HomeMy WebLinkAbout1908 - RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF ER2012-001, APPROVED PD2011-003, PC2012-001, NT2012-002, AH2012-001, TS2012-005 AND DA2012-003_UPTOWN NEWPORT_4311-4321 JAMBOREE ROADRESOLUTION NO. 1908
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2012 -001, ADOPTION OF
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVAL OF
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2011-
003, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION NO.
PC2012 -001, TENATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2012 -001, TRAFFIC STUDY
NO..TS2012 -005, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2012 -003 FOR
THE 25.05 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS UPTOWN
NEWPORT LOCATED AT 4311 -4321 JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2011 -134)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Uptown Newport LP ( "Uptown Newport" or "Applicant ") with
respect to a 25.05 -acre property generally located on the north side of Jamboree Road
between Birch Street and the intersection of Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur
Boulevard, legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, (the "Property ") requesting approval for the development of up to
1,244 residential dwelling units, 11,500 square feet of retail commercial uses and 2.05
acres of parklands (the `Project'). The following approvals are requested or required in
order to implement the project as proposed:
a. Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003: An
amendment to Planned Community Development Plan #15 (Koll Center Planned
Community) to remove the subject property from the Koll Center Planned
Community, pursuant to Chapter 20.66 (Amendments) of the Municipal Code.
b. Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001: A Planned
Community Development Plan (PCDP) adoption to establish the allowable land
uses, general development regulations, and implementation and administrative
procedures, which would serve as the zoning document for the construction of up
to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail commercial, and 2.05 acres
of park space to be built in two separate phases on a 25.05 -acre site, pursuant to
Chapter 20.56 of the Municipal Code. The PCDP has three (3) components: 1)
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures; 2) Phasing Plan; and 3)
Design Guidelines.
C. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002: A tentative tract map to establish lots for
residential development purposes pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
d. Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005: A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic
Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 2 of 103
e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001: A program specifying
how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements,
pursuant to Chapter 19.53 (Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density
Bonus) of the Municipal Code.
f. Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003: A Development Agreement between
the applicant and the City of Newport Beach describing development rights and
public benefits, pursuant to Section 15.45.020.A.2.a of the Municipal Code and
General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.12.
2. The Property has a General Plan designation of Mixed -Use District Horizontal -2 (MU-
112), and the Property is located within the Airport Business Area, for which the Airport
Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan ( "ICDP ") has been adopted.
The ICDP allocates a maximum of 1,244 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet
of retail to be developed on the Property.
3. The Property is currently located within the City of Newport Beach ( "City ") Koll Center
Newport Planned Community and is designated as Industrial Site 1.
4. On October 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a study session for the project in
the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
Notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in
accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ").
5. Public hearings were held on December 6, 2012, December 20, 2012, and February 7,
2013 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California. Notices of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meetings were
provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ").
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section
21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "), the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations,
Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K -3, the Project could have a
significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ").
2. On December 8, 2011, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of
Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations
and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project.
3. On December 15, 2011, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the
proposed Project and to solicit input from interested individuals regarding
environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR.
4. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report
( "DEIR ") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 3 of 103
Policy K -3, which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described
the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from.
5. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on September 10,
2012 and ending October 24, 2012.
6. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Revisions to the DEIR Section of the
Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and determined that none of the new
material contained in this section constitutes the type of significant new information
that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the new material indicates that the project will
result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR.
Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase
in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated,
or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described
in Section 15088.5.
7. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed Project will have
a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation
measures, with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
A. Air Quality — Short term construction - related emission for Phases 1 and 2 of the
project
B. Land Use - A determination of inconsistency with the John Wayne Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
C. Noise - Construction - related noise impacts for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the
project
8. The mitigation measures identified in the DEIR are feasible and reduce potential
environmental impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those
impacts identified above. The mitigation measures would be applied to the Project
through the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program.
9. The record supports a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA in
that the Project includes public benefits that outweigh the air quality, land use and
noise impacts of the proposed Project.
10. The DEIR, FEIR consisting of the Comments, Responses to Comments, and
Revisions to DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as
Exhibit B, was considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed
Project.
11. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 4 of 103
As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate
that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial
challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees and damages
which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Newport Beach
General Plan and Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. The Planning
Commission concurs with the conclusion of the consistency analysis of the proposed
project with these goals and policies provided in the DEIR.
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the DEIR are
provided in Exhibit C.
3. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of the Tentative Tract
Map in accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070 are provided in Exhibit F.
4. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of the Traffic Study in
accordance with NBMC Section 15.40.030 are provided in Exhibit I.
5. The proposed affordable housing implementation plan (AHIP) is consistent with the
intent to implement affordable housing goals within the City pursuant to Government
Code Section 65915 -65918 ( "State Bonus Density Law "), Title 19, Chapter 19.54
(Inclusionary Code), and Title 20, Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus Code) of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. The State Density Bonus Law and the City's Density Bonus
Code provide for an increase in the number of units of up to thirty -five percent (35 %)
above the maximum number of units allowed by the General Plan provided the Project
constructs a minimum number of affordable units depending upon what income
category is served. At the maximum density bonus of 35 %, the Project could
accommodate up to 322 additional units above the 922 base units allowed by the
General Plan for a total of 1,244 total units.
6. In accordance with NBMC Section 15.45.020.A.2.a and c, a development agreement
is required pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.12 as the project: 1) requires a
zoning code amendment that includes the development of more than fifty (50)
residential units and 2) includes new non - residential development in Statistical Area
L4 (Airport Area). The Development Agreement includes all the mandatory elements
for consideration and public benefits that are appropriate to support conveying the
vested development rights consistent with the General Plan and Government Code
Section 65867.5.
7. The Planning Commission acknowledges that the proposed project currently lies
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District, The
Planning Commission further acknowledges that the decision to annex the proposed
project into the jurisdictional boundaries of the Newport Mesa Unified School District is
not within the City of Newport Beach's purview or discretion. However, the Planning
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 5 of 103
Commission strongly supports any efforts that can be made by the Developer and the
Newport Mesa School District to effectuate the annexation of the proposed project into
the Newport Mesa School District.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach determines that, based on all
information, both oral and written, provided to date, that there has not been any new
significant information, data, or changes to the Project which either result in the
creation of a new significant environmental impact, or the need to adopt a new
mitigation measure, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental
impact, or in a finding that the EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and
conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends to the
City Council certification of the Uptown Newport Environmental Impact Report No.
ER2012 -001 (SCH No. 2010051094), attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit B, based upon the draft Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations including Project benefits that outweigh the air quality, land
use and noise impacts of the proposed Project attached hereto as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by reference.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends to the
City Council approval and adoption of:
a. Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003, attached
hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference;
b. Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001, consisting
of three documents: 1) Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures, 2)
Phasing Plan, and 3) Design Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit E and
incorporated herein by reference;
C. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002, attached hereto as Exhibit H and
incorporated herein by reference, and subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit G, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference;
d. Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005, attached hereto as Exhibit J and incorporated
herein by reference.
e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001, attached hereto as
Exhibit K and incorporated herein by reference; and
f. Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003, attached hereto as Exhibit L and
incorporated herein by reference;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 6 of 103
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7T" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013.
AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
:l'i
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 7 of 103
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Being a subdivision of Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953, in the City of Newport Beach, County of
Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 310, Pages 7 to 11 inclusive,
of Miscellaneous Maps, recorded of said County.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 8 of 103
EXHIBIT B
UPTOWN NEWPORT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ER2012 -001
(SCH No. 2010051094)
Consists of:
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated September 2012
a. Appendix A (Volume I)
b. Appendices B through H (Volume II)
c. Appendices I though O (Volume III)
2. Final EIR dated November 29, 2012
a. Comments
b. Responses to Comments
c. Revisions to the Draft EIR
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated November 29, 2012
Exhibit B is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development
Department.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 9 of 103
EXHIBIT C
A. FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE UPTOWN
NEWPORT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2010051094
1
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the
State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively,
CEQA) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a
project is approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more
written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such
other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in
the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding
has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the
specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a
program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the
project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit
conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 10 of 103
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the dgcuments or other
materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is
based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If
the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the DEIR but are not avoided or substantially
lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action
based on the DEIR and /or other information in the record. This statement of overriding
considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to,
findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft
EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Uptown Newport project,
SCH No. 2010051094 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other information in the record of
proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
(Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are hereby adopted by the City
of Newport Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.
These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be
undertaken by the City for the development of the project. These actions include the approval
of the following for Uptown Newport:
Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094).
Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003
Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001. The PCDP has
three components: 1) Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures; 2) Phasing
Plan; and 3) Design Guidelines.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 11 of 103
• Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002. A tentative tract map to establish lots for
residential development purposes pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
• Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005. A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic
Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code.
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001.
• Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003.
These actions are collectively referred to herein as the project.
A. Document Format
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
(1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings.
(2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary
actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's
objectives.
(3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the
project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically
for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental
review for the project.
(4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were
determined to be —as a result of the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP),
and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period —
either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed
significant for consideration at the project- specific level.
(5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR that the City has determined
are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant
level through the imposition of Project Design Features, standard conditions,
and /or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation,
all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project and adopted as conditions of the
project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be
reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to Project Design
Features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those impacts
were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding
those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the
Draft EIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has
determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 12 of 103
(6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project.
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the
City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California
92658. The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the Administrative Record for
the project.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The 25.05 -acre project site is within the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach, County of
Orange, California. It is situated approximately 0.6 mile southeast of John Wayne Airport and
occupies Assessor's Parcel Nos. 445 - 131 -02 and 445 - 131 -03. It is on the west side of
Jamboree Road between Birch Street and the intersection of Von Karman Avenue and
MacArthur Boulevard. The two existing onsite industrial buildings are at 4311 and 4321
Jamboree Road.
Regional access to the site is from State Route 73 (SR -73) via Jamboree Road. Vehicular
access to the site is from Jamboree Road, Birch Street, and Von Karman Avenue. MacArthur
Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue pass west of the site, and Birch Street passes to the
north.
B. Project Description
Proposed Site Plan and Land Use
At buildout, Uptown Newport is intended to be a multifamily residential community with
neighborhood - serving retail uses. The project site is within the Airport Business Area, for
which the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) has been
implemented (General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11). Consistent with the ICDP and
allocated residential units and commercial square footage, the site plan includes up to 1,244
residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail, and 2 acres of planned park area. The land use
summary by phase is summarized in Table 1, Uptown Newport Land Use Summary.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 13 of 103
Table 1
uptown rvewport
Lana use summary
Phase 1
Phase 2
Total
Number of Units
680
564
1,244
Developable
Area (ac)
7.78
10.68
18.46
Park Area (ac)
1.03
1.02
2.05
Retail (sf)
11,500
0
11,500
Right of Way
Area (ac)
3.24
1.30
4.54
Total Area (ac)
12.05
13.00
25.05
Housing
A variety of housing developments are anticipated. Residential product types would be for
sale and rent with a mix of apartments, townhouses, and condominiums. Residential
buildings may include low -rise row - houses and 4- and 5 -story apartments or condominiums
featuring a range of floor plan sizes. Mid -rise to high -rise buildings are also envisioned. High
rise buildings would not exceed 150 feet in height. Live -work units would also be a permitted
use. Of the total 1,244 residential units, up to 184 units would be set aside for affordable
housing.
Commercial
A retail component would provide neighborhood - serving retail and services. Permitted uses
would include but not be limited to restaurants and retail uses such as bakeries,
clothing /boutique shops, jewelry, and convenience stores. Business, medical, dental, and
professional offices would be permitted uses as well as personal service uses such as dry
cleaners, hair salons, optometry, and postal services. The permitted and conditional uses for
Uptown Newport are detailed in the Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures
section of the Planned Community Development Plan (PC Development Plan).
Parks
The two 1 -acre minimum park areas would be principal focal points for the development. The
parks would be privately maintained but publicly accessible. In addition to the neighborhood
parks, public open space areas, private open space area, and ancillary amenities would be
provided to serve residents and visitors.
Circulation
The development would be accessed from two intersections at Jamboree Road and one
access from Birch Street. An emergency access would be provided to Von Karman Avenue
via Koll Center Newport office park through an existing access drive. An internal pedestrian
and open space network is envisioned to connect plazas, courtyards, parks, paseos, and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 14 of 103
retail uses. Minimum five - foot -wide sidewalks would be provided on each side of internal
streets.
Operations
At buildout, Uptown Newport is projected to house approximately 2,724 residents and employ
approximately 26 people in the retail component of the project. The hours of the retail and
office uses would be typical of neighborhood - serving uses and would be governed by the PC
Development Plan. As envisioned, the project could also host a variety of special events and
temporary uses throughout the year, including street fairs, farmers' markets, parades, trade
shows, car shows, pageants, community concerts, outdoor displays, and
recreation /entertainment events, subject to an applicable Special Event Permit issued by the
City.
General Phasing
The project would be developed in two primary phases. The first phase of the project is
projected to commence in 2013 and be completed by 2018. Timing for Phase 2 would be
contingent on the existing lease of the TowerJazz building, which is currently set to expire in
March 2017, but could be extended to as late as March 2027. The analysis in the Draft EIR
conservatively assumed that Phase 2 could commence as early as spring 2017 with buildout
through 2021.
The operation of the TowerJazz facility, an existing semiconductor manufacturing facility, is
expected to continue as an interim use after the development of Phase 1. The Draft EIR
therefore addressed the potential impacts of the Phase 1 development (an interim condition
with 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial uses) operating adjacent to
the TowerJazz facility. Similarly, an SCE substation at the northwest corner of Fairchild Road
and Jamboree Road would remain after Phase 1 development and be eliminated during
Phase 2 development.
C. Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the portion of the project within the City of Newport Beach will require
several actions by the City, including
• Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094). An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting
from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et
seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.).
• Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003. An
amendment to Planned Community Development Plan #15 (Koll Center Newport
Planned Community) to remove the subject property from the Koll Center Newport
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 15 of 103
Planned Community, pursuant to Chapter 20.66 (Amendments) of the Municipal
Code.
• Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001. A Planned
Community Development Plan (PCDP) adoption to establish the allowable land
uses, general development regulations, and implementation and administrative
procedures, which would serve as the zoning document for the construction of up
to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail commercial, and 2.05 acres
of park space, pursuant to Chapter 20.56 of the Municipal Code. The PCDP has
three (3) components: 1) Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures; 2)
Phasing Plan; and 3) Design Guidelines.
• Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002. A tentative tract map to establish lots for
residential development purposes pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
• Traffic Study No. TS2012.005. A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic
Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code.
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001. A program
specifying how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing
requirements, pursuant to Chapter 19.53 (Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32
(Density Bonus) of the Municipal Code.
• Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003. A Development Agreement between
the applicant and the City of Newport Beach describing development rights and
public benefits, pursuant to Section 15.45.020.A.2.a & c of the Municipal Code and
General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.12.
The EIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies,
trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals
and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of project
implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to:
• Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (ALUC). The project is within
the boundaries of the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The
overseeing agency, ALUC, must review the proposed project and determine its
consistency with the AELUP. The ALUC considered the project at its October 18,
2012, public hearing and voted to find the project is inconsistent with the AELUP.
Approval of the project would require the Newport Beach City Council to override
this determination with a two - thirds vote.
• Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Approval of the Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) for the proposed project is needed from IRWD at the time of project
approval by the City.
• Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB
would approve the project's compliance with the National Pollution Discharge
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 16 of 103
Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide General Construction Activity permit
(2009- 0009 -DWQ) and Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4)
permit. In addition, the RWQCB is the agency with lead oversight of the project
site's remediation and is responsible for clearing the site for residential
development.
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The project would
require permitting by SCAQMD for Rules 201 (permit to construct), 402 (nuisance
odors), 403 (fugitive dust), 1113 (architectural coatings), 1403 (asbestos emissions
from demolition), and 1186 (street sweeping).
D. Statement of Project Objectives
The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the DEIR is provided as
follows:
1. Implement the goals and policies that the Newport Beach General Plan has
established for the Airport Area and the Integrated Conceptual Plan Development
Plan.
2. Develop a mixed -use residential village characterized by a diversity of building and
housing types that is consistent with the prescribed minimum density of 30 dwelling
units and maximum of 50 dwelling units per net acre average over the 25.05 acre
project site.
3. Develop up to 11,500 square feet of retail commercial uses to serve local
residents, businesses and visitors.
4. Provide housing in close proximity to jobs and supporting services, with pedestrian -
oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability.
5. Integrate neighborhood parks inter - connected by pedestrian walkways to
encourage a sense of community.
6. Develop an attractive, viable project that yields a reasonable return on investment.
7. Provides for the phased transition from existing industrial and office uses to a
mixed -use residential village.
8. Provide beneficial site and improvements including implementing a Water Quality
Management Plan.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The EIR includes the Draft EIR dated September 10, 2012 and Final EIR consisting of written
comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 45 -day public review period, written
responses to those comments, clarifications /changes to the EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program dated November 2012. In conformance with CEQA and the State
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 17 of 103
CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Uptown
Newport project:
Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30 -day
public review period from December 8, 2011, through January 9, 2012. The NOP was
sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning
Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office and on the City's
website on December 8, 2011.
During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional
suggestions on the content of the Uptown Newport EIR. Attendees were provided an
opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in
the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on Thursday, December 15, 2011, at Newport
Beach City Hall at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The notice of
the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP.
Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City that was made available for a 45 -day public
review period (September 10, 2012 to October 24, 2012). The Draft EIR consisted of
three volumes: Volume I contains the text of the Draft EIR and analysis of the Uptown
Newport project and Appendix A, Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, and NOP
Comment Letters. Volumes II and III contain the technical appendices. The Notice of
Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was published in the September 9, 2012, edition of
the Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation. The NOA was sent to all interested
persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the
State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was
posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office on September 10, 2012. Copies
of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department, Newport Beach Central Branch Library,
Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library, Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library, and
Newport Beach Corona del Mar Branch Library. The Draft EIR was available for
download via the City's website: http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov.
