE type remediation to allay any potential concerns of soil contamination. DTSC -2 The ND needs to identify The SVE remediation was completed in August 2000. Sampling when the construction at conducted during the remediation indicates that no vadose zone the site will be initiated. No source was present prior, during or after the remediation. construction should be allowed before the A Mitigation Measure is included that requires: "Prior to the completion of removal or issuance of a grading or building permit, owner of the property remediation of the shall provide a "closure letter" from the Orange County Health contaminated soil at the Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for site. completion of soil remediation activities, to the City of Newport Beach." DTSC— 3 The ND needs to identify Per City staff, the fuel tanks that were located on the site at 529 an known or y potentially Superior Avenue (The City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard), contaminated sites within have been removed and all hazardous materials have been the close proximity of the addressed in accordance with state guidelines. proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. DTSC's CalSites database indicates that the project site is adjacent to the Newport Beach Corporate Yard, located at 592 Superior Avenue, Newport j j Beach. This site is also a contaminated property and that RWQCB is investigating. DTSC -4 The ND indicates that the The Raytheon Systems Company is continuing to work with the proposed project site would RWQCB to complete the groundwater remediation. The fully be remediated by the groundwater remediation will be completed by Raytheon and their previous occupant, sub consultants. Such remediation will not be affected in any way Raytheon Company, by the proposed construction. except groundwater contamination. Though A Mitigation Measure is included that requires: "Prior to the groundwater is not suitable issuance of a building permit, a 'closure letter" regarding the for domestic use, RWQCB groundwater remediation, from the Orange County Health Care already indicated that Agency shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach. " groundwater remediation would be required. The ND should identify who will remediate groundwater after . the applicant's occupancy. DTSC -5 The ND indicates that Groundwater remediation is currently underway at the site. The proposed project has been reviewed by Raytheon's environmental because the groundwater consultant and has been determined that the construction will not is not suitable for domestic have an impact on the groundwater remediation. use, contamination would have no impact on future uses of the property, and remediation will continue regardless of site occupancy. Before the construction and occupancy of the site, engineering designs should be completed for groundwater remediation and that adequate space should be allocated to carry out groundwater monitoring and remediation. DTS C -6 Site occupancy before The risk -based screening already conducted at the site were groundwater remediation based on soil gas concentrations volatilizing from the should be consulted with groundwater. Given the lack of a vadose zone source, relatively RWQCB. The suitability of the site occupancy is depending on the depth to groundwater. Volatilization of contaminants in groundwater may occur and that it will be a threat to the occupants in the future. low fluctuations in groundwater elevations, and the continued decrease in groundwater concentrations, the risk -based screening has already accounted for the "worst case" scenario. DTSC -7 No soil disturbance should Soil disturbances in the area covered by the SVE remediation will be allowed before the not be conducted until certification from the RWQCB is received. completion of contaminated Any exploratory borings or preliminary work will be conducted soil removal or remediation under the supervision of the appropriate environmental and that a regulatory professionals. agency certified that the site is clean. DTSC -8 If during construction of the If previously unknown soil contamination is encountered during project, soil contamination the construction of this project, appropriate soil is suspected, stop the screening /sampling will be implemented to determine the extent construction in the area and magnitude of the contamination. Since the RWQCB is and appropriate Health and currently providing regulatory oversight, they will be notified and Safety procedures should additional investigation and remediation would be coordinated be implemented. If it is directly with that agency. determined that contaminated soil exists, Mitigation Measures have been included to insure compliance the ND should identify how with state and local regulations, policies and procedures. any required investigation and /or remediation will be conducted, , and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. _�1 January 04, 2001 NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER ERRATA Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Contact: Ms. Eugenia Garcia, AICP, Associate Planner Prepared by: Thomas E. Smith, Jr. AICP Principal BouTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, California 92614 (714) 444 -9199 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Newport Technology Center 500 Superior Avenue This Newport Technology Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata is provided to clarify, refine, and provide supplemental information for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Many of the DMND changes result from refinements and clarifications to the analysis in the Environmental Checklist for the DMND based upon the information and concerns raised by commentators during the public review period. None of the information contained in the DMND Errata constitute significant information or changes the analysis or conc]usions of the Newport Technology Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The information included in the errata resulting from the public comment process and the City's normal planning process does'not constitute substantial new information that requires issuance of a subsequent MND. As identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a Negative Declaration shall be revised and recirculated should certain criteria be met. Additional information, in and of itself, does not require a subsequent MND. A subsequent MND is only required where changes to the proposed project, changes in circumstances or new information not previously known, will result in new or increased significant effects. The new information and discussion included in these errata demonstrate that these changes do not trigger the need for a subsequent MND, based on the following criteria (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162): • No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures; • No substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact will occur; • No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously found not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible. The changes to the DMND included in these errata do not constitute substantial new information indicating that there would be 1) any new, significant impact or a substantially more severe impact than previously analyzed and discussed in the DMND; 2) any substantial increase in severity of impacts will occur; and 3) any new feasible alternative or mitigation measure exists that would avoid an identified significant impact. An errata to the DW M is the appropriate document to address the changes to the DMND, because some clarification and additions to the DMND are necessary, but none of the conditions triggering preparation of a subsequent DMND are present. For simplicity, the errata below are in the same order that they are found in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Checklist. (New text is underlined deleted text is struck out. Bold tvne text is added for clarification.) 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (Page 1) Project Description Section 8 of the Draft Environmental Checklist Form, respectively, indicate that: The proposed project site consists of a 13.69 -acre property bounded by the City of Newport Beach Corporation Genter Yard to the north, Dana Road to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and Superior Avenue to the west. The site currently contains five connected two -story buildings and a detached five -story parking structure occupying 416,499 square feet, and landscaped employee parking. The existing parking structure ranges in height from approximatelv 40 feet at the top of the parapet above the roof to approximately 50 feet at the top of the elevator structure and wall on the top of the roof. The five connected buildings re approximately 30 feet in height. The existing two -story laboratory building (Building E. Exhibit 3) and parking structure were constructed under a use permit allowing the structures to exceed the 32 -foot basic height limit. The office /laboratory building is 32 feet 5 inches high at the top of the parapet above the roof, the mechanical penthouse structure on top of the roof is 41 feet 1 inch above grade. Exhibit 3 (Existing Conditions) shows the current building configuration. The proposal is to construct two replacement three -story buildings that will exceed the 32 foot Basic Height Limit and a use permit is required to exceed the height limit up to 50 feet. The two proposed buildings will be 48 feet 6 inches to the top of the roof parapet. The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon has discontinued its operations at the site and the existing facility is vacant. The proposed use of the site will remain research and development, as well as offices related to the primary use. Remediation of contamination associated with these operations is ongoing and is covered in more detail in Section VII of the Initial Study checklist (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Raytheon is responsible for decontamination and removal of equipment and contaminated soils prior to releasing the property to the buyer for demolition and redevelopment. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (Page 2): The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of the Raytheon Microelectronics Facility as a research and development use efffi.� =:p12x. The main goals of the project are: 1. The demolition of existing buildings A, B, F, and G (Exhibit 3), which are two and three -story buildings, and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure; 2. The reuse and renovation of existing buildings C, D, and E (buildings 2 and 4), which are 30 feet to 41 feet 1 inch in height; and 3. The construction of two new additional -three -story buildings (buildings 1 and 31 to replace buildings A and B. that will be approximately 48 feet 6 inches in height. 3 ! These improvements as reflected in the exhibits accompanying the Negative Declaration would update the character of existing site development to a campus setting_ The total square footage of development would be reduced by approximately 1,007 square feet with project ' implementation. The proposed three -story structures, buildings 1 and 3, would be approximately 100.407 99,210 and 111.980 109,710 square feet in size, respectively. Additional project features include the reconfiguration of existing parking, provision of an additional 105 parking spaces and 9 motorcycle spaces, provision of an employee -use linear park and basketball court, and landscaping improvements. A Use Permit is requested to exceed the Basic Height Limit of 32 feet in the M -I -A zone up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of a previous research and development site., The M -1 -A District provides for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses The use of the site is a continuation of those uses permitted under the M -1 -A Zoning District. The proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 4. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING (Page 2): Current Raytheon Microelectronics Facility: 5 connected buildings and a detached five- Development: story parking stricture occupying 416,499 square feet of a 13.69 -acre site. To the north: City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard located immediately adjacent to the subject ro e To the east: Sege Car e _ a n li bili Landscaped slopes and Newport Boulevard adjacent to the rear of the property To the south: Apartments and Flagship Medical Care Center across Dana Road and adjacent to the site at the rear of the subject pro e To the west: Harbor Homes Trailer Park, aPA- Superior Medical Center, and Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center across Superior Avenue. The location of the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center was incorrectly listed in the table on page 2 of the Initial Study as being located east of the project site. As noted in the comment, this facility is located west of the project site and north of the Harbor Homes Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center. Landscaped. slopes and Newport Boulevard are located east of the project site. A Zoning Districting Map is added for clarification. See attached zoning map forsurroundinRproperties. Project Location (Exhibits Z 3, and 4) The maps are oriented as printed in maps of the site produced by Thomas Brothers Maps. I. AESTETICS (Page 5): The proposed project involves the demolition and remodel of an existing_ research and development site to be used as a research and development technology center with no change in 1 i,.'/ use feuse of the site far a `eehfi elefO enter and is not being converted to general office use. ineluding the eenstnaetien eftwe new buildings. A use permit is required to exceed the 32 foot Basic Height Limit up to 50 feet and the Qroposal includes a request to construct two new three - story buildings that will exceed the 32 foot height limit. Currently, the existing structures range in height from 30 26 to 42 46 feet. The proposed structures willeum be 40 48 feet 6 inches in height. The increase in building height would not impact views from surrounding buildings. The reconfiguration of the buildings and design features such as landscaping and mature trees would result in an improved visual appearance for the project site compared to the existing conditions. See Exhibits 5 and 6 for existing conditions and project simulation respectively. The relocation of the buildings will result in a reduction in site coverage and more oven space between the buildings. The required 15 foot front yard setback on Superior Avenue and Dana Road will be enhanced with shrubs and ground cover to complement the existing berm with mature pine trees. Total landscaping provided will aid in screening and softening the new building. The proposed project would add construct additional window area to the buildings, thereby resulting in a potential increase in daytime glare. However, this increase would not constitute a significant impact to adjacent land uses because of building orientation and landscaping trees. &Eistiag Exterior nighttime lighting will be added and the existing lighting will be reconfigured to meet the City's required foot - candle radius for emergency and security purposes while avoiding potential negative glare impacts on surrounding properties. Less than significant impacts are anticipated and the following conditions of approval would be implemented: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product tines and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 2. Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. III. AIR QUALITY (Page 6, 7 and 8) b) The proposed use of the site is research and development The project involves the reuse of existing research and development buildings and the demolition and reconstruction of two reylacement buildings for research and development use. 5 ��pv The proposed project does not involve "conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park The prejeet inrelres cease e€ existing buildings, and the defnelifien a d eanstruetion ef ~ effi e buildings. The total square footage of research and development e€€ee uses onsite under the proposed project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses. The project would therefore not add new long -term regional or local operational emissions. Without knowledge of the We of research and development tenants proposed for the site, it is difficult to ascertain the amount of emissions that mi h� generated. All emissions are subject to the Air Quality Management District Regulations. The only air quality impacts to be evaluated are those from demolition and construction. Construction impacts may result from: airborne dust stirred up during grading, excavation, demolition and dirt hauling; gaseous emissions from heavy equipment, trucks, and employee vehicles; and application of paints and coatings. These emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the construction phase and weather conditions. Construction of the project is estimated to take approximately 10 months, divided between demolition, grading/excavation and building construction/rehabilitation. Mitigation Measures 3 -9 numbering change. 4-3. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. ?.4. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a) Use of low- emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees C) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines d) Use of low - sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment e) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts f) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 3-5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from construction activities. 4-6. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 431.2 which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. -5-7. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 6-8. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design regulations as well as + the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements. -7-9. The project shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). c) Based upon the proposed square footages, there will be no additional daily trips to the site as discussed in the transportation section of this negative declaration rather a decrease in average daily trips is expected. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Page 9) Mitigation Measures 10 -12 number change. M-10. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 2-11. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. 3-12. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive provisions of AB952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. VI. GEOLOGYAND SOILS (Page•]0 and 11) Mitigation Measure No. 13 and 14 number change. M-13. All earthwork shall comply Nvith the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Building Department, and may include the following: • Soil engineering report • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans • Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and irrigation plans 7 ?-14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services, Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Page]], 12 and 13) Mitigation Measure number 15 added: 15. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, owner of the property shall provide a "closure letter" from the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for completion of soil remediation activities, to the City of Newport Beach. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP), prepared by Dudek' and Associates, detailing Raytheon's approach for dealing with impacted groundwater and soil at the site was prepared and submitted to the RWQCB in December 1997, and approved in early 1999. The RAP found that groundwater data compiled since 1982 show a decreasing trend in the concentrations of TCE, PCE, and acetone. The sources of these contaminants were removed in 1983, and since that time, concentrations of these compounds have decreased by over 90 percent. Analytical groundwater data indicate that the cause of this decrease is due to the natural anaerobic biological degradation of these compounds by indigenous microbial anaerobes. These anaerobes are i responsible for degrading PCE and TCE and are using acetone as a "food" source during the biodegradation process (Dudek 1998). Acetone concentration in the groundwater will be regulated and augmented in certain wells as needed because degradation appears to correspond with its presence in the groundwater. The biodegradation process will be monitored on a routine basis to determine the progress of the remediation. Raytheon is responsible for the enhanced in- situ bioremediation and routine monitoring of groundwater beneath the project site. For this reason the project applicant Would provide Raytheon with access to the property for continued groundwater sampling and monitoring well inspection. The RAP is available for public review in the Planning DeRartment, City of Newport Beach. With the exception of groundwater contamination, the proposed project site would be fully remediated by the previous occupant, Raytheon Company, prior to occupation by the applicant. Because the groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, contamination would have no impact on future users of the property, and remediation will continue regardless of site.occupancy. However, the project shall comply with the following City of Newport Beach standard conditions of approval: Mitigation Measure is deleted and replaced with Mitigation Measures No. 16 and 17. eilities eee tr —prier te— he eampletie 'Ala'ef �Censt�e?ien ana— eeeupaney of the may flip if it is deteniiined by reffiediation the Regienal that eTf'Ss t ,tee _ !e ne advef:s [ V nts A 16. Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur Prior to the completion of the remediation if it is determined by the Regional Water Ouality Control Board that no adverse effect would occur to occupants. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a closure letter regarding—the groundwater remediation, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be provided to the City ofNewoort Beach. Mitigation Measures 18 and 19 number changes. 2-18. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Plarining and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. 3-19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Bach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan.and its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. VII. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY (Page 13 -15) Mitigation Measure 20 and 22 number change. Add Mitigation Measure no. 21. X20. A stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. The SWPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach 21 Prior to the issuance of building permits a SWPPP shall be provided to The City of Newport Beach for approval. 2722.The applicant shall apply, for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and 9 implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. e) The proposed project site consists of approximately 80% impervious surface. Storm water runoff drains primarily to the eastern edge of the project site into an existing gunnite terrace cut into the embankment facing Newport Boulevard. The terrace directs flows into a stormwater drain in Newport Boulevard. To a lesser extent, some flows drain to stormwater facilities in Superior Avenue. The proposed project would not substantially modify the site's existing drainage patterns. Rewever, No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required: Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 are deleted, included in the conditions of approval of the use permit. new# AeAt used en the design aA e!ek,@Oeq s the a ..a..:......VUSt, .. VIII. LAND USE AND PLANNING (Page 15 and 16) Land Use Regulations for Industrial Districts added. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing industrial/manufacturing complex as a research and development technology center. Permitted uses in the M -I -A Zoning District include: (see attached Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations Chart). It would not result in community disruption or impact neighborhood cohesiveness. No impacts are anticipated. Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations Chart is attached to these errata. XI. NOISE (Page 16 -18) Mitigation Measures 1 through 5 number change, and delete condition No 6. -14Z3. The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of 10 /� construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 2424. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. -3-)25.All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. 4)26.Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent facilities at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. -)27. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. c) Mitigation Measure No. 28 is added. The proposed project would result in reduced noise levels compared with the previous industrial/manufacturing use. Existing exterior manufacturing equipment associated with the previous use will be removed. No impacts are anticipated, however, to insure compliance with Citv Noise Regulations for future equipment installed for the proposed use, the following condition shall be implemented: 28. All equipment installed for all uses on site shall be screened from view and noise associated with the use of the equipment shall be attenuated as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be based on the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer approved by the Planning and Building Departments XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC (Page 19 and 20) Clarifying information based on 1981 and 1983 Traffic Impact Analysis and Traffic Analysis conducted in December 2000. Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 number changes and Mitigation Measure No. 31 is added. In 1981 A Traffic Impact Analysis was repared by Kunzman Associates for an expansion of the facility, per the requirements of the Orange County Congestion Management Program and the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Hughes Aircraft Company proposed a 1 10,000 square foot building expansion including a new parking structure I t n l/ The City's TPO requires special analysis and mitigation of traffic impacts if project - generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing traffic, projected regional growth and traffic generated by committed projects (i.e. approved projects requiring no further discretionary review) on any approach to any of the study intersections during the moming and evening peak hours. Intersections are required to orate at no greater than 90 percent of the intersection capacity or level of service "D." For those intersections already above the 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value, an increase in 0.01 in the cumulative ICU necessitates traffic mitigation. