Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 - Uptown Newport Planned Community�EWPO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 10 February 26, 2013 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt(a)newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner APPROVED: TITLE: Uptown Newport Planned Community 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road (PA2011 -134) ABSTRACT: A proposed mixed -use residential planned community on 25.05 -acre project site for the development of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail use, and two acres of public park space. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2013 -21 (Attachment No. CC1) certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094); 3) Adopt Resolution No. 222 (Attachment No. CC2) adopting the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 4) Adopt Resolution No?01 3-23 (Attachment No. CC3) overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission determination that the proposed Uptown Newport Planned Community is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport; 5) Introduce Ordinance No2013- 5(Attachment No. CC4) approving Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003 to remove the subject property from the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, and Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001 to establish the allowable land uses, general development regulations, and implementation and administrative procedures, which would serve as 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 and pass to second reading for adoption on March 12, 2013; 1 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 2 6) Adopt Resolution No. 2013-24 (Attachment No. CC5) approving Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002, Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005, and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001 to allow the construction of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail commercial, and 2.05 acres of park space in two separate construction phases; and 7) Introduce Ordinance Nozo13- Attachment No. CC6) approving Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003 and pass to second reading for adoption on March 12, 2013. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: Project Setting The subject property is located within the Airport Area and approximately 25.05 acres in size. The property is currently developed with two office /industrial buildings that are being leased to TowerJazz Semiconductor. The northernmost building located at 4321 Jamboree Road ranges from 40 to 50 feet in height and 311,452 square feet in size. The southernmost "Half Dome" building located at 4311 Jamboree Road, is approximately 25 feet in height and 126,675 square feet in size. A Southern California Edison (SCE) substation is located at the southwest corner of the property and it presently serves the existing industrial uses. The balance of the site is developed with landscaping and surface parking lots. Vehicular access to the project site is provided by two driveways from Jamboree Road (one signalized) and one driveway from Birch Street. 2 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 3 GENERAL VICINITY MAP i Costa Mesa / John Wayne �® C Airport o, Irvine Newport Beach `- > �� ,♦,, San Diego Creek Chan�1� %% UC Irvine 3 11 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 4 J NO Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 5 Background The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area outside the high noise levels from John Wayne Airport. The MU -H -2 allows a maximum of 2,200 residential units as replacement of existing office, retail, and /or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre. A total of 550 of these units are identified as "additive" units meaning they are not replacement units. These 550 units may be constructed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area (east of MacArthur Boulevard), as depicted on Figure LU22 Airport Area of the Land Use Element. The Conceptual Development Plan Area has strong potential for the introduction of new residential development and is further identified in Figure LU23 Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram. Figures LU22 and LU23 are shown on page 7 of the staff report. In September of 2010, the City approved the Koll - Conexant Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which provides a framework for the redevelopment of the 25- acre subject site (formally known as Conexant), and for the redevelopment of a 15 -acre portion of the 75 -acre Koll Center Newport office park with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with the existing office buildings and parking structures. The ICDP allocates a total of up to 1,504 new residential units: 1,244 of which are planned and could be developed on the Uptown Newport property and the remaining 260 on the adjacent Koll property. All 260 residential units on the Koll site would be additive units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the project site, 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses; the remaining 290 units would be additive. Also, the applicant has the ability to construct up to 322 density bonus units, in conjunction with the construction of affordable housing units. Together, the Uptown Newport and Koll properties would use all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the Conceptual Development Plan area. The ICDP is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer - grained network of pedestrian - friendly streets. The ICDP also establishes the direction for each of the property owners to separately prepare and submit regulatory plans for City action. N 0 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN o c e � o .U.Kr AWA AO 0 0 e vs o COL J / MIAI$ A •O ' o� f 111 ` coo Airport Area Integrated Conceptual �� ll Development Plan Uptown Newport ZONING nil PC ISJ LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE MU-H2 (Mxed-U se IKoll Office /Industrial 2) CenitertNewport PC) NORTH MU -H2 PC 15 Office Developments SOUTH UCI North Campus UCI North Campus F UCI North Campus MU -H2 /UCI North Office /Commercial Developments EAST Campus PC15 & UCI North Campus & UCI North Campus WEST MU -H2 PC 15 Office Developments 9 10 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 7 11 12 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 8 Project Description The proposed Uptown Newport project removes the existing office and industrial uses in two phases to enable the construction of a mixed -use community consisting of 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving retail space, and approximately two acres of public park space. Residential product types would be for - sale and rental with a mix of townhomes, mid- and high -rise apartment or condominiums. Of the 1,224 housing units, between 102 and 369 units would be set aside for affordable housing. Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet in height, with several residential towers up to 150 feet high. Vehicular access to the site would be from Jamboree Road, Birch Street, and Von Karman Avenue. Phase 1 includes the demolition of the existing single -story "Half Dome" office building and development of the westerly portion of the property and the frontage along Jamboree Road. Phase 1 will include up to 680 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet of retail space, and would commence in 2013 and be completed in 2018. Phase 2 will include demolition of the existing TowerJazz manufacturing building, and development of the