Preparation of a Final EIR, including the Comments and Responses to Comments on
the Draft EIR. The Final EIR contains: comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those
comments, clarifications /revisions to the Draft EIR, and appended documents. The
preliminary responses to comments were provided to City Planning Commission on
November 21 and November 30, 2012. The Final EIR was released on November 30,
2012. The Final EIR was made available to the general public and posted on the City's
website.
The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) scheduled a meeting on
October 1, 2012, to review and comment on the Draft EIR. The meeting was not held
due to the lack of quorum in attendance. EQAC members were encouraged to submit
their comments individually on the Draft EIR.
The Planning Commission held a study session on October 4, 2012 and public
hearings for the Project on December 6, 2012, December 20, 2012, and February 7,
2013 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 18 of 103
California. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meetings were
provided in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR and Final EIR, staff report, and
evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at these hearings. Notices for these meeting were published in the Daily
Pilot, mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to all
interested persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the project site a
minimum of 10 days in advance of these hearings, consistent with the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for these meetings, which was posted
at City Hall and on the City website.
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed
project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
All information submitted to the City by the Applicant and its representatives relating to
the project and /or the EIR, including but not limited to the Uptown Newport Planned
Community Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Traffic Study pursuant to the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and the
Development Agreement;
NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed
project;
The Scoping Meeting notes held during the 30 -day NOP period;
The Draft EIR and all appendices, Final EIR consisting of the Comments, Responses
to Comments, and Revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents,
studies, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR.
The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to
Comments of the Final EIR;
All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the 45-
day public review comment period on the Draft EIR and testimony provided at the
October 4, 2012, Planning Commission Study Session;
All responses to written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public
provided at the December 6, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
All testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the Planning
Commission public hearing on December 6, 2012, December 20, 2012 and February
7, 2013;
All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the Project;
All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning
documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR prepared by the
City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee Agencies.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City for the
Project; the Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the
proposed Project; and all documents incorporated by reference therein;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 19 of 103
• These Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations adopted by the City for the
Project, any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact;
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these
findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community Development
Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport Beach. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and
14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e).
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Impacts Determined Less than Significant in the Initial Study
As a result of the Notice of Preparation circulated by the City on December 8, 2011, in
connection with preparation of the EIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria
for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the
following potential environmental issues, and therefore, determined that these potential
environmental issues would not be addressed in the Draft EIR. Based upon the
environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received by the public on
the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which
indicated that the Project would have an impact on the following environmental areas:
(a) Aesthetics. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a scenic
highway.
(b) Agriculture and Forest Resources: The Project site does not contain Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the Project site
is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Project site does not include
forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture.
(c) Biological Resources. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community or have an effect on federally
protected wetlands. It would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
(d) Geology and Soils. The Project would not expose people or structure to potential
substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated
on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Zoning Map or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault, or expose people or structures to landslides.
The proposed Project would not use septic systems or alternative waste water
disposal systems.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 20 of 103
(e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one - quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school. The closest school is UCI which is greater than one -
quarter mile from the Project site.
(f) Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed Project site is not within a 100 -year flood
hazard area and would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, or failure of a levee or dam. The Project site is not subject
to risks related to a seiche, tsunami or mudflows.
(g) Land Use and Planning. The Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan.
(h) Mineral Resources: The Project would not impact mineral resources of local, regional,
or statewide importance.
(1) Population or Housing. There is not existing housing on the Project site, and therefore,
the Project would not displace housing or people necessitating the construction of
replacement housing.
(j) Recreation. The Project includes the development of two onsite parks. The potential
impacts of developing these parks are addressed in association with the development
of the entire site (e.g., grading, air quality, noise, etc.) within the respective areas of
the DEIR.
(k) Transportation/Traffic. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or
result in increased traffic levels or involve design features that would result in
substantial safety risks. Project access roads would meet the requirements for fire
access pursuant to the 2010 California Fire Code and adequate emergency access
would be provided.
(1) Utilities and Services Systems. The Project would comply with federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant in the DEIR
The following impacts were evaluated in the DEIR and determined to be less than significant
solely through adherence to the project design and adherence to the provisions of the
Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) and standard conditions of the City of
Newport Beach.
Since the DEIR specifically evaluated the environmental impacts associated with each
development phase, Phase 1 and Phase 2, the Findings are also presented by project phase.
Where the Findings for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are the same, they are presented under a
combined heading.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 21 of 103
Phase 1
Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR and the comments received by
the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City
indicating that Phase 1 (only) of the Project would have an impact on the following
environmental areas:
(a) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The existing Southern California Edison substation
would not cause significant impacts related to electric and magnetic field health
hazards.
Phase 2
Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR and the comments received by
the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City
indicating that Phase 2 (only) of the Project would have an impact on the following
environmental areas:
(b) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: After the removal of the TowerJazz manufacturing
facility, residents would not be at risk from accidental release of chemicals stored at
the TowerJazz facility.
Phases 1 and 2
Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received by
the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City
indicating that the Project (Phases 1 and 2) would have an impact on the following
environmental areas:
(a) Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on scenic vistas, alter the visual appearance of the site, cause shade /shadow
impacts, or generate additional light or glare in the Project area.
(b) Biological Resources: The Project would not directly impact sensitive, threatened, or
endangered species or affect sensitive species listed in a local or regional plan or
policy.
(c) Cultural Resources: The Project would not impact historic resources or disturb any
known human remains.
(d) Geology and Soils: The Project would not have any significant impacts related to
strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction hazards, soil erosion, or soil subsidence.
(e) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Phase 1 of the Project would not produce GHG
emissions that exceed the per capita threshold of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. At buildout (Phase 2), the Project would result in a net decrease
in GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with the plans adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
(f) Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project would reduce the amount of impervious
surfaces on the site, reducing stormwater volumes and peak flow rates. The Project
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 22 of 103
would not have significant impacts related to increases in onsite pollutants during
construction or after project development.
(g) Land Use and Planning: The Project would not divide an established business
community.
(h) Noise and Vibration: The Project traffic would not cause a substantial increase in noise
levels and the Project site is outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne
Airport.
(i) Population and Housing: The Project would not result in substantial increase in
population or housing.
(j) Public Services: The Project would not create, significant impacts related to fire
protection, police protection, school, or library services.
(k) Recreation: The Project would meet the City's parkland dedication requirements, and
physical impacts to recreational and park spaces would not be significant.
(1) Transportation and Traffic: The Project - generated traffic would not conflict with
applicable City plans governing the performance of the area -wide circulation system;
result in traffic impacts per the City's traffic phasing ordinance analysis requirements;
cause significant impacts to the Congestion Management Plan facilities or state
highways intersections; result in level of service impacts along freeway segments; or
conflict with adopted policies, plan, or programs for alternative transportation. The
construction- generated traffic would not detrimentally impact levels of service at
intersections and roadways in the service area.
(m) Utilities and Service Systems: Project - generated wastewater would not exceed the
capacity of existing sewer pipelines and treatment plants; the Project would be
adequately served by existing water supply and delivery systems; stormwater flow
would be reduced in comparison with existing conditions; the Frank R. Bowerman
landfill would have sufficient capacity to accommodate project - generated solid waste;
and the Project would substantially reduce onsite electricity and natural gas
consumption.
5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the
effects of the Project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the Project and
the identification of Project design features; compliance with existing laws, codes, and
statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as
the Mitigation Program), some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the
City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found —in accordance
with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1) —that
"Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as
"Finding 1." Where the City has determined — pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) —that "Those changes or alterations are within
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 23 of 103
the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should
be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2."
Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, the City has determined that
either (1) even with the identification of Project design features, compliance with existing
laws, codes and statutes, and /or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially
significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact,
the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report." This is referred to herein as "Finding 3."
A. Air Quality
(1) Potential Impact: Short -term construction emissions generated by the Uptown
Newport project would result in NOx emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality
Management District's regional significance thresholds and would cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin.
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 3. Mitigation measures would not reduce construction emission levels to less
than significant levels. The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that this
impact is significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: Mitigation Measure 2 -1 would reduce NOx generated by exhaust.
Table 5.2 -16 shows construction emissions with adherence to Mitigation Measures 2 -1
and 2 -2. Use of newer construction equipment would reduce construction emissions
onsite. However, onsite emissions in addition to offsite emissions generated by haul
trucks would generate substantial quantities of NOx and would continue to exceed
SCAQMD's regional significance threshold during site preparation (year 2014 for
Phase 1 and years 2017 and 2018 for Phase 2) and when construction activities of
various phases overlap (year 2017 and 2018). Off -road construction equipment and
on -road haul trucks for demolition, soil export, and construction materials are the
primary source of NOx emissions. Therefore, of the eight years of construction,
project - related construction activities would only exceed SCAQMD's threshold for
three years because significant off -road equipment use and haul trucks are not
necessary during vertical building construction. Therefore, Impact 5.2 -2 would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 24 of 103
Mitigation Measures
MM 2 -1 The construction contractor shall use construction equipment rated by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or
higher exhaust emission limits for equipment over 50 horsepower that
are onsite for more than 5 days. Tier 3 engines between 50 and 750
horsepower are available for 2006 to 2008 model years. After January 1,
2015, equipment over 50 horsepower that are onsite for more than 5
days shall be equipment meeting the Tier 4 standards, if available. A list
of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained
by the construction contractor onsite. A copy of each unit's certified Tier
specification shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each
applicable unit of equipment. Prior to construction, the City of Newport
Beach shall ensure that all demolition and grading plans clearly show the
requirement for United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 or
higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50
horsepower during ground- disturbing activities. In addition, equipment
shall properly service and maintain construction equipment in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Construction
contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction
equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with
California Air Resources Board's Rule 2449.
MM 2 -2 The construction contractor shall implement the following measures or
provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach that implementation
would not be feasible:
If electricity is not available onsite, generators, welders, and air
compressors shall use alternative fuels (i.e., electric, natural gas,
propane, solar).
• Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic
interference.
Construction trucks shall be routed away from congested streets
and sensitive receptors.
• Construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system
shall be scheduled to off -peak hours to the extent practicable.
• Temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person(s), shall be
provided, where necessary, to maintain smooth traffic flow.
• Large shipments of construction materials and/or equipment
requiring use of heavy -heavy duty tractor trailers (e.g., 53 -foot
truck) shall use EPA - certified SmartWay trucks.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 25 of 103
MM 2 -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the construction contractor shall
provide a statement to the City of Newport Beach that the construction
contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives
for the construction crew, such as carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes,
or secured bicycle parking for construction workers.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related
to air quality that are applicable to the proposed Project at this time; however, project -
specific conditions of approval may be applied to the Project by the City during the
discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent
design, and /or construction process.
(2) Potential Impact: Construction activities associated with the Uptown Newport project
could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM2.5-
Phases 1 and 2 Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce construction impacts
to sensitive receptors. Thereby, the City makes Finding 1 and impacts are mitigated to
less than significant levels.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: Mitigation Measures 2 -4 through 2 -5 would reduce particulate matter
concentration generated from exhaust and fugitive dust during construction activities.
Table 5.2 -17 shows project - related construction emissions compared to SCAQMD's
LSTs with adherence to Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -6. Mitigation Measure 2 -1
would require use of newer construction equipment, and Mitigation Measure 2 -4 would
require additional fugitive dust control measures to be implemented during ground -
disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure 2 -5 requires diesel particulate filters installed
on equipment used for site improvements during Phase 2 or prohibits overlap of site
improvements associated with Phase 2 during construction of Phase 1. As shown in
the table, Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -6 would reduce localized construction
emissions below the localized significance thresholds. Therefore, Impact 5.2 -4 would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 2 -4 The construction contractor shall prepare a dust control plan and
implement the following measures during ground- disturbing activities for
fugitive dust control in addition to South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rule 403 to reduce particulate matter emissions. The City of
Newport Beach shall verify compliance that these measures have been
implemented during normal construction site inspections.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 26 of 103
During all grading activities, the construction contractor shall
reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding
and watering.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall
sweep streets with Rule 1186— compliant, PM10- efficient vacuum
units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall
maintain a minimum 24 -inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt,
sand, soil, or other loose materials, and tarp materials with a
fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of
protection.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall
water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum
of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of
three times per day. Recycled water should be used, if available.
During site preparation, the construction contractor shall stabilize
stockpiled materials. Stockpiles within 300 feet of occupied
buildings shall not exceed 8 -feet in height, must have a road
bladed to the top to allow water truck access, or must have an
operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete
stockpile coverage.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall
limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15
miles per hour.
MM 2 -5 The construction contractor during Phase 2 activities shall adhere to one
of the following if construction of Phase 1 overlaps with construction of
Phase 2:
The construction contractors shall install Level 2 Verified Diesel
Emission Control Strategies (VDES) diesel particulate filters
(DPF) on large off -road equipment that have engines rated 50 hp
or greater during grading, utilities installation, paving, and
concrete activities that overlap with Phase 1 building construction.
A list of construction equipment by type and model year and type
of DPF shall be maintained by the construction contractor onsite.
Or
Phase 2 site improvements (grading, utilities installation, paving,
and concrete construction subphases) shall not overlap with
Phase 1 building construction.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 27 of 103
The City of Newport Beach shall verify compliance that one of
these measures has been implemented during normal
construction site inspections.
MM 2 -6 The construction contractor shall post a sign at the entrance to the
construction site. The sign shall identify the designated contact person,
telephone number, and email address for construction - related
complaints. Upon receipt of a compliant, the complaint shall be
investigated and corrective action shall be taken, if needed. The
construction contractor shall file a report to the City of Newport Beach of
the nature of the compliant and action taken to remedy the complaint
within two working days. A log of the complaints and resolutions to the
complaints shall be maintained onsite.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related
to air quality that are applicable to the proposed Project at this time; however, project -
specific conditions of approval may be applied to the Project by the City during the
discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent
design, and /or construction process.
B. Biological Resources
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed Project would remove habitat that could be used for
nesting by migratory birds.
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: Mitigation Measure 3 -1 requires survey and identification of any
active nests in or near the Project site by a qualified biologist during construction.
Compliance with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 3 -1 would reduce potential
impacts to migratory birds to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
MM 3 -1 Prior to any proposed actions during the breeding season, January 31st
through September 15th, the monitoring biologist shall conduct a pre -
construction survey(s) to identify any active nests in and near the Project
area no more than three days prior to project initiation. If the biologist
does not find any active nests that would be potentially impacted, the
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 28 of 103
proposed action may proceed. Any active nests observed during the
survey shall be mapped on a recent aerial photograph, including
documentation of GPS coordinates. If the biologist finds an active nest
within or adjacent to the action area and determines that the nest may be
impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around
the nest using temporary plastic fencing or other suitable materials, such
as barricade tape and traffic cones. The buffer zone shall range from a
300- to 500 -foot radius at the discretion of the biologist. Only activities
approved by the qualified biologist shall take place within the buffer zone
until the nest is vacated. Once the nest is no longer active, the proposed
action may proceed within the buffer zone.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related
to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed Project at this time;
however, project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the Project by the
City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map,
etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process.
C. Cultural Resources
(1) Potential Impact: Development of the Project site, including excavation as deep as
15 feet, could impact archaeological and /or paleontological resources.
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: Mitigation Measure 4 -1 requires a professional archaeologist to be
retained to monitor ground- disturbing activities, determine potential to disturb cultural
resources, and halt construction activities if necessary. Mitigation Measure 4 -2
requires an Orange County — certified professional paleontologist to be retained during
ground- disturbing activities to assess potential impacts to paleontological resources
and prepare a paleontological mitigation plan if required. The requirements set forth in
Mitigation Measures 4 -1 and 4 -2 would reduce paleontological impacts to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4 -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall
demonstrate to the Community Development Department that an Orange
County — certified professional archaeologist has been retained to monitor
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 29 of 103
any potential impacts to archaeological or historic resources throughout
the duration of any ground- disturbing activities at the Project site. The
archeologist shall develop a Cultural Resources Awareness Training
program, which shall provide examples of the types of resources that
might be encountered and detail procedures to be implemented in that
event. The qualified archeologist shall be present at the pregrade
meeting to present the training program to all earthmoving personnel and
their supervisors and to discuss the monitoring, collection, and safety
procedures of cultural resources, if any are found. If subsurface cultural
resources are inadvertently discovered during ground- disturbing
activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that all work stops
within 25 feet of the find until the qualified archeologist can assess the
significance of the find and, if necessary, shall develop appropriate
treatment or disposition of the resources in consultation with the City of
Newport Beach and a representative of the affected Native American
tribe (Gabrielino). The archeological monitor shall have the authority to
halt any project - related activities that may be adversely impacting
potentially significant cultural resources. Suspension of ground
disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until an
archeological monitor has evaluated the discoveries to assess whether
they are classified as significant cultural resources, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
MM 4 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall
demonstrate to the Community Development Department that an Orange
County — certified professional paleontologist has been retained to
monitor any potential impacts to paleontological resources throughout
the duration of any ground- disturbing activities at the Project site. The
paleontologist shall review the project's final plans and develop and
implement a Paleontological Mitigation Plan, which shall include the
following minimum elements:
All earthmoving activities eight -feet or more below the current
surface shall be monitored full -time by a qualified paleontological
monitor.
If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor has the
authority to temporarily divert work within 25 feet of the find to
allow recovery of the fossils and evaluation of the fossil locality.
Fossil localities shall require documentation including stratigraphic
columns and samples for micropaleontological analyses and for
dating.
Fossils shall be prepared to the point of identification and
evaluated for significance.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 30 of 103
• Significant fossils shall be cataloged and identified prior to being
donated to an appropriate repository.
• The final report shall interpret any paleontological resources
discovered in the regional context and provide the catalog and all
specialists' reports as appendices.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to
the proposed Project:
• The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified
archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to
establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and
recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been
prepared for this Project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of the
standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures below.
D. Geology and Soils
(1) Potential Impact: Development of the Project could expose people and structures to
hazards arising from expansive soils.