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, was for a proposed 110,000 square foot expansion (Building E) and the parking structure. The study indicated that there were 1,285 employees currently at the site and analyzed the addition of approximately 680 employees that would work in Building E (the 110.000 sq. ft. addition). The Traffic Study analysis was based upon three employee shifts and a projected five -year forecast of manpower and space requirements. The project information critical to the City was the 110,000 square foot limitation on gross floor area and a 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on the first shift). The City issued building permits for the addition on the basis of a reduced gross floor area of 109,893 square- feet, and the applicants' agreement to provide manpower reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. The use permit was subsequently amended in 1982 to increase the square footage for the addition to 112.916 square feet, and in 1983, a revised Traffic Study for the approved Hughes expansion project was approved due to manpower staffing changes and revisions to the final square footages of the proiect. It was determined that one of the study intersections experienced a traffic impact and would require a mitigation measure. The applicant and the City entered into an agreement to fund intersection improvements to Coast Highway (aD. Balboa Blvd./ Superior Ave. that was being iointly funded by two other projects during the same time frame. The total cost of improvements was $600,000 with the Hughes proiect responsible for $312.000 of the total cost. However, in 1983, a revised Traffic Study for the approved Hughes expansion proiect was initiated due to manpower staffing changes and revisions to the final square footages of the proiect. A cap on the total number of employees and building square footage was determined by the study and Hughes Aircraft "fair share" costs of the Coast Hi hwav ia, Balboa Blvd. /Superior Ave. remained per the terms of the 1981 agreement with the Citv. In 1999/2000, the Hughes property was sold to the St. Clair Company, who is proposing to renovate the property. At the request of staff, a Traffic Analysis was conducted in December, 2000, for the proposed remodel of the site. The purpose of the study was to quantify any new impacts on the circulation system assuming the same land use. The applicant provided a supplemental traffic analvsis conducted by Pirzadeh Associates dated December 8. 2000 that is attached to this report. The analysis shows. that using the trip rates shown for Research and Development Centers (760) the proposed project is expected to generate 3,370 daily trips (The City of Newport Beach uses the Try Generation 6th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to determine the appropriate trip generation rate for projects within the City). 12 The Hughes Aircraft Company operated three shifts daily with a large percentage of the work force arriving and departing between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., which proportionately decreased the amount of project traffic during the PM peak hour of the adiacent roadway. Because the 1981 Traffic Study and 1983 Revised Traffic Study did not analyze the AM peak hour or provide an AM peak hour trip generation rate, the 286 PM peak hour trips that were identified in the study were also assumed to be generated during the AM peak hour. The assumption is based on the staggered work hours created by the shift work during the moming and evening, which causes the peak hour of the site to occur outside the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Based on this assumption, the number of employees that were arriving and leaving the site would generate similar traffic volumes during the AM peak hour as documented during the PM peak hour. The proposed proiect is expected to generate 449 trips during the PM peak hour, which is 163 trips more than what was projected for the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. The increase in PM peak hour trips can be attributable to the Hughes Aircraft Company employee's arrival and departure times. In 1983, prior to the addition of the 110.000 gross square feet of office /laboratory uses (Building E), 425 trips were recorded between the hours of 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. The assumption regarding the effect that the shift work had on the PM peak hour traffic generation can be demonstrated from information provided in the Kunzman Associates Traffic Study. Based on the comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the hour trips, 163 more PM peak hour trips and 1,844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft Companv facility. Although the proposed project does not generate more than 300 average daily trips more than the former Hughes Aircraft Companv facility. instead there are fewer average daily trips, there is an increase in the AM and PM peak hour project trips. To address the additional peak hour trips being generated, and because of the proximity to the proiect site. two intersections were identified by staff to be evaluated for potential project impacts: West Coast HighwavBalboa Blvd. /Superior Ave., and Newport Blvd./Hospital Road. A one percent approach volume analysis was performed to examine the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the two intersections. The analysis is performed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, entitled Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The one- percent analysis included the respective traffic volume for the peak hour for regional growth and approved projects. The completion date for the proposed project is expected to be in 2002 and the traffic volumes were projected to the Year 2002. The regional traffic projections are consistent with the Citv's methodology and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate. The Intersection C2pacity Utilization Analysis for the Newport Blvd /Hospital Drive intersection shows that the ICU at the intersection is proiected to operate at 0.605 and 0.711 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. No additional analvsis or mitigation is recommended. The West Coast HighwavBalboa Blvd /Superior Avenue intersection is proiected to have an 13 ICU value of 0.92 and 1.02 during the PM peak hour. When the proiects peak hour traffic volumes are added to the ICU value, the ICU's remain at 0.92 and 1.02 'during the AM and PM Rak hours, respectively. Therefore, there is no proiect impact to the West Coast �'• Highway/Balboa Boulevard/Suverior Avenue intersection identified when analyzed in accordance with the City's performance criteria for determiniDg project impact. As a response to comments on the Negative Declaration received from the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Department and the close proximity of the site to the City of Costa Mesa boundary, staff directed the consultant to further study the impact the proiect could have on three additional intersections located within the City of Costa Mesa. Specifically, the three intersections include: • Superior and 17' Street • Newport Boulevard and 17' Street • Newport Boulevard and 19" Street The Citv of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the without vroiect ICU, or the baseline condition. The net new proiect volumes were derived from the percent of project traffic distributed onto the roadway network. The peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the proiect were distributed on the roadway network to determine the additive project traffic at the study intersections. A copv of the study. as performed by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc, dated December 18, 2000, is attached for reference. The study concluded that all of the study intersections, with the exception of Newport Boulevard 1Y0 Street will continue to operate at LUS t aurmg ootn the AM 1eaK Dour IA U = I.yy) ano rm peak hour (ICU + 0.95). The PM peak hour ICU value of 0.95 represents an increase of 0.01 from without the proiect ICU of 0.94. This represents a less than significant impact on the Costa Mesa intersections that were studied. Mitigation Measures land 2 numbering changed and Mitigation Measure No. 31 was added. 4-)29. The applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 2}30.The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and procedures shall conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. 31. The proposed use of the site shall remain a research and development use with ancillary commercial and office use, as defined by Section 10.05 of the Newport t 14 Beach Municipal Code. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (Page 20 and 21) Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 are deleted and included in the conditions of approval of the use permit. c) The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial/business complex. The project would result in modifications in site hydrology and utility configuration/use. No significant impacts are anticipated. With the a .,. J . .. - 141, -1 PGFt Beaeh BUHMA9 DepaFtMeRt . owl, °°° the oeR ° G eilitieG add d seraeeti�rgta=asafasf f 2) Prier to the iSSUaRGe of gwadiFiq peFFARG ��- agplisant Shall submit a plan of t .Pt. s fer_the r eles.1 49 shall eri�' the adequacy of existing pFepesed pFe)�. g) The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial/business complex. The project would not require expansion of existing utilities and service systems such as wastewater treatment, water supply, and/or solid waste disposal beyond that already provided. for the previous use. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.: the p, -J . eet shall eemply with the C . satisf etien ef the Gily of Ne-A -gel Beaeh Fife Depm4ffleat, that all gTsh.-Ill be equipped with fire stippr-essien systems. SOURCE LIST Sources added: 11. Traffic Study, Kunzman Associates, 1981. 12. Revised Traffic Studv, Kunzman Associates, 1983 13. Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Pirzadeh and Associates Inc December 2000 14 City of Newport Beach Zoning Districting Map 15 Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations Chart 15 -... it .. ... �' : �.'. MN i�J ,'T. .. ,. ._ . ,... _ ,'� •- �� . 'i' +'J � y .� . �.yti . ' h h. -;c.• Y .'1 ♦ �'ut'j�Y ' • �: \' � • `� I • �I�• ':; � �`� . , ��`•: y,. _r ' t. _'':` _�;�. ., � �. ,�. �' ,r �, ... -i �:, :1' �,' �':r.' _ L�•� ,•' =''Y. `:. Y �•,' � l . � ".�.� ...y� •a' :.i t. :� - : c'.' �' : �.'. MN i�J ,'T. .. ,. ._ . ,... _ ,'� •- �� . 'i' +'J � y .� . �.yti . ' h h. -;c.• Y .'1 ♦ �'ut'j�Y ' • �: \' � • `� I • �I�• �.� \' i�a �:. Table of Contents Section Paqe No. 1-Project Description ........................................ 1 2-Project Traffic Generation ................................. 2 3-Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment ................ 7 4-Critical Intersections Analyzed ............................ 8 5-Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis ............... . 11 6-Proiect Related Improvements ............................... 13 '7-Othex Traffic Considerations ................................ 15 - Internal C�rculation - ;ianal warrants B-Conc:usion ................................................. 11 Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis work Sheets Appendix B - Intersect'on Cap,5city Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C Proiect Related Improvement ICU Work Sheets - Table No. Title Paae No. 1 List 6i Tables 3 - Table No. Title Paae No. 1 Hughes Aircraft Employees 1981 -1985 ............. 3 2 Calculating Traffic Generation Rates :.; (prom Existing Conditions) .............:........ 4 •� 3 Traffic Generation by Project (2985) ............ S 4 Hughes Aircraft Traffic Count May 14. 1981 ..... ............................... 6 �•' 5 One Percent Analysis Summary 9 yy 6 Committed Projects .............................. 10 • 7 Intersection Capacity Utilization ��,;: for Critical Intersections ;::. B Project Related Impro-eements .................... 14 •. � • � '•� � �'� • � ♦. ._ __ e... �.�.a. -. ..emu < +rw .n�rm�sn�..�w . ._` ?• �.` �, t� �: rl' i �`'• •.�� ;��. ,'ri. '• t •I ( � i �' �\ �: ,i i!'� J, � ;. — ;t Hughes Aircraft Expansion Traffic Study I Project Description This traffic analysis discusses the traffic impact of a 110,000 square foot addition plus parking structure to the existing Hughes Aircraft facility in the City of Newport Beach. There are currently 1,285 ernployecs at the project site. The Iation building expansion will increase the existing employee pop,: by 680 employees. This traffic analysis examines the traffic impact of adding 680 employees in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance as well as reviews on-site circulation and traffic volumes in order to evcluate the need for a traffic sig- nal. Figures I and 2 provide a project location map and site Vlan. FigLwe 2 She Plan r: N 2. Project Traffic Generation Traffic Generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appro- priate trip generation rate by the quantity and type of land use. v Trips are expressed in terms of trip ends per employee, per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or per acre. For this traffic ana- lysis, actual traffic counts at the Hushes Aircraft facility were made. Table 1 depicts the number of existing and future employees by each shift. It can be noted that the bulk of the 680 new employees will be added to the 4:00 PM to midnight shift. Based upon conversations with a Hughes Aircraft representative, It was indicated that sixty percent of all Hughes employees would be on the first and adminis- trative support shifts and the remaining forty percent would be on the second and maintenance shifts. Table 2 details traffic generation rates for the Hughes Aircraft Facility based upon actual traffic counts made at the facility. The traffic counts are contained in Table 4. The estimated traffic generation for the addition of 680 new employ- ees is presented in Table 3. Using the distribution of employees by shift per Table 1, 659 employees and their respective trips will af- fect the peak 2.5 hours of traffic but only 158 employees and their respective trips will affect the-5:00 PM to 6:00 PM peak hour traffic. Table 4 provides a tabulation of the Hughes Aircraft facility in- bound and outbound traffic. The peak 2.5 hours is from 3:00 to 5:30 PM. 2 1 r; /i 'i: W Table I fNGMES AIRCRAFT E34PL40TEES 1901 -1985 1981 New Ono to ees 1985 Employees Percent Distribution Percentage Employees Percent Shift Time May 1981 in each of 680 new for 680 in 1985 in each Shift Employees Employees shift 19t shift 7:OD A to 581 45 0 0 581 90 9,90 PM Administrative 8,00 AM to 440 94 158 29 598 90 Support shift 5,00 PM 2nd Shift 4:00 PM to 226 18 501 74 727 98 Midnight Melntenance Midnight 38 J 21 J 59 9 shift to 7,00 AM To to is 1.285 100 680 100 1,965 100 Table 2. ... CALCULATING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES (FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS) Descriptor Peak 2.5 Hours Peak Hour Time Frame 3:00 to 5:30 PM 5 :00 to 6:00 PM Employees Arriving and Departing in Time Frame Arriving 226 0 Departing 1021 440 Total 1247 440 Traffic volumes Inbound 176 9 Outbound 712 205 Total BBB 214 Traffic Generated per Total ' Employees Arriving and De- parting in Time Frame ' Inbound 0.1411 0.0205 Outbound 0.5710 0.4659 Total 0.7121 0 -4864 Traffic Generated per Arriving Employee Inbound 0.6932 0 - outbound 0.0189 0 Total 0.7121 0 Traffic Generated per Departing Employee 'Inbound 0.0189 0.0205 Outbound 0.6932 0 -4659 Total 0.7121 0.4864 0 4 1 'r fT'. Table 3 TRAFFIC GENERATION by PROJECT (1985) Descriptor Peak 2.5 Hours Peak Hour Time Frame 3.00-to,5c30 PH 5!00 to 6!00 PH New Employees Arriving and Departing in Time Frame Arriving 501 0 Departing 158 158 Total 659 158 Traffic Generated per Arriving Employee I Inbound 0.6932 0 Outbound 0.0189 0 Total 0.7121 0 Traffic Generated by Arriving Employee Inbound 347 0 Outbound 10 0 Total 357 0 Traffic Generated per Departing Employee Inbound 0.0189 0.0205 Outbound 0.6932 0.4659 Total 0.7121 0.4864 Traffic Generated by Departing Employee Inbound 3 3 . Outbound 110 i4 Total 113 77 I Traffic Generated by Arriving and Departing Employees I Inbound 350 3 Outbound 120 74 Total 470 77 i C e Table 4 HUGHES ASRCPAFP TNAFFSC COUNT May 14. 1981 ..._— a J�- IN OUT 1 C -- Fran South From North TO South To North North Mid 5outh Total North Mid South Total North Mid South Total North Mid South To[n:�; . :' -3z15 0 0 7 7 7 15 4 22 1 7 2 6 1 7 9 17 . ..,:+ -7:70 1 1 15 17 1 27 10 74 1 10 10 21 1 23 B 70 I 10-3; 45 O 1 11 12 2 17 15 74 2 47 22 71 29 53 27 107 ! . •`.'• -.1 t00 1 0 6 7 0 e 11 19 0 6 6 12 2 32 7 17 I .: 0n -4:15 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 7 0 16 10 26 5 47 35 67 t:15 -4.70 0 0 1 1 0 1 '1 2 0 6 4 10 2 16 7 21 4:70 -4:45 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 7 0 11 12 27 5 2B 13 44 1 4:45 -5,00 0 0 4 4 1 1 7 5 0 20 16 76 5 64 5:00 -5,15 0 2 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 26 12 40 B 67 5:15 -5:70 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 9 1 10 3 75 5:70 -5,45 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 1 7 3 k45 2l `5 AS -6:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 6 2 23 et Hove- 4 'S 44 $l 7 70 49 126 4 164 100 26B 62 50: a J�- ,r''i?}•'F4' ? J' v+f t sF WY �. - ^�.4i t. l \ i I t > IS •`q l�dlLt E` i f l \i l.'1a`[ 1 ii. yL,��i t' lu .«.•r�l \' F -:.� 1 � i"u +�'�. ° �eN J A %a�` 2 iF 's •' Nt"• ,if. F i n ��,i.1 � I•'" t f `t �.ei � Ya eff F ��y „' Ihei�tyYr� w A n i +l f t• p N O N O N O 0 N O N O N O O Z P N N N N e e e A V V V n O N O N O N O N O N O 0 N 1 i s O O O O O O O N O N O 0 n _n S R N G O O N O O 0 0 O r O 6 3 N N s r s O N s O P N c c n r Y S a N O 6 pZ Z J O O O O O O O O N r y n ^ J v ✓ N R O O O N m J N µ O N - \D 0 0 N O Y Y N O e O C O > S 7 N P N O N N Y Ip V A N N yZ O � O O O O O O O O O N R n > P A N P 0 N 0 N O P P P A J O a O N yIA O C O N N O A N P O P N n S to" N P J O O P O p P N R r m A N N N O P u` _ t- W-1 P y n N ^ M N V > > A - w A n i +l f Is 4 3. project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is the determination of tha directional a =:- entation of traffic based upon-residential, business, reereationa.' and employment opportuni =ies. Traffic assignment is.t`se deterni. -a- tion of which specific route project traffic will use once a gen- eralized distribution is determined. The traffic distribution and assignment are based upon actual traf- fic counts made at the Hughes Aircraft facility. at was found t`, r.: 66 percent of the project's traffic will'go north on Superior Avg: Figure 3 displays this traffic distribution and assignment. t �� i I W rJr �f .'�� 4: Crftical`Intersections Analyzed X Seven critical intersections were analyzed at identified by City "'staff. "Table S - lists- ther'seven intersections,. and-provides a.__.. summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis. Appendix A contains the calculation sheets. Four intersections have the one percent volume criteria exceeded: _ Superior and Placentia Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway it ��::•:; <. =.,The purposa of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis i?;Lo S..`'4:.= "':••:x -- establish whether the project adds a volume that is greateri thah• one percent of n critical intersections' ap- proach If: _.less than one percent is added to all. approaches of a�,;critical Intersection, then no further analysis is necessary "'.4pecified'.:..p ; in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. F Aa ,part'of the. one percent analysis, 'regi oanl growth.-Mn dceoaw.itted r ' projects are.included. Volume projections are made; <t• h_ point +in`ksavfi •time::.one: ear'aftar the project eom letion.''This 'ro ee s' ie--. Y P j P P j, comp -• -:' tion date is 1982, and traffic volumes, are projeeted'.te 1965: ?'Al': though co nst.—uction will be completed in 1982, he maxi isn� "numb'es?::!• ?i; of employees is anticipated.by 1985. -Regional traf_ft&'3Ii f 6 en', e. � -,1.�, Sc.- „`.;...forecasted is neeordnnen with City procedures, and e includes traffic includes those projects listed in Table •i.§: P :y 4�.:: Tai.' •�:, EK 1 Ap Table 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY k. sections It of Projected Project's 2.5 Over zed 2.5 liz. Peak Vol. Hour Peak Vol ii for and Placentia thbound 8 95 thbound 7 41 yes tbo=d 12 0 thound 8 25 4 for and Pacific Coast ay thbound 12 25 thbound 23 32 yes t.bound 33 '70 thound 43 0 e and Pacific Coast ay .. A thbound thbound thound 30 yes >h,,,A -F 770 0 ,0 41 25 aA 38 0 is 8 15 0 12 5 L 0 5 2 25 ............... •"%a: '. ^......': "i' ^'.. �•.. ': {{_ .. _ lug �� •'A� �= `d'Sa�r.. '+= ,�ik•,S_. ..: .. .. •I S 1 - '; ^��f S' r`.r IlTr 9'.,fr�/ ;y.L'�•••.•w nNC :.:: {'t ti.,�C ,'.�•�; f'� • s. `i _' �i - ti� ICJ •\'••,. t�� fl i.t..e �� TY �y c rl�r.3. 1F�yry - • �y �• � ut %mf•4� Il.; 'lixn�:�y ''..�1::' ^•�`i�`.i Sy> w.�>;e�wr ,:. ,, :� =. - .,.,:;� -� ' .l ' �` f r �� 4 C1- f�y4t JJ 't ../,ti .��4f \�� Y 'A {.y3. 1r V-' 1 f �iJ>< �.. a! "`f ktiP�.r I'Mii lO y11.,� 9 s r i;� z y'� 7, Y r jr ��t .� F.4 S f'�1 J� . ; > 1Ri�w u:2�vi..i� � 4^r M" sSKISi 7. Other Traffic Considerations In discussions with City of Newport Beach staff, it was requested ..� that internal site circulation and sional warrants be addressed. Internal Circulation There are three points of ingress and egress to the site. In evaluating the parking layout and internal circulation, the follow- ing guidelines were used. 1. The first parking stall which is perpendicular to a driveway, or first aisle juncture, should be at least 40 feet back from the curb. The reason for this recommendation is to provide a queueing area off street so that if a vehicle is parking or '® unparking in the stall nearest the street, there is room for at least one vehicle to queue while waiting for the other ve- hicle to park. Without this provision, vehicles will queue into the stree. 2. Circulation withir. the parking area shou714allow relatively free flow of vehicular traffic with no constrictions. 3. T.he aisles should be placed in such a wav that it is easy to reach any destination within the project after entering anv driveway. 4. All curb return radii should be 35 feet. a S. Access roads and /or driveways for a development should be lo- cated at least 200 feet apart and at least 200 feet from the nearest intersection. 6. Driveways should be at least 28 feet wide. and preferably 30 to 35 feet wide, so that an entering vehicle does not inter- fere with an ex:.ting vehicle. Narrower driveways lead to conflict between entering and exiting vehicles, causing one ..,� "..,; to stop and wait for the other. The project appears to meet the criteria listed above. Possible t exceptions are discussed below. .Vi -r,: With perpendicular parking, two -way aisle widths should be a min- ,. imum of 24 feet. This appearsto be the aisle width used through- out the project site. y. Points of egress and ingress to the parking structure should be treated as driveways or as two -way aisles and should therefore is have a minimum width of 24 to 28 feet. This does not appear to be the case for the first parking structure a :)tries off of the two northern most Superior Avenue access point::. Sicnal warrants Traffic signal warrants have been adopted by CalTrans and the Federal Highway Administration. These warrants are based on the volume in the eight highest hours of a day. It is generally as- sumed that the per hour volume in each of the eight highest hours is ecual to sixty percent of the volume in the evening peak hour. and the evening peak hour is ten percent of the daily traffic. Thus_ the sicnal warrants can also be expressed in terms of peak hour and daily traffic volumes. The daily warrant volume used in this analysis are based upon Cal Trans criteria of 14,400 daily volume cn a major street and 1.200 daily volume on a minor street The project she addition of 680 employees venerates 2.040 daily trips. when the existing daily traffic from 1.285 emplovees is added to the orojeet traffic_ the total daily trips equal 5.895 trips. On a daily basis this means 2,948 trips enter the site and 2_948 trips exit the site. Assu:!u ng that the central access mint will generate 50 percent of the project traffic. approxinately 1.474 inbound and 1.474 outbound trips will use this access point. Superior Avenue has an average daily traffic velure of 26.000 vehicles and a posted speed .'.nit of 35 m.p.h. The daily signal warrant at_roac :n volume c: a major street to provide for inter- ruption of continous flow is 14_400. The existing daily volume plead_ exceeds t m h,- warrant. }.ssuing the ee-;•_::al access will handle 50 oercenc of the daily project traffic. the warrant volume for i.ntertacticn of continous flow of 1.200 ADT is exceeded. Since t_`ie Project traffic daily volumes are predicated on full em?lovment and signal warrants are not met with the existing num- ber of emt`i bonding for the signal should be rec u: red. This would Pera.it the City of Vewport Beach the e?portuniiv to dete—.'ne hen a sicnal needs to be 'installed. A sicnal should not nQ installed until warranted. 16 .. •�'�tr.'�'.. "�i , �•i:.'. ''. '- + +,''.,r , ,,lip � , INA . ,•• I .• �!S!�' i , / t :l.; 'A ��a:n C•t.aOn.'1 M'.� \..:.q: Jr:: ;t �1 ''y�:q ifY1 �a. :t' .;l• .�` NOW •. °•,. NOW •. °•,. mot'• •i: 1�, 4J' � •ll l�•' 'y• 1. .t alt 'I y- L >.fI' ^I� ^��.r' .' ;. •l. +�V =:.: : a; pt t. t• •. ` 1. too ): i.� ol -87 � • .� � � � \ /S- Z :l% � .. tar1� .n�y�.s. ... ._ 'yeti..': �•.� . . 1 MIT ""�`'1T ?_1ix'H%¢i�"��'.�;�l F [v :ti. I :., .':Y. �: .. _,,: . .. :�: . �,. �. _ _ .... . , ' '?� � :�� •� � .i ... _ .'��.. e �'�1 �`i��' .•1.'i .� .• � 0•. v � ti •Y �. y. iiw,�y�� r �j�r • � ..` �� '� .i: }�: �. .. .�•' •�I �� ti � . � .. ��'• a - � 1 i . � i. _ :r ,..,� '�N�, � 1 ,.:y '�. �. =• ,. �' .�- h.-• -- v� _. - •.,•'ice -# •� .�.. .` .�I. •o•'f,�' f' .•dry �• ! �� :y}„ �r��.y .. ji• � ��. .. � � �,. _ - ii• i. _ :r ,..,� '�N�, � 1 ,.:y 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATI ON, ANALYSI Intersection. Superior andPacific Coi ,� :, :: ,,,,.. •;. �Existing Traffic Volumes ased on ve rage„ Inter ry..�nt IISTI% l.rrc. 4. 1P Mto L.rrca L. EIISI .0 11 W. Mn Vic 4,vu VMCOV CgYiN VOL. C 1rM Y.a1CCT M. Ma1CCTM III bt+. MWCCT V.Ir r ECT VIC MO. XL 308 NT' f 4800 173 002` 4 .1010' NR NS 64 SL 1 1600 133 .1188' .1188' ST .. 3200 300 353' 8 .0969 5 .0978 SR NS 3200 545 .2433 15 . -2500 EL . 3200 ET 3200 660 063 4 205 .2716 .2716 ER 1600 210 L688 .1688 .1688 1,91 1600 69 431 .0431 .0431 NT,. 3200 4800 11301 066' 7 481 .4147' .4141' WR'.,: 1600 83 519 .- 0519 .0519 rzuovrux 000' -1000' .1000` MITI% Izrt [ma weCITT OILTMTIM 102 ISBN% PL" C[n11TlIO IIVS VFCIC Cam• Y /TW ED IMPTL S LC.V . a MSTIK Kla CCWT71i RUS t(CICR,L 1 P RUS ? C ECT I.C.V. .8026 Projected plus project Lraffic i.C_U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic i.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 i? Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with system; improvement! will be )ess than or equal to 0.90 '- NV-,a: - ' - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Committed: Reconstruct intersection' per current City.nians ... ?.•+ Project Related: add a third westbound through lane to raculc r.._ Coast Highway. Restrix Superior - southbound to include two 'through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left 'turn lane. Pe rmitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. �. , +. �.�.. i.:.:.. .... .. . :";..E . May 1981 < :; es.: Aire a Er.pansion .. DATE: , yr .. 5 Oxon* -� '. is •nri'ci..,•:• -r .mot_ /n:'•.. :(Y- ^.•�t% 1�'r �' -• Al i :�1�•i' lam. � .. •�,. :�� ..• � ... •it MEN, .tom Ir Fro }Q' t I ./ � .. / _:_►.>_. .._.. .•�% ._ .,.�,:,. ... .,_ .':;c...._..�,. ._ ,.:mow... � f,.,,. �r' 1. \ � � �'� \� � .. .. �n� 'w .. � � . � .. ./ � .. / _:_►.>_. .._.. .•�% ._ .,.�,:,. ... .,_ .':;c...._..�,. ._ ,.:mow... � f,.,,. sting Traffic Volumes-Na-s !rage winter/�pr)nq ii of Projected plus-project traffic I.C.U. n U. �Ml be less than or. equal Y, to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90.. X Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r 0 iys tem. improvement: : V rti is tscIund: iight turn only* lane.,toa corabination , .. .— . - : .. : , . 0 9h light turn line e ed to use only 70 percent of. imorovenent. canacit Y R31, es::Xirdraf t.,Expans on D E11371K L..t C,O� r asrD : - U U0. 11157 It M I 1:11n Vic kfclW :J k C Irlll) PMJIc1 vo,. FAWMI). YA U0. . . rIA)FC1 V.I.. 1�10Si Vic Ut4 HL xT MR SL 103 ST lcnn 694 —0694-1 1.0694* SR EL 1600 125 .0125- .0125* ET 4800 934 946 10 205 .2393 1 .2396 W1 vT 3200 "I'll 1769 57e1 * 19 4SI % 5440• 15 7, .5475• WR - 81 . n . IL IVT- 1000- ioeo-. 0� 76 EC (I;S-IK FLUS Ca 7-2D ftM M:1a V/l.nvsED Il.cvElrnl, IA-V WSTM ft-4 COW-➢ It= M;Iw cmrtM n6l ?Y Lo I.C.U. -A :7294 Projected plus-project traffic I.C.U. n U. �Ml be less than or. equal Y, to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90.. X Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r 0 iys tem. improvement: : V rti is tscIund: iight turn only* lane.,toa corabination , .. .— . - : .. : , . 0 9h light turn line e ed to use only 70 percent of. imorovenent. canacit Y R31, es::Xirdraf t.,Expans on D S p,.�' F / ', _ s4 a .. �:• ..., l;aq�'r f. "Lr r�wc iUr �S Zy. t u a �Ci��i�1a�'1' associates �,` v v ` Trensportotion Planning. Tref fic Engineering'` May19. 1981 Mr. Qeeton Rreitzer The Planning Center 24D Newport Center Drive Suite 215 Newport Beach, CA 92660 , Dear Mr. Areitzer: f. Attached is a discussion of Transportation System "Manage ='' Tent techniques which could be implemented for-the Hugh a S' : :,. :j- : :.'�-; :. It` Aircraft facility in Newport Beach. .... Transportation system tea Management Overview — Transportation' System ,Management (TSM).inlcudes short- range ..;1." transportation- planning and operational have as' : their ` objectives. :incr eased -efficier:cy-.of;. :the. :system;; :•;:: - -.: roved: air air- e•:ality,. and: energy, conversation. >.These care `.: r:Y; }'4 { :' : :i °primazi ly 'low -cost' projects, that are specificallyrtarget6C--? :; to make more elf icient'use of the transportation system; and reCuce auto use_ Listed below are severl" elements which '.should be considered for: incorporation into a "Transportation Systems Management, Plan.. .. a_ info -,a -ion and Ma rke tins System (to info: athe "public'''`''," o_ acvantages oz using a_;e�r�a clue transportation modes) Advertising and promoticn of active TSM "programs y'...": 2. Co7-nunity, input ant: participation in.TSM activities 3- ..Periodic' :`survey'.oL' :pser. :acceptance and demand. b._,. Ride Sharing'and;Van''Pools '.(programs of :government and-. " emoloyer7created.. opportunities. for ride. sharing 0 a7 : 1: ParK and ride - iots',. at J✓1: } C J � a�Y" L } 4 r a1^ w4 i 4E64.�Ban -anc.a iParkvrey :. Srvine.:CA. 92714 . (7.'I41 559'423'11 i,s�,� : °,�; ' ' -3.L Limited pa rkihg . supply and; oi` stricter:par kiF regulations_ , _gz Van: pooling programs'., S. Ride sharing programs for.employees..and shoppers Bicv.&fW Incentives, 1. Bike trails connecting residential, industrial,.' a 3. Bicycle storage facilities at industrial/co=ercial sites and at connection points to other transports- tion nodes.,,:. d. work Schedule Measures (means of adjustina working:.schp u as to :urine: nign Fccupancy.vehicle use and decrease congestion) `4z 1. Flextime p�.gra:�, to .provide' for adjusting -, work schedules , : 2. Staggered shifts to reduce trav-a I demand d= ing peak periods Four -day work week T1 ransit; (progrAm.to fagilitate.trAnlit PV#rAV19n1 encourage transit use) 1, support improved but service and tXpreglk boa xtrvlOt 2 ��real_nent� for b�ises. and:' other. Figh ,"r, 1 Preferential L ;'Occupancy Vehicles 3. 'Si 4n I nre-einntion for transit c8rdinatio`: of -f�' d%ichedul'es for -4 4. c n es:,`.transters;,an is transit. service. ' ..... .... .. .......... .... e:- supported,%transit: passes e 1 acil tate:.trans�it orhood 5 to: e and"s6fe- stre 42 Pedestrian paths'coanec ing .residential, commercial,j� ..eenpl oyment, ._and public service areas }`. 3 Shelter for pedestrian -and bus:oassengers' - 4. Pedestrian access paths - through cul -de" =sacs' .: From.the above listed TSM techniques, three possible programs. - . - - -..- -are.- being. .suggested.for_consideration „bv Hughes' Aircraft in Newport Beach. Tha three programs, with estimated costs and” comensurate vehicle 'rip reductions, include the following:•, passes, car pools, and van pools. - - Bus Pass Proaram Hughes Aircraft can encourage employees to utilize bus trans portation by: . 1. Posting bus route maps and schedules at locations through -;`� out the Hughes Aircraft facilities 2 Permit flexible "begin work "and -end work" times for employ _ ees using_OCTD buses so that th'ev. can meet :'convenient.bus'., schedules- - ':'• :._ - - 3- Provide or subsidize th,e- cost.of monthly bus :passes 4- Monitor and ad.-unister the 'bus program , Expense .. . The cost to purchase bus passes:on :OCTD is l,$21- SO.per. .: month or 5258 per :year- ,.i•.: .. •.. The cost to administer' such a`procram.is estimated to be one - quarter man year per.year, or, approximately ..; . - $4: 000 .per- year.. -.. .. ..... .• Daily .rip Reduct.icn On a countl-.ide basis`OCTD`ridersSipis approximately three. percent :: -It is anticipated that approximately three to six.percent.'of. employees 'will'• :utilize this, i type,... of.program- .These are: considered. valid: percentage be- .',. :.'„ cause,: repetitive':. tvpe - -transit ' trips:.such -as ;to- school :r or-:.; work :;c:ipture•..a, higher.ridershi'p:percentage;, and subs id l -', "., zation. by-. employer will: increase p ridership..v, if, the above:! W. ,.. _ percentage s, are :used;::'54 :.to : 107. employees:,wi 11 Use: .tran -;; :' '�'!'• .• - 'sit -or; 31 :;to.'. 61S, peak -hour vehicli :,trips,';Per, day can be,�.. -_!;�; rl.} `�• ::deleted.- £ro�'t2ie total: {1 0172;peak hour - :trips `':'Table A- x�!:^ �!: :: describes the)eicaected '.number :.of: employees whfch will . :; ?.r; Z-IS `-�i�.Wlliughbs -Aircraft can encourage employees to oarticie pat . n carpoo ls by; wa. Providing an employee carpooling matching service 2., Actively promote carpooling es. Aircraft. can encourace and contribute to a Provide assigned pre . ferential parking snaces for'-ca.--- am'. by pool vehicles 4- Provide identification for carpool vehicles 'ompany 'purchased 11 to 12 passenger vans Enforce carpool parking restrictions ;12 6. Administer and monitor progr= yees who drive-the vans to .7- Require car pools to have a minimum of three persons J ........ rivers.-and" assengersIto form,van vools 8- Provide incentives such as free cafeterial coupons ame .: geographic:are a. rxoense ' Administrative costs of matching service, promotion,: car and parking space identification, enforcement of. parking restrictions and monitoring procram are estima- led to rbcuire aDDroxima-elv one person full time at approximately $16,000 Der year- The cost of '.incentives such, as:free cafeteria couoons is estimated .to .be'sio- p--Z:month ox $120 per year per employee p nrticipating in program. . . 6 a IijTr -Reduc-ion Z A Itis expected.that eight to sixteen percent of'. employees .,,,Iill,participate in a car pooling program- This results in,,143 to 286 employees at three per car for 48 to, 95 7 carpool vehicles with a peak hour trip reduction of al to 163 trios per day. Table A describes the expected parti- ..'Cipants and costs. es. Aircraft. can encourace and contribute to a van pool, am'. by 'ompany 'purchased 11 to 12 passenger vans ?e zmit;,individval, yees who drive-the vans to liCle-on en S,,wee -an ;use.for,personal:use e J ........ rivers.-and" assengersIto form,van vools so.that' all.. 3erson-s".l ive:�'in,.:s ame .: geographic:are a. 4 "*rCompany, to pay '.•,., each-van 5 -, Charge appropr Expense for gas, maintenance, and insurance for- Late fee to van pool users The program expense includes personnel to administer -- - �-"`--- -- progran - and maintain equipment, plus equipment and gasoline -.. :. ....... costs, less reimbursement from employees who:participate- At approximately 10 riders per van, 18 to 36 vans are esti- rated to be required as will be discussed later. Eleven: passenger vans fully equiped with delux seats and air con -. ditioning cost approximately $14,000 each, last aopro xi mately.three years and have a salvage value of approximately $5,000. This translates to 53,000 per year per van or $300 per year per van pool participant. If it is assumed that the fee charged van pool participants -., equals only gas expense and parts and materials for -ain tenance, then the cost to Hughes Aircraft per employee is. - the $300 per year. Administration costs of a van pool.pro -' gram.is estimated to be two full time persons-,:.one-to ad- .' :�_-. :; - :;: minister the program and one to maintain vehicles- The _ salary of these two persons is estimated to be $36,000 r- Daily Trip Reduction If 10 vans were used 102 peak hour trips per day could -be..: deducted from the total peak hour trips; if 36 vans were - ;..; used 203 peak hour trips per day could be'deducted. from :.the 1 "�- total peak hour trips. Employee participat_o n :is expected '�to range from 179 to 357 employees.as- is-seen -:in Table A- ..Stsnnary .. .. The :percent 'of employees participating in the three ' progra -ms disc-assee. in.this.letter ranges -from three.to six-:percent'f or a.., the:Bus Pass Program; to 10 to 20 percent for a Van - Pool- Proaram The:annual.cost to Hughes Aircraft.per peak hour trip "redaced .y . is $359 for the car pool program,. 5451 for the van'pool program,'' and'$548 :for the bus pass program. These cost estimates.are based cn.a series of assumptions regarding employer participa -i7 '•,tion.`.: Adjustments to these assumptions could be made in such' a :wav that all three .programs would'cost equally :to reduce one .peak.hovr'.trip :` :: If adjustments on assumed emp =oye r.:pa rticipa = :. _�- :;; :;:`•� :. .; -.tion were to be made such- that.all:three programs were .equal;:. :r °` -.; >k the general conclusion would be that it costs $400'to $500 per_- - -`, year.., to reduce one peak _hour trip regardless of which program or combination of.- programs is :used - The,.nrogra m:which should be -., M. elected.is-- ..a :functionAof - the : amount- - `of, emp.loyees ;desired to.. -;� :. ;Y fir, participate The estimated partition tion: rate is lowest for the- ,s bus pass p ogram and highest fur the van poolpro gram ✓a, s *-�• Vw i5,;f +`t c��.. d fir,+{ Planning Commission Meeting @? ptember 8,y1983 Agenda Item No. 13 1-7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission r FROM: Planning Department '?1Y+ SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Revised) Request to approve a revised Traffic Study for a 110,000± sq.ft. office - laboratory addition to the Hughes Aircraft facility presently under construction. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 500 Superior Avenue between Dana Road and Industrial Way, adjacent to the West Newport Triangle. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Hughes Aircraft Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications The Hughes Aircraft Company has requested an amendment to an approved Traffic Study which permits the construction of a ±110,000 sq.ft. office - laboratory addition to the Hughes Aircraft facility. .The addition is presently under construction and the application, if approved, would modify the previous Conditions of Approval. Traffic Studies are prepared pursuant to the City's Traffid Phasing Ordinance (TPO) (Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and City Council Policy P -1 ( "Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the TPO"). Conformance with the General Plan The subject property is designated as "General Industrial" by the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed and existing uses are permitted in such designation. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The project site includes 13.7 acres (596,772 sq.ft.) of improved land located at 500 Superior Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The site is bounded by the City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard on the northeast, Superior Avenue on the northwest, Dana Road on the Pf southwest , and- Newport Soul�vard on the southeast. LL�+ 1�. " !l l r ► l'tl �i !- , , Y ; • ` fi F. r e :: ( !1 !l n n TO: Planning &%..mission _ -2. The site is currently the location of the Hughes Aircraft Company's Solid State Products Division, which, in addition to administrative activities, conducts electronic testing and assembly of hybrid components. The existing structure covers approximately 3.6 acres of the 13.9 acre site. Additionally, there are several small tank storage areas surrounding the.building and a temporary structure that serves as a security office. Most of the site's remaining area is paved and devoted to employee parking with small landscaped islands scattered throughout. The land surrounding the site is devoted to a variety of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. South of the site across Dana Road are .several ' blocks of multi - family residential developments and a convalescent center. West of the site, across Superior Avenue, are a proposed medical condominium, a mobile home park, and another convalescent center. North of the site, is the City's Corporation Yard. Background At its meeting of July 9, 1981 the Planning Commission approved (6 ayes, 1 no) Use Permit No. 1994 and related Traffic Study which was a request from Hughes Aircraft Company to construct a 110,000 sq.ft.t office addition and a parking structure that exceeded the basic height limit within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also included a request to allow roof -top parking and the use of compact car spaces. Said action was subject to three findings and two conditions for the Traffic Study and twelve findings and forty -six conditions for Use Permit, No. 1994 (see attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated July 9, 1981). At its meeting of August 24, 1981 the City Council reviewed and sustained the action of the Planning Commission relative to the subject applications. Subsequent to the City Council and Planning Commission approval the . applicant prepared and submitted to the Planning and Building Departments structural plans for the proposed development. At that time it was determined that the actual gross and net floor area of the office addition exceeded the allowable figures as stated in the Traffic Study and Use Permit application (allowable floor area: 110,000 sq.ft. gross, 99,000 sq.ft. net). Prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the-.project, the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department determined that inasmuch as the Traffic Study and use permit analysis was based upon the applicant's five year forecast of man -power and space requirements, the project information critical to the City was the 110,000 sq.ft. limitation on gross floor area and the 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on first shift). The City . issued Building Permits for the subject addition on the basis of a = i T0: Planning Ck )ission -3. reduced gross floor area of 109,893± sq.ft. and the applicant's agreement to provide manpower reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. On September 9, 1982 the Planning Commission Conditionally approved an Amendment to Use Permit No. 1994 (all ayes) . Use Permit 1994 (Amended) allowed the construction of additional floor area within the approved building footprint, the construction of a new security guard station and the acceptance of an environmental document. The conditions of approval require that any new construction in the area between the proposed addition and Superior Avenue in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. will require the approval of the Planning Commission. On June 21, 1983 the City Council approved an agreement (attached) with the Hughes Aircraft Company fixing the "Fair- Share" contribution of the costs to be incurred by the City in improving the intersections at PCH /Superior, PCH /Prospect and PCH /Orange. r � Approved Traffic Study The conditionally approved Traffic by Kunzman & Associates. The two noted below: Study for the project was prepared (2) conditions of approval were as CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation Systems Improvements described in the Initial Study - Appendix B, Page 14, Table 8 and these improvements shall have been completed (unless subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto).: The improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. 2. That if the applicant wishes to occupy the proposed addition prior to the completion of the. improvements described in Condition No. 1 above, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction. of the Planning Department and Public Works Department that they have implemented the trip generation reduction measures indicated in th0 Traffic Study or measures equally effective approved by the City Traffic Engineer. These measures shall remain in effect until the improvements described in Condition No. 1 above have been completed. TO: Planniry -- commission -4. Appendix B,.Page 14, Table 8 states: Intersection Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Revised Traffic Study Intersection Improvements Add a third westbound through lane to Pacific Coast Highway; restrip Superior to include two southbound through lanes, two right turn lanes and one left turn lane. Recommended by a previous project. The City is to reconstruct this -intersection. Add a westbound through land to Pacific Coast Highway. Convert westbound right turn only lane to a combination westbound through and right turn lane. Recommended by a previous project. The applicants have requested the Planning Commission's approval of a Revised Traffic Study for the purpose of issuance of building and grading permits in conjunction with the construction of the project. The Traffic Study for the proposed development has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of "the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordinance ") and City Policy -`5 -1 ( "Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance "). A copy. of the Traffic Study prepared for the City by Kunzman and Associates is included in the attached Initial Study as Appendix B. The following table provides a 18 analysis for those intersections that the City Traffic Engineer has determined will be affected by the proposed project based upon its size and location: v TO: Plannincimission -5. ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections 18 of Projected Project's 2.5 Over Analyzed 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Hour Peak Vol. 1% Superior and Placentia Northbound 11 25 Southbound 15 67 yes Eastbound 15 0 Westbound 15 7 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 15 7 Southbound 27 53 Eastbound 39 18 yes Westbound 48 0 Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 2 0 Southbound 1 0 Eastbound 34 18 no Westbound 61 39 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 1 0 Southbound 2 0 Eastbound 35 18 no Westbound 66 39 Newport and Hospital - Northbound 36 7 Southbound 38 0 Eastbound 20 14 no Westbound 11 0 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound - - Southbound 12 0 Eastbound 50 14 no Westbound 52 7 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 2 0 Southbound 27 0 Eastbound 49 14 no Westbound 75 7 U �5 TO: P lann irp.ommis Sion -6. In accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S -1 an I.C.U. analysis was made. The I.C.U. analysis indicates.that the existing plus regional plus committed plus project traffic volumes will be greater than 0.90 and that further analysis would be required. The following chart indicates the I.C.U.'s for critical intersections: PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS (Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Add a third westbound through lane to Coast Highway Coast Highway; restripe Superior to include two southbound through lanes, two right turn lanes and one left turn Jane. Recommended by a previous project. The City is to reconstruct this intersection. City Policy S -1 provides that an analysis be done to determine if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the project will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volume for each leg of each impacted intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. The policy also provides that when one year after completion of the project, the project may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volume on one or more legs of an impacted intersection, then an I.C.U. analysis will be performed in accordance with S -1. Analysis O The approval of the Revised Traffic Study will not effect the amount ($300,000) or other terms of the agreement between the Hughes Aircraft Company and the City related to "Fair - Share." If, the City approves the Revised Traffic Study the applicant will be allowed to occupy the project upon completion of the improvements to the PCH /Balboa /Superior intersection now under construction. I Intersection Capacity Utilization 1983 Exist 1983 Exist 1983 Existing + Critical Existing + Committed + Committ- Committed +Growth Intersections + Growth ed + Growth + Project + + Project Im rovements Superior and Placentia .7591 .7942 .8063 n/a Superior and Pacific 1.1279 .9660 .9682 .8906 Coast Highway 1.3104 1.3191 .8026 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS (Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Add a third westbound through lane to Coast Highway Coast Highway; restripe Superior to include two southbound through lanes, two right turn lanes and one left turn Jane. Recommended by a previous project. The City is to reconstruct this intersection. City Policy S -1 provides that an analysis be done to determine if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the project will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volume for each leg of each impacted intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. The policy also provides that when one year after completion of the project, the project may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volume on one or more legs of an impacted intersection, then an I.C.U. analysis will be performed in accordance with S -1. Analysis O The approval of the Revised Traffic Study will not effect the amount ($300,000) or other terms of the agreement between the Hughes Aircraft Company and the City related to "Fair - Share." If, the City approves the Revised Traffic Study the applicant will be allowed to occupy the project upon completion of the improvements to the PCH /Balboa /Superior intersection now under construction. I Y 0 TO: Planning F�- +nanission -7. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the Revised Traffic Study with the Findings and Subject to the Condition indicated in Exhibit "A ". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director / By FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT /j9 Attachments 1. Exhibit "A" Revised Traffic Study. 2. Planning Commission Minutes of September 9, 1982. 3. Agreement - "Fair Share." TO: Plannincommission -8. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS & CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVISED HUGHES AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY September 8, 1983 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport.Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S -1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Studies suggest a circulation system improvement which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. 4. That the proposed project, including _circulation system improvements will neither cause nor make worse an- unsatisfactory level =of traffic service on any "major," "primary- modified" or "primary" street. Condition: 1.. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the Circulation System Improvement describ 41 n the )revised, T of � ,, S d s all have vsn t f £ bee `"..' Y & p '1el,ed " (�nffe'A subseque e project approvals require modifications thereto). The improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. - i Hughes Aircraft Expansion Traffic Study 4r IT' T,ainsoo,Lat.o, Plann.nq.Tralff-c Engineering Jt M 9<uNpaR (-Associates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering June 8, 1983 Mr. Richard J. McDonald Hughes Aircraft Company 500 Superior, Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. McDonald: We are pleased to present this revised traffic impact .analysis for the Hughes Aircraft Facility Expansion. The analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance and incorporates the latest Hughes Aircraft manpower loading projections and City of Newport Beach traffic volumes. This report contains (1) One Percent Traffic Volumes Analysis; (2) ICU Analysis, and (3) ICU Analysis-With Project Related Improvements. We trust that the findings will be of immediate as well as continuing value to you and the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.' Sincerely, KUNZMAN ASSOCI,A/TES William Kunzman, P.E. 4664 Barrance Parkway . Irvine, CA 92714 . (714) 559 -4231 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1. Project Description ...... ............................... 