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less
than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: On the Project site, sandy to silty clays from onsite borings were
found to have medium to high expansion indices. During grading operations within
approximately the upper five feet of soils, the mixing and placement of various
onsite soils as engineered, compacted fills would reduce hazards from expansive
soils. However, additional testing of soil for expansion potential shall be conducted
before the design - building phases of buildings in the Uptown Newport project.
Mitigation 6 -1 requires soil testing for expansion potential to be conducted by a
professional engineering geologist or registered geotechnical engineer.
Compliance with the requirements of this mitigation measure would reduce
expansive soil impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM 6 -1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits for the Project, the project
applicant shall have soil testing for expansion potential conducted by a
professional engineering geologist or registered geotechnical engineer.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 31 of 103
The geologist or engineer shall prepare a report describing the sampling
and testing; findings; any hazards related to the findings; and
recommendations for reducing any hazards identified. The project
applicant shall submit a copy of the report to the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department for review and approval by the
City Building Division.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related
to geology and soils that are applicable to the proposed Project at this time; however,
project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the Project by the City during
the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.),
subsequent design, and /or construction process.
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(1) Potential Impact: Prior to the demolition of the TowerJazz manufacturing facility in
Phase 2 of the Project, residents of Phase 1 of the Project could be at risk from an
accidental release of chemicals stored at the TowerJazz facility.
Phase 1
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures. (Under Phase 2, this impact is not potentially significant.)
Facts in Support of Finding
Phase 1: The provisions of Mitigation Measures 7 -1 through 7 -4 would reduce the
hazards impacts of the TowerJazz facility to residents during the first phase of the
Project. These mitigation measures require compliance for specific sections of the
California Fire Code and City of Newport Beach Fire Department standards,
emergency notification and disclosures, and new requirements for the use of
extremely hazardous substances at the TowerJazz facility. Compliance with the
provisions of Mitigation Measures 7 -1 through 7 -4 would reduce the risk of potential
exposure of Phase 1 residents to hazards on the Project site, and impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 7 -1 In compliance with CFC Section 381.1 (Amendment), prior to issuance of
building permits for Phase 1, the project applicant shall submit a geologic
study from a state - licensed and department- approved individual or firm
to the Newport Beach Fire Department Fire Prevention Division for
review and approval (due to the proximity of the proposed Project to a
semiconductor facility).
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 32 of 103
MM 7 -2 Prior to issuance of any building permit for Phase 1, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with CFC Section 27041.1 (Amendment), which
prohibits the storage of any amount of extremely hazardous substances
equal to or greater than the disclosable amounts listed in Appendix A,
Part 355, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations in a residential
zone or adjacent to property developed with residential uses.
Compliance shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Newport
Beach Fire Department and shall include the following:
Installation of a new anhydrous ammonia tank at a minimum
distance of 200 feet from the nearest existing or proposed
residential structure (including the adjacent Koll property project).
The new tank shall be approved by the Newport Beach Fire
Department, and the tank and installation shall include mitigation
safeguards such as: automatic shut -off valves, excess flow
valves, restrictive flow orifices, toxic gas detection system,
automatic sprinkler system, water deluge system, alarm system,
and double containment piping. An updated Offsite Consequence
Analysis (OCA) shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department prior installation of the new tank.
In the event a new anhydrous ammonia tank is not installed or the
existing tank relocated, no residential structures shall be
constructed within 200 feet of the anhydrous ammonia tank.
Demonstration of maintenance of industry best practices and
provision of minimum EPGR -2 separation distances as defined by
the EPA for any extremely hazardous substances (EHS) in
excess of disclosable amounts. The use of the term "adjacent to"
(per CFC Section 27041.1 (Amendment) shall be interpreted to be
a greater distance than an offsite consequence analysis would
require as a safe EPGR -2 (or an equivalent and accepted
standard) separation distance (ibid).
MM 7 -3 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department that the following disclosures and emergency notification
procedures /programs are in place:
Disclosure to potential Uptown Newport residences that
hazardous chemicals are used and stored at the adjacent
TowerJazz facility.
Inclusion of property manager or authorized representative of the
Uptown Newport residential community to the emergency
notification list of the TowerJazz Business Emergency Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 33 of 103
Program to inform /train the property manager or authorized
representative of the Uptown Newport residential community in
emergency response and evacuation procedures and to
incorporate ongoing coordination between the Uptown Newport
representative and TowerJazz to assure proper action in the
event of an accident at the facility (shelter in place and /or
evacuation routes).
• Upgrade TowerJazz emergency alarm system to include
concurrent notification to Uptown Newport residents of chemical
release. Provisions of the alarm system and emergency
notification procedure shall be reviewed and approved by the City
of Newport Beach Fire Department.
MM 7 -4 Prior to the introduction of a new extremely hazardous substance (EHS)
or increase in quantity of any existing EHS at TowerJazz, an updated
OCA shall be prepared and reviewed and authorized by the City of
Newport Beach Fire Department. Any new EHS shall be appropriately
located and the installation designed with all necessary mitigation
safeguards specified by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The Project would be subject to the Newport Beach Fire Department Guidelines and
City of Newport Beach Fire Code (City Municipal Code Chapter 9.04). Specific
Conditions of Approval pursuant to these requirements would be specified by the
Newport Beach Fire Department, and would include compliance with the following
California Fire Code (CFC) requirements:
• Sections 318.1 (Amendment). A geological study from a state - licensed and
department- approved individual or firm will be required due to the proximity of
the proposed Project to a semiconductor manufacturing facility.
• Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment). No person shall use or store any amount of
extremely hazardous substances equal to or greater than the disclosable
amounts as listed in Appendix A, part 355, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulation in a residential zone or adjacent to property developed with
residential uses.
(2) Potential Impact: The Project site is included on a list of hazardous material sites.
Project development, including soil disturbance from site grading and construction
activities, could pose substantial hazards to people or the environment through the
release of hazardous materials.
Phase 1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 34 of 103
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
(migration of VOCs from TowerJazz) would be reduced to less than significant levels
with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Phase 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
(contaminated soil disturbance from removal of TowerJazz) would be reduced to less
than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phase 1: Based on conclusion in the ESA and Vapor Intrusion HRA, contamination of
the Phase 1 portion of the site is limited to potential migration of VOCs from the Phase
2 portion of the site. A "No Further Action" declaration or a Letter of Allowance for
residential construction for Phase 1 must be is provided by the RWQCB in order for
impacts to be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 7 -5 requires
issuance of this letter prior to the issuance of building permits. (A "No Further Action"
letter, dated November 1, 2012, was issued by the RWQCB for Phase 1 and is
included as an Appendix to Final EIR.)
Mitigation Measure
MM 7 -5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for development within Phase 1,
the project applicant shall obtain a "No Further Action" declaration or
Letter of Allowance for residential construction for Phase 1 from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See the City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under E.1.
Phase 2: Soil disturbance from site grading and construction activities within the
Phase 2 portion of the site could result in the release of hazardous materials that could
impact Phase 1 residents and nearby office occupants. Phase 2 development could
not occur until the RWQCB provides a "No Further Action" declaration or a Letter of
Allowance for residential construction. The provisions of Mitigation Measures 7 -6 and
7 -7 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
MM 7 -6 The project applicant shall submit copies of applicable reports and plans
as submitted to the RWQCB for remedial activities within the Phase 2
portion of the Project site to the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department. Such copies shall include remediation action
plans and annual soil and groundwater remediation progress reports.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 35 of 103
MM 7 -7 Prior to the issuance of building permits for development within Phase 2,
the project applicant shall obtain a "No Further Action" declaration or
Letter of Allowance for residential construction for Phase 2 from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under EA.
(3) Potential Impact: Demolition of onsite buildings could result in a health risk due to the
release of hazardous building materials, including asbestos and lead paint.
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 1. Both phases of development require the demolition of buildings that likely
contain asbestos - containing material (ACM) and /or lead -based paint (LBP). Mitigation
Measure 7 -8 would reduce impacts related to ACM and LBP to less than significant
levels.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: Mitigation Measure 7 -8 requires compliance with LBP and ACM
regulations and documentation of testing. This would reduce the potential LBP and
ACM impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
MM 7 -8 Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the project applicant shall have
the following inspections and assessments conducted for the Half Dome
building (Phase 1) and TowerJazz building (Phase 2) and shall provide
the Community Development Department with a copy of the report of
each investigation or assessment.
The applicant shall retain a certified lead inspector /assessor to
inspect buildings onsite including any structures at the SCE
substation for lead -based paint (LBP). The inspector /assessor's
report shall describe regulatory requirements for lead containment
applicable to any LBP discovered onsite.
The applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos
consultant to inspect buildings onsite including any structures at
the SCE substation for asbestos - containing materials (ACM). The
asbestos consultant's report shall include requirements for
abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM in South Coast Air
Quality Management District Rule 1403.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 36 of 103
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under E.1.
(4) Potential Impact: Future residents and visitors of Phase 1 of the Project would not be
exposed to unacceptable levels of VOCs as a result of vapor intrusion into buildings.
The health risk associated with potential soil vapor intrusion of VOCs for future Phase
2 residents is undetermined.
Phase 1
Finding: 1, The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Phase 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phase 1: Phase 1 development could not occur until the Regional Water Quality
Control Board ( RWCCB), as lead oversight for the remediation of the Project site, has
cleared the site for residential development. The RWQCB may issue a "No Further
Action" declaration or Letter of Allowance for residential construction for Phase 1, as
stated in Mitigation Measure 7 -3. Compliance with this requirement would reduce
impacts to less than significant levels. (A "No Further Action" letter, dated November 1,
2012, was issued by the RWQCB for Phase 1 and is included as an Appendix to Final
EI R).
Mitigation Measure 7 -3 applies to this impact.
Phase 2: The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) concluded that potential soil
vapor intrusion of VOCs north and northwest of the TowerJazz building would be a
significant concern for development of Phase 2 and recommended additional soil -gas
characterization of the site. Mitigation Measures 7 -9 and 7 -10 require additional health
risk assessments pursuant to the RWQCB requirements and the remediation of any
soil and groundwater contamination. Again, the RWQCB must issue a "No Further
Action" declaration or Letter of Allowance for residential construction. Compliance with
the requirements in Mitigation Measures 7 -9 through 7 -10 would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 37 of 103
Mitigation Measures
MM 7 -9 Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the project
applicant shall retain a registered environmental assessor or other
professional qualified to conduct a human health risk assessment
(HHRA) of potential volatile organic compound contamination. The
HHRA shall be conducted under the guidance and review of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Approval of tentative tract map(s)
for Phase 2 shall not occur until the project applicant obtains a "No
Further Action" declaration or a Letter of Allowance for residential
construction from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
MM 7 -10 Prior to issuance of a building permits for Phase 2 development, the
project applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development
Department that contamination in soil and groundwater on Phase 2 has
been remediated to meet the cleanup goal for the site for total volatile
organic compounds set by the State Water Resources Control Board
and shall have obtained a "No Further Action" declaration or Letter of
Allowance for residential construction from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under E.1.
(5) Potential Impact: The existing SCE substation may present health hazards related to
electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and /or upon demolition, release of hazardous
materials.
Phase 2 Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures. (Under Phase 1, this impact is not potentially significant.)
Facts in Support of Finding
Phase 2: The demolition of the SCE substation presents risks of exposure to PCBs
and related material. Mitigation Measure 7 -11 requires certified inspection and the
establishment of a mitigation program should PCBs or other hazardous materials be
identified. Compliance with this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
MM 7 -11 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for Phase 2, the construction
dates for the SCE Substation shall be confirmed. If the facility was
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 38 of 103
constructed prior to the 1980's, a certified inspector approved by the City
of Newport Beach Fire Department shall be retained to test for PCBs and
related hazardous materials. If PCBs or other hazardous materials are
determined to be present, a mitigation program to abate, contain and
dispose of the materials shall be prepared and approved by the City Fire
Department. Such program shall be implemented prior to the issuance of
Phase 2 building permits.
Mitigation Measures 7 -9 and 7 -10 also apply to this impact.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under E.1.
F. Land Use and Planning
(1) Potential Impact: Project implementation would potentially conflict with applicable
plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect. The Airport
Land Use Commission has determined that the Project is inconsistent with the Airport
Environs land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport.
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 3. The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no
mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This impact is
significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: Due to the proximity of the proposed Project to the Orange County
John Wayne Airport, the Project must be consistent with the Airport Land Use
Commission's (ALUC) regulations. Since the proposed Project requires an
amendment to the Koll Center Newport PCDP and adoption of its own zoning (PCDP),
a consistency determination by ALUC is required prior to the Newport Beach City
Council taking action on the Project. The ALUC considered the proposed Project at its
October 18, 2012, public hearing and voted to find the Project inconsistent with the
Commission's AELUP for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and AELUP for heliports. The
Commission based their inconsistency decision on Section 2.1.1 of the JWA AELUP,
which states: "the Commission may utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns
at individual airports which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77, should
evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action."
Since the ALUC has made the determination that Uptown Newport is not consistent
with the AELUP, approval of the Project will require a two - thirds vote to override this
determination. No mitigation measures are available to reduce the potentially
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 39 of 103
significant impact. This impact is a significant unavoidable adverse impact and would
require a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related
to land use and planning that are applicable to the proposed Project at this time.
However, project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the Project by the
City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map,
etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. Additionally, other applicable
standard conditions are encompassed in the topical conditions that affect land use
compatibility, including air quality, noise, and traffic.
G. Noise and Vibration
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed Project would introduce new stationary noise
sources that would result in small noise increases in the vicinity of noise - sensitive land
uses.
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: Proposed noise - sensitive uses would be exposed to noise levels
from subterranean parking garage activity and truck deliveries exceeding thresholds
stated in the City's Municipal Code for residential uses. Mitigation Measures 10 -1 and
10 -2 would require design and operation practices that limit noise generation.
Compliance with these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
MM 10 -1 The parking lot surface of all parking garages shall be textured to
eliminate tire squeal noise. Ventilation equipment for the parking garages
shall be designed to meet the City's noise limits for Zone III, not exceed
a daytime maximum of 60 dBA Leq (or 80 dBA Lmax) and a nighttime
maximum of 50 dBA Leq (or 70 dBA Lmax). This can be accomplished by
selecting quieter equipment or by enclosing ventilation equipment.
MM 10 -2 Truck deliveries shall be restricted to the daytime hours between 7 AM
and 10 PM.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 40 of 103
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to
the proposed Project:
• The Project must comply with the exterior noise standards for residential
uses of the Noise Ordinance. The exterior noise level standard is 65 dBA
between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and 60 dBA between the
hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. An acoustic study shall be performed
by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these
standards of the Noise Ordinance. This acoustic study shall be
performed and submitted to the Community Development Department as
part of the Site Development Review permit application for each
residential structure. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable
standards, additional mitigation shall be required, which may include the
installation of additional sound attenuation devices as recommended by
the acoustic study and subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
• The operator of the proposed commercial uses shall be responsible for
the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not
limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and
mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the proposed use shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise
control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The
maximum noise shall be limited to no more than noise limits specified in
Table 5.10 -3 for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise
level is higher.
• All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent
properties and adjacent public streets for each residential structure, as
authorized by a Site Development Review permit, and shall be sound -
attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
• The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, Sound -
Amplifying Equipment requires a permit for use of any sound - amplifying
equipment and regulates the volume so sound - amplifying equipment is
not a nuisance to persons. The use of sound - amplifying equipment is
prohibited outdoors between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM.
• The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element, thru Policy N
3.2, requires that residential development in the airport area be outside
of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour no larger than shown in the 1985
JWA Master Plan and require residential developers to notify prospective
purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 41 of 103
(2) Potential Impact: Proposed onsite noise - sensitive uses would be exposed to exterior
noise levels from vehicular traffic and from operation of the TowerJazz facility
exceeding the 65 dBA CNEL standard for residential and park uses.
Phase 1: Exposure of patios and balconies facing the TowerJazz to noise levels of 65
dBA.
Phase 2: Exposure of patios and balconies facing Jamboree Road to noise levels of
65 dBA.
Phase 1
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Phase 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1: Residential patios and balconies facing the TowerJazz facility and
constructed during Phase 1 would be exposed to noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL.
Mitigation Measure 10 -3 would reduce noise levels from operation of the TowerJazz
facility and provide noise reduction at the common and private exterior living areas to
meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures 10 -3, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
MM 10 -3 Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1, a detailed acoustical
study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified
acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval. The study shall demonstrate that all
residential units would meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard
for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas (playgrounds,
parks, and swimming pools). The necessary noise reduction may be
achieved by implementing noise control measures at the TowerJazz
facility and at the receiver locations, as described in detail in the
Technical Memorandum provided by Wilson Ihrig and Associates
(Appendix J). The technical memorandum includes noise control
measures that would be implemented at the rooftop mechanical
equipment and at the cooling towers of the TowerJazz facility,
summarized below:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 42 of 103
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Noise Control
o Exhaust Fan Noise Control: The exhaust fan noise can be
most effectively controlled by constructing noise barriers
around three sides of each of the exhaust stacks, such that
the barriers would be located between the stacks and the
future Phase 1 development. In addition to a barrier, sound
levels can be reduced by modifying the exhaust stack and
fan.
o Other Equipment: Other specific pieces of rooftop
equipment can be treated with barriers lined with acoustical
absorption. Ducts and pipes that radiate significant noise
can be treated by adding mass to the duct walls, or lined
with acoustical absorption or lead- loaded vinyl.
o Screen: The performance of the existing sheet metal
parapet wall /screen can be enhanced by treating the upper
eight feet of the screen with acoustical absorption.
Cooling Towers Noise Control
o Relocation: Moving the cooling towers away from the
Phase 1 development would be an effective approach to
noise control.
o Replacement: Replacement of the existing cooling towers
can be considered, as new towers would have new coils
with improved air flow and efficiency.
o Additional Cooling Towers: Additional cooling towers would
reduce the cooling demand on individual units, allowing the
fans to operate at lower speed.
o Fan Noise: The cooling tower fans appear to be the
primary noise source. The fan noise emanates from the top
of the cooling towers and from the coils. Waterfall noise,
though not readily apparent, also transmits through the
coils to the exterior. The following provisions may be
applied to the existing cooling towers to reduce cooling
tower noise: coil replacement, variable frequency drives, tip
seals, aerodynamic fan blades, treatment of the discharge
stack, acoustical louvers, and sound barriers.
The measures described above, or some combination thereof, would reduce the
exterior noise levels at units facing the TowerJazz facility to 65 dBA CNEL. The
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 43 of 103
property owner /developer shall implement these noise control measures at the
TowerJazz facility and demonstrate with noise level measurements that noise from the
operation of mechanical equipment at the TowerJazz facility would not exceed 65 dBA
CNEL at the property boundary or at the nearest receptors.
In addition, the final grading and building plans shall incorporate the required noise
barriers at common exterior areas and patios (glass /Plexiglas patio enclosures, wall,
berm, or combination wall /berm) and at balconies (glass or Plexiglas balconies
enclosure). Patio enclosures for units facing the TowerJazz facility would need
acoustical absorption to absorb sound in the balcony. The property owner /developer
shall install these barriers and enclosures.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See the City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under G.1.
Phase 2: Residential patios and balconies constructed during Phase 2 and facing
Jamboree Road would be exposed to noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL. Mitigation
Measure 10 -4 would reduce noise levels from Jamboree Road and provide noise
reduction at the common and private exterior living areas to meet the 65 dBA CNEL
exterior noise standard. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 10 -4, this impact
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 10 -4 Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, a detailed acoustical
study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified
acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development
Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 65
dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common
outdoor living areas. The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by
implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations. The final
grading and building plans shall incorporate the require noise barriers
(patio enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall /berm), and the property
owner /developer shall install these barriers and enclosures.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See the City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under G.1.
(3) Potential Impact: Proposed noise - sensitive uses would be exposed to interior noise
levels exceeding the 45 dBA CNEL standard.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 44 of 103
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: Standard residential windows and doors would not provide the
required exterior -to- interior noise reduction to meet the interior noise level of 45 dBA
CNEL. Mitigation Measures 10 -5 and 10 -6 would incorporate noise reduction
measures in the building construction for each individual residential structure to
provide the necessary exterior -to- interior noise reduction to meet the 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise standard. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 10 -5 and 10 -6,
this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 10 -5 Prior to issuance of building permits for each residential structure located
within Phase 1, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans
shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to
the Community Development Department to demonstrate that all
residential units would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards
for habitable rooms (i.e., bedrooms, living rooms, dens, kitchens) due to
exterior noise from traffic, aircraft overflights, and stationary noise from
the TowerJazz facility. The report shall evaluate the effects of the precise
building placement and design materials used for construction. It shall
describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the buildings, the
amount of outdoor to indoor noise reduction provided by the structure,
and any upgrades required to meet the interior noise standard. This
standard must be achieved with the windows closed in conjunction with a
fresh air mechanical ventilation or air conditioning system, and it may
require upgraded construction methods and materials. According to the
preliminary assessment provided by Wilson Ihrig and Associates, the
required noise reduction at units facing the TowerJazz facility would be
achieved with acoustically rated doors and windows with a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) no greater than 35. The measures described
in the report shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the
buildings and implemented with building construction.
MM 10 -6 Prior to issuance of building permits for each residential structure located
within Phase 2, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans
shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to
the Community Development Department to demonstrate that all
residential units would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 45 of 103
for habitable rooms (i.e., bedrooms, living rooms, dens, kitchens) with
exterior noise from traffic and aircraft overflights. The report shall
evaluate the effects of the precise building placement and design
materials used for construction. It shall describe and quantify the noise
sources impacting the buildings, the amount of outdoor to indoor noise
reduction provided by the structure, and any upgrades required to meet
the interior noise standard. This standard must be achieved with the
windows closed in conjunction with a fresh air mechanical ventilation or
air conditioning system, and it may require upgraded construction
methods and materials. The measures described in the report shall be
incorporated into the architectural plans for the buildings and
implemented with building construction.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See the City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under G.1
Potential Impact: Construction of the Uptown Newport project would generate
vibration levels that exceed the FTA criterion for human annoyance at nearby
residential structures and affect the operation of vibration - sensitive equipment at the
TowerJazz facility. Phase 1
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Phase 2
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would
be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phase 1: The operation of construction equipment during Phase 1 construction would
generate vibration that exceeds thresholds for annoyance and architectural damage at
the TowerJazz facility, thus with the potential to adversely interfere with the operation
of vibration - sensitive equipment at the TowerJazz facility. Mitigation Measures 10 -7
and 10 -8 would incorporate vibration control measures during construction. With
Mitigation Measures 10 -7 and 10 -8, feasible vibration control provisions can be
incorporated to reduce Phase 1 construction vibration to acceptable levels at the
TowerJazz facility.
Mitigation Measures
MM 10 -7 During Phase 1 construction, the construction contractor shall implement
a vibration control program to reduce vibration levels at the TowerJazz
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 46 of 103
facility. The Technical Memorandum prepared by Wilson Ihrig and
Associates includes several measures to control vibration at the
TowerJazz facility, outlined below:
Pile Driving:
o Augured piles shall be employed to the extent possible.
Impact and vibratory pile drivers shall not be used during
construction unless TowerJazz is consulted to avoid
excessive vibration during operation of sensitive
equipment. Constant frequency pile drivers might be
acceptable if operated at sufficient distance from the
TowerJazz facility and if demonstrated to not impact
TowerJazz operations.
Heavy Construction Equipment:
o Within 200 feet of the TowerJazz facility, wheel loaders and
dozers shall be employed rather than the track - laying
heavy equipment. Contractor training and notification
should be conducted to minimize dozer blades and buckets
being dropped on the ground for wheeled equipment
operated within 200 feet of the TowerJazz facility.
o Static rollers should be employed where compacting is
required. To avoid excessive vibration during operation of
sensitive equipment, vibratory rollers should not be used
unless TowerJazz. is consulted and ground vibration
produced by such rollers is found to be acceptable to
TowerJazz operations.
o Hoe rams shall be not be used to break up concrete grade
slabs within 100 feet of the TowerJazz facility and office
uses adjacent to the Project site. Concrete slabs can be
sawed and lifted away to another location where they may
be broken up by the hoe ram.
Haul Trucks: Haul trucks shall be routed away, to the extent
possible, from the TowerJazz facility.
Lay -Down Areas: Lay -down areas include material storing areas
such as piles, steel shapes, and other heavy items. The lay -down
area should be located in portions of the construction site that are
at least 200 feet away from the TowerJazz facility.
Vibration- Monitoring: Vibration monitoring shall be conducted in
the TowerJazz building during development and construction of
Phase 1. Vibration monitors shall be located in select locations
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 47 of 103
where sensitive equipment is located in consultation with
TowerJazz. The most appropriate location for monitoring would be
at the building foundations along the exterior sides facing the
construction work. Recommended thresholds for vibration
monitoring have been developed based on past vibration
monitoring at the TowerJazz facility during the seismic retrofit and
on the vibratory characteristics of construction equipment that are
anticipated to be used during construction of Phase 1.
Recommended thresholds for vibration monitoring are:
o A vibration level of 0.125 in /sec will trigger a warning that
will notify the construction operator and TowerJazz;
o A vibration level of 0.250 in /sec will trigger a warning that
will notify the construction operator and TowerJazz of
excessive vibration and that the construction activity that is
causing the excessive vibration should be stopped.
o Construction activity may recommence upon satisfactory
assessment that the continued construction activity will not
substantially affect the use of vibration- sensitive
equipment or interfere with operations at the TowerJazz
facility. Final protocol for notification to TowerJazz and
construction equipment operators will be determined and
documented in a vibration monitoring plan prepared prior to
construction.
MM 10 -8 Augured piles shall be employed to the extent possible. Impact and
vibratory pile drivers shall not be used during construction within 75 feet
of any building.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See the City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under G.1.
Phase 2: The operation of construction equipment during Phase 2 construction would
generate vibration that exceeds thresholds for annoyance and architectural damage at
the Phase 1 offices and residences. Mitigation Measure 10 -8 would incorporate
vibration control measures during construction. With Mitigation Measure 10 -8, feasible
vibration control provisions can be incorporated to reduce Phase 2 construction
vibration to acceptable levels at the offices and residences.
Mitigation Measure 10 -8 applies to this impact.
(4) Potential Impact: Construction activities at Uptown Newport would substantially
elevate the daytime noise environment in the vicinity of nearby uses.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 48 of 103
Phases 1 and 2
Finding: 3. The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that although mitigation
measures are able to reduce the significance of this impact, the impact is not avoided.
This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding
Phases 1 and 2: During construction of Phase 1, construction activity would have the
potential to cause annoyance and interfere with activities at the office buildings and
the TowerJazz facility facing the construction area. In addition, construction of Phase 2
would result in high noise levels at the residential uses built during Project Phase 1
and at existing office buildings adjacent to the Project site. Mitigation Measures 10 -9 to
10 -12 would reduce noise levels from construction activities at the nearby uses during
Phase 1 and Phase 2. However, because of the height of the buildings adjacent to the
Project site, sound walls blocking line of sight between construction activities and
nearby noise - sensitive receptors would be infeasible. Because many of the residential
areas overlook proposed construction activities, sound walls would not be effective at
these locations. Despite the application of mitigation measures, nearby noise - sensitive
uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction
activities. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable, and a statement of
overriding considerations would be required.
Mitigation Measures
MM 10 -9 The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment
onsite is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions.
MM 10 -10 The construction contractor shall ensure that construction equipment is
fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine
shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the
manufacturer.
MM 10 -11 The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g.,
generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential and
recreational receptor locations as is feasible.
MM 10 -12 Material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction
activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
See the City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions listed under G.1.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 49 of 103
6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping /Project
Planning Process
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and
planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the
DEIR.
1. Alternative Project Location
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its
location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the
project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6[f][2][A]). Key factors in evaluating the feasibility of potential offsite locations for EIR
project alternatives include:
• if it is in the same jurisdiction;
• whether development as proposed would require a General Plan Amendment;
• whether the project applicant could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have
access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent) (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]).
Since the project applicant does not own or control other property within the City, the
evaluation of potential alternate sites focused on sites that could accommodate a
development similar to the proposed Project without a General Plan Amendment within the
City limits.
In addition to the Airport Area, three other areas in the City allow mixed use similar to the
proposed Project. These include a strip of parcels along the northern side of Coast Highway
in the Mariner's Mile Corridor, a number of parcels along the northern end of Newport Center
fronting San Joaquin Hills Road, and a number of interior parcels of the Cannery Village
area. As shown in the City's General Plan Land Use Element in Figures LU26, "Mariner's
Mile," LU21, "Newport Center /Fashion Island," and LU19, "Balboa Peninsula, Lido Village,
Cannery Village, McFadden Square," these areas are designated Mixed Use Horizontal 1
(MU -1-11), Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -113), and Mixed Use Horizontal 4 (MU -114),
respectively. The allowed residential density for these areas, however, is less than allowed
for the proposed Project site. The MU -H1 and MU -114 designations permit a density of 20.1 to
26.7 dwelling units per net acre (du /acre), and the areas designated MU -113 are only
permitted a maximum of 450 dwelling units. These areas of mixed -use designation do not
have adequate size or density to accommodate a project similar to Uptown Newport, which
would include 1,244 dwelling units at a density of 50 du /acre.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 50 of 103
Other sites within the Airport Area could accommodate the proposed Project without a
General Plan Amendment (see Draft EIR Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 3 -4, Airport
Area Planning Designations). There are other parcels with the same land use designation
(Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 [MU -H2]) as the proposed Project site. However, these parcels are
developed, privately owned, and currently occupied. Also, as described in Section 4.0 of the
Draft EIR, Environmental Setting, an application for development of the adjacent Koll Center
site has been filed with the City. There are no vacant parcels within the Airport Area of
sufficient size to accommodate a project similar to Uptown Newport.
In general, any development of similar size and type proposed by the Project within the
Airport Area could experience ongoing operational impacts similar to the proposed Project,
including air quality (regional), greenhouse gas emissions, population /housing, public
services, recreation, transportation /traffic, and utilities /service systems. Demolition impacts,
including air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise, therefore, could likely not
be avoided. However, without a detailed analysis, site- specific impacts for an alternate
Airport Area site, including aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology /soils,
hydrology /water quality, and hazards /hazardous materials, cannot be directly compared. With
the exception of hazards /hazardous materials, these impacts would be anticipated to be
similar to the Project site.
An alternate location within the Airport Area would likely eliminate the unique impacts
associated with the development of the TowerJazz site and inherent incompatibility of the
semiconductor manufacturing facility with the interim residential use for Phase 1 of the
proposed Project. The significant impacts associated with this adjacency, however, including
operational noise and potential hazards, are less than significant for the proposed Project
upon mitigation.
Development of the proposed Project at another location within the Airport Area would not
eliminate the significant construction - related air quality and noise impacts or significant land
use impact pending a consistency determination of the Project with the AELUP.
For these reasons, the City determined that an alternative development site for the proposed
Project would not be a feasible alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][B]).
2. Optional Project Phasing Alternative
This alternative was considered for its potential to reduce or eliminate significant impacts
related to the concurrent operation of the TowerJazz facility adjacent to Phase 1 residences
that would occur under the proposed Project. Under this alternative, demolition of the Half
Dome building and Phase 1 site improvements and building construction would proceed as
currently defined for the proposed Project. Building occupancy of Phase 1 residential
structures, however, would be postponed until expiration of the TowerJazz lease and
cessation of the semiconductor manufacturing operation.
Under the proposed Project, it is anticipated that the earliest residential units in Phase 1
could be constructed and ready for occupancy as early as mid -2015 (the entire phase is
anticipated to be complete by 2018). Under the Optional Project Phasing alternative, no
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 51 of 103
residences could be occupied until at least 2017; if TowerJazz renewed the lease, Phase 1
residences could not be occupied until 2027. This alternative, however, would allow the retail
operations in Phase 1 (11,500 square feet, including an upscale restaurant) to commence
operation.
The Optional Phasing Alternative would reduce the following project - related significant
impacts associated with the adjacency of occupied residential uses and the TowerJazz
operation: operational noise and hazards (potential chemical release). Under the proposed
Project, this interim condition could exist for 6 to 12 years assuming occupancy of some
Phase 1 units as early as mid -2015 and extension of the TowerJazz lease to 2027. This
alternative would not reduce the construction - related impacts of Phase 2 demolition and
development on Phase 1 residents, nor potential hazards related to building demolition of
final Phase 2 area, since these activities would occur after Phase 1 occupancy. Moreover, it
would not reduce or eliminate the potentially significant vibration impact of Phase 1
construction on sensitive TowerJazz equipment. This alternative would not modify the impact
significance of construction - related air quality or noise impacts, or the significant land use
impact (AELUP consistency finding). Although this alternative has the potential to eliminate
significant impacts related to the adjacency of Phase 1 residents during TowerJazz
operation, it was rejected for further analysis. Both the impacts that would be eliminated
under this alternative would be mitigated to less than significant under the proposed Project.
Although Phase 1 residential units could be constructed, occupancy would be postponed until
2017 under the best case for this alternative (up to 2 years for some of the units) and
potentially until 2027 under the lease option (at least 9 years for all of Phase 1 residents and
up to 12 years for some units). It would not be economically feasible for the project applicant
to incur the development cost for this extended period of time without a return on investment.
Moreover, property and building maintenance costs would be incurred while the residential
buildings remained vacant. And finally, vacant buildings would not be desirable for the City
and may be subject to vandalism and /or other criminal activity.
B. Alternatives Selected for Analysis
Based on the criteria listed above, the following three alternatives have been determined to
represent a reasonable range of alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic
objectives of the project and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of
the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following
sections.
• Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative
• Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative
• Reduced Density Alternative
Additionally, this section analyzes the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA.
An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative, and where the No Project
Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is required to identify as
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 52 of 103
environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's
environmental impacts are compared to the proposed Project and determined to be
environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant and unavoidable
impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is
environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed Project. Only the impacts involving air
quality (short -term construction related), land use and planning, and noise (short -term
construction related) were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.8 identifies the
environmentally superior alternative.
The proposed Project is analyzed in detail in Chapter 5 of the DEIR.
1. Alternatives Comparison
Table 2, Statistical Summary Comparison, identifies information regarding dwelling units,
proposed land uses, and population and employment projections, and also provides the jobs -
to- housing ratio for the proposed Project and each of the alternatives.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 53 of 103
Table 2
Statistical Summary Comparison
Land Use Statistics
Dwelling Units
1,244 DU
—
Hotel /Office/
Office /Commercial/
561 DU
Commercial/Retail
Proposed
No Project
Commercial
Residential
Reduced Density
Office
Project
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Land Use Statistics
Dwelling Units
1,244 DU
—
—
830 DU
561 DU
Commercial/Retail
11,500 sf
—
20,000 sf
7,000 sf
11,500 sf
Office
—
126,675 sf
160,000 sf
100,000 sf
—
Industrial
—
311,452 sf
0
0
0
Hotel (Rooms)
—
—
174
—
—
Paric Space
2.05 ac
—
1.52 ac
1.40 ac
2.05 ac
Population
2,724
1 —
I —
1 1,818
1 1,229
Employment
Commerciale
26
—
44
16
26
Office 3
—
135
455
284
—
Hotel 4
—
—
96
—
—
Industrial
—
3,000
Total
26
3,135
595
300
26
Jobs -lo- Housing
Ratio
1.78
1.91
1.85
1.88
1.81
1 Assumes 2.19 persons per household as determined In 2010 Census for Newport Beach (Census 2012).
2 Assumes 450 square feet per employee, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Repel (2001).
3 Assumes 352 square feet per employee for low -rise office uses, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001).