1 2. Project Traffic Generation .............................. 2 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment 7 4. Critical Intersections Analyzed ......................... 8 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis ..............11 6. Project Related Improvements ............................13 7. Other Traffic Considerations ............................16 8. Conclusions ................ .............................17 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Work Sheets . Appendix C - Alternative Improvements ICU Work Sheets A;L LIST OF Table No. Title Page No- 1 Hughes Aircraft Employees 1983 -1987 ......... 3 2 Calculating Traffic Generation Rates ........ 4 3 Hughes Aircraft Traffic Count May 14. 1981 . ............................... 5 4 Traffic Generation by Project (1987) ........ 6 5 One Percent Analysis Summary ................ 9 6 Committed Projects ................ .......10 7 Intersection Capacity Utilization for Critical Intersections ..................12 8 Planned Intersection Improvements ...........14 9 Alternative Superior Avenue and Coast Highway Intersection Improvements ...........15 /.3 LIST OF FIGURES Following Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Vicinity Map .............................. 1 2 Site Plan ..... ............................... 1 3 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............................... 7 /Z/ 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This traffic analysis discusses the traffic impact of a 110,000 square foot addition plus parking structure to the existing Hughes Aircraft facility in the City of Newport Beach. There are currently 1,307 employees at the project site. The building expansion will provide for an increase in the existing employee population. Hughes Aircraft projects a manpower loading increase at the site to 1,738 employees in 1987. This represents an increase of 431 new employees at the site over the five year period. This traffic analysis examines the traffic impact of adding 431 employees. The analysis is in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance and reviews traffic volumes to evaluate the need for a traffic signal. Figures 1 and 2 provide a project location map and site plan, respectively. 1 /15- / Figure 1. VICINITY MAP /. it of .'4:."' 01 6t m. iv / *Project Site ,< �i -� �, /% PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity and type of land use. Trip generation rates are typically expressed in terms of trip ends per employee, per one thousand square feet of gross floor area, or per acre. For this traffic analysis, actual traffic counts at the Hughes Aircraft facility were made and correlated to number of employees. Table 1 depicts the number of existing and future employees by each shift. It will be noted that the 431 new employees will be added to all of the work shifts, although the increase will be slightly larger for the 3:00 PM to midnight shifts. Based upon conversations with a Hughes Aircraft representative, it was indicated that the new employees are anticipated to have starting and ending times proportional to the existing starting and ending times for the existing employees within that shift designation. Table 2 details traffic generation rates for the Hughes Aircraft Facility based upon actual traffic counts made 'at the facility in May 1981. The traffic counts are contained in Table 3. Table 3 provides a tabulation of the Hughes Aircraft facility inbound and outbound traffic. The peak 2.5 hours is from 3:00 to 5:30 PM. The estimated traffic generation for the addition of 431 new employees is presented in Table 4. Using the distribution of employees by shift per Table 1, 404 employees and their respective trips will affect the peak 2.5 hours of traffic, but only 147 employees and their respective trips will affect the 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM peak hour traffic.' E WE 6/ S C S t*1 y 7 r I-I H a) � w m n v w r 1 m r y a) r m J � ro r 0 K t*1 N N O C K m C m K N Cr a a Cr K (n w m K K S r O. O w In O w r N K S S K S M w w r• r w rt r M M r M K K K r a w Z m I N .. O 0 0 0 O O w y S O O 7 O O O M M H 3 I 1 I S r ro w yy m m r• 3 3•• 3 < m w O w m O yO yO• 3 3 3 1 r r m V W N r N •• O w O w 0 p y y O O 00, m y 1 I 3 3 1 t O r• m ro ro a w a 3 1 3 3 s m o w o 00 yO yr a pa 3 3 3 3 K O w N O In In r• r �o r m m O r r 0 O � m a O K m r m m r a) m a) W m w r (n r ro O r m a w S m m O J N v v r w w k0 r W K M m O * w m n S r* [1 O p a r N r r O m w a r MM m a w r a r* r J w W N k0 a J N In O w K Z r F•- m m m V E M m C N m K 0 E F O 10 m r O ' O N m O w O a w In a N m a r r r O O A m K w m m r r* m w N W m r r r [7 m 3 w J w m In N m O W N r r m a w o mw a m aN kD a)< m m J m r m kp m m v (n r ro ' S m m O N v a w r• 'S O N N k0 kp r m r m r M m O * w m O m S K: S C S t*1 y 7 r I-I H a) � w m n v w r 1 m r y a) r m J � ro r 0 K t*1 N I Table 2 Q CALCULATING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES Descriptor Peak 2.5 Hours Peak Hour Time Frame 3:00 to 5:30 PM 5:00 to 6:00 PM Employees Arriving and Departing in Time Frame Arriving 226 0 Departing 1021 440 Total 1247 440 Traffic Volumes Inbound 176 9 Outbound 712 205 Total 888 214 Traffic Generated per Total Employees Arriving and De- parting in Time Frame Inbound 0.1411 0.0205 Outbound 0.5710 0.4659 Total 0.7121 0.4864 Traffic Generated per Arriving Employee .Inbound 0.5932 0 Outbound 0.0189 _ 0 Total 0.7121 0 Traffic Generated per Departing Employee Inbound 0.0189 0.0205 Outbound 0.6932 0.4659 Total 0.7121 0.4864 V, �D .f !i F Z O U U H W W .-I m n � F .+ O L W Q F � � C N H E Q V1 W f7 O S .y C C N •.-1 H m N G V1 Q Q N m N m m E i E N Q O N N D` n r 0 O 0 O Q n N Q �n 1.. O G M r-I to r C, o n r ID H Q Q n n H H Y H O H 1D N Q ID ID M t'1 N N p � N F L L Y 0` m m 01 N H r'1 m V1 S O VI Z b r H .-1., N n ID m O O n 0` H Q O •.1 N Vl .-1 Q .-1 N Q m .-1 .-1 co F f L L N D 0 F Z O O + m ID ..I .-I N kD o n �D o o r kD m FN t 7 O N N 'O n O r ID ID ID 1 O m a, ID N Q I L Y O H H N O O O O O O O O O Q Z .d N N Q C D\ p N p N p N H H ID F L L Y Y 7 O O a` 0 'L V] E o p.i N n r CO N .-I .-I .-I O O .-I .-I 'O` 1.1 W L Y n H N O O O O .+ O O O O r 0 O Z Z M H N Y t'1 r N r N H N Q t'1 H H O t'1 O r-I r-I N F L L Y Y O O O + + Q Vl Vl E 6 O '.i O H H O O O .+ O N O O O �n 1.4 i W L Y 1+ O H O .+ N O O O O O O O Q O Z N O v1 O O N O N O N O O H rl Q O H n Q O O I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I H U1 O O O O O O ep Y E O y= .-+ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. F E Table 4 TRAFFIC GENERATION by PROJECT (1987) Descriptor Peak 2.5 Hours Peak Hour Time Frame 3:00 to 5:.30 PM 5:00 to 6:00 PM New Employees Arriving and Departing in Time Frame Arriving 125 0 Departing 279 147 Total 404 147 Traffic Generated per Arriving Employee Inbound 0.6932 1 0 Outbound 0.0189 0 Total 0.7121 0 Traffic Generated by Arriving Employee COR6�EO t/ Fi ?�Q �I y ` 0 Outboun .9Br ,,xxj t Total 0 Traffic C Departing Inbound 9L 146 )5 Outboun am -O.zE3 Zo = /633 I 0.S 59 Total ; 54 F Traffic G Departing 3 69 /.O 3 /.000 7 ' � 0.932 Inbound 3 Outboun ;9 Total 72 Traffic Generated by Arriving and Departing Employees Inbound 92 3 Outbound 196 69 Total 288 72 3. PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Traffic distribution and assignment is based on the directional orientation of traffic based upon residential, business, recreational, and employment opportunities. Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific route project traffic will use once a generalized distribution is determined. The traffic distribution and assignment are based upon actual traffic counts made at the Hughes Aircraft facility. It was found that 66 percent of the project's traffic will go north on Superior Avenue. Figure 3 displays_this traffic distribution and assignment. 7 �Y O! W 4. CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED Seven critical intersections were analyzed as identified by City Staff. Table 5 lists the seven intersections, and provides a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis. Appendix A contains the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis work sheets. Two intersections have the one percent volume criteria exceeded. They are as follows! Superior and Placentia Superior and Pacific Coast Highway The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to establish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection's peak period approach volume. If one percent or less is added to all approaches of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of the one percent analysis, regional growth traffic and committed project traffic are included. Volume projections are made to a point in time one year after the project completion. This project's completion date is 1987, and traffic volumes are projected to 1988. Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City procedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 6. Although the Hughes Aircraft facility expansion is classified as a committed project for the analysis of other projects to comply with the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Hughes Aircraft. facility expansion traffic was not included as a committed project for this analysis. 8 �5 Table 5 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections 1% of Projected Project's 2.5 Over Analyzed 2.5 Hr. Peak Vol. Hour Peak Vol. 1% Superior and Placentia Northbound 11 25 Southbound 15 67 yes Eastbound 15 0 Westbound 15 7 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway .Northbound 15 7 Southbound 27 53 yes Eastbound 39 18 Westbound 48 0 Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 2 0 Southbound 1 0 no Eastbound 34 18 Westbound 61 39 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 1 0 Southbound 2. 0 no Eastbound 35 18 Westbound 66 39 Newport and Hospital Northbound 36 7 Southbound 38 0 no Eastbound 20 14 Westbound 11 0 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound - - Southbound 12 0 Eastbound 50 14 no Westbound 52 7 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 2 0 Southbound 27 0 no Eastbound 49 14 Westbound 75 7 J �6 9 .=-) 7 C� 0 Table 6 COMMITTED PROJECTS Hoag Hospital (community facility) Far West Savings and Loan (office) Pacesetter Homes (office) Aeronutronic Ford (residential) Back Bay Office (office) Boyle Engineering (office) Cal Canadian Bank (office) Civic Plaza (office) Civic Plaza (office) Corporate Plaza (office) Koll Center Newport (office, industrial) Campus /MacArthur (office) National Education Office (office) North Ford (industrial) Orchard Office (office) Pacific Mutual Plaza (office) 3701 Birch Office (office) Newport Place (office) Shokrian (office) Bank of Newport (office) Bayside Square (office) Sea Island (residential) Baywood Apartments (residential) Harbor Point Homes (residential) Roger's Gardens (commercial) Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) Rudy Baron (office) Quail Business Center (office) 441 Newport Boulevard (office) Martha's Vineyard (restaurant) Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Highway (office) Coast Business Center (office) Koll Center Newport No. 1 TPP (office) Ford Aeronutronics TPP Ross Mollard (medical office) Banning /Newport Ranch (office, industrial, residential) Park Lido (medical office) Heritage Bank (bank office, medical office) Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 (residential) Fun Zone (commercial) Marriott Expansion St. Andrews Church 10 K 5. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Of the two intersections exceeding the one percent criteria, one exceeds the 90 percent intersection capacity utilization as shown in Table 7. The Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection operates at a 1.1279 ICU for existing 1983 conditions. Once the committed projects and growth traffic are added to the intersection volumes, the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection is projected to operate at 1.3104 ICU. With or without this project, this intersection will be in need of modification that will increase its capacity. Even though this project does not cause this intersection to exceed 90 percent of capacity, the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that necessary improvements be addressed to reduce the ICU to. 90 percent or below because the project traffic exceeds the "one percent" intersection analysis criteria. Appendix B contains the ICU Work Sheets. 11 r Table 7 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Critical Intersection Ca acity Utilization Existing 1988 Exist. 1988 Exist. Need for Intersections. + Committed + Committed Improvement + Growth + Growth + Project Superior and Placentia .7591 .7942 .8063 No Superior and Coast Highway 1.1279 1.3104 1.3191 Yes 12 M 6. PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS e The Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection be reduced to an ICU of 90 percent or less because the project traffic exceeds the "one percent" intersection analysis criteria. The Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection is presently planned to be reconstructed by the City of Newport Beach. The planned Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection improvements per the current City Plans are shown in Table 8. With the reconstruction of the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection per the current City plans, this intersection is projected to operate at 1.0453 ICU with the Hughes Aircraft Facility Expansion project and other committed and growth traffic. To reduce the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection to 90 percent of capacity, several intersection modifications have been analyzed and are shown in Table 9. Appendix C contains the ICU Work Sheets for the alternative improvements analyzed. As required by the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU values shown in Table 9 are based on the use of 70 percent of the improvement capacity by the project. Based on use of the available capacity (100 percent of the improvement capacity), the presently planned reconstruction of the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection by the City, and a modification of critical intersection phasing, the intersection will operate at 0.8906 ICU for future conditions with other committed and growth traffic volumes and the Hughes Aircraft expansion. As shown in Table 9, to reduce the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection to below 90 percent of capacity, an additional fourth westbound through lane and a modification of critical intersection phasing at the intersection is required. To modify the critical intersection movement phasing, a southbound right turn signal indication will be needed to provide the southbound right turn from Superior Avenue to occur during the eastbound left turning movement. The intersection is impacted by this project and 'it is also .impacted by other development projects and regional traffic. The responsibility for the improvements-recommended should be apportioned in an equitable manner. Hughes Aircraft provides a car pool matching service for its employees. Employee participation in a car - pooling program will reduce the traffic impacts described in this report, thus further reducing the impact on the seven intersections analyzed. 13 it r Table 8 Q PLANNED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Add a third westbound through lane Coast Highway to Coast Highway; restripe Superior to include two southbound through lanes, two right turn lanes and one left turn lane. Recommended by a previous project. The City is to reconstruct this intersection. 14 J NN Table 9 ALTERNATIVE SUPERIOR AVENUE AND COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 15 a 1988 Exist. + Committed + Growth 1988 Exist. + Committed + Growth + Project 1. Existing Intersection Geometrics 1.3104 1.3191 2. Reconstruct Intersection per 1.0399 1.0453 current City Plans 3. Reconstruct Intersection per .9708 .9759 current City Plans and modify critical phasing 4. Reconstruct Intersection per .9464 .9515 current City Plans and modify critical phasing and modify northbound turning designations 5. Reconstruct Intersection per .9424 .9478 current City Plans and construct a fourth westbound through lane to Coast Highway 6. Reconstruct Intersection pet .8933 .8784 current City Plans and construct a fourth westbound through lane to.Coast Highway and modify critical phasing 15 a 7. OTHER TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS In discussions with City of Newport Beach staff, it was requested that signal warrants also be addressed. Signal Warrants Traffic signal warrants have been adopted by CalTrans and the Federal Highway Administration. These warrants are based on the volume in the eight highest hours of a day. It is generally assumed that the per hour volume in each of the eight highest hours is equal to sixty percent of the volume in the evening peak hour, and the evening peak hour is ten percent of the daily traffic. Thus, the signal warrants can also be expressed in terms of peak hour and daily traffic volumes. The daily warrant volume used in this analysis are based upon CalTrans criteria of loo6o 14T4-&a vehicles per day approaching the intersection. from both directions combined on the major street, and vehicles per day approaching the intersection on the highest volume leg on the minor street. The project addition of 431 employees generates 1,293 daily trips. When the existing daily traffic from 1,307 employees is added to the project traffic, the total daily trips equals 5,214 trips. On a daily basis this means 2,607 trips enter the site and 2,607 trips exit the site. Assuming that the central access point will generate 50 percent of the project traffic, approximately 1,304 inbound and 1,304 outbound trips will use this access point. Superior Avenue has an average daily traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles and a posted speed limit of 35 m.p.h. The daily volume on the major street required to warrant a signal is 14,400 vehicles per day as discussed above. The existing daily volume on Superior clearly exceeds the warrant. Assuming the central access will handle 50 percent of the daily project traffic, the warrant volume for interruption on continuous flow of 1,200 vehicles per day is also exceeded. Thus a signal will be warranted. Since the project traffic daily volumes are predicated on full employment and signal warrants are not met with the existing number of employees, bonding for the signal should be required. This would permit the City of Newport Beach the opportunity to determine when a signal needs to be installed. A signal should be installed only when warranted. I CONCLUSIONS M Of the seven intersections analyzed, two exceeded the one percent traffic volume criteria. When evaluating the two intersections which exceeded the one percent criteria, the Superior Avenue and Coast Highway intersection under the "existing plus committed plus growth" conditions exceeds the 90 percent ICU level. Thus, with or without the project, the intersection volumes exceed 90 percent of its capacity. In accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, intersections having ICU's over 90 percent must be analyzed as to determine necessary improvements needed to reduce the ICU below 90 percent. With the presently planned intersection improvements at Superior and Coast Highway per current City plans, the intersection will exceed 90 percent with the project, committed traffic, and growth, per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. To reduce the intersection to 90 percent of capacity, a fourth westbound through lane and a modification of critical intersection turning movement traffic signal phasing is required. Since this project has not created the "over 90 percent ICU" at the critical intersection, intersection improvement responsibility should be proportional to the project's impact upon these intersections. 17 .-:35/ APPENDIC Appendix A — One percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B — Intersection Capacity Utilization Work Sheets Appendix C — Alternative Improvements ICU Work Sheets �S H 36 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Placentia Ave. /Superior Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Inter pring 83 El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE June )983 PROJECT: - r_ 7 FORM T Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour j Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Vof ume Volume Northbound 957 0 - 140 1097 11 25* Southbound 1425 1 0 64 1489 15 67= I Eastbound 1496 0 1 35 1531 15 0 Westbound 1479 0 36 1515 15 7 El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE June )983 PROJECT: - r_ 7 FORM T b 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Balboa B1.- Superior Ave. (Existing Traffic Vol-u—me—s-Fased on Average inter pring 19 S3� Approach Direction Existing Peak 2y Hour Volume Peak 25 Hour Regional Growth Volume Approved Projects Peak 211 Hour Volume Projected Peak 24 Hour Volume 1% of Projected I Project Peak 2h Hour j Peak 2y Hot: Volume ' Volume Northbound 1495 0 29 1524 15 7 ` southbound 2655 0 44 2699 27 53* `I Eastbound 3198 1 46 I 634 3878 1 39 18 I. Westbound I 3516 51 1221 4788 48 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected XQ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision PROJECT: 32� ,tune 1983 DATE: FORM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. /Orange Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter /Spring MD— ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision PROJECT: 0 .. neTG• June 1983 rnp:r Peak 211 Hour Approved I Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Nour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour volume volume volume volume volume volume Northbound 211 0 0 211 2 0 Southbound 132 0 0 132 1 0 Eastbound 2802 1 40 568 3410 34 18 Westbound 4723 62 1329 6114 61 39 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision PROJECT: 0 .. neTG• June 1983 rnp:r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. /Prospect Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes basea on Average inter pring 19 _ Approach Oirection Existing. Peak 24 Hour Volume Peak 24 Hour Regional Growth Volume Approved Projects Peak 211 Hour Volume Projected Peak 2N Hour Volume I{ 1% of Projected i Project Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Northbound 113 0 0 113 1 0 Southbound 215 0 0 215 2 o Eastbound 2882 42 568 3492 35 18 Westbound 5159 75 13e 29 6563 66 39 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21-;,Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak.21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision ••DATE - June 1983 PROJECT: r'^ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport B1. /Hospital Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter /Spring 19 E3 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. E Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE: June 1983 PROJECT: y� FORM T Peak 21S Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1-, of Projected I Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3519 0 104 3623 36 7 Southbound 3773 0 1 75 3848 38 0 Eastbound 1636 0 326 1962 20 14 westbound 995 0 69 1 o64 11 0 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. E Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE: June 1983 PROJECT: y� FORM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis M Intersection Coast Hwy. /Riverside Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter /Spring 19 _ C' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11 of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. hes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE: June 1983 1� PROJECT: J-2 FORM I Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Ho, Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Voles Northbound 38 0 0 38 0 0 Southbound 1243 0 0 1243 12 0 Eastbound 4509 65 468 5042 1 50 14 Westbound " 4834 70 304 5208 52 7 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11 of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. hes Aircraft Expansion - Revision DATE: June 1983 1� PROJECT: J-2 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.- Bayshore Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter /Spring 19 83 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision PROJECT: y3 June 1983 rnnv i Peak 2y Hour Approved I Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'' of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y'Hour Growth Peak 25 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2t, Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 236 2 238 2 0 IS 2655 79 1 2734 27 0 Eastbound 4025 34 820 4879 49 14 Westbound 6191 52 1270 7513 75 7 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hughes Aircraft Expansion - Revision PROJECT: y3 June 1983 rnnv i 71 APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS �i c INTERSECT CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Placentia Ave. /Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter /Spring 19 83) X15TING PLUS COM9IITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH E3IS7)NG PROPOSED . EIIST. PA.HR. E%IST. V/C REGIONAL GROWTH COMITTED PROJECT PROJECTED Y/C 0.ati PAWEC7 PROJECT io.e nt Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Vol me Volume w/o Project Volume Volume V/C Ratio NL "' 30 NT 3200 331 .1281* 31 .1513` 1 .1516* NR 49 1 43 SL 1600 5 .0031 5 .0063 5 .0094 ST 1600 271 .1694* 19 .1813* 19 .1931 =` SR 1600 350 .2188 13 :2269 .2269 EL 1600 288 .1800 ,1800* .1800* ET 3200 305 .0953 7 •0975 .0975 ER 1600 18 .0112 3 .0131 .0131 WL 1600 60 .0375 30 .0563 .0563 WT . 