4 Assumes 1,804 square feet per employee, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001). Since SCAG's report does not provide a
square foot perhotel employee rate for Orange County, the regional rate of 1,804 was used to develop the number of employees for this alternative.
5 Jobs4o- housing ratio is based on SCAG projections for the City of Newport Beach in 2035, similar to what was analyzed for the proposed project in
Section 5.11, Population and Housing.
For each of the alternatives analyzed herein, with the exception of the No Project Alternative,
the following components /elements would be similar to the proposed Project:
• Development would be consistent with the City's General Plan and would
require the preparation of a regulatory plan (i.e., Planned Community
Development Plan) and related implementation plans (Phasing Plan and
Design Guidelines).
• Development would occur in two primary phases, and the phase boundaries
would be the similar to the boundaries shown in Figure 3 -6 of the Draft EIR,
Site Plan and Phasing Plan.
• Operation of the TowerJazz facility would continue as an interim use after the
development of Phase 1 and would be demolished under Phase 2.
• Phase 1 would commence in 2014 and be completed by 2018. Timing for
Phase 2 would be contingent on the existing lease of the TowerJazz building,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 54 of 103
which is currently set to expire in March 2017, but could be extended to as late
as March 2027.
• The Southern California Edison (SCE) substation would remain during the initial
operation of Phase 1 to serve the electricity needs of the TowerJazz facility,
and would be demolished in Phase 2.
• The overall project acreage (25.05 acres) and acreage by phase (12.05 for
Phase 1 and 13.00 for Phase 2) would remain the same.
• The overall land use mix would be trip neutral as required by the City's General
Plan (by definition, projects consistent with allowed uses under the General
Plan would be trip neutral).
• Parking would include a mix of surface and structure parking (subterranean and
above - ground).
• Vehicular and pedestrian site access would be similar.
• Building heights would be regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) regulations and standards outlined in the required regulatory plan.
Table 3 provides a comparison of the vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed
Project and each of the alternatives.
Table 3
Trip Generation Comparison
a) No Project Alternative
Description: Under the No Project Alternative, no development would occur on the Project
site, the existing buildings and structures onsite (TowerJazz building, Half Dome building,
and Southern California Edison substation) would remain and not be demolished, and the
TowerJazz facility would continue operating. All other site improvements (e.g., parking areas,
landscaping, sidewalks) would also remain in their existing condition. It is assumed for this
alternative that the TowerJazz facility would remain onsite and operate indefinitely.
Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Proposed Project
9,033
134
511
644
537
292
829
No Project
747
90
12
102
15
88
102
Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative
3,983
289
76
365
126
278
404
Commercial /Office /Residential Alternative
6,805
223
362
584
362
311
672
Reduced Density Alternative
4,139
64
233
297
1 236
FT35
370
a) No Project Alternative
Description: Under the No Project Alternative, no development would occur on the Project
site, the existing buildings and structures onsite (TowerJazz building, Half Dome building,
and Southern California Edison substation) would remain and not be demolished, and the
TowerJazz facility would continue operating. All other site improvements (e.g., parking areas,
landscaping, sidewalks) would also remain in their existing condition. It is assumed for this
alternative that the TowerJazz facility would remain onsite and operate indefinitely.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 55 of 103
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project Alternative's environmental
impacts as compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Section 7.4.1 of the Draft EIR,
which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed Project, the No
Project Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning,
noise, and vibration, public services, and recreation. This alternative would eliminate the
significant unavoidable construction - related impacts for air quality and noise, as well as the
significant, unavoidable land use and planning impact related to the inconsistency finding by
AELUP for the Uptown Newport project. Aesthetic and transportation and traffic impacts
under this alternative would be similar to the proposed Project. GHG impacts would be
substantially greater for the No Project Alternative, and population /housing and
utilities /services impacts would also be greater than the proposed Project. Overall, the No
Project Alternative would have less environmental impacts than the proposed Project and
would eliminate all its significant, unavoidable impacts.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of
the objectives of the proposed Project, because it would not implement the goals and
objectives that the City's General Plan and ICDP have established for the Project site. The
General Plan's policies for the Airport Area and the ICDP call for the orderly evolution of this
area from a single - purposed business park to a mixed -use district with cohesive residential
villages integrated within the existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail, and airport- related
businesses. This alternative would not provide housing in close proximity to jobs and
supporting services, with pedestrian- oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance
livability.
Feasibility: Since the No Project Alternative would allow the existing land uses (TowerJazz
facility, Half Dome building, and Southern California Edison substation) to continue operating
on the Project site, the feasibility of this alternative would rely on the economic feasibility of
indefinite operation of the TowerJazz manufacturing operation. No changes to the existing
conditions would occur, and all operations would continue indefinitely.
Finding: In comparison to the proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would reduce
impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise and vibration, public services, and
recreation. This alternative would eliminate the significant unavoidable construction - related
impacts for air quality and noise, as well as the significant, unavoidable land use and
planning impact related to the inconsistency finding by AELUP for the Uptown Newport
project. Aesthetic and transportation and traffic impacts under this alternative would be
similar to the proposed Project. GHG impacts would be substantially greater for the No
Project Alternative, and population /housing and utilities /services impacts would also be
greater than the proposed Project. From a policy perspective, this alternative would fail to
provide the City with additional housing opportunities, including affordable housing, which is
an identified need in the City's Housing Element. It would also fail to implement the Airport
Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which calls for the
redevelopment of the Project with residential villages integrated with the existing fabric of the
office, industrial, retail, and airport- related businesses. Overall, the No Project Alternative
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 56 of 103
would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project and would eliminate all
its significant, unavoidable impacts, making it the environmentally superior alternative.
However, since the No Project Alternative fails to meet project objectives, provide affordable
housing, and implement the ICDP, it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed
Project.
b) Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative
Description: This alternative was selected for its potential to eliminate impacts associated
with the adjacency of residential uses to the operating TowerJazz manufacturing facility
during Phase 1. Land use incompatibility concerns associated with the proximity of residential
uses to TowerJazz include noise and hazards. Under this alternative, Phase 1 would include
up to 174 hotel rooms (including conference, banquet facility, etc.), and Phase 2 would
provide up to 160,000 square feet of office uses and 20,000 square feet of commercial uses,
as shown in Table 2, Statistical Summary Comparison. This alternative could potentially
include subterranean parking for one or more of the uses.
Phase 1
The Half Dome building and other associated site improvements, including parking areas,
landscaped and common areas, and other hardscape improvements, would be demolished.
Upon demolition, this phase would include the development of up to 174 hotel rooms
(including conference, banquet facility, etc.) and other associated site improvements,
including parking areas, drive aisles, walkways, landscaping, and common areas. The hotel
rooms could be accommodated within low- and midrise buildings with a maximum building
height of 75 feet.
Phase 2
Under Phase 2, the TowerJazz building, northern parking area, and other remaining site
improvements would be demolished to develop 160,000 square feet of office uses and
20,000 square feet of commercial uses and other associated site improvements, including
parking areas, drive aisles, walkways, landscaping, and common areas. The office and
commercial uses could be accommodated within low- and midrise buildings with a maximum
building height of 75 feet.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative's
environmental impacts compared to the proposed Project's is set forth in Section 7.5.2 of the
Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed Project,
the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, GHG, hazards,
noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and services. As shown in Table 3, this
alternative would substantially reduce traffic trips, reducing average daily trips by
approximately 56 percent in comparison to the proposed Project. In comparison to the
proposed Project, however, peak trips would contribute to the existing peak trip patterns (AM
peak into site, PM peak departure), so overall traffic impacts would be similar to the proposed
Project. It would comply with CFC Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment), since it would not locate
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 57 of 103
residents adjacent to extremely dangerous chemicals and thus would eliminate a potentially
significant impact associated with the Project as proposed. This impact, however, would be
mitigated to less than significant, so this alternative would not eliminate a significant,
unavoidable impact. Land use and planning, and population and housing impacts for this
alternative would be greater than for the proposed Project; aesthetics, biological resource,
cultural resources, geology and soils, and hydrology /water quality impacts would be similar.
This alternative would not eliminate any of the significant, unavoidable impacts associated
with the proposed Project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives; With the exception of the provision of beneficial site
improvements, including implementing a WQMP, the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative
would not achieve any of the key objectives of the proposed Project. It would not implement
the goals and objectives that the City's General Plan and ICDP have established for the
Project site. The General Plan's policies for the Airport Area and the ICDP call for the orderly
evolution of this area from a single - purpose business park to a mixed -use district with
cohesive residential villages integrated with the existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail,
and airport- related businesses. This alternative would not provide housing in close proximity
to jobs and supporting services, with pedestrian- oriented amenities that facilitate walking and
enhance livability.
Feasibility: Although the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative would be physically feasible, it
may not be economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this alternative would yield a
reasonable return on investment. Although statistics are not readily available for the demand
for hotel units, information does indicate a depressed market demand for office use in the
Orange County airport area as of the 4th quarter of 2011 (CBRE 2011). As of that quarter,
the office vacancy rate was 24.9 percent, and it was estimated that it would take 8.5 years to
absorb all of the available and under - construction Class A office space based on an annual
absorption rate (2011) of 769,204 square feet for the Greater Airport area. Office use by
Phase 2 of the Project could be feasible if the economy picks up. If the office vacancy rate
drops to approximately 7 percent, the existing office availability (including under construction)
could be absorbed in approximately 4.2 years, and new office uses could be marketable.
With a 5.7 percent vacancy rate, the retail market is better than the office market, but still
depressed.
Finding: This alternative would only meet one of the eight project objectives, but it would
reduce environmental impacts to air quality, GHG, hazards, noise, public services, recreation,
and utilities and services. Also, because it does not include the development of residential land
uses, it would comply with CFC Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment) regarding the location of
residents adjacent to extremely dangerous chemicals (a potentially significant impact associated
with the proposed Project), and it would be consistent with the AELUP (a significant impact of
the proposed Project since the Airport Land Use Commission did not grant a consistency
finding). It would not eliminate any of the significant, unavoidable impacts associated the
proposed Project. Moreover, it would not provide affordable housing, an identified need in the
City's Housing Element, it would not implement the ICDP, and it may be economically
infeasible. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed Project is preferred over this
alternative.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 58 of 103
c) Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative
Description: This alternative was selected for its potential to eliminate impacts associated with
the adjacency of residential uses to the operating TowerJazz manufacturing facility during
Phase 1 while still providing residential uses in Phase 2. Land use incompatibility concerns
associated with the proximity of residential uses to TowerJazz include noise and hazards. Other
impacts that could potentially be reduced by this alternative, although not determined significant
for the proposed Project, were anticipated to be aesthetics, air quality, and health risk
(TowerJazz air emissions).
This alternative would include the development of office, commercial, and residential uses. More
specifically, Phase 1 would include up to 100,000 square feet of office uses and 7,000 square
feet of commercial uses, and Phase 2 would include up to 830 dwelling units, as shown in Table
2, Statistical Summary Comparison. This alternative could potentially include subterranean
parking for one or more of the uses.
Phase 1
Phase 1 would include demolition of the Half Dome building and other associated site
improvements, including parking areas, landscaped and common areas, and other hardscape
improvements. Upon demolition, this phase would include the development of up to 100,000
square feet of office uses and 7,000 square feet of commercial uses and other associated site
improvements, including parking areas, drive aisles, walkways, landscaping, and common
areas. The office and commercial uses could be accommodated within low- and midrise
buildings with a maximum building height of 75 feet. The commercial land use has been
situated with frontage on Jamboree Road and might encompass restaurant uses as does the
proposed Project.
Phase 2
Under Phase 2, the TowerJazz building, northern parking area, and other remaining site
improvements would be demolished to develop up to 830 dwelling units and other associated
site improvements, including parking areas, drive aisles, walkways, landscaping, and
common areas. As with the proposed Project, a variety of housing developments could be
anticipated under this alternative. Residential product types could be for sale and /or rent —a
mix of apartments, townhouses, and condominiums. Residential buildings may include low -
rise rowhouses and 4- and 5 -story apartments or condominiums featuring a range of floor
plan sizes. Mid- to high -rise buildings are also envisioned. Midrise buildings would not
exceed 75 feet in height, and high -rise buildings would not exceed 150 feet in height.
Phase 2 would also include a 1.02 -acre neighborhood park similar to proposed Project. The
park would be privately maintained and publicly accessible. In addition to the neighborhood
park, public open space areas, private open space area, and ancillary amenities would be
provided to serve residents and visitors, and paseo and walkway connections would be
provided onsite and to surrounding areas.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 59 of 103
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Office /Commercial /Residential's
environmental impacts compared to the proposed Project's is set forth in Section 7.6.1 of the
Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed Project,
the Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, GHG,
hazards, noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and services. As shown in Table 3,
traffic trips would be reduced by approximately 25 percent in comparison to the proposed
Project. Since residential uses would not be introduced until Phase 2 after the TowerJazz
facility is removed, it would comply with CFC Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment); that is, it would
not locate residents adjacent to extremely dangerous chemicals. This would eliminate a
potentially significant impact associated with the Project as proposed. This impact, however,
would be mitigated to less than significant, so it would not eliminate a significant, unavoidable
impact. Land use and planning and population and housing impacts for this alternative would
be greater than for the proposed Project, and aesthetics, biological resource, cultural
resources, geology and soils, and hydrology /water quality impacts would be similar.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: With the introduction of 830 residential units as part
of a mixed -use residential village, this alternative would meet several of the Project's
objectives. It would be consistent with several of the goals and policies of the General Plan
for the Airport Area, although it would not be consistent with the ICDP approved for the site,
which provides for the development of 1,244 residential units. This alternative would provide
7,000 square feet of commercial use (or potentially more) and therefore achieve the objective
to provide retail commercial to serve local residents, businesses, and visitors. Although less
than the proposed Project, this alternative would provide housing near jobs and supporting
services, with pedestrian- oriented amenities, and would provide the phased transition from
the existing use to the office, commercial, and residential uses. It would also provide several
of the beneficial impacts of the proposed Project, including implementing a WQMP.
Feasibility: As with the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative, the
Office /Commercial /Residential alternative would be physically feasible but it may not be
economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this alternative would be a viable project that
could yield a reasonable return on investment. As discussed in Section 6.B.1.b., there is
currently a high vacancy rate for offices (24.9 percent). It is highly unlikely that office use in
Phase 1 of this alternative would be viable. It is more likely that the 7,000 square feet of
commercial use could be absorbed under this alternative.
Finding: The Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality,
GHG, hazards, noise, traffic, public services, recreation, and utilities and services, and it
would meet several of the Project's objectives. However, this alternative would increase the
land use and planning and population and housing impacts when compared to the proposed
Project. Based on the ALUC's inconsistency finding for the proposed Project, it is anticipated
that this alternative would also be inconsistent with the AELUP since it would be place
residential uses within the AELUP planning area. It would also be inconsistent with the ICDP,
since it does not provide 1,244 units, unlike the proposed Project. For these reasons, the City
finds that the proposed Project is preferred over this alternative.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 60 of 103
d) Reduced Intensity Alternative
Description: This alternative evaluates the minimum number of residential units that could
be developed on the Project site and still comply with the 30 dwelling units /acre minimum
density prescribed for the site in the City's General Plan and the ICDP. Based on an
estimated, net developable 12.34 acres for the site, 561 units could be developed: 260
dwelling units in Phase 1 and 301 in Phase 2. As with the proposed Project, this alternative is
assumed to include 11,500 square feet of commercial use in Phase 1.
This alternative was evaluated for its potential to reduce overall long -term operational project
impacts due to the substantial reduction in housing units. This alternative was also designed
to provide a larger open -space buffer between the TowerJazz facility and Phase 1 to
evaluate the potential to minimize compatibility impacts in Phase 1 of the proposed Project
related to the proximity of the TowerJazz facility and residences.
As with the proposed Project, a variety of housing developments could be anticipated under
this alternative. Residential product types would be for sale and rent with a mix of
apartments, townhouses, and condominiums. Since the number of units would be reduced by
55 percent in comparison to the proposed Project, both the overall footprint and height of
residential buildings could be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project. Residential
buildings would include low -rise townhouses and 4- and 5 -story apartments or condominiums
featuring a range of floor plan sizes. Mid- to high -rise buildings are also envisioned at a
maximum height of 75 feet. This alternative would not include any high -rise towers up to 150
feet, as proposed under the proposed Project. The commercial component would include
neighborhood - serving retail and services.
As with the proposed Project, it is assumed that this alternative would include some improved
park space that would be available for public use. With the reduction in housing units, it is
anticipated that open space acreage could be increased relative to the proposed Project (as
shown in the conceptual plan, Figure 7 -3 of the Draft EIR). As shown in the conceptual
layout, approximately eight acres may be available for open space uses. It has not been
defined whether the entire open space area would be maintained privately and be available
to the public. In addition, public open space areas, private open space areas, and ancillary
amenities would be provided to serve residents and visitors, and paseo and walkway
connections would be provided onsite and to surrounding areas.
Phase 1
Phase 1 would include demolition of the Half Dome building and other associated site
improvements, including parking areas, landscaped and common areas, and other
hardscape improvements. Upon demolition, this phase would include the development of up
to 260 dwelling units and other associated site improvements, including parking areas, drive
aisles, walkways, landscaping, and common areas. The dwelling units could be
accommodated in low -, mid- or high -rise buildings or a mix of these building types. Phase 1
would also include up to 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving commercial uses and
likely improvements to a portion of the open space to serve as a neighborhood park,
available also for public use.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 61 of 103
Phase 2
Under Phase 2, the TowerJazz building, northern parking area, and other remaining site
improvements would be demolished to develop up to 301 dwelling units and other associated
site improvements, including parking areas, drive aisles, walkways, landscaping, and
common areas. The dwelling units could be accommodated within low -, mid- or high -rise
buildings, or a mix of these building types. Phase 2 would also include open space area that
could accommodate a neighborhood park, which would be available to the public.
Environmental Effects: In comparison to the proposed Project, the Reduced Density
Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, GHG, hazards, noise, public services,
recreation, traffic, and utilities and services. Average daily traffic trips would be reduced
approximately 54 percent (see Table 3). Since residential uses would still be included in Phase
1, it would not eliminate the significant impacts associated with resident incompatibility with
adjacency to the TowerJazz facility during an interim period. It would reduce these impacts,
however, because of both the reduction in units and increased distance to the TowerJazz
facility. Impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water
quality, and land use and planning would be similar to the proposed Project. It would not
eliminate any significant impacts of the proposed Project, and impacts to population and
housing would be considered greater than the proposed Project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: With the introduction of 561 residential units and
11,500 square feet of commercial uses as part of a mixed -use residential village, this alternative
would meet several of the project's objectives. It would be consistent with several of the goals
and policies of the General Plan for the Airport Area, and it would be consistent with the
minimum density of 30 du /acres prescribed by the ICDP. It would provide 11,500 square feet
commercial use (or potentially more), and therefore achieve the objective to provide retail
commercial to serve local residents, businesses, and visitors. Although fewer than the proposed
Project, this alternative would provide housing near jobs, supporting services, and pedestrian -
oriented amenities and would provide the phased transition from the existing use to the office
and residential uses. It would also provide several of the beneficial impacts of the proposed
Project, including implementing a WQMP. It is unlikely, however, that this alternative would be a
viable project that could yield a reasonable return on investment. The Project would only
develop 260 dwelling units in the first phase and overall would include over eight acres in open
space, which would not provide a direct return on investment. It is uncertain whether the return
from Phase 1 could support the development costs for Phase 2 or that development returns
could support the infrastructure and improvements costs required for the overall project.
Feasibility: This alternative is considered physically and environmentally feasible but may not
be economically feasible. The Project would only develop 260 dwelling units in the first phase
and overall would include over eight acres in open space, which would not provide a direct
return on investment. It is uncertain whether the return from Phase 1 could support the
development costs for Phase 2 or that development returns could support the infrastructure and
improvements costs required for the overall project.
Finding: While the Reduced Intensity Alternative would lessen some of the environmental
effects of the proposed Project, it would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 62 of 103
impacts. In addition, as with the proposed Project, it is anticipated that it would be
inconsistent with the AELUP, since it would be placing residential land uses within the
AELUP planning area. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed Project is
preferred over this alternative.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 63 of 103
B. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the
Final EIR for the Uptown Newport Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible
for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of
those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation
measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then
requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the
proposed Project. In making this determination the City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093 which provides as follows:
CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide
or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed Project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the
project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits,
including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal (sic)
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for,
and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency
finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave
significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of
the project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the
following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has
adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 64 of 103
examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project
objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons
discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings.
The Newport City of Beach City Council, the Lead Agency for this Project, and having
reviewed the Final EIR for the Uptown Newport Project, and reviewed all written materials
within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings,
adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the
Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its
decision to approve the Project.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
Although most potential Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as
described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some Project
impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures
were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the
measures, the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant.
The impacts and alternatives are described below and were also addressed in the Findings.
The EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project
Air Quality
Phase 1
EIR Impact 5.2 -2: Short -term construction emissions generated by the Uptown Newport
Project would result in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions that exceed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds during site
preparation activities (year 2014 for Phase 1 and year 2017 and 2018 for Phase 2) and when
construction activities of various phases overlap (year 2017 and 2018) and would
cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin
(SoCAB). Of the eight years of construction, project - related construction activities would only
exceed SCAQMD's threshold for three of those years because significant off -road equipment
use and haul trucks are not necessary during vertical building construction. Mitigation
Measure 2 -1 would reduce NOx generated by exhaust. Use of newer construction equipment
would reduce construction emissions onsite. However, onsite emissions in addition to offsite
emissions generated by haul trucks would generate substantial quantities of NOx and would
continue to exceed SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. Therefore, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Phase 2
Same significant and unavoidable impact for Phase 1 applies to Phase 2
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 65 of 103
Land Use
Phase 1
EIR Impact 5.9 -3: The Airport Land Use commission (ALUC) considered the Uptown Newport
Project at its hearing held on October 18, 2012 and voted to find the project inconsistent with
the Commission's Airport Environs Land use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA)
and AELUP for Heliports. Project approval would require a 2/3 vote by the City Council to
override this finding and this impact constitutes a significant, unavoidable impact of the
project. No mitigation measures are available that would reduce this impact to less than
significant. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Phase 2
Same significant and unavoidable impact for Phase 1 applies to Phase 2.
Noise
Phase 1
EIR Impact 5.10 -6: During Phase 1 development, construction activity would have the
potential to cause annoyance and interfere with activities of occupants at the nearby office
buildings adjacent to the project site and at the TowerJazz facility facing the construction
area. Because of the height of the office buildings adjacent to the project site, sound walls to
block the line of sight between construction activities and nearby offices would be infeasible.
Despite the application of mitigation measures, occupants at the offices. adjacent to the
project site would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction
activities, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Phase 2
EIR Impact 5.10 -6: The operation of heavy construction equipment during construction of
Phase 2 would result in high noise levels at the residential buildings constructed under Phase
1 and at office buildings adjacent to the project site. Because of the height of these buildings,
sound walls to block the line of sight between construction activities and nearby residents
and office occupants would be infeasible. Despite the application of mitigation measures,
nearby noise - sensitive uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during
construction activities, and this would remain significant and unavoidable.
In addition, the EIR evaluated four alternatives to the Project and analyzed whether these
alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable environmental impacts of the
proposed Project. While some of the alternatives could lessen or avoid some of the
unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project, some of the alternatives also resulted in
different and in some cases, increased environmental impacts, consequently, for the reasons
set forth in Section 6 of the Facts and Findings, none of the alternatives were determined to
be feasible:
No Project Alternative (Continuation of Existing Land Uses)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 66 of 103
• Hotel/Office /Commercial Alternative
• Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative
• Reduced Density Alternative
The City, after, considering the severity and duration of the unavoidable impacts balancing
the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits including region -wide or
statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed Project, has determined that the
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable
due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b)
and State CEQA Guideline Section 15093.
1. Park land dedication and improvements consistent with applicable State law and
Municipal Code provisions, including the dedication and improvement of over two (2)
acres of on -site public parkland. In addition, in -lieu park land fee will be available for
other areas within the City consistent with Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
2. Perpetual annual private maintenance of over two (2) acres of on -site public parks.
3. Improvement of private open space, including paseos and urban plazas that will be
accessible to the public and connect the Project and surrounding properties to promote
connectivity and pedestrian travel in the Airport Area.
4. Remediation of soil and groundwater contamination on the Property that has existed on-
site since the mid- 1980's.
5. Reduction in greenhouse gases generated within the Airport Area.
6. Reduction in electric, gas, water and sewer utility usage through the redevelopment of an
existing industrial manufacturing site into a residential mixed use project.
7. Reduction of urban runoff volumes and implementation of stormwater runoff water quality
facilities that will improve the quality of stormwater runoff exiting the Project and
ultimately entering the Newport Back Bay.
8. Construction of affordable housing units within the Project that will provide affordable
housing opportunities to Newport Beach residents.
9. Payment of a public benefit fee per residential dwelling unit developed as part of the
Project, including an annual adjustment to the public benefit fee based on the Consumer
Price Index ( "CPI ").
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 67 of 103
EXHIBIT D
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2011 -003
Consists of:
• Revised Planned Community Development Plan #15 (Koll Center Planned Community)
showing the removal (in strike t) of Industrial Site 1 (the Property) with all its
references, allowable land uses, and general development regulations including all
written text, maps and exhibits.
• Inclusion of a footnote to indicate the removal of Industrial Site 1 and all reference to it by
Ordinance No. of the City Council on
• No other change to the Koll Center Planned Community are recommended and it shall
remain in full force and effect.
Exhibit D is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development
Department.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 68 of 103
EXHIBIT E
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION PC2012 -001
Consists of:
• Draft Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan dated January 25, 2013,
which consists of the followings:
1. Land Use Development Standards & Procedures
2. Design Guidelines
3. Phasing Plan
Exhibit E is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development
Department.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 69 of 103
EXHIBIT F
REQUIRED FINDINGS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002
In accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative
Maps), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set for ft
Finding:
A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The Tentative Tract Map provides lot configurations consistent with the land uses,
densities and intensities of the proposed PCDP, the General Plan Land Use
designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -112) and the Airport Business Area
Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). MU -112 provides for horizontal
intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential,
vertical mixed -use buildings and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. Additionally,
the ICDP allocates up to 1,244 residential units and 11,500 square feet of retail to be
developed on the Property. Under the proposed Project, 632 units would be developed
as replacement units for redevelopment of the existing industrial uses, 290 additive
units would be allocated to the proposed Project in accordance with the City's General
Plan and the ICDP and 322 density bonus units would be authorized pursuant to
NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus), for a total of 1,244 residential units. The
proposed residential community also includes 11,500 square feet allocated for
neighborhood commercial uses and is therefore consistent with the intent of General
Plan and ICDP.
A -2. General Plan goal LU 2.1 seeks to accommodate uses that support the needs of City
residents including housing, retail, services, employment and recreation. The
Tentative Tract Map allows the development of a residential community, containing a
mix of housing types, supporting retail and active parklands, consistent with the
proposed PCDP, General Plan designation and ICDP, which encourage the
development of coordinated, cohesive mixed use projects in the Airport Area.
A -3. The Tentative Tract Map provides for the development of a cohesive planned
community with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly
environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial and office areas. A
network of paseos, open space and pedestrian walkways would be introduced into the
community to serve as connections between Project neighborhoods and provide
linkages to surrounding areas. Two one acre parks, as well as recreational open
space amenities, are proposed.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 70 of 103
A -4. The streets on the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the roadway
specifications of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways of the Circulation Element
of the General Plan. Traffic control measures are also included with the Uptown
Newport Planned Community to ensure proposed private roadways and City roadways
function as intended.
A -5. The Tentative Tract Map provides for the dedication of at least 8 percent of the gross
land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way), or 2.0 acres of neighborhood parks.
Phase 1 would include the dedication (the general public would have access to the
park during daytime hours) and improvement of a neighborhood park with a minimum
area of 1.3 acre and a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Phase 2 would include the
dedication and improvement of a neighborhood park with a minimum area of 1.02 acre
and a minimum dimension of 150 feet.
Finding:
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development
Facts in Support of Findinq:
B -1. Overall site topography can be characterized as relatively flat.
B -2. There are no known faults on or immediately adjacent to the Property
B -3. There are no geologic or physical constraints that would prevent the development of
the site at the density proposed, or require variances or deviations from the applicable
City development standards.
Finding:
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may
nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for
the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California
Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. No drainages traverse the Property and no potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands
areas are present on or immediately adjacent to the site..
C -2. No sensitive habitats, plant species or animal species were observed onsitelduring the
preparation of the EIR for the Project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 71 of 103
C -3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed Project will have
a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation
measures, with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
B. Air Quality — Short term construction - related emission for Phases 1 and 2 of the
project
C. Land Use - A determination of inconsistency with the John Wayne Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
D. Noise - Construction - related noise impacts for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the
project
C -4. The mitigation measures identified in the DEIR are feasible and reduce potential
environmental impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those
impacts identified above. The mitigation measures would be applied to the Project
through the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Finding:
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
Facts in Support of Finding: .
D -1. There are no known faults on or immediately adjacent to the Property.
D -2. The Project is conditioned to comply with all Building, Public Works and Fire Codes,
which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will
be required of the Applicant per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section
66411 of the Subdivision Map Act.
D -3. The Project's Phase 1 would generate an increase in Green House Gas ( "GHG ")
emissions onsite but would not exceed the proposed South Coast Air Quality
Management District per capita significance thresholds. At full build -out the Project
would result in a net decrease in GHG emissions.
D -4. Mitigation measures identified in the DEIR reduce potential impacts associated with
hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. No significant unavoidable
adverse impacts relating to hazards were identified in the DEIR.
D -5. While the north and northwest portions of the Property have soil and groundwater
impacted by volatile organic compounds, the areas have been the primary focus of
historical and ongoing soil and groundwater investigation and remediation activities
conducted under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 72 of 103
D -6. No residential uses are allowed without first providing regulatory signoff from RWQB.
Additionally residential uses will be setback a minimum of 200 feet from any
hazardous materials as stated in Mitigation Measure 7 -2 of the DEIR.
Finding:
E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it
finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these
easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of
property within a subdivision.
Facts in Support of Finding:
E -1. The Property contains existing public utilities easements that serve existing
development that will be removed over time. The design of the subdivision and the
type of improvements proposed present no conflict with these easements. Existing
easements will remain in their current designated locations or will be modified to be
substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
Finding:
F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act,
if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation
Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would
not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential
development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land.
Facts in Support of Finding:
F -1. The Property does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of
statewide importance and no portion of the Project site is covered by a Williamson Act
contract.
Finding:
G. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code: (1) There is an adopted specific plan for the area to be
included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed
land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 73 of 103
Facts in Support of Finding:
G -1. The Property is not located in a specific plan area.
Finding:
H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been
satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
H -1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the
California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and
cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach
Community Development Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan
check and inspection process.
Finding:
1. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and
Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional
housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service
needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1 -1. Of the total 1,244 residential units in the Project, between 102 and up to 369 units
would be set aside for affordable housing depending upon the target income group
being served. Affordable housing obligations will be met through the construction of
on -site affordable housing consistent with an approved Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan (AHIP).
Finding:
J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer
system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of Finding:
J -1. There is adequate sewer system capacity to serve the requirements of the proposed
Project. The Project's PCDP and phasing plan ensure adequate utility infrastructure is
provided per phase. The proposed Project would be able to tie into the existing sewer
system without adversely affecting the system or causing any water quality affects or
violating existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Wastewater from the project will be generated by residential and retail
commercial uses and at full buildout; there will be a significant reduction in wastewater
with the elimination of the existing semi - conductor manufacturing plant.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 74 of 103
Finding:
K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the
subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with
public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
K -1. The Project site is not located within the Coastal Zone.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 75 of 103
EXHIBIT G
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002
Note:
The following is a list of acronyms used in the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No.
17438:
• DA —Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003.
• EIR No. ER2012 -001- Uptown Newport Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse
Number 2010051094.
• MM — Mitigation Measure, project specific measures recommended by the DEIR and adopted as
Part of the approval of the project to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level
considered less than significant and stated at the end of a condition as a reference between the
condition and a mitigation measure recommended in the DEIR.
• MMRP — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the monitoring and reporting procedures
for the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and adopted as part of project approval pursuant
to Section 21081.6(a)(I) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
• NBMC— Newport Beach Municipal Code.
General Conditions
1. City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 is in conjunction with its
approval of Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003 for the same project (the
"DA "). Pursuant to Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the DA and the terms used therein that are
defined in Section 1 of the DA, the 'Term" of the DA becomes effective on the
"Effective Date" of the DA. Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 and the DA comprise parts
of a single integrated action and are not severable from one another. Accordingly,
notwithstanding any other provision set forth in Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 to the
contrary, in no event shall the owner, lessee, or other occupant or any person or entity
holding any interest in the subject property acquire any right to develop or use the
subject property as authorized or provided herein unless and until the Effective Date in
the DA occurs and the Term of the DA commences. In the event the DA is terminated
for any reason before the Effective Date of the DA occurs, including without limitation
as a result of the mutual termination of the DA by the Parties thereto, the occurrence
of an uncured material default under the DA by either Party and a termination of the
DA by the non - defaulting Party, or the failure of the Effective Date of the DA to occur
prior to the deadline set forth in the DA, as said deadline may be extended by mutual
agreement of the Parties to the DA, then in such event Tentative Tract Map No. 17438
automatically shall become null and void and of no further force or effect, without any
need or requirement for the City to schedule any public hearings or take any
affirmative action or actions to revoke or rescind the same.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 76 of 103
2. Notwithstanding any provision expressly or impliedly to the contrary, in the event of
any conflict or inconsistency between any of the terms or conditions of Tentative Tract
Map No. 17438 and the DA, the terms and conditions of the DA shall control. In the
event of any conflict or inconsistency between or among the conditions of Tentative
Tract Map No. 17438, the Director of Community Development shall determine the
controlling condition.
3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 19.40,
General Dedication Requirements.
4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair
Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and
Bridge Fee Program. Fair Share and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be
paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.40,
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO).
6. Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 shall expire 24 months from the date of approval
pursuant to NBMC Chapter 19.16.010, unless an extension is otherwise granted by the
City for the period of time provided for in the Development Agreement pursuant to the
provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6(a).
7. The development of the project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals
approved by the City and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
subject to modification by these Conditions of Approval.
8. Development of the project shall comply with the requirements of the Uptown Newport
Planned Community Development Plan and be in substantial conformance with the
approved Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 dated November 28, 2012, except as modified
by applicable conditions of approval and the DA.
9. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations,
damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties,
liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise
from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the City's approval of the Uptown
Newport Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the Tentative Tract Map
No.17438, Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan No. PC 2012 -001,
Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003, Traffic Study
No. TS2012 -005, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001,
Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003, and /or the City's related California
Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094), and the adoption of a Mitigation
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 77 of 103
Monitoring and Reporting Program and /or statement of overriding considerations
adopted for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to,
damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other
expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or
proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing
such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs,
attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification
provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand,
from time to time, any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification
requirements prescribed in this condition. The provisions herein shall not apply to the
extent such damage, liability or claim is caused by the willful misconduct or sole active
negligence of the City or the City's officers, officials, agents, employees, or
representatives.
10. The applicant shall comply with all project design features, mitigation measures, and
standard conditions contained within the approved MMRP of EIR SCH No.
2010051094 for the project.
11. The applicant shall have the sole obligation to fund or arrange funding for the
planning, design, engineering, construction, supervision, inspection and all other costs
associated with the site development, including construction of the two neighborhood
parks, paseos, pedestrian sidewalks, Class 1 bike trail along the project frontage along
Jamboree Road, and all public and private infrastructure, as further described in
subsequent conditions of approval, including but not limited to; streets, landscaped
parkways, water and sewer facilities, storm drains, and dry utilities to serve residential
and commercial development as identified in the Uptown Newport Planned
Community Development Plan.