3200 581 .1816* .1816* 1816* WR 1600 6 .0038 0 .0038 0 .0038 YELLDWTIME .1000* .1000* 1 1.1000* 1 s � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7591 E EXISTING PLUS CO ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W /PROPOSED 1NPROVENENTS I.C.U. .7942 i X15TING PLUS COM9IITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. L --806� ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 . Description of system improvement: hes Aircraft Expansion - Revision PROJECT - DATE: June 1983 FORM II INTERSEG3N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS io Ize Intersection Coast Hwy. /Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter /Spring 19B3 ) ❑ Projected plus project traffic.I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Hughes Fxpancinn - Revicinn DATE: June 1983 5/G PROJECT FORM II ESISTI NG PROPOSED ESIST. Ez IST. REGIONAL COM MED PROJECTED VIC Ratio PROJECT 1 PROJE.C.. ,. Klve�ent Lanei G]D• Lanei GD• PK.NR. Vol. VIC Redo Ratio Vol Yol une PROJECT Volume w/o Project Volume V/C 'Ra do Volume L 2400 357 .1488* .1488* 1488* NT 2400 236 .0983 4 .1000 0 .1000 NR 1600 55 1 .0344 .0344 .0344 SL 147 ST. 3200 398 .1703 8 ..1728 5 .1744 SR 1600 675 .4219* •4219` 14 .4306* EL 3200 221 .0691 .0691 1 .0694 ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 •3259 .3259 ER 1600 443 •2769 .2769 •2769 WL 1600 1 106 .0663 .0663 .0663 WT 3200 1463 .4572* 21 563 •6397* •6397= WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOWTIME 1000* : .1000*. .1000* 1 , , EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .1279 1 1 , 1 , EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W /PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 4 i f EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1 3191 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic.I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Hughes Fxpancinn - Revicinn DATE: June 1983 5/G PROJECT FORM II APPENDIX C ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS ICU WORK SHEETS S'7 INTERSEC --� N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS Intersection Coast Hwy. /Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter /Spring 1B3 ) xo��nt EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. px,HR. EXIST. Y/C REGIONAL GROWTH COMtl77EO PROJECT PROJECTED Y/C Ratio FRWECT lanes Gp. lanes Gp. Yol. Ratio Yolune Yolime Wo Pro% e[t u�e Y /C. Ratio Vol uarlj) ( /C) (1) NL 2400 357 .1488* .1488* .1488 NT 2400 236 .0983 4 .1000 0 .1000 NR 1600 55 .0344 .0344 .0344 SL 1600 1 147 .1313 .1313 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 .1269 5 .1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482* 14 .2533 EL 3200 221 .0691 .06gl* 1 .0694` ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 .3259 ER 1600 443 .2769 .2769 •2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 .0663 .0633 WT 3200 4800 1463 .4572* 21 563 .4738* .4738" WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOii•TIHE .1000* .1000. .1000+` EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION •1279 EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W /PROPOSED INPROYENENTS I.C.U. 1,0399 EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.045 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less,.than or equal to 0.90 ED Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans. Project Related: Add a third westbound through line to Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: June 1983 PROJECT FORM 11 INTERSECN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY Intersection Coast Hwy /Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter /Spring 1S83) n e t EIISTING lines Cap. PROPOSED lsMS VD• LX ST. P[.NR. Vol. ExISl. Y/C Ratio REGIDNAI 6RDYIH Vol une Cbr11TTF0 PROJECT Vol une PROJECTED Y/C RAtio Yol vne (Ij �t PROJECT Vol u+e Pg0.1E CT Y /C(,atio NL 2400 357 .1488* 1488° .1488' NT 2400 236 •0983 4 .1000 0 .1000 NR 1600 55 .0344 .0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 .1313 .1313 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 .1269 5 .1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482* 14 .2533` EL 3200 221 .0691 .0691 1 .0694 ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 :3259 ER 1600 443 •2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600• 106 .0663 .0663 .0633 WT 3200 1 4800 1463 .4572* 21 1563 .4738* .4738` WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOWIIHE .1000* 1000 *. .1000 j EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1279 xISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIQIUIL GROWTH W /PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .9708 - _ . . EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT . .. I .. C.U. .9759 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 © Projected plus project traffic I.L.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.L.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 • Description of system improvement:. Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans. Project Related: Add a third westbound through lane to Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Modify Critical Turn Phasing - (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. ff/ Huqhes Aircraft Expansion DATE: June 1983 PROJECT rnpm 1 T INTERSECT CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY Intersection Coast Hwy. /Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter /Spring 1SB3) tb.e.+ent EXISTING PRDPDSED EAST. PK.NR. EXIST. Y/C REGIONAL GROYIN C"ITTEG PROJECT PROJECTED Y/C Ratio PROJECT PR Lanes Cap. lanes GD• Vol. Ratio Yolune Vol w/o Project Yolvrc 1 ) Vol u•e Y /f� Ra uo ( 1 ) NL 357 4800 .1488* 1244 } 1244 �. NT 236 .0983 4 0 1.0344 NR 1600 55 .0344 •0344 SL 1600 147 .1313 .1313 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 .1269 5 .1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482` 14 .25331 EL 3200 221 .0691 .0691 1 .0694 ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 .3259 ER 1600 443 .2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 .0663 .0633 WT 3200 4800 1463 .4572* 21 563 .4738' .4738` WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 .0388 YELUDWTIME 1000* .10001. 1 ; .10001 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION •1279 j EXISTING PLUS CWITTED PLUS REGIOKAL GROWTH W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .9464 i EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .9515' ❑ Projected plus project traffic:- I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.L.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans. Project Related: Add a third westbound through lone to Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Modify Critical Turn Phasing Modify Northbound Lane Designations (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: June 1983 ,G�ROJECT cnov 71 INTERSECt�` -�N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY�L�. 1600 Intersection Coast Hwy. /Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter /Spring 1S83) Noveaent E315T10.G P0.0POSED EXIST. PRatio EXIST. GROWTH PROJCCT PROJECT PROJECTED Y {C Ratio PR PROJECT � PROJECT .0663 Lanes Cap. lanes GD• Vol. o l: Betio Vol Yalune Vol une � {o Project Vol °"` Ratio .4572* 21 563 3763 °` •3763* WR Yolvrc (1) (IC ) NL 2400 357 .1488* .0388 YELLOWTIME •1488* .1000 *. .1488.E NT 2400 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 236 •0983 i 4 .1000 0 .1000 NR 1600 EXISTING 55 .0344 9478 •0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 .1313 .1313 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 .1269 5 .1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482* 14 .25331 EL 3200 221 .0691 .0691* 1 .0694* ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 3259 ER 1600 443 •2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 .0663 .0633 WT 3200 6400 1463 .4572* 21 563 3763 °` •3763* WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000 *. .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION � •1279 I � i t XISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W /PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. .9424 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRMfTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 9478 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans. Project Related: Add a third westbound through l ?ne to Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Construct Fourth westbound through lane (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE: June '1983 C/ PR(7,1F[T 111" INTERSEC?�N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS C_ Intersection Coast Hwy. /Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter /Spring 1933) IH.e*rnt CX ISTIMG PROPOSED EXIST. Pa: NR EXIST. V/C REGIONAL GROHiN COWITTE6 PROJECT PROJECIED VAC Ratio PROJECT PR . Lanes Cap. Lanes CAP. Vol. Ratio Volm a Volune )f,( Vol u..e /( 'eatio Vol We (V NL 2400 357 .1488* .1488.. .1488.-. NT 2400 236 •0983 4 .1000 0 .1000 NR 1600 55 .0344 .0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 .1313 .1313 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 .1269 5 .1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2482' 14 .2533. EL 3200 221 .0691 .0691 1 .0694 ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 '.3259 ER 1600 1 443 .2769 .2769 I .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 .0663 .0633 WT 3200 6400 1463 .4572* 21 563 .3763* .3763` WR 1600 62 .0388 ,0388 .0388 YELLOWTIME 1000* 1000*. 1000` I , EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.1279 1 I 1 I , EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIOTIAL GROWTH W /PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .8733 i 4 EXISTING PLUS COFl1I1TED PLUS REGIONAL WT GROH PLUS . . CT PROJE I.C.U. .8784 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C'.U. will be les-s than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. wi11 be greater than 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans. Project Related: Add a third westbound through lane to Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. Construct Fourth westbound through lane Modify Critical Turn Phasing (1) Permitted to use 70 percent of improvement capacity. i� Huahes Aircraft Expansion DATE' J, )c, 19S3_- DDn irrT INTERSECTI, N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY k Intersection Coast Hwy. /Balboa Blvd.- Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter /Spring lB3) "� eaot E %ISTIHG PROPOSED Ell ST. PK.HR. E %1ST. V/C REGIONAL GROWTH C"ITTEO PROJECT RROdEC1ED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Vol ure "/O Rr°Je[t Volu ( I ) Vol vee V/C Ratis ( 1) NL 2400 357 .1488* 1488* .1488. HT 2400 236 .0983 4 .1000 0 .1000 NR 1600 55 .0344 .0344 .0344 SL 1600 147 -0919 .0919 ST 3200 398 .1703 8 .1269 5 .1284 SR 1600 3200 675 .4219* .2109° 14 .2153` EL 3200 221 .0691 o69l* 1 .0694 ET 3200 707 .2209 10 326 .3259 .3259 ER 1600 443 .2769 .2769 .2769 WL 1600 106 .0663 .0663 .0633 WT 3200 4800 1463 .4572* 21 563 .4265` .4265* WR 1600 62 .0388 .0388 .0388 YELLOwTIME 1000* 1000`. .1000` 1 , EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION L.1279 XISTIKG PLUS COM4ITTED PLUS REGIQKAL GROWTH W /PROPOSED INPROVEMEKTS I.C.U. 8862 i XISTING PLUS COt"ITTED PLUS REGIOKAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less -than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Committed: Reconstruct intersection per current City plans. Project Related: Add a third westbound through lane to Coast Highway. Restripe Superior - southbound to include two through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. modify Critical Turn Phasing (1) Based on available roadway capacity (100% of improvement capacity). Hughes Aircraft Expansion DATE- June Ig8� > PROJECT M.i '�- irza eh 1) C GOv, C. December 20, 2000 Mr. Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Transportation and Development Services Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: 500 Superior (Newport Technology Center) Dear Mr. Edmonston: 30 Executive Park r. (949) 651.1367 suite 270 / (949( 651-5179 Irvine. CA 92614 -4726 vov vv pezadeh.corn Pursuant to your request, we have performed an analysis on three additional intersections that were identified by staff. The intersections are located within the City of Costa Mesa and are as follows: • Superior and 171h Street • Newport Boulevard and 17th Street • Newport Boulevard and 191h Street As directed by staff, the City of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the without project ICU, or the baseline condition. The net new project volumes were derived from the percent of project traffic distributed onto the roadway network, see Attachment 1. The peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the project were distributed on the roadway network to determine the additive project traffic at the study intersections, see Attachment 2. Table 1 ICU SUMMARY Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No Project ICU With Project ICU Diff No Project ICU With Project Diff ICU 22. Newport & 19th 1.001 E 1 1.00 1 E 0.00 1 0.94 E 0.95 E 0.01 28. Superior & 17th 0.52 1 A 1 0.58 1 A 0.06 1 0.62 B 0.63 B 0.01 29. Newport $ 17th 1 0-741 C 1 0.75 1 C 1 0.01 1 0.78 1 C 1 0.79 1 .0 0.01 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 J Mr. Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Page 2 December 20, 2000 The corresponding ICU's are shown in Table 1, while the detailed ICU worksheets are included with this report as Attachments 3 -8. As can be seen from the ICU Summary, all of the study intersections, with the exception of Newport Boulevard and 191h Street, will continue operate at Level of Service A, B, or C. Newport Boulevard and 191h Street will continue to operate at LOS E during both the AM peak hour (ICU = 1.00) and PM peak hour (ICU = 0.95). The PM peak hour ICU value of 0.95 represents an increase of 0.01 from the without project ICU of 0.94. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this analysis, or if you need any additional information. Sincerely, r Peter S. Kolibaba, CET Senior Associate c: Peter K. Pirzadeh, Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc. PAI 6801- NewportTechCnt r. 12182000. REdmonston- ICUAnalysis- CostaMesa- itr -psk li FOR NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER ATTACHMENT 1 _. _.. ...FOR - - NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER n e e cc / 0 / cr \ 1.9 Ty 105113 '9O Z . y<c 9FFr N N \ \ O CL \ \ f- \ 1 w ` 'Tti CL PROJECT SITE \ QUO ¢ \ JQQ a L 91 Lu z y� ,6/ 56 � 4: z! COAST cy� ay LEGEND XX /XX = AM PEAK HOUR /PM PEAK HOUR s Y 0 ATTACHMENT 2_ 22. Newport & 19th NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL W BT WBR MESA - YEAR LANES CAPACITY 1 1600 3 4800 1 1600 1 1600 3 4800 1 1600 2.5 AM PK 1.5 6400 1 1600 1 1600 2.5 6400 1.5 160 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION )NDITIONS AM PK HOUR VOL V/C 15 .01 3076 .64 * 13 .01 160 0.10 * 2012 .42 517 .32 971 .20 * 238 .15 21 .01 16 .01 192 .06 * 294 1.00 PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 81 .05 2469 .51 * 53 .03 264 .17 * 2812 .59 823 .51 908 {.20} * 341 .20 63 .04 66 .04 310 {.06} * 190 VE ATTACHMENT 3 22. Newport & 19th NBL N BT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR W BL W BT W BR - YEAR 2000 LANES CAPACITY 1 1600 3 4800 1 1600 1 1600 3 4800 1 1600 2.5 13 1.5 6400 1 1600 1 1600 2.5 6400 1.5 238 AM PK HOUR VOL V/C 15 .01 3088 .64 * 13 .01 160 .10 * 2069 .43 517 .32 971 .20 * 238 .15 21 .01 16 .01 192 .06 * 294 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 81 .05 2511 .52 * 53 .03 264 .17 * 2819 .59 823 .51 908 {.20} * 341 .20 63 .04 66 .04 310 {.06} * 190 Ems. ATTACHMENT 4 1 t 28. Superior & 17 th NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL W BT WBR - YEAR 2000 LANES CAPACITY 1 1600 0.5 3200 1.5 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 AM PK HOUR VOL V/C 40 .03 107 {.25} * 898 {.04} 19 .01 * 158 .07 66 21 .01 296 .10 * 20 260 .16 * 281 .11 61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 50 .03 160 {.10} * 440 {.04} 74 .05 * 230 .09 56 24 .02 443 .15 * 38 511 .32 * 323 .14 118 .52 .62 ATTACHMENT 5 28. Superior & 17 th NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL W BT WBR LANES CAPACITY 1 1600 0.5 3200 1.5 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 AM PK HOUR VOL V/C 42 .03 107 {.24} * 919 {.08} 19 .01 * 167 .07 66 21 .01 296 .10 * 29 365 .23 * 281 .11 61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 57 .04 160 {.10} 516 {.08} 74 .05 231 .09 56 24 .02 443 .15 39 524 .33 323 .14 118 .58 .63 ATTACHMENT 6 l- 29. Newport & 17th NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL W BT WBR LANES CAPACITY 1 1600 3 4800 1 1600 2 3200 3 4800 0 0 3 4800 2 3200 0 0 2 3200 3 4800 1 1600 CONDITIONS AM PK HOUR VOL V/C 32 .02 1599 .33 * 315 .20 623 .19 * 1338 .34 277 .15 727 .15 348 .11 8 .07 132 .04 358 .07 150 .09 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .74 PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 92 .06 1389 .29 226 .14 743 .23 1651 .43 409 708 .15 496 .16 24 223 .07 536 .11 223 .14 78 ATTACHMENT 7 29. Newport & 17th NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL W BT WBR MESA - LANES CAPACITY 1 1600 3 4800 1 1600 2 3200 3 4800 0 0 3 4800 2 3200 0 0 2 3200 3 4800 1 1600 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION )NDITIONS W/P AM PK HOUR VOL V/C 42 .03 1599 .33 * 315 .20 623 .19 * 1338 .35 353 419 743 .15 * 352 .11 10 31 132 .04 377 .08 * 150 .09 IECT PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 93 .06 1389 .29 226 .14 743 .23 1651 .43 419 764 .16 510 .17 31 223 .07 538 .11 223 .14 .75 .79 ATTACHMENT 8 C`' `I .�, i .. wi- Pirzadeh iii �� .a a >�nll a I .. I \1.. December 6, 2000 Mr. Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Transportation and Development Services Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: 500 Superior (Newport Technology Center) Dear Mr. Edmonston: 30 Executive Park (949) 651.1367 Suite 270 r. (9091861 -5179 lm . CA 92614.4726 www.pirzacfeh.c m Pursuant to your request, we have conducted a comparison analysis between the former Hughes Aircraft Company facility and the proposed Newport Technology Center to determine the difference, if any, in the site trip generation and any resultant project traffic impacts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site contains approximately 14 acres and is bounded by Dana Road to the south, Superior Avenue to the west, the City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard to the north, and Newport Boulevard to the east, see Figure 1. The project site is designated as General Industrial by the City's General Plan, which allows both office- laboratory, and research and development land uses. The Hughes Aircraft Company facility was comprised of approximately 416,499 square feet of office- laboratory uses, which included approximately 110,000 gross square feet of laboratory- office uses that was approved by the City of Newport Beach's Planning Commission in 1983. A traffic study was prepared for the additional intensity to determine potential impacts that the traffic being generated by the site would have on the adjacent roadway network. The findings of the Hughes Aircraft Expansion Traffic Study, prepared by Kurtzman Associates dated June 8, 1983, showed that at buildout, the facility was expected to generate 5,214 daily trips. The study also shows that the site was .expected to generate 286 trips during the PM peak hour, see Table 1. It should be noted that the 1983 traffic study did not provide an analysis for the AM peak hour associated with the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. The proposed Newport Technology Center consists of approximately 415,493 square feet of research and industrial land use, which is approximately 1,006 square feet less than the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. The City of Newport Beach uses the Trip Generation, 61h :....... µ „..,.,. n...., ;.....y -.. o-.n.... I! — ...... _., 1n_........._ I ............... 1........: U � J Mr. Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Page 2 December 6, 2000 Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to determine the appropriate trip generation rate for projects within the City. Using the trip rates shown for Research and Development Centers (760), the proposed project is expected to generate 3,370 daily trips, see Table 2. The proposed project is expected to generate 1,844 fewer daily trips than what was projected for the Hughes Aircraft Company facility, see Table 1. Therefore a Traffic Phasing Ordinance study is not required. During the PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 449 trips, which is 163 trips more than what was projected for the Hughes Aircraft Company facility, see Table 1. The increase in PM peak hour trips can be attributable to the Hughes Aircraft Company employee's arrival and departure times, which were staggered to accommodate the shift work at the facility. The company operated three shifts daily with a large percentage of the work force arriving and departing between 3 :00 PM and 4:00 PM, which proportionately decreased the amount of project traffic during the PM peak hour of the adjacent roadway. The peak hour generation for the site occurred earlier than the peak hour of the adjacent street, which typically occurs between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The assumption regarding the effect that the shift work had on the PM peak hour traffic generation can be demonstrated from information provided in the Kunzman Associates Traffic Study. Prior to the addition of the 110,000 gross square feet of office - laboratory uses, 425 trips were recorded between the hours of 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM. Conversely, there were 214 trips recorded between the hours of 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Table 1 -Trip Comparison Land Use Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Hughes Aircraftu� 416,499 SF 286 Trips 286 Trips 5,214 Trips (Office- Laboratory) Newport Technology Center (2) 415,493 SF 515 Trips 449 Trips 3,370 Trips (Research and Development) Proposed Project Differential 1 (1,006 SF)l 229 Tripsl 163 Trips (1,844 Trips) (1) The PM peak hour and ADT trip generation was derived from the Hughes Aircraft Expansion Study, prepared by Kunzman Associates, dated June 3, 1983. (2) Trip generation was derived from Trip Generation, 6N Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Based on our comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the Hughes Aircraft Company facility and the trips that are expected to be generated by the Newport Technology Center, it can be concluded that the proposed use will generate 229 more AM peak hour trips, 163 more PM peak hour trips, and 1,844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. C,7 Mr. Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Page 3 December 6, 2000 Table 2 Land Use and Trip Generation Rates Land Use Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In I Out I Total I In I Out I Total Research and Development TSF 1 1.03 0.21 1.241 0.16 0.92 1.08 8.11 Newport Technology Center 415.4931 4281 871 5151 671 3821 4491 3.370 The City asked that both the AM and PM peak hours be evaluated to determine potential project impacts for the proposed project. Since the 1983 Hughes Aircraft Expansion Traffic Study did not analyze the AM peak hour or provide an AM peak hour trip generation rate, the 286 PM peak hour trips that were identified in the 1983 Kunzman Associates traffic study were also assumed to be generated during the AM peak hour, see Table 1. The assumption is based on the staggered work hours created by the shift work during the morning and evening, which causes the peak hour of the site to occur outside the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Based on this assumption, the number of employees that were arriving and leaving the site would generate similar traffic volumes during the AM peak hour as documented during the PM peak hour. Although the project does not generate more than 300 average daily trips more than the former Hughes Aircraft Company facility, there is a significant increase in the AM and PM peak hour project trips. To address the additional peak hour trips being generated, the following one percent approach volume analysis was performed to examine the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road, and the Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue /Balboa Boulevard intersections. The analysis is performed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40, entitled Traffic Phasing Ordinance, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PROJECT DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The traffic distribution and assignment is based on the directional orientation of the project traffic on the roadway network. For the purpose of this report, the project distribution assumed for the Hughes Aircraft Company facility was used with the project trips shown being rounded to the nearest increment of five, see Attachment 1. The peak hour project trips that were distributed on the adjacent roadway network represent the difference between the peak hour trips for the existing use (Hughes Aircraft Company) and the proposed Newport Technology Center, which is consistent with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, see Figure 2. Mr. Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Page 4 December 6, 2000 STUDY INTERSECTIONS Because of the proximity to the project site, the following two intersections were identified by staff to be evaluated for potential project impacts: Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road The two intersections referenced above exceed the one percent volume criteria. Table 3 shows the two intersections and provides a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis. The One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis worksheets for the intersections are shown on Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. The one percent analysis includes the respective traffic volumes for the peak hour for regional growth and committed projects. The project's completion date is anticipated to occur during 2002. Therefore, the existing intersection volumes have been projected to the year 2002. The regional traffic projections are consistent with the City's methodology and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate, see Attachment 4. Table 3 One Percent Peak Hour Co m arison Intersection 1% of Projected Peek Hour Volume Project Peak Hour Volume Exceed 1% Threshold IAM AM Peak Hour IPM Peak Hour JAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Coast Highway & Balboa /Superior Northbound % 7 9 1 Yes No . Southbound ? 22 10 35 Yes Yes Eastbound 42 25 38 5 No No Westbound 9 24 0 0 No No Newport Blvd & Hospital Drive Northbound 16 15 19 2 Yes No Southbound 15 19 0 0 No No Eastbound 5 6 4 14 No Yes Westbound 4 5 0 0 No No INTERSECTION CAPACI'T'Y UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Both of the intersections identified above exceed the one percent volume criteria. The projected volume -to- capacity (v /c) 'ratio shown on the worksheets include the regional growth and committed projects, but does not include the proposed project. Although the Mr. Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. . Page 5 December 6, 2000 Newport Boulevard and Hospital Drive intersection exceeds the one percent criteria during both the AM and PM peak hour, further analysis shows that the ICU at the intersection is projected to operate at 0.605 and 0.711 during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively, see Attachments 5 and 6._ No additional analysis or mitigation is recommended at this intersection. The ICU worksheets show that the Cbast Highway and Balboa Avenue /Superior Avenue intersection is projected to have an ICU value of 0.920 (0.92) and 1.015 (1.02) during the AIvl and PM peak hours, respectively, see Attachments 7 and 8. When the projects peak hour traffic volumes are added to the ICU values, the intersection is projected to operate at 0.924 (0.92) and 1.023 (1.02) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, see Attachments 7 and 8. Based on the City's performance criteria, there is no project impact at the Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue intersection. Based on the above comparison analysis, one percent traffic volume analysis, and ICU evaluation, the proposed project at 500 Superior Avenue, also known as the Newport Technology Center, will not create any project related deficiencies at the Newport Boulevard and Hospital Drive, or Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue intersections that require any mitigation. Please call me if you have any questions, or if you need any additional information Sincerely, Peter S. Kolibaba, CET Senior Associate c: Peter K. Pirzadeh, Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc. PAI 6801 N ewpottTechCntr.12062000-REdmons ton- Compara tiveAnalysisdtr.psk i NEW/ i T as i- 'J- N N 3ON3dY UojV3d OS FIGURE 1 q � a , Fw '_ u m 2III1 1�91[II Ir �li�q I i —i Ill. il.. a Z U J. 0 a o U� � E0,. = o K 4 w L f) PACIFIC NET NEW PROJECT VOLUMES FOR NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER 1 v 25/90� N r 74/49 �m m LEGEND A<19 , C� �T .g CO PgT � C m` N' 38/5 -1' f m xx/xx = AM PEAK HOUR /PM PEAK HOUR C PROJECT SITE "D DANA HOSPITAL �\\G��P 4114 -Z ` r^ / m `I�PO o ��O m Z o� lk FIGURE 2 49 Project Traffic Distribution And Assignment it �i ATTACHMENT -: 6 I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS I• INTERSECTION-- COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA BOULEVARD /SUPERIOR AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average 141nier/Spring 1999 AM 1855 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS L., ERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA BOULEVARD /SUPERIOR AVENUE 1855 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 1999 PAP Ea1S77NG PEAT: HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS PROJECTED 1% OF PROJECTED PROJECT APPROACH PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH PEN: HOUR PEAK HOUR PEAK HO[J72 PEA}: HOUR DIRECTION VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Northbound 745 0 3 748 7 9 Southbound 2214 0 4 655 7 10 Southbound 651 72 34 2,521 25 5 Ewbound 2415 122 47 4,249 42 38 Eutb aur._ 4080 66 95 2,360 24 0 W «mound 809 24 21 854 9 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS L., ERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA BOULEVARD /SUPERIOR AVENUE 1855 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 1999 PAP Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t h of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacty Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 500 Superior (Newport Technology Center) DATE: 12/04/00 ATTACHMENT E.�ISTING PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS PROJECTED 1% OF PROJECTED PROJECT .APPROACH PEAK HOUR IREGIONALGROWTH PEAL: HOUR PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR DIRECTION VOL[!ME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Northbound 688 0 3 691 7 1 Southbound 2214 0 2 2 216 22 72 34 2,521 25 5 Ewbound 2415 66 95 2,360 24 0 Westbound 2199 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t h of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacty Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 500 Superior (Newport Technology Center) DATE: 12/04/00 ATTACHMENT I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS !INTERSECTION.- NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 (E)Usting Traffic Volumes Based on Average li rnter/Spring 1999 AAA OProject Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION.- NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 (E)dsting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1999 PAO EMSTING APPROVED PROJECTS PROJECTED 1 %OFPROIECTED PROJECT APPROACH PEAK HOUR JPEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR DIRECTION VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME ,Northbound 1543 46 24 1,613 16 19 Southbound 1346 40 95 1,481 15 0 Southbound 1781 0 12 525 5 4 Eubound 513 0 38 626 6 14 W inbound 453 0 1 370 4 0 W vrtbound 369 OProject Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION.- NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 (E)dsting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1999 PAO Project Traffic is estimated to be fess than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 500 Superior (Newport Technology Center) DATE: 12/04/62 2 ATTACHMENT: FISTING PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS PROJECTED PROJECT APPROACH PEAT: HOUR REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR 11916OFPROIECTED1 PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR DIRECTION VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Northbound 1431 43 54 1,528 15 2 53 •95 1,929 19 0 Southbound 1781 E=bound 588 0 38 626 6 14 W inbound 453 0 0 453 5 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be fess than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 500 Superior (Newport Technology Center) DATE: 12/04/62 2 ATTACHMENT: r[ I SEW PORT �a6W PO,gT o° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o° ''- REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATE M COAST HIGHWAY East city limit to MacArthur Boulevard 1% MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road I% Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard Newport Boulevard to west city limit IRVINE AVENUE All JAMBOREE ROAD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison Bison to Bristol Bristol to Campus MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road San Joaquin Hills Road to north city limit NEWPORT BOULEVARD Coast Highway to north city limit Ivn. I% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% * ** Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth * ** 2�VUpdated: 7/271998 3 ATTACHMENT N'E2480 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 --moliIiiiiiiiiii' EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER /SPRING 1999 AM ....................... ............................ I EXISTING I PROPOSED I ............................... EXISTING I EXISTING I .......................................................... REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I ............................... . PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I ( I Capacity I Capacity I Volume ( Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ............................................................................................................ I NL 1 1600 1 f 130 1 0.081 0 ....................................... ............................... 1 0 1 0.081* I ............................... 19 10.093* 9...... I NT 1 1 1347 1 46 1 24 1 0.310 1 0 10.310 1 I.............. } 4800 ... ............................... } 0.294 - . '- .................. ............................... ..- ............ ................ I NR 1 1 66 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 ............................................................. I SL 1 1600 1 1 .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 40 1 0 025 1 ......... 0 . ......... ............................. 1 0 1 0.025 1 . .............. 0 ............................... . ....... I 1 0.025 1 I 1 ST 1 1 972 1 40 1 58 1 0.300* 1 0 1 0.300* 1 4800 } 0.272 - ------------------ I I SR 1 1 334 1 .............. . 0 1 37 1 1 0 1 1 I............... . .............. . ................. .. EL 1 1600 1 1 ........................................................................................................... .............. . 188 1 0.118 ....... ........... 0 . ................... 1 12 ............................... . ... ............... . .............. 1 0.125* 1 ............................... 0 ................. I 1 0.12$* 1 I I ET 1 1600 1 1 .............. . .............. . ............... .......... 148 1 0.093 1 .....-.......................... 0 ............................... 1 0 1 0.093 1 -'- ......... ............................... 0 10.093 1 I . I ER 1 1600 1 1 ........... 177 1 0.111 1 ............................................ 0 1 0 .... ........................... 1 0.111 1 . ............................... 4 10.113 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 92 1 0.058 1 0 1 0 1 0.058 1 ..............................I 0 10.05: ° - I I .................................................................................................................................... ... � � 1 0..0..087.* .....57..... } 3200 ............................... } 0. 087 ...... ......... ......1.......... ..0 ...087.* ......... 1 WR I I ................. ............................... 20 ......... ................. ....... � I p I I . ............... p l ................ jI I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.557 1 I ........................................................................................................... I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................... I.C.U. 1 0.593 1 ............................... 1 I I .......................................................................................................................................... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. .. ................................................. ............................... .......................... ............................... ................ 10.605 1 ................ . I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /Systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U, without project ............ ................ ...................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT NE2480AM, .. ............... ................... ...................... ............................... . ................ . FORM It I 305 ATTACHMENT NE2480 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER /SPRING 1999 PM ...................................................................................... I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING 1 ............................... REGIONAL ....................... I COMMITTED I PROJECTED ............................... . I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I f I I I I I Volume I 1 I ......................................................................................................................................... NL ................ 1 1600 1 . ........... I._ ..................... 1 118 ............................... 1 0.074 0..... 1 0 1 ....... ............................... ............................... 0.074* . 1 2 ............................ I 1 0.075"1 NT 1 1 1250 1 43 1 54 1 0.294 1 0 1 0.294 1 ................ } 4800 .... ............................... } 0.274 . ................ . ....... . ........... .................... ............... .............. 1 NR ................................... 1 1 63 ............................... 1 ............... ................. 0 1 0 1 . 1 0 1 I SL 1 1600 1 1 45 1 0.028 1 0 1 0 1 0.028 1 0 1 0.0281 ................................... ST 1 ............................... 1 1569 . ..................................................................... 1 53 1 36 1 ............................... 0. 384* 1 0 I 1 0. 3844 ................ } 4800 . .................. _ ............... } 0.362 • ................ ..................... ............. . ............. I SR 1 1 167 1 0 1 19 I 1 0 1 1 ................................................... EL 1 1600 1 ............................... 1 213 ................ 1 0.133 0 . ................... . 1 38 1 ................... 0.157* . .............. 1 0 . ............. 1 1 0.1571 ................................... ET 1600 ............................... 143 ............... ................. 0.089 0 ......... ........0-8....... 0 0.089 ............... 0 .............. 0.0891 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ............................... ER . 1 1600 1 ....................................................................................................... 1 232 1 0.145 1 0 1 0 1 ............................... 0.145 1 14 I 1 0.154 1 .... ................. WL ............................ 1 1600 1 ............................... 1 149 1 0.093 1 ................ 0 1 ............................... 0 1 0.093 . ............................ 1 0 I 1 0.093 1 I WT 1 ............................. ......................................................................... 1 280 1 0 1 1 1 ............................... 0.095* 1 0 1 0.095 } 3200 } 0.095 • ................ I WR .............................. 1 ... 1 24 ................................................................................................... 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 I 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.664 1 ............................... I .......................................................................................................... EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH ............................... + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1 I .... ............................... ....................................... ............................... ..................... 0.710 .......................................... 1 EXISTING + ........................................................................................ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ............................... .... ............................... 10.711 1 . ............. . Ip. Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ...................................................... ............................... ......................................... ............................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II NE248OPM 3�,� ATTACHMENT CH1855AMALT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA BOULEVARD /SUPERIOR AVENUE 1855 ---Wmm � EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER /SPRING 1999 AM .............. ......................................................... I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I.EXISTIN ............................... 1 REGIONAL I . COMMITTED ..................... I PROJECTED 1 ............................... PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes t Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/p Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 1 192 I 0 1 0 ................... 1 0. 210* 1 ............... 0 ................ 1 1 0. 213* i •--------------- } 3200 - ------------------ - --------------- } 0 210 • ................. .................... ................... ...-------- - - -- - ---- ------------ I NT .1 1 479 1 0 f 0 1 1 9 f I .................................. NR 1 1600 1 ............................... 1 74 .. ............................... 0.046 1 0 ...................................... 1 3 10.048 1 ............................... 0 I 1 0.048 1 SL 1 .... ; ........ 1 192 . — ............ ...... ............................... 1 0 1 4 . .................. . )0.086* 1 .............. 0 . ... I............ I 10.087 *j .......... ... } 4800 - ------------------ - --------------- } 0.085 • ................. .................... - ------------ - - - --- - -------------- - ---------------• I ST I 1 218 1 0 1 0 11 1 .................... 2 ............................... 1 I I .............. SR .. ............................... 1 3200 1 ............... . 1 241 1 .............. 0.075 . ................. 1 0 .................... 1 0 10.075 1 .................... 8 ............................... 1 0.078 I ............................... EL 1 3200 1 ........ °---- ............ -° ............... 1 931 1 0.291 .................. 1 0 .................... 1 0 10.291 1 38 1 0.303 1 ................ ET . °- ........... 1 4800 1 -- - ---- -...................... 1 2604 1 - °.......... 0.543 ................. • 122 . ................... 1 47 . .................. . 10.578 1 .............. 0 ................. i 1 0.578 1 ..................... ER ................................................................................................................... 1 1600 1 1 545 1 0.341 1 0 1 0 10.341 1 ............................... 0 I 1 0.341 1 ................ WL . ......... I .... . 1 1600 1 .................. ...... -----............................................ 1 72 1 0.045 0 ............................... 1 1 10.046 1 .............. 0 ................. I 1 0.04," 1 ................ __ ___ _ ___ _________ _ ____________ _ ___ ..... .... __ ______ ...... ... ................... . ............ ___ __ _ ___ ........... f . ......... .f WT 1 1 544 1 24 1 19 1 0.122 1 0 1 0.122' 1 ................ } 6400 - ------------------ - •-------------- } 0.115 .................. .................... .................... ............................... I WR 1 1 193 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 f ................................. EXISTING I.C.U. ............................... 1 .................... 0883 ............................... I . .................. . .............. .......... - °- -- I I I .......I ...................... EXISTING ..... .......... + REGIONAL . .............. . ................... ............... ............... GROWTH + COMMITTED ................ .. ............... . . ................. .................... ................... W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 1 0.920 1 .............. .........-----............................ ............................... ----- °-- .... I EXISTING ° ............................... + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH ............................... I . . '+ PROJECTf.C.U. .............. . ................. .................... . .................. . .............. 1 0.924 1 ................... Split Phase N/5 Direction _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 y Projected + project traffic I C.U. will be greater than 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project trathc I.0 U. with project improvements will be less than I C.U. without project Description of system improvement: NONE PROJECT CH1855AM ...................... ............................... . FORM II ATTACHMENT Page 20.20-1 Industrial Districts CHAPTER 20.20 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICrs Sections: 20.20.010 Specific Purposes 20.20.020 Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations 20.20.030 Industrial Districts: Property Development Regulations 20.20.040 Review of Plans 20.20.010 Specific Purposes The industrial districts regulations are intended to: A. Locate industrial development in areas consistent with the General Plan and provide a broad range of manufacturing and service uses. B. Strengthen the City's economic base, and provide employment opportunities close to home for residents of the City and surrounding communities. C. Provide a suitable environment for various types of industrial uses, and protect them from the adverse impacts of inharmonious uses. D. Ensure that the appearance and effects of industrial uses are compatible with the character of the area in which they are located. E. Minimize the impact of industrial uses on adjacent residential districts. F. Ensure the provision of adequate off - street parking and loading facilities. The additional purposes of each industrial district are as follows: Manufacturing (M -1) District. The M -1 District provides areas for a full range of manufacturing, industrial processing, and distribution and storage uses. Controlled Manufacturing (M -1 -A) District. The M -1 -A District provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. Industrial Business Park (113P) District: The IBP District provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and commercial uses which support industrial uses, 1[124/99 365 Page 20.20.2 Industrial Districts require large outdoor or indoor spaces, or which have characteristics which are not suitable for standard commercial districts. 20.20.020 Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations The following schedule establishes the land uses defined in Chapter 20.05 as permitted or conditionally permitted in industrial districts, and includes special requirements, if any, applicable to specific uses. The letter "P" designates use classifications permitted in industrial districts. The letter "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed under the "Additional Use Regulations" which follows. The letters "UP" designate use classifications permitted on approval of a use permit, as provided in Chapter 20.91. The letters "PD/U" designate use classifications permitted on approval of a use permit issued by the Planning Director, as provided in Chapter 20.91. The letters "P/UP" designate use classifications which are permitted when located on the site of another permitted use, but which require a use permit when located on the site of a conditional use. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Regulations" column refer to. "Additional Use Regulations" following the schedule. Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced regulations shall apply to all use classifications under the heading. Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations P = Permitted UP - Use Permit : PDN - Use permit issued by the Planning Director L = Limited (see Additional Use Regulations) — - Not Permitted M -1 M -1 -A IBP Additional Regulations RESIDENTIAL (A), (B), (C) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL L -1 -- PUBLICAND SEMI- PUBLIC (A), (B), (C) CEMETERIES L -2 L -2 -- CLUBS AND LODGES L -3 L -3 CONVALESCENT FACILITIES UP UP — DAY CARE, GENERAL - -- UP PD/U EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE - -- - -- P GOVERNMENT OFFICES UP UP L4 HELIPORTS UP UP UP (D) HOSPITALS UP UP -- MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES P P P MARINAS UP' -- — (E) PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UP UP L4 f 112a/99 1 �f, ri Pa ,-e 20.20 -3 Industrial Districts '1 Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations 1 P ° Permitted UP ° Use Permit PD/U ° Use permit issued by the Planning Director L ° Limiled (See Additional Use Re?ulations) — - Not Permitted 7'\� M -1 M -I -A IBP Additional (A), (B), (C) Regulmions PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES UP UP PD/U RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY UP UP - -- RESIDENTIAL CARE, GENERAL UP UP - -- SCHOOLS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UP UP -- UTILITIES, MAJOR UP UP UP UTILITIES, MINOR P P P 7'\� COMMERCIAL USES (A), (B), (C) AMBULANCE SERVICES - -- P P ANIMAL SALES AND SERVICES - -- --- -ANIMAL BOARDING - -- P - ANIMAL GROOMING - -- - -- P - ANIMAL HOSPITALS P P P - ANIMAL RETAIL SALES - -- - -- P - ARTISTS' STUDIOS - -- P P BANKS /SAVINGS AND LOANS — P P -WITH DRIVE- THROUGH/DRIVE UP - -- UP PD/U BUILDING MATERIALS AND SERVICES P UP P CATERING SERVICES - -- P P COMMERCIAL FILMING UP UP P (F) COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND UP UP L-4 (F), (J) ENTERTAINMENT COMMUNICATION FACILITIES P P P EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS -FULL SERVICE, HIGH TURNOVER — — UP (F), (G), (J) -FULL SERVICE, SMALL SCALE PD/U PD/U PD/U (F), (G), (J) -TAKE -OUT SERVICE UP UP UP (F), (G), (J) - TAKE -OUT SERVICE, LIMITED PD/U PD/U PD/U (F), (G), (J) - ACCESSORY P P P (F), (G), (J) FOOD AND BEVERAGE SALES -- L -4 L4 (J) HORTICULTURE, LIMITED P P P LABORATORIES P P P MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES P P P MARINE SALES AND SERVICES ' 11/24199 7'\� Page 20.20 -4 Industrial Districts Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations P - Permitted UP - Use Permit PD/U - Use permit issued by the Planning Director L - Limited (see Additional Use Reeulations) -- - Not Permitted INDUSTRLIL M -1 M-1 -A IBP Additional PD/U INDUSTRY, CUSTOM P L -10 L -10 Regulations -BOAT CHARTER, RENTALS AND SALES -- ___ P -BOAT STORAGE P - -- PD/U (E) - BOATYARDS P L -5 L -5 (E) - MARINE RETAIL SALES - -- ___ P NURSERIES P P P OFFICES, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL UP L -6 L4 PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES L -7 L -7 L4 PERSONAL SERVICES L -8 L -8 L4 -DRY CLEANERS PD/U PD/U PD/U POSTAL SERVICES P p P PRINTING AND DUPLICATING SERVICES P p P RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P p P RETAIL SALES UP - -- L4 SECONDHAND APPLIANCES AND CLOTHING - -- - -- L -4 SALES SWAP MEETS, RECURRING - -- -- PD/U TRAVEL SERVICES L-4 L4 L4 VEHICLEIEQUIPMENT SALES AND SERVICES - AUTOMOBILE WASHING — _ PD/U - COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITY -- __ p - SERVICE STATIONS UP UP PD/U (J), (K) - VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT REPAIR' P p P - VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT SALES AND L -14 L -14 P RETAILS - VEHICLE STORAGE UP UP PD/U WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE, LIMITED UP P UP WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE, SELF SERVICE UP UP UP INDUSTRLIL (A), (B), (C) FOOD PROCESSING L -9 - -- PD/U INDUSTRY, CUSTOM P L -10 L -10 INDUSTRY, GENERAL L -I l INDUSTRY, LIMITED P L -10 P INDUSTRY, R &D P P P 11124/99 / -2 p J Page 20.20 -5 Industrial Districts Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations P = Permitted UP = Use Permit PD/U = Use permit issued by the Punning Director L = Limited (see Additional Use Regulations) _ = Not Permitted M -1 M -1 -A IBP Additional Regulations STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION - -- - -- PDAJ AGRICULTURAL AND EXTRACTIVE USES MINING AND PROCESSING ACCESSORY USES ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES TEMPORARY USES CIRCUSES AND CARNIVALS HELIPORTS; TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE OFFICES, TEMPORARY (A), (B), (C) L -12 L -12 L -12 (H) (A), (B), (C) KUP P/UP P/UP (A). (B), (C) P P P (I) L -13 L -13 L -13 (D) L -13 L- 13 L -13 (B) ' Industrial Districts: Additional Land Use Regulations L -1 Limited to residences for watchmen or custodians employed on site. One residence for an owner or owners-of a development site, including two garage spaces, provided that such use will be incidental to and will not alter the character of the premises in respect to the permitted uses and of the uses permitted with a use permit. L -2 20 acres minimum. L -3 Limited to yacht clubs. L -4 Permitted as an accessory use and may be permitted as an ancillary use on a property separate from the principal use upon the finding by the.Planning Director that the use remains subordinate to and serve the principal use pursuant to the definition contained in Chapter 20.03. L -5 Permitted with a use permit when within a building. L -6 Use permit required for medical and dental offices. = \ L -7 Limited to business and trade schools. nrzaros l Page 20.20 -6 Industrial Districts L -8 Limited to beauty shops and barber shops. L -9 Use permit required for fish smoking, curing, and freezing. Fish canneries and/or reduction grinding and processing plants are prohibited. L -10 Use permit required for furniture manufacturing, assembling and construction of paper products with finished paper stock, garment manufacturing, the manufacture of novelties, toys and small appliances, and other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are comparable and similar in character with the other uses requiring a use permit. L -11 Autowrecking, distillation of bones; dumping, disposal, incineration or reduction or garbage, sewage, offal, dead animals or refuse, fat rendering; manufacture or storage of acid, cement, explosives, fireworks, fertilizer, glue, gypsum, lime, plaster of paris or asphalt, stockyard or slaughter of animals, refining of petroleum or its products, melting of iron, tin, zinc, or other ores; junk yards, hog raising, bag manufacture or cleaning, blast furnace or boiler works, breweries, coke ovens, cooperage works, incinerators, cordage mills, foundries, tanneries, and all other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of similar nature or may be objectionable, are prohibited. L -12 Limited to the removal of earthen material. No permit shall be required for normal grading or landscaping on lots of record. Drilling for and/or removal of oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon materials are prohibited. L -13 Subject to the approval of the Planning Director. L -14 No new or used automobile, truck or motorcycle sales permitted. (A) See Section 20.60.025: Relocatable Buildings. (B) See Section 20.60.015: Temporary Structures and Uses. (C) See Section 20.60.050: Outdoor Lighting. (D) See Section 20.60.055: Heliports and Helistops (E) See Section 20.60.070: Waterfront Development Regulations. (F) See Section 20.60.085: Uses Requiring City Manager Approval. (G) See Chapter 20.82: Eating and Drinking Establishments. 