12. New development within the project site shall be subject to the state - mandated school
fees and Santa Ana Unified School District Measure G and C general obligation taxes
based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses.
13. The project shall provide parkland and in -lieu fees in an amount consistent with
General Plan Policy LU6.15.13 and the Newport Beach Subdivision Code.
a. In accordance with Subdivision Code, the total Parkland Dedication
Requirement is 13.62 acres. This total acreage is based upon the parkland
dedication standard of 5 acres per 1,000 people established by Section
19.52.040, a total of 1,244 units authorized, and a 2010 Census population
standard of 2.19 persons per household.
b. A total of 2.05 acres of parkland shall be dedicated to the City consistent with
General Plan Policy LU6.15.13. The timing of dedication shall be corisistent
with Section 19.52.090 of the Subdivision Code.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 78 of 103
C. The proposed public park in Phase 1 shall be included in the first final map in
Phase 1 and the proposed public park in Phase 2 shall be included in the first
final map in Phase 2.
d. The residual parkland dedication requirement of 11.57 acres shall be satisfied
by the payment of fees in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the
Development Agreement.
14. N/A — Deleted.
15. N/A — Deleted.
16. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 2704.1.1 Amendment, no person shall
use or store any amount of extremely hazardous substances equal to or greater that
the disclosable amounts as listed in Appendix A, part 355, Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulation in a residential zone or adjacent to property developed with
residential uses.
17. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 903.2.8, an automatic sprinkler
system installed in accordance with California Fire Code Section 903.3 shall be
provided throughout all buildings.
18. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 907.2.9, a manual fire alarm system
that activates the occupant notification system shall be provided when any dwelling
unit or sleeping unit is located three or more stories above the lowest level of exit
discharge, or the building contains more than 16 dwelling or sleeping units.
19. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 906.1, 2A 10BC type fire
extinguishers shall be required and installed on each floor or level. Travel distance to
an extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet from any point in a building. Parking garages
shall be required to have a 2A 20BC located every 50 feet.
20. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 907.2.11.2, smoke alarms shall be
installed and maintained on the ceiling or wall outside of each separate sleeping area
in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms, in each room used for sleeping purposes, and
in each story within a dwelling unit. The smoke alarms shall be interconnected in such
a manner that the activation of one alarm will activate all of the alarms in the individual
unit. Smoke alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring and
shall be equipped with a battery backup.
21. The applicant shall provide required fire flow in accordance with Newport Beach Fire
Department Guideline B.01 "Determination of Required Fire Flow ".
22. Fire hydrants shall be provided, located and, installed as per California Fire Code and
Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline F.04.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 79 of 103
23. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided as per Newport Beach Fire Department
Guideline C.01. The fire apparatus road shall extend to within 150 feet of all
development, facilities, and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the
building. Minimum width of a fire access roadway shall be 20 feet, no vehicle parking
allowed. The width shall be increased to 26 feet within 30 feet of a hydrant, no vehicle
parking allowed. Parking on one side is permitted on 28 -foot wide streets. Parking on
two sides permitted on 36 -foot wide streets. No parking is permitted on streets
narrower than 28 feet in width. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.
24. The inside turning radius for an access road shall be 20 feet or greater. The outside
turning radius shall be a minimum of 40 feet (without parking.) Cul -de -sacs with
center obstruction shall require a larger turning radius as approved by the Newport
Beach Fire Department,
25. Fire lane signage shall be provided as per Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline
C -02.
26. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 510.1 Amendment, emergency
responder radio coverage shall be provided in buildings or structures that has more
than three stories above grade plane or any building or structure, regardless of the
number of stories, in which any single floor space exceeds 45,000 square feet, or any
building or structure containing a subterranean space of 250 square feet or more, or
any building or structure deemed likely to have diminished in- building communications.
The emergency responder radio coverage shall comply with the Newport Beach Fire
Department Guideline D.05 "Public Safety Radio System Coverage ".
27. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 905.3, standpipes shall be provided to
all buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet
above the lowest level of Fire Department vehicle access, or buildings where the floor
level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet below the highest level of Fire
Department vehicle access, or building that are two or more stories below the highest
level of Fire Department vehicle access.
28. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way.
29. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110 -L.
30. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by
the private construction, said damage shall be repaired and /or additional
reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the
Public Works Inspector.
31. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 80 of 103
32. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or
extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting
the development site shall be removed unless approved in conjunction with an
encroachment permit or encroachment agreement.
33. Internal roadways shall comply with Council Policy L -4:
a. 36 feet wide curb to curb with Parking on both sides
b. 32 feet wide curb to curb without Parking or parking on one side
34. Lots E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, U and R shall include a pedestrian and bicycle easement.
The existing meandering sidewalk within the easement area shall be reconstructed
consistent with City standard designs to provide a minimum 12 -foot wide public
sidewalk and bike path, prior to the issuance of first building permit.
35. Any modifications to the easterly half of Jamboree Road, including but not limited to
striping and median reconstruction requires approval from the City of Irvine.
36. Uptown Newport Sewer connections to private sewer located on Koll Site:
a. If there are existing easements and rights established between the two
properties, please note on the plans the easement recordation number for
reference.
b. Otherwise, Uptown Newport Project is required to obtain a letter from Koll Site
authorizing the new connections to the private sewer.
37. The applicant shall obtain a Private Sewer Easement from adjacent property for the
proposed sewer main which discharges towards Birch Street. If water or other utilities
are proposed to be routed through this same area, the applicant shall obtain a Private
Utilities Easement, instead.
38. Two new City of Newport Beach manholes are required on Birch Street for the
proposed sewer main if constructed:
a. One manhole per STD -401 -L to be installed adjacent to the property line.
b. One manhole per STD -401 -L to be installed on the main where it tie -in with the
existing City sewer line in Birch Street.
Prior to Final Map Approval
Note: Multiple final Tract maps may be prepared by the applicant and submitted for
approval by the City.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 81 of 103
39. Any inconsistency in the terms of the documents, maps or plans that establish, govern
or regulate the subdivision, zoning or development of the Uptown Newport project
shall be resolved by the Community Development Director.
40. Prior to Final Map approval the applicant shall obtain written verification of the
availability of sufficient water supply from the Irvine Ranch Water District consistent
with the requirements of Section 66473.7 (b) of the Subdivision Map Act.
41. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit for review by the Director of
Community Development and shall obtain City Attorney approval of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) prepared by an authorized professional and
which CC &Rs will be recorded concurrently with the Final Map and which will
generally provide for the following:
a. Creation of a Master Association, and /or Sub - associations, for the purpose of
providing for control over and maintenance at the expense of the Master
Association and /or Sub - associations of the two neighborhood parks and
common area improvements, which include, but are not limited, to the
followings unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works:
Jamboree Road parkway landscaping, internal project streets, sidewalks, paths,
drive aisles, neighborhood parks, common landscape areas and irrigation;
paseos and parkways /greenbelts; community walls and fencing; slopes; sewer
laterals, water laterals, common utilities not maintained by the utility provider
and drainage facilities.
b. A provision that all internal streets, sidewalks, common landscape areas,
paseos, parkways /greenbelts, walls and fencing within the tract, sewer and
water laterals, are private and shall be maintained by, and at the expense of,
the Master Association, or Sub - Association(s) unless otherwise approved by
the Director of Public Works.
C. A provision that all homeowners and residents will be provided, prior to
purchase closing or upon signing of rental agreement, the information and
requirements for water conservation pursuant to NBMC Chapter 14.16, Water
Conservation and Supply Level Regulations.
d. A provision that the Master Association shall be required to advise residents
that complaints about offensive odors may be reported to the City using online
tools on the City web site and /or to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District at 1- 800 - CUT -SMOG (1- 800 - 288 - 7664).
e. A provision that all appropriate written notifications shall be provided to all initial
and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within Uptown Newport project
notifying them that the area is subject to noise from existing land uses, traffic on
Jamboree Road, and construction of buildings within the project, and as a result
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 82 of 103
residents and occupants of buildings may experience inconvenience,
annoyance or discomfort arising from noise within the project.
f. A provision that the neighborhood parks within Uptown Newport project shall
have posted a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport
and related aircraft and noise.
g. A provision that all appropriate written notifications shall be provided to all initial
and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within Uptown Newport project
notifying them that the project is in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport and as a
result residents and occupants of buildings may experience inconvenience,
annoyance or discomfort arising from the noise resulting from aircraft operating
at or near the airport.
h. Information to be provided to future residents that uses and structures are
subject to the requirements of the approved Uptown Newport Planned
Community Development Plan.
Lots O and M as shown on Tentative Tract Map 17438 shall be offered for
dedication to the City of Newport Beach as a public park in perpetuity and
maintained by a Master Association, a Sub - Association and /or other approved
and appropriate agency, and that no structures, development or encroachment
shall be permitted within the designated park area except as shown on the Final
Map, approved Site Development Review, approved landscape and park
improvement plans, or as otherwise approved by the City.
Provisions that following recordation of each Final Map, each Association
formed for the subdivision shall submit to the Community Development Director
a list of all current Officers of the Association after each election.
k. A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC &Rs shall be
submitted for review to the Community Development Director or designee, and
shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the amendments being valid.
I. A provision that the City is a third -party beneficiary to the CC &Rs and has the
right, but not the obligation, to enforce any of the provisions of the CC &Rs.
M. An agreement between the applicant and the Association that on an annual
basis by June 1 of each year reports will be furnished to the Public Works
Director in compliance with the reporting requirements of codes and ordinances
adopted by the City with respect to the NPDES program.
42. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall reflect on the Final Map or prepare
separate instruments to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director all public access
easements, deed restrictions or other instruments including but not limited to those
providing for permanent public access to the neighborhood parks, common open
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 83 of 103
space areas, paseos, internal streets and walkways and those providing City access
for maintenance of storm drains or any public infrastructure.
43. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit a park and open space
management plan for approval by the Director of Community Development, for the
long term funding and management of Lots E through BB on Tentative Tract Map
17438 that contain neighborhood parks, paseos, common open space areas, and
streets /paths /drive aisles within Uptown Newport Planned Community Development
Plan. The park and open space management plan shall identify all entities
responsible for ownership, management and maintenance of these areas and their
credentials which qualify the entity as capable of management and maintenance of
these areas and able to implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in the
MMRP. The park and open space management plan shall specify the timeline for
commencement of implementation of the management plan by the management entity
for these areas. Approval by the City of the long term management plan is a condition
precedent to recordation of a final map. The park and open space management plan
shall include but not be limited to identification of funding, management
responsibilities, and maintenance activities in perpetuity for the neighborhood parks,
paseos, common open space areas, and streets within Uptown Newport Planned
Community Development Plan.
44. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable development
and Final Map fees associated with but not limited to Community Development
Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney review of CC &Rs, map and
plan check, hydrology review, geotechnical and soils reports review, park
improvement plan review, grading plan review, traffic and transportation, and
construction inspection.
45. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Director for review and shall obtain City Attorney approval of, a buyer's
notification disclosure form, to be given to all buyers and residents upon purchase
closing, which indicates the location, if applicable, notification of potential exposure to
soil and groundwater contamination, nuisances, noise, risk of upset and hazards,
and /or objectionable odors of continued TowerJazz operation.
46. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide separate labor and
material improvement bonds or irrevocable letters of credit in a form and amount
acceptable to the Director of Public Works for 100% of estimated improvement cost,
as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Director of Public
Works, for each of the following, but not limited to, public and private improvements
separately:
Street improvements, monuments, sidewalks, striping and signage, neighborhood park
improvements, street lights, sewer systems, water systems, storm drain and water
quality management systems, erosion control, landscaping and irrigation in public
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 84 of 103
rights of way, common open space areas accessible by the public, and off -site
improvements required as part of the project.
Prior to Recordation of Final Map
Note: Multiple Final Maps may be prepared by the applicant and submitted for approval
by the City.
47. All Tract Maps shall be recorded. All Maps shall be prepared on the California
coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer
preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach
a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337
of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual,
Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall
comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted.
48. Prior to recordation of any Tract map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall
tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the
County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the
Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle
18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless
otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in
place if installed prior to completion of construction project.
49. Prior to recordation of any Final Map, the applicant shall submit for review and shall
obtain the Public Works Director approval of applicable utility maintenance easements
for water, electric, telephone as required for the Final Map to the benefits of utility
companies.
50. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall show all easements proposed
to be granted to the City of Newport Beach (ie. over roads for utilities, ingress and
egress, pedestrian easements adjacent to internal streets)
51. Prior to recordation of the Final Map of any portion of the project site, the applicant
shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for the following as identified
on Tentative Tract Map No. 17438:
a. Neighborhood parks
b. Easements for public access to common open space areas, public paseos,
walkways and internal streets.
52. Prior to recordation of the Final Map of any portion of the project site, the Master Site
Development Plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 85 of 103
Prior to Issuance of Demolition or Grading Permits
53. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall pay any unpaid City
administrative costs and unpaid costs incurred by City retained consultants associated
with the processing of this application to the City.
54. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall pay all applicable City fees
which may include but are not limited to map and plan check, water connection, sewer
connection, hydrology review, geotechnical and soils reports review, grading plan
review, traffic and transportation, and construction inspection.
55. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all existing survey monuments are
located in the field in compliance with AB 1414 for restoration by the Registered Civil
Engineer or Land Surveyor in accordance with Section 8771 of the Business and
Professions Code.
56. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the limits of grading shown on Tentative Tract
Map No. 17438 must be verified by a Geotechnical Engineer. Grading shall not be
permitted to extend beyond the limits as indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17438
without approval of the Community Development Director.
57. Prior to issuance of grading permits a list of "good housekeeping" practices, consistent
with the approved Water Quality Management Plan, shall be submitted by the
contractor for incorporation into the long -term post- construction operation of the site to
minimize the likelihood that pollutants would be used, stored, or spilled on the site that
could impair water quality. The WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-
structural BMPs. In addition the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for
the long term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable
treatment - control) BMPs.
58. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit documentation in a
form and of a content determined by the Community Development Director that any
hazardous contaminated soils or other hazardous materials removed from the project
site shall be transported only by a Licensed Hazardous Waste Hauler to approved
hazardous materials disposal site, who shall be in compliance with all applicable State
and federal requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations
under 49 CFR (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standards, and under 40 CFR 263 (Subtitle C of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act). The Director of Community Development shall verify that only Licensed
Haulers who are operating in compliance with regulatory requirements are used to
haul hazardous materials.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 86 of 103
59. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Community Development Director
shall review the grading plan for conformance with the grading shown on the approved
tentative map. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils
engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City.
Grading plans shall indicate all areas of grading, including remedial grading, and shall
extend to the limits outside of the boundaries of an immediate area of development as
required by the City. Grading shall be permitted within and outside of an area of
immediate development, as approved by the City, for the grading of public roads,
highways, park facilities, infrastructure, and other development - related improvements.
Remedial grading for development shall be permitted within and outside of an
immediate development area, as approved by the City, to adequately address
geotechnical or soils conditions. Grading plans shall provide for temporary erosion
control on all graded sites scheduled to remain unimproved for more than 30 days.
60. If the applicant submits a grading plan that deviates from the grading shown on the
approved tentative map (specifically with regard to slope heights, slope ratios, pad
elevations or configurations), as determined by the Community Development Director,
the Community Development Director shall review the plan for a finding of substantial
conformance. If the Community Development Director finds the plan not to be in
substantial conformance, the applicant shall process a revised tentative map or, if a
final map has been recorded, the applicant shall process a new tentative map. A
determination of CEQA compliance shall also be required.
61. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit project
site disturbance, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach Police
Department that a construction security service or equivalent service shall be established
at the construction site along with other measures, as identified by the Police and the
Public Works Departments, to be instituted during the grading and construction phase of
the project.
62. Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits the applicant shall submit for review
and approval by the Municipal Operations Department Director, a 1" =200' Utilities
Master Plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer consistent with the Uptown
Newport Master Development Plans showing all existing and proposed public and
private sewer pump stations, force mains, laterals, mains and manholes, domestic
water service facilities including gate and butterfly valves, pressure reducing stations,
pressure zones, fire hydrants, meters, storm drain facilities to include storm drain
mains, laterals, manholes, catch basins, inlets, detention and retention basins, water
quality basins and energy dissipaters, outlets, pipe sizes, pipe types fiber optics,
electricity, gas and telephone /telecommunications and any other related facilities as
identified by the Municipal Operations Department Director. The Master Utilities Plan
shall provide for the following:
a. All public utilities shall be constructed within dedicated public rights of way
and /or easements or as approved by the Public Works Director.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 87 of 103
b. The water quality infiltration basins within the neighborhood parks on Lots O
and M shall be constructed, offered for dedication to the City as part of the
neighborhood parks, and upon acceptance by the City, and shall be privately
maintained by the entity identified in the open space management plan.
63. Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits, the applicant shall submit a
construction management and delivery plan for each phase of construction to be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Upon approval of the plan, the
applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set
forth in the approved plan. The construction management plan shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
a. Construction phasing plan.
b. Parking plan for construction vehicles and plan for equipment storage.
C. Construction area traffic management plan for the project for the issuance of a
haul route permit. The traffic management plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer. The traffic management plan shall identify construction phasing
and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other
disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The traffic management
plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site,
the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas,
and parking areas for the project. Advanced written notice of temporary traffic
disruptions shall be provided to emergency service providers and the affected
area's businesses and the general public. This notice shall be provided at least
two weeks prior to disruptions. Haul operations shall be monitored by the
Department of Public Works, and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic
congestion problems arise. A staging area shall be designated on -site for
construction equipment and supplies to be stored during construction.
d. A construction and equipment staging area shall be identified within the project
and shall be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize potential
unsightly conditions.
e. A construction fencing plan to include installation of a six - foot -high screen and
security fence to be placed around the construction site during construction.
f. A 24 hour hotline number shall be provided and conspicuously posted at all
construction sites for complaints or questions regarding construction activities.
g. Construction mitigation measures as required by the MMRP.
h. A statement that all grading and construction shall comply with NBMC Section
10.28.040 (Noise Ordinance).
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 88 of 103
A statement requiring construction contractors to sweep paved roads within and
adjacent to the project site if visible soil materials are carried to the streets.
Street sweepers or roadway washing trucks shall comply with SCAQMD Rule
1186 and shall use reclaimed water if available.
A statement to be provided to all construction contractors that requires all
construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short -term
emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant
emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive
dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of
such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of
the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the
contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control
Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include,
but are not limited to, the following:
i. Clearing and grubbing: Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent
generation of dust plumes.
ii. Cut and fill: Pre -water soils prior to cut and fill activities and stabilize soil
during and after cut and fill activities.
iii. Earth- moving activities: Pre -apply water to depth of proposed cuts; re-
apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to
ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and
stabilize soils once earth- moving activities are complete.
iv. Importing /exporting of bulk materials: Stabilize material while loading to
reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at least six inches of freeboard on
haul vehicles; and stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive
dust emissions.
V. Stockpiles /bulk material handling: Stabilize stockpiled materials; stockpiles
within 100 yards of off -site occupied buildings must not be greater than 8
feet in height, must have a road bladed to the top of the pile to allow water
truck access, or must have an operational water irrigation system that is
capable of complete stockpile coverage.
64. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the
Construction General Permit and submit the above to the State Water Quality Control
Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The applicant shall
provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing
with the State Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall detail measures and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 89 of 103
practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on
water quality.
65. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the
approval of the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works.
The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure
that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur.
The WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection,
maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control)
BMPs.
Prior to Issuance of Demolition and Building Permits
66. Prior to the issuance of building permits within each development phase of the project,
the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a
"No Further Action" (NFA) declaration or a Letter of Allowance for residential
construction for the portion of the site being developed.
67. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of residential and
commercial uses, the applicant shall pay the required Property Excise Tax to the City
of Newport Beach, as set forth in its Municipal Code ( §3.12 et seq.) for public
improvements and facilities associated with the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, and City of Newport Beach
public parks.
68. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall obtain approval of a plan
stating that water for firefighting purposes and an all weather fire access road shall be
in place before any combustible materials are placed on site. Fire access roads shall
be designed to support the 75,000 pound load of fire apparatus for year round weather
conditions.
69. Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit, the applicant shall submit for
review and shall obtain the approval of the Community Development Director, plans
indicating the location and type of unit address lighting to be installed.
70. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable fees to the
Santa Ana Unified School District Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California
Government Code Payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete
mitigation of school impacts.
71. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, testing for all structures for presence of
lead -based paint (LBP) and /or asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) shall be
completed. The Asbestos - Abatement Contractor shall comply with notification and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 90 of 103
asbestos removal procedures outlined in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (SCAQMD's) Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos - related air quality health risks.
SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any demolition or renovation activity and the
associated disturbance of ACMs. This requirement shall be included on the
contractors' specifications and verified by the Director of Community Development. All
demolition activities that may expose construction workers and /or the public to ACMs
and /or LBP shall be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including,
but not limited to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subchapter R
(Toxic Substances Control Act); CalOSHA regulations (Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations §1529 [Asbestos] and §1532.1 [Lead]); and SCAQMD Rule 1403
(Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities). The requirement to
adhere to all applicable regulations shall be included in the contractor specifications,
and such inclusion shall be verified by the Community Development Director prior to
issuance of a demolition permit.
72. Prior to issuance of applicable building permits, the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Community Development for review and approval, architectural plans and
an accompanying noise study that demonstrates that interior noise levels in the
habitable rooms of residential units due to exterior transportation noise sources would
be 45 dBA CNEL or less. Where closed windows are required to achieve the 45 dBA
CNEL limit, project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the
California Building Code.
71 Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1, a detailed acoustical study based on
architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and
submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The
study shall demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior
noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas
(playgrounds, parks, and swimming pools). The necessary noise reduction may be
achieved by implementing noise control measures at the TowerJazz facility and at the
receiver locations, as described in detail in the Technical Memorandum provided by
Wilson Ihrig and Associates (Appendix J of the FEIR).
74. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, a detailed acoustical study based on
architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and
submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The
study shall demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior
noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas
(playgrounds, parks, and swimming pools). The necessary noise reduction may be
achieved by implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations. The final
grading and building plans shall incorporate the require noise barriers (patio
enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall /berm), and the property owner /developer
shall install these barriers and enclosures.
75. Prior to issuance of applicable building permits, the applicant shall submit for review
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 91 of 103
and approval by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, development plans for
the incorporation of defensible space.concepts to reduce demands on police services.
Public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans.
The applicant shall prepare a list of project features and design components that
demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts.
76. Prior to the issuance of building permits plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director to include requirements that all contractor
specifications include a note that architectural coatings shall be selected so that the
VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113.
77. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit for review and
approval by the Community Development Director building plans designed to meet or
exceed all State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Newport Beach codes in
effect at the time of application for building permits. Commonly referred to as Title 24,
these standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the
use of energy- efficient building standards, including ventilation; insulation;
construction; and the use of energy- saving appliances, conditioning systems, water
heating, and lighting. Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes or
calculations demonstrating compliance with energy standards.
78. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any residential, commercial, or park and
recreation use, the applicant shall provide evidence satisfactory to the Fire
Department that adequate permanent or temporary fire protection facilities are in place
on the job site and are tested prior to placing any combustible material on the job site.
79. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2, evidence of the right to use
the Birch Street easement acceptable to the City Attorney shall be provided.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy
80. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential unit, the applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department
that the following disclosures and emergency notification procedures /programs are in
place:
a. Disclosure to potential Uptown Newport residences that hazardous chemicals
are used and stored at the adjacent TowerJazz facility.
b. Inclusion of property manager or authorized representative of the Uptown
Newport residential community to the emergency notification list of the
TowerJazz Business Emergency Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 92 of 103
C. Program to inform /train the property manager or authorized representative of
the Uptown Newport residential community in emergency response and
evacuation procedures and to incorporate ongoing coordination between the
Uptown Newport representative and TowerJazz to assure proper action in the
event of an accident at the facility (shelter in place and /or evacuation routes).
d. Update TowerJazz emergency alarm system to include concurrent notification
to Uptown residents of chemical release. Provisions of the alarm system and
emergency notification procedure shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Newport Beach Fire Department.
81. Prior to issuance of certificate of use and occupancy for any residential or commercial
use within each phase, the applicant shall complete construction of all applicable
roadways, parkways, median and median landscaping, sidewalks, intersection street
lights, signage and utilities including but not limited to water, water quality
management, sewer, storm drain, fiber optics, gas, electricity, telephone and
telecommunications necessary to serve the use and the above facilities shall be
operational to serve the use, the extent of which shall be determined by the Public
Works and Municipal Operations Departments.
82. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for residential dwelling units
within Lots 1 and 15 of Phase 1, i) the improvements to the neighborhood park in
Phase 1 (Lot O) shall be completed by the applicant, and ii) the CC &Rs, irrevocable
offer of dedication, access easements, or other instruments providing for public access
and use of the park facilities in perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the
park facilities for public use, shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
83. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for residential dwelling units
within Lots 12 and 14 of Phase 2, i) the improvements to the neighborhood park in
Phase 2 (Lot M) shall be completed by the applicant, and ii) CC &Rs, irrevocable offer
of dedication, access easements, or other instruments providing for public access and
use of the park facilities in perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the park
facilities for public use, shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development.
84. Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy the applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that applicable street
name signs have been installed.
85. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for any sales center or
model home complex, the applicant shall complete construction of roadway
improvements adequate to serve the sales center or model home complex to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community
Development.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 93 of 103
86. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy for any residential,
commercial, or retail use in the project all applicable master infrastructure
improvements identified in the Final SWPPP and WQMP including debris basins, bio-
swales, energy dissipaters, drainage pipes, water quality basins and other
improvements shall be constructed and the applicant shall provide all necessary
dedications, deed restrictions, covenants or other instruments for the long term
maintenance of the facilities in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Public
Works.
87. Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy for any residential,
commercial, or park and recreation use, fire hydrants shall be installed and tested.
Subdivision Improvement Plans
88. All subdivision improvement plans shall identify the use of best management practices
(BMPs) for erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, storm water and
non -storm water management, and waste management /pollution control. The BMP's
identified for implementation shall demonstrate that potential effects on local site
hydrology, runoff, and water quality remain in compliance with all required permits,
City policies, and the Project's Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
89. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite
improvements within each development phase to permanent line and grade in
accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.24 (Subdivision Design), with the exception of the
deviations from this Chapter as described on TTM No. 17438 and approved by the
Public Works Director.
90. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite
improvements within each development phase to permanent line and grade in
accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.28 (Subdivision Improvement Requirements), with
the exception of the deviations from this Chapter as described on TTM No. 17438 and
approved by the Public Works Director.
91. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite
improvements witin each development phase to permanent line and grade in
accordance with Chapter 19.32(Improvement Plans).
92. Approval of improvement plans shall in no way relieve the applicant or the applicant's
engineer of responsibility for the design of the improvements or from any deficiencies
resulting from the design, nor from compliance with any tentative map condition of
approval.
93. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite
improvements within each development phase to permanent line and grade in
accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.36 (Completion of Improvements).
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 94 of 103
94. All new utility lines to serve the project shall be installed in underground trenches
95. Intersection design shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and comply with
City's sight distance standards.
96. All subdivision improvement plans shall include the use of light emitting diode (LED)
lights for street lights.
97. All subdivision improvement plans shall conform to the following Fire Department
requirements:
a. Detailed plans of underground fire service mains shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to installation. These plans shall be a separate
submittal to the Fire Department,
b. Blue hydrant identification markers shall be placed with new hydrants.
C. All weather access roads designed to support the 75,000 pound imposed load
of fire apparatus for year round weather conditions shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during time of construction for emergency personnel.
d. Fire apparatus access roads designed to support the 75,000 pound imposed
load of fire apparatus for year round weather conditions shall be maintained
and identified as per Newport Beach Guideline C.01 Emergency Fire Access
and C.02 Fire Lane Identification.
e. All security gates shall have knox locks for after hours emergency personnel
access to the construction site.
98. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community
Development that the Project CC &Rs have been approved by the City Attorney and
the appropriate Association(s) has been formed.
99. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all permanent survey monuments
damaged or destroyed during construction are restored.
100. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all street improvements damaged
during construction have been repaired or replaced.
101. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall submit as -built plans
prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer depicting all street, traffic signal, sewer,
water, and storm drain improvements and street signage and signage placements,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 95 of 103
traffic markings and painted curbing, and all other required improvements shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
102. Prior to the release of financial security, all domestic water and sewer systems shall
be fully tested in the presence of a City staff representative, to verify system
performance in accordance with design specifications.
103. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall execute an agreement to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community
Development which designates the maintenance responsibilities for all landscaping
and irrigation systems in the Project.
104. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall submit as -built plans at an
appropriate scale to the Recreation and Senior Services Director showing as -built
neighborhood park improvements and paseos.
105. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Municipal Operations Department Director that all underground
public utilities necessary for the construction of residential, park, retail or commercial
uses within each development phase to proceed as indicated on Tentative Tract Map
No. 17438 have been completed in accordance with the approved Utilities Master Plan
and that the as -built plans for said improvements, prepared by a Registered Civic
Engineer have been submitted and approved by the Director of the Municipal
Operations Department.
106. Consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.16, the amount of any credit against in-
lieu of parkland dedication fees for recreational facilities within Public Recreational
Open Space Areas (e.g. paseos) shall be based on the degree to which recreational
facilities complement existing or proposed public park facilities serving the subdivision,
as determined by the Community Development Director and the degree to which
recreational facilities within the proposed paseos reduce the burden on existing or
proposed public park facilities serving the subdivision. In no case shall the total credit
exceed 30% of the Parkland Dedication Requirement.
107. Any document required to be recorded by the terms of these conditions shall be prior
and superior to any monetary encumbrance of the project site except for non -
delinquent general and special real property taxes and assessments.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 96 of 103
EXHIBIT H
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002
Exhibit H is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development
Department or at hftp : / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2029
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 97 of 103
EXHIBIT I
REQUIRED FINDINGS
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -005
In accordance with NBMC Section 15.40.030 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), the following
findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter
and Appendix A [NBMC Chapter 15.30],
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. A traffic study, entitled Uptown Newport Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc., May 2012 and revised in November 2012, were prepared
for the Project in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing
Ordinance and Appendix A).
Finding:
B. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the
traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) [NBMC Section
15.40.030. B. 2] can be made.
Section 15.40.030.B.2 states:
The project is a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation System
Improvement Plan with construction of all phases not anticipated to be complete within
sixty (60) months of project approval; and
a. The project is. subject to a development agreement which requires the
construction of or contributions to, circulation improvements early in the
development phasing program, and
b. The traffic study contains sufficient data and analysis to determine if that portion
of the project reasonably expected to be constructed and ready for occupancy
within sixty (60) months of project approval satisfies the provisions of
subsections (B)(1)(a) or (B)(1)(b), and
C. The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan are not made
inconsistent by the impact of project trips (including circulation improvements
designed to mitigate the impacts of project trips) when added to the trips
resulting from development anticipated to occur within the City based on
the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 98 of 103
d. The project is required, during the sixty (60) month period immediately after
approval, to construct circulation improvement(s) such that:
(1) Project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of
traffic service at any impacted primary intersection for which there is a
feasible improvement,
(2) The benefits resulting from circulation improvements constructed or
funded by, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a
traffic mitigation study made by, the project proponent outweigh the
adverse impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for
which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if
implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (8)(1)(b).
In balancing the adverse impacts and benefits, only the following
improvements and /or contributions shall be considered with the greatest
weight accorded to the improvements and /or contributions described in
subparagraphs (a) or (b):
a. Contributions to the preparation of, and /or implementation of
some or all of the recommendations in, a traffic mitigation study
related to an impacted primary intersection that is initiated or
approved by the City Council,
b. Improvements, if any, that mitigate the impact of project trips at
any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no
feasible improvement(s) that, if implemented, would fully satisfy
the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (l3)(1)(b),
C. Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any
impacted primary intersection in the vicinity of the project,
d. Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any
impacted primary intersection operating, or projected to operate,
at or above 0.80 ICU; and
(3) The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal finds, by
the affirmative vote of five - sevenths (517) of the members eligible to vote,
that this chapter is inapplicable to the project because the project will
result in benefits that outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact
on the circulation system.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the Traffic
Study, mitigation measures, and the conditions of approval, all of the findings for
approval in Section 15.40.030.8.2 can be made.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 99 of 103
B -2. Phase 1 is projected to generate an additional 5,012 daily trips, 317 during the AM
peak hour and 443 during the PM peak hour. At the project's build -out (Phase 2), the
Project generates 8,286 daily trips, 542 during the AM peak hour and 727 during the
PM peak hour. The Project would shift traffic patterns to and from the site as the
Project involves a shift from office and industrial development to residential uses. The
Project will consist of primarily residential uses, which will have reverse traffic patterns
from existing uses at the site. As the result, while the proposed project results in an
overall increase in daily trips, there would be a reduction of trips on some intersection
movements and an increase on others in each of the morning and evening peak
hours. The net new trips to be added (or subtracted due to the shift from employment
to residential) to the street system does not result in any significant impacts to the
studied intersections and segments.
B -3. The Project design provides for primary and secondary ingress and egress from
Jamboree Road, but also includes a third access drive to and from Birch Street,
utilizing a non - exclusive access easement established by an express grant of
easement recorded in 1978.
B -4. The proposed Project meets the requirements for a Comprehensive Phased Land Use
Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan as the Project is subject to a
Development Agreement and conditions of approval that require the construction of, or
contributions to, circulation improvements early in the development phasing program.
B -5. The complete Project is not anticipated to be completed within five years approval.
The Traffic Study analyzed Phase 1, which is expected to be completed by 2018.
Phase 2 of the Project is anticipated to commence in 2017 and be completed in 2021
or later, and therefore requires a separate traffic analysis at a later date prior to
recordation of final maps or building permits for Phase 2. The Traffic Study found the
Project would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase 1 Project
trips at the study intersections.
B -6. The Traffic Study and FEIR analyzed intersections projected to exceed the Level of
Service ( "LOS "), which is a "D" standard except certain designated intersections within
the airport area shared with the City of Irvine that permit LOS "E."
B -7. Intersection peak hour traffic conditions were evaluated for Year 2018 (existing plus
growth plus committed projects) both without and with Phase 1 traffic. The Traffic
Study found that the following intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of
service both without and with Project Phase 1:
Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F)
All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS in both peak hours.
B -8. The DEIR and Traffic Study found the addition of Project traffic would not cause
additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable LOS, and the Project would not
result in a significant impact at any study intersection.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 100 of 103
B -9. The proposed Project does not result in an inconsistency between the Land Use
Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan by the impact of project trips
(including circulation improvements designed to mitigate the impacts of project trips)
when added to the trips resulting from development anticipated to occur within the City
based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Code. The
development included in the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan.
B -10. Transportation and traffic impacts would be mitigated to less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Finding:
C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the
contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with
all conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. Concept plans depicting the recommended street improvements are included in the
resolution of approval and conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map for the
proposed Project. The Project also will be responsible for the payment of Fair Share
fees in accordance with Chapter 15.32 that will be used to fund future planned
improvements to the circulation system. Additionally, the Project will be required to pay
any applicable fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 101 of 103
EXHIBIT J
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -005
Exhibit J is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development
Department.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 102 of 103
EXHIBIT K
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2012 -001
Exhibit K is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development
Department.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908
Page 103 of 103
EXHIBIT L
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2012 -003
Exhibit L is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development
Department.