1124/99 `, i ti J m ) J JI M n v N n a -o T P� �J 's C l 9s r S UFEK /OK fi V Y ` T , o,,, T 'A n ° T ..e• o o ,�I• o y V Y ` T , T 'A n ° T ..e• o •Y��IN / A Y' 00• ` • �yi ? r J @J A a a I i b b T O ICY aiN 31 �� 2.Ly1s dM3M ' ^� NT s A ✓E '� ,i. •, t Avc �. ' 1 a rfl � Y A SEE MAP NO. S J 1 , t� ° , m ne , m� nA t0 I( I` O ICY aiN 31 �� 2.Ly1s dM3M ' ^� NT s A ✓E '� ,i. •, t Avc �. ' 1 a rfl � Y A SEE MAP NO. S J Proiect Characteristics Table Authorizedunderthe TPO and previoususe permits. Z For research and developmentuse the code requires I space per 500 sq. ft. 2 j5 Required/Permitted Proposed . Site Area 10,000 sq. ft. 595,336 sq. ft. (13.69 acres) Floor Area 416,499 sq. ft.' 415,493 sq. ft. BUILDING 1 •• 100,407 Setbacks: 111,980 Front (Superior) 15 ft. 15 ft. Side (on Dana Rd.): 15 ft. 101 ft. Side (north): 10 ft. 44 ft. Rear: 15 ft. 75 ft. BUILDING F 2,449 DEMOLISHED Floor Area Ratio .75 (446,502 sq. ft.) .69 (F.A.R.): 211 DEMOLISHED Building Height 32 ft. average roof height or flat roof Building 1 (new): 48 ft. 6 in. to top of roof 37 ft. maximum ridge height parapet With Use Permit: 50 ft. average roof height or flat roof Buildin22 (extg. Building "E "): 32 ft. 5 in. to 55 ft. maximum ridge height top of roof parapetand 41 ft. 1 in. to top of penthouse parapet Building3 (new): 48 ft. 6 in. to top of roof parapet Buildin24 (exte. BuildingsC and D): 43 ft. to top of roof parapet Parking Structure(extg): 40 ft. to top of roof parapet and 50 ft. to the top of the elevator structure on top of the roof. Parking Spaces 831= 1,421 Authorizedunderthe TPO and previoususe permits. Z For research and developmentuse the code requires I space per 500 sq. ft. 2 j5 EXISTING GROSS AREA PROPOSED GROSS AREA BUILDING A 93,105 DEMOLISHED BUILDING B 104,708 DEMOLISHED BUILDING 1 •• 100,407 BUILDING 3 111,980 BUILDING CID (4) 86,723 -- BUILDING 4 (C/D) -- 86,077 BUILDING E (2) 129,227 -- BUILDING 2 (E) -- 117,029 BUILDING F 2,449 DEMOLISHED GUARD STATION 1 76 DEMOLISHED GUARD STATION 2 211 DEMOLISHED TOTAL 416,499 415,493 Authorizedunderthe TPO and previoususe permits. Z For research and developmentuse the code requires I space per 500 sq. ft. 2 j5 Exhibit No. 5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 \ Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 o.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 o.m. inf xe tenor interio exterior Residentiol prope y` 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA Residentiol Property locoted —� Within 100 feet of o commerciol Property: 45dBA Mixed Use Property Commerciol 45dBA 60 dBA 65dBA •s• 45dBA 50 dBA 50 dBA INDEX SUBJECT: The St. Clair Company Item 5 500 Superior Avnue Use Permit No. 3679 • Use Permit No. 3679 A request for the approval of a Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit of Continued to buildings of 32 feet up to 50 feet, in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 01/18/2001 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves the demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 square feet. Associate Planner, Eugenia Garcia noted that a supplemental report is presented to provide responses to questions raised by members of the Commission and suggested changes and clarifications to staff's report for the project. Continuing, she noted the four findings for the approval for the increased building height: • Finding Number I - The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover and the treatment of all setback and open areas. • Finding Number 2 - The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. • Finding Number 3 - The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments of public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. • Finding Number 4 - The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 30 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 Staff has included responses to these findings within the report with additional clarifications and changes to Exhibit A as noted on pages 3 and 4 of the Supplemental Report. Chairman Selich asked if the Commission wished staff to review the questions and answers. He was answered no. Commissioner Tucker asked: • If this application would involve any other 'discretionary' approvals under CEQA? He was answered, no. • Would any CEQA analysis be required if the applicant did not seek a use permit? He was answered, no. • The existing use permit stays in effect and demo and rebuilding of Buildings A and B at 32 feet occurs with no CEQA requirement that the applicant would have to go through. He was answered, that was correct. • If the applicant asked for additional height, does CEQA apply in its entirety although only a design feature is involved, which is the scale of the facility? He was answered, that is correct. • Even though we would be talking about how the site would be designed we would get into things like traffic and those types of issues? He was answered, yes. • If the CEQA process became too burdensome, could the applicant redesign the project so that no CUP is needed, and then the City could end up with as much intensity as the applicant is proposing but with a less appealing design? He was answered, yes. Continuing, he asked: • The zoning of the property allows for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. Where is that line of demarcation between something that is limited and ancillary and accessory and something that is more like an office project use? How do we know when we have crossed over? Ms. Clauson answered that there is a judgement call to be made based upon the definitions of ancillary and accessory, which talk about ancillary to the primary approved use. You have an instant demarcation of something less than 50 %. The language is strong enough to indicate less than that even. You have to be able to show that the office use was in support of or part of the actual R& D use. It can not be a separate office use for some other reason. If it became something more than office as opposed to R & D, then that would be the primary purpose of the use and I don't think it would be approved. Ms. Temple added that part of the issue and staff will be reviewing in terms of the tenant improvements are monitoring business licenses and other ways to assure that the uses are consistent with the approved use through the traffic study and general plan designation and zoning, to assure that the uses are of a 31 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 character and nature as described in the use classifications in the zoning code. That can be difficult because many R & D operations include spaces that took like offices and in fact R & D operations occur in these spaces. For instance computer software design and development. It is a burden on the City when reviewing both tenant improvement plans and the businesses that go in there to assure that the businesses themselves fall within those use classifications and to make sure that this owner and any subsequent owners understand those limitations. If those uses change to a conventional, general purpose office use where attorneys, business, landscape architects or any other conventional office type of user comes in, that is not the kind of use that is allowed pursuant to the approvals within the zoning district and the TPO approval and General Plan. Commissioner Tucker noted that it is not clear. There is a circumstance for the traffic analysis that contemplates not a terribly intense type of use, the R & D use, in terms of traffic generating features. From the ITE standpoint is one thing but how this may evolve maybe something that is different. The R & D use is vague. This could end up being different than what I think people think it might be and then you realize when you look at the Zoning Code versus how the uses are now implemented, the.intensification of the project might happen. Ms. Temple noted that we have that challenge in virtually any project we approve with perhaps the exception of residential development. A commercial shopping center can over time evolve into greater and lesser intensities based on market conditions and what people are interested in shopping for. That is why we use the average trip generators in the broader sense. Commissioner Tucker then noted that the staff report indicates that in order for us to conclude that a greater height is something that we are willing to go along with that the trade off is that we need to see a stronger more appealing visual character of the project. If that is the case, the entire design characteristics of this project then become part of our purview and part of what it is that we need to review. The parking spaces that are required and allowed, the project is actually parked at 3.42 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which is a lot more than R & D and not that much less than office. Have we given any thought to perhaps that they have more than they need and the intensification could happen without our noticing it, have we given any thought to suggest to the applicant that they have fewer parking spaces and maybe more landscaping as part of that design trade off? Ms. Temple answered that was not discussed or analyzed in the staff report as an option. Based on at least part of the time that Hughes was operating in a full employment mode on that site, that they had a clearly conforming use and needed those parking spaces. The analysis shows the parking requirement established in 1997. Were we correct in making that change based on a conventional parking table from a professional publication as opposed to what 32 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 in our experience facilities of this nature do sometimes demand? Clearly there were points when Hughes and then Raytheon that a lot of that parking was in fact not used. In this case, we do know that the adjoining residential neighborhood does experience overflow - parking problems from some of the medical offices in proximity to it as well. They are very concerned about the adequacy of the parking in the neighborhood and since the applicant was showing a healthy surplus of parking in an arrangement that it would be an advantage to the project over the long term as the ebb and flow as business goes, to make sure that the project has more than enough parking to serve it. Commissioner Kranzley then asked • Historical use has been 55% administrative and 45% R & D - staff answered that the previous use permit analyzed the parking on that basis for analysis purpose. • 55% parked for administration would be 1 per 225 square feet that would be a requirement of 1,015; 45% parked for R & D would be 1 per 500 square feet that would be 374 spaces with a total requirement of 1,389 spaces. How did you get the 831 spaces? Ms. Garcia answered that the 831 was derived by taking the total square footage and dividing it by the 2 per 1000 that is required for R & D in the Code today. Staff did an analysis of the parking on site and with the available parking came up with a maximum of 75% could be devoted to office. Ms. Wood added that the different ratios for office and R & D were never a code requirement and never a condition of approval. Staff used that as a method of analysis in the previous use permit and what we are basing it on for the review of this use permit is what the Code requires, which is one ratio for all the uses in this classification (I per 500 square feet). Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern that if it becomes more than administrative, than that 1 space for 500 square feet would not be adequate for that use. If this is parked 1 for 500, then it is way over - parked. Our experience is if there is more administrative than R & D then that is not adequate. Ms. Temple stated that if the nature of the R & D use ends up with a higher employee density due to the nature of the business being conducted, then 1 per 500 could prove to be inadequate even if the use was conforming with the General Plan Zoning and Traffic Study limitations. Commissioner Kranzley then asked why the intersection at Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway was not referred to in the Traffic Study? Mr. Edmonston answered that even though this was not a required study under the TPO, we applied the some approach and methodology. That was to look at the approximate size of the project and proximity to intersections that are of 33 INDEX 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 concern under the TPO. One of the tools used in this evaluation was the previous Hughes Study, which showed approximately 7% of the traffic going down Coast Highway through that intersection. Looking at the amount of traffic we are talking about this use generating, it was a very small increment and well under the 1% threshold that would have typically been used. Commissioner Agajonion referring to page 4 asked about the discrepancy of approximately 60,000 square feet of all buildings on site? Is there a heliport? Ms. Garcia answered that staff conducted a review of all the permits on this site. What was found was that the City had issued some building permits that were minor additions (10,000 and 60,000). These permits had not come back to the Planning Commission for approval for those additions. A compilation of 28,604 square feet is what was derived without counting the peripheral mechanical and other smaller buildings on site. Staff is comfortable with this amount. No heliport is there. Ms. Temple added that you do not need a use permit or an amendment to a use permit to add floor area if it is within your zoning and general plan limitation. The use permits where we derived some of the original numbers from were use permits to allow the buildings to exceed the basic height limit. If the new additions complied with the height limitations, and otherwise conform to the zoning requirements they would be permitted. The project is within, currently and with this proposed project, its Zoning and General Plan square footage limitation. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the project has a certain amount of square footage that is entitled. The applicant could reconfigure that in any way. The two existing buildings are to remain and will be remodeled. The proposed site plan reflects the numbers that the applicant has indicated. The FAR Ordinance lists this use (R & D) as a maximum FAR use, which is .75. It could be built up to .75 although the TPO limits it to the 416,499 square feet. Assuming that the traffic was not affected, the applicant could build up to .75. Ms. Temple noted that staff would monitor the business types through the business license tool to assure that the businesses meet the qualifications and parameters. We can provide training and oversight in reviewing the business licenses to make sure those businesses know their limitations of operations to be considered a legal use. Potential tenants will know in advance whether in fact they can legally occupy space on this site. Chairperson Selich asked how over time market conditions may be such that it is not marketable as R & D. If this use turns into office spaces with multi- tenants moving in and out, how is it going to be controlled? Ms. Temple noted that because of initial review of the floor plans and the assurance that the actual physical plant is suitable for the permitted use R & D, 34 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 if that erosion got to a point of the magnitude expressed, eventually tenant improvements would have to be made to create spaces suitable for those uses as they are somewhat different. At that point, we would become aware of what was going on and then the property owner would be informed that those uses were not consistent. Commissioner Tucker noted that the trip distribution was based upon the assumptions in the Kunzman 1983 report. Is a trip distribution assignment from 1983 still appropriate in 2001 with all that has been built? Mr. Edmonston answered yes. The great majority of commuting patterns is in to the City from the north because that is where the bulk of the residential community can access our City. We looked at that and the percentages are fairly consistent with other projects we have approved in the more coastal area of the City.as opposed to by the airport. They are based upon input from the consultants, businesses that have zip code surveys of their employees but certainly not something that we can rely on with a great deal of accuracy. Commissioner Tucker asked about the trips attributable to this project under the ITE criteria how does that match to the number of parking spaces that exists in this project? It seems there are more parking spaces in which to put people than we are allocating trips to this project. Mr. Edmonston answered that the anomaly of this project is that it is showing greater peak hour traffic because it does not have the multiple shifts that Hughes had. It is showing less daily traffic. When Hughes built that structure, they had a horrible parking impact on the adjacent neighborhood. We had time limit parking and a lot of enforcement. When the structure was built initially it was not heavily occupied. There is some evidence that it may have been over - parked for much of its life anyway. Commissioner Tucker noted that the amount of trips that were allocated this project was an R & D classification. Yet we have seen with the number of parking spaces that are there and the need for the parking spaces, I wonder if that was the right designation for the purposes of looking at the project traffic generating features. Should we have considered it half R and D and half office for traffic features? Have we looked at any alternative traffic generating characteristics to try and make sure that what we are looking at we weren't kidding ourselves? Mr. Edmonston answered that we did not look at alternative sites. We have had several conversations about the use of this ITE designation as being the one that is most applicable based on the zoning and restrictions on there that this project has to comply with unless they want to do a General Plan Amendment. We felt that this was the land use that was applicable. Ms. Temple added that research and development uses have administrative 35 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 support offices associated with them as ancillary and part of the business. When ITE establishes a rate, it is basing it upon counts of businesses that are R and D business but which have these types of office uses within them. The rate is inclusive of all the various activities and categories of uses that occur within the business itself. When we talked about what percentage of office versus what percentage of manufacturing, etc, the important thing is to come up with the mechanism we need to assure that the businesses that occupy the space meet the research and development use classification. So long as we can do that, we can be reasonably assured that the traffic generating categories we used are appropriate and can continue to enforce that. Commissioner Tucker then expressed his concern that there could be more people at that facility than what an R and D type of facility might have been a few years ago under ITE because things have changed. It would not surprise me at all if they used all the parking spaces on the site. He then confirmed that because the trips generated by this site are less than prior uses, no TPO analysis was required. No mitigation would be required even if the level of service were above D and ICU increased by .01 or greater because we do not get to the threshold TPO analysis. Mr. Edmonston answered that the potential is there to require mitigations under CEQA. Ms. Temple added that, at least for intersections within the City of Newport Beach, the way we analyzed it in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and in the staff report was that we examined close intersections because we did identify an increase in peak hour trips. We analyzed it in a methodology similar to the one use for TPO analysis. We said in our report that if the standard we used for determining level of significance was breached, we would have found a significant impact and sought a mitigation under the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The TPO standards of mitigation are locally adopted significance standard. In this case, none of those thresholds were exceeded in the ICU analysis and therefore no mitigation was suggested. For the intersections analyzed outside of the City boundaries, we used the established OCTA significance threshold. Once again those intersections did not cross that threshold so no mitigation was required. Commissioner Tucker asked about the site drainage; parking lot drainage and water quality measures. There is nothing on the site plan that shows a detention area and I would be interested in seeing it. Staff answered that the surface drainage is to the Superior side of the property into a catch basin. The City will ask for some additional upgrades to this system. Included is a mitigation measure and a condition that will require a plan that include measures such as a detention basis to be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. Additionally, condition 16 requires that on -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary 36 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 sewer system shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay. The drainage goes to the bay via the channel that was recently built under Coast Highway at the Arches and comes out by the turning basin. Chairperson Selich observed why not adjust or limit the use so that the peak a.m. and p.m. traffic does not exceed what is under the Hughes project and according to the staff report, this project is generating 229 more a.m. /p.m. peak hour trips, 163 more p.m. peak hour trips even though it is generating 1844 fewer daily trips. This seems a real problem, as the traffic is peak hour trips. Ms. Temple answered that based on our approach it would be if it created an increase in the ICU's such that it would either cross the threshold of 0.9 or increase an existing ICU above 0.9. We would then impose a mitigation measure to correct the degradation or elect to limit the number of trips. ICU's deal with specific intersections. The TPO doesn't have analysis based just on the raw number of peak hour trips, so we were following that some method in looking at what those trips resulted in at intersections. Ms. Wood added that because there was the increase in peak hour trips we did the intersection analysis. Ms. Temple noted that we saw a level of increase in peak hour trips that we thought were significant enough that they should be analyzed. We used the methodology of the TPO in order to determine whether those changes constituted an environmental change significant as would be defined under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The way these peak hour trips translated into the ICU analysis we came to the conclusion there was no greater impact by this project than by the Hughes project. Commission then took a five minute recess. Public comment was opened. Carol Hoffman, representing the St. Clair Company introduced Mark Barker. Director of Commercial Real Estate and Chris Torrey of LPA Architects. She then proceeded to distribute copies of the Power Point presentation made at the December meeting. She then made a presentation noting the following: • Use Permit is only for the increased height. • Project does not exceed the allowable FAR even with the height increase; it is below the .75 that is permitted. • Increased the site open space and increased parking lot screening from surrounding streets. • The parking structure can not be moved or eliminated. In order to disperse the parking and make it convenient to buildings we have added parking. In that respect the parking structure may not be fully utilized. It does mean the parking closest to the buildings will and avoid 37 INDEX 'i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 impacting the community. (Referenced the diagrams) • There has been an ongoing need for remote parking locations for beach shuttle. To the extent that the City ever gets to the point of wanting a location for a beach shuttle on weekends or evenings, this becomes a very good site for that. The project proponents would be open to discussion of this shuttle service on weekends or at night during non - business hours. • The elevator shaft question that was raised has to do with the design of the elevator. The elevator is hydraulic and that equipment is therefor on the ground level and not above the parapet. • Most of the site drains to Newport Boulevard because there is a 22 -foot grade difference. The applicant is working with CalTrans to obtain an easement to drain down the slope to Newport Boulevard. The applicant will work with staff to work on the best solution to this problem before it leaves the site. They are willing to install a system (similar to the one at Crystal Cove) in the parking lot to clean the water before it leaves the site. That is why there is language in the supplemental staff report to make that happen. • Soil and ground water remediation action plan is underway and being reviewed by the Regional Board. The site was originally required to conduct a soil vapor extraction system testing but it became unnecessary due to the lack of any significant vapor recovery. • We agree to the proposed changes and conditions contained in the supplemental staff report. • We have attempted to address the concerns of the EQAC since December and have worked with staff that describes a way in which both we and staff would ensure that this use stays R & D and does not exceed the anticipated impacts. • This proposed project reduces the overall square footage of what is there now and re- presents that square footage in an environmentally and aesthetically design. • We are consistent with the zoning in the General Plan and consistent with the TPO. • Our request for the height increase has met the required findings. • The applicant is prepared to meet all the required conditions and mitigation measures. Concluding, Ms. Hoffman asked for a favorable consideration of this project tonight. It has been on file with the City since last March and if is important to the developer and owner to proceed. Robert Hawkins, Chairman Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) stated that early on they had submitted comments that have been responded to by the applicant. He noted that: • We have had a Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated for public comment. It came back with 10 pages of comments. After the comment period was closed, we received responses to comments, a 15 38 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 page Errata Sheet, Mitigation Measures and Traffic Studies, two different staff reports and a copy of the questions and answers to Chairperson Selich. All of these additional items have not been subjected to any public review or comment other than at this hearing tonight. There is concern just for the openness and public input to make sure this material comes to the public as soon as possible and there is ample opportunity in the record to comment on it. • We had some concerns about a general office use. This came about particularly in the draft Mitigated Declaration that talked about an office complex. In the Errata sheet all those references to office complex were stricken and what we have is an R & D use. So long as the project is clear, but our main concern is that this could slip into an office use. We believe that mitigation measure proposed in the supplemental staff report may provide sufficient assurance that there will not be this slippage into an office use. • We had concerns about the noise issues. Response to our comments was that the total traffic over and above the existing project will decrease. That analysis does not go for enough. The a.m. /p.m. peak hour traffic does not decrease, it increases. What are the noise impacts at those two critical junctures? We don't have the analysis to discuss the impact and if necessary mitigate that impact. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Hawkins stated that there was a substantial amount of material that was not subjected to public review at all. CEQA documents circulated for public comments but the corrections and Errata documents then become the document that is decided upon. My concern is a procedural one. We should be circulating the document with attachments with the Traffic Study for public comment. The responses to our noise concerns have not been adequately addressed because the response is we don't have to look at that because the overall traffic decreases. That is true but there are two crucial times in which the traffic does not decrease but actually increases substantially and nobody is analyzing the noise at those two times. Alan Beek, 2007 Highland noted his agreement about the concerns previously stated. Condition 31 of the Negative Declaration says the proposed use for the site shall remain research and development. It is not clear to me what you would do about a correction if in the future a violation were found. I request that you ask staff to clarify what would be done to remediate this. Public comment was closed. Ms. Clauson noted that if the City was to discover that they had leased the property to a non- R & D use then we would go to them and tell them it is not a valid lease. They would not be able to honor that lease and would have to deal with their own resulting legal problems in that respect. If needed, we would go to court and get an injunction to keep them from leasing. If the operator of the property did not get rid of that unauthorized business, then we 39 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 INDEX would go to the court to do it. the courts generally uphold zoning restrictions and uses that are authorized. Just because you have a lease or a business license that says you can have that business there; if the zoning does not authorize it you go in and get court enforcement for the zoning. Ms. Temple added that a business license is not a license or permit to operate in violation of the Zoning Code. It is simply a business tax. Commissioner Tucker noted that the third story of the project is a design feature and not an intensification. The occupancy load is the issue; the height of the building is merely a design feature. They are asking for a use permit in an area where they are allowed to have up to 50 feet as long as certain findings are made in terms of design. Mr. Hawkins comments distilled down to a recirculation of the document. In the Errata the consultant made the statement that a subsequent mitigated declaration is only required when changes to the proposed project changes the circumstances or new information not previously known will result in a new or increased significant effect. I am not sure that the additional analysis necessarily means a recirculation is a needed approach. Ms. Clauson stated that based upon the information that resulted from it there was no additional significant impacts or additional information that resulted. The information was clarification or additional information to clarify the information in:ihe original Negative Declaration. From a CEQA point of view of whether it needs to be recirculated, I do not believe that it does. From a public notice and availability of documents before this hearing, the ability for the people to review all the information is up to the Commission to determine. Commissioner Tucker agreed that the Negative Declaration and the checklist were misstated that it was an office project, which actually from a CEQA standpoint is the better way to make a mistake. To say something that is going to have more of an impact that notifies the public of the greater impact than what there is going to be. If everyone thought it was going to be office then everybody has in his or her mind at least a level of impact of what it actually will be. Continuing he stated that he has questions on the design features. The plans we received were not terribly detailed. The Code requires of us in order to agree to a higher building over the base height that we have to be convinced that there are architectural and aesthetic reasons that would warrant that. I would like to know what the architecture is going to look like. We have a landscape plan that is fairly preliminary that gives a plant legend, but it does not describe it in detail. I am not sure what the size of the plant specimens and trees is going to be. What is the west elevation of the parking structure going to look like, what plant materials? There is nothing on the plan that says how it is going to be done. The plans are what we approve; it would be helpful if it had details on how this is going to be addressed. Continuing he asked: 40 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 • Building 1 and Building 3- the floor plan it is not clear what the possible break down of the space is going to be. How many tenants will fit into these spaces? I would be interested to know how that is going to be envisioned; how many tenant spaces will ultimately be there? As for as the exterior of Building 1 it is difficult how it will look like; we don't have a colors and materials board; I am not sure what the glass is going to look like, what the mullions are going to look like; not sure of the type of stone for the stone veneer. We don't have a profile of the building so I am not sure what this canopy structure is going to look like nor what it is going to be made of. I am not sure if the building will look monolithic across the front or if there will be some recesses. I do not have the benefit of any shadowed elevations. I was curious as to where the mechanical units are going to be and how the screening will be dealt with on that. • Building 2 - the some question about possible break down. The some type of detail on the exterior of the building so that we know more of what we will end up with. It may be that the elevations need to be part of what is included so that we can actually see what we are going to get. I am not sure what the polymer modified plaster system is going to end up looking like. So I have the some type of detail questions. I realize this is an existing structure and I don't know if you are planning on putting things on the outside of the building that will give it relief or if it will have a monolithic look. I want to make sure that what we are going to get is the quality we think we are going to get. We have an opportunity to look at the design such as we did with the Dunes and the Balboa Inn. • He then suggested that a color and materials board be given to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Selich noted that the applicant wants the Commission to act upon this tonight. However, I would like to have another two weeks to go over some of this material. I share the concerns about the designs of the buildings and I would like to see his questions answered and I would like to see a materials and color board, and more detail on the landscape. My suggestion is that we continue this two weeks to allow the applicant time to respond to those things and get that information back to us. The Planning Commissioners all agreed. Ms. Hoffman noted that it was their understanding that detailed landscaping plans was required after the Planning Commission action. With regard to the architecture, the architect can describe more fully the articulation that has been built into this plan for shadowing and detail that will help the sides of these buildings. We have worked with the preliminary landscaping plan with the understanding that we would add vines along the edge of the parking structure to augment so that the understructure of the landscaping would be added to the existing trees. The pine trees are quite tall and extensive. We felt that what was lacking was the vines that would be on the parking structure and the understory type materials that would enhance that small berm that is 41 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 INDEX there. It was our intent to paint the structure, screened landscaping along the frontage of Superior and understory shrubbery that will enhance that as well. Regarding the number of tenants, we are expecting two tenants maximum per floor. This is the typical type of leasing procedures for this kind of use. LPA was specifically chosen for this type of project design to provide quality architecture for this site. We would be glad to bring back to you for your review a story board and /or more articulated architecture prior to the time that we obtain building permits if you were to give your approval tonight based on the number of conditions that have been addressed. That is an option for you that will keep us from delayed into the next step of design development. Because design review is not part of the official process that we were asked to submit to you, we were not prepared to give you that level of detail at this level of approval. Chairperson Selich noted that his concern is much deeper then just presented. You may have been in the process for however long, but we have had only seven days to go over this material. It is a complicated project to understand what is going on here. I submitted questions to staff and I still don't understand all the answers that came back to me. I need at least two more weeks to go through this material and get a better understanding of exactly what we are doing here. My concern is a lot more than the landscaping and the elevations. Commissioner Tucker stated he has the some reaction. I just heard of this project in December when we got a presentation. I have spent a lot of time going through this. I feel strongly that we need to have something other than a verbal statement about what this thing is going to look like. It needs to be in the plan; we need to see the articulation and the shadowing. Then when we approve it we know what we have approved. It is a big project and I think it will be a good looking project and a great improvement versus what is there. We have a series of issues. I would like to see some revisions to the plans. Ms. Hoffman asked if you are looking for a greater detail on the architecture? Commissioner Tucker answered he would like to see more detailed elevations for review, materials, building profile and what the glass will look like. Even though design review is not normally part of the process, in this particular case it is specifically one of the things we are supposed to make a finding on in order to grant a use permit that has height over the basic height limit. Chairperson Selich recommended taking a look at the submittals of the Balboa Inn and how they changed to be more readable and understandable. Commissioner Kranzley asked if we approved this with a condition that they have to bring more detailed plans back to the Commission prior to the beginning process wouldn't that satisfy some of the concerns of the Commission? 42 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 Staff answered that this has been done in the past and we could craft a similar condition that would allow the Planning Commission to further review the specifics of the project as they are developed prior to issuing the building permit. You would need to articulate those particular areas you are interested in reviewing and what you are trying to achieve. Ms. Clouson added that she is comfortable with this procedure because of condition 2 where the Commission has to find that the increased building height would result in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character than is required by the basic height limit. Based on that finding, the concern of elevations and appearance is a valid factor. If the Commission is willing to add a condition to review that to support that finding at a later time, they could. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Hoffman stated that it is a financial consideration and the rate of daily interest being paid on the project. The applicant had taken the delay through January would allow for the comfort of the Commission. Now, we are find that you have issues beyond what we thought were the only things outstanding for purposes of being able to achieve that approval. It is frustrating to the applicant and I had hoped that we could reach agreement through dialogue at the meeting tonight. Commissioner Kiser noted his concern about the height of the building. I see things like 14 1/2 -foot floor plates on all floors. I would like to see some detail for this type of facility why do we need that height of floor plates? Since you are here asking for additional height, I think it should be and needs to be justified. As I read through the findings I could only say yes to one of the four required that we must make. The analysis for the first required finding is almost entirely when viewed from Dana Road, which has extremely little traffic when compared to Superior and Newport Boulevards and virtually nothing from Superior and Newport Boulevards. I have similar concerns with the analyses for the second and third required finding. Following discussion, he concluded that both from Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue there is a massing issue. If this is built, I believe that this project will be a surprise to people in the area. Commissioner McDaniel support a continuance but we should be specific as possible with what the applicant needs to come back with so that we can make a decision. Commissioner Tucker offered his help to the applicant to work with them and discuss the alternatives. Commissioner Agajonion noted his concern with redevelopment and intensification of uses. This is a better project than what is there currently at the site. He observed: • massing of Building 1 on the Superior side • R & D issue - some type of daytime population cap condition 43 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to January 18, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel , Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: 21 Bay Island Fletcher Residence Re w of Condition No. 3 of Modification Permit No. 4919 regarding the removal of a trNq located on the subject property, in conjunction with the construction of a new si le family dwelling. Commissions ronzley asked for clarification of how mature a 36" box birch tree is; what does it eon? I am disappointed with what happened on this site and I am not happy witftq 36" box and would like something more substantial. Chairperson Selich ans red that one of things used for the Irvine Company their criteria includes tree calip , heights and or canopy spread on tree. Commissioner Kranzley noted t t the Commission spent time on this project. Public comment was opened. Doug Fletcher, 21 Bay Island noted that e is building this house at this site. The terrain has the house site next to a bridge all the utilities easement. We can't put a 36" box because of the pipelines in t\trees, nt. The trees that came down were entwined in these pipes. We arput in trees as big as we can and do our best. We have 115 trees on 35 of them are up to 50- 100 feet high. These two trees that went of the biggest trees. The island inhabitants have always taken pride i we plant them and cut them down. Don't go out of your way for tec use we have a lot of them. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker that the projec be found in substantial compliance with the intent of the conditions of approv so long as the replacement trees required by the Association are installed. Ayes: McDaniel , Kiser, Agajanian Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford 44 INDEX Item 6 Approved l/ Exhibit No. 6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 SUBJECT: The St. Clair Company 500 Superior Avnue • Use Permit No. 3679 A request for the approval of a Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit of buildings of 32 feet up to 50 feet, in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves the demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing development and ne construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415.493 square feet. Chairperson Selich stated that there will be a presentation by the applicant, here will be no action taken by the Planning Commission on this item tonight. This is primarily an introductory session for the applicant to make a presentation to the Planning Commission on the project. It will be continued to January 4, 2001. Carol Hoffman representing the St. Clair Company noted Mark Barker, Director of Community Commercial Development for the St. Clair Company and Chris Torrey. Principal with the architectural firm of LPA were in the audience. She then presented a brief background history of the company. She then made a slide presentation noting the following: • Project location with no access to Newport Boulevard was built between the mid 50's and through the early 80's consisting of research and development and office uses. • Approval of building height. • Existing facility is a manufacturing and office site. • Renovations of existing buildings will improve the on -site circulation as well as allow for ADA improvements and other safety code requirements. • The use permit is requested to enhance, improve and revitalize the existing site. Existing parking structure of 50 feet is five levels. • Buildings on site vary from 39 to 43 feet in height. • Project goals will allow consistency with existing zoning; reduction of average daily traffic: increase open space and landscape areas within the project. • All landscaping will be enhanced both on the interior and exterior that will allow screening of parking from the street. • A preliminary traffic study result shows a trip reduction in average daily traffic of approximately 1,800 trips. We will confirm that in a response to comments document that will be a part of the presentation in January. • Renovate 200,000 square feet; demolish 208,000 square feet because of age and inadequacies of the existing structures and replace 207,000 square feet. • Project is a combination of renovation, demolition and replacement resulting in 415,493 square feet. • Maintaining the same density and intensity with different configurations. INDEX Item No. 1 Use Permit 3679 Continued to 01/04/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 Commissioner Tucker asked it there were any changes or modifications planned for the west elevation of the parking structure? He also observed that the proposed project is a research and development project with research and development parking and traffic features to it. What will the interior layout of the space look like? How will the applicant assure that this project will remain a research and development project and not morph into an office project? Ms. Holtman answered the enhanced landscape will be added to screen it and give the appearance of the some quality of what the new development will be. She noted the presentation in January would answer any other questions. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to January 4. 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonian. Selich. Kranzley. Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford Koll Center Newport MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road • GPA 97 -3 (B) • Amendment 905 • Traffic Study No. 119 • EIR No. 158 INDEX Item No. 2 GPA 97 -3 (B), Amendment 905, Traffic Study No. 119 and EIR No. 158 Review of a General Plan mendment and Planned Community Amendment Continued to to allow an additional 250.0 ross square feet of office use within Office Site 03/22/2001 B of the Koll Center Newport ( )Planned Community. The amendments will provide for the construction of 6 n-story office tower. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has s fled a request to continue this item to March 22. 2001. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to contin this item to March 22, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel.. Kiser. Agajonian. Selich. Kranzley. Noes: None Absent: Gifford H x 0 a 3 w z c� 0 a 0 z x v w H W H Z W U a� 0 . �, o° U U .� U H cl� ct jkl' ., �.; -'v " " ' JET -4 A 'Tilllwl WA 1 ll�_ AV '.' I§L m 1� ct �i M r1 W L, f. . ME go .. +.'� � a . U A! k' +-.. �+ .. f lX``jA IF r L, f. . ME go .. +.'� � a . U A! C!� O 'o w I I I, i I i. 0 0 bA G� C- - O Oak pal cc v I I I, i I i. 0 0 .O a ^C^ ii t� 1r �� .-TA O i N �I j�' A - t` • • - p' i�O o�o c"� N ^C^ ii t� 1r �� .-TA O i N O •Py r.d W � �I • • - p' O •Py r.d W � 1� O O V D . NIS s I- t 't • l .: q•Mdirk� SuPBRIOR AN'ENUF, 1p z r ^u�, 1� •rte^ v 7� rte^ • ... \ f SUP E' R 1 0 R AYG,NUI 000 J A �t LJF . O O VJ jf I . ■ -Ai Kt,-- i. ct I 10, th �4J W C� 10 i ray c. rL S2 6�. R!y �D 11 ?_� aal 00 z �D 11 ?_� aal r z O 7 O K N L z K a i z U Hew °i 3nN3AV UOItl3dns a H ur °w O m K a K W F z W U O , '�'l O ' z� y:a. I z I O I a w z J J —. 1 �.'iG 1 L IN 9 III 11 IN I�r� e!� N L z K a i z U Hew °i 3nN3AV UOItl3dns a H ur °w O m K a K W F z W U O , '�'l O ' z� y:a. I z I O I a w z J J —. r I n I �D i o � I i i i El 0 0 0 0 0 I i i �I 6� i I i I i '.8 I 8 m Oil �. 0 m m K W z Z W V I J � y O $ Ns� i�lr1�. r z O a w z L J F� i I i � � G i I i I i '.8 I 8 m Oil �. 0 m m K W z Z W V I J � y O $ Ns� i�lr1�. r z O a w z L J F G ff $l Oil . N W 1 V'• 2 (� OZ J J m 7 m Z F N w K 1 w illy F 2 W U 1 a: 0 a w z L ?1 F L ®4l ®i6 K W F Z W U o o . zyg x U,k 0 a 3 w z (Dw Z, S J Q J Q1 � m Z F N 6 �C R:a a• a 1 J F 3r a� x� 31 5' 5 r :i ►r {r (1` �w sZ J � J m N (7 Z F N W 1 w i Z , w ; U I F; side 0 3 w z L J F I I I I I I o Oe i o I I I a a e a o I I I _J 1 I I a y I @@ I I i I I _J 0 m w z w U 0 Y. Q = R; m 0 3 w z d L J F L 144 C O 3 Z 0 J_ m w W H Z W U w� A. r- 0 a 3 z d J r E @1 Oil K W r z W v T� ri U � F °b z �e o� m 0 m z N W 1 n• 1 ltl� a: a, 9: a: L ?� ®II L W Z W U (7 U u x.� U � k H W �o 1 Z� OV mN U 2 O _J m Z_ 9; L J F T,T zp al `1 ii L i �� II �� II ii II Pa;3 (I II I � II II I I I I I I I ao 1 Z� OU mN U 2 O J_ m m z w W w w z U z �.W =3 :a ahli 0 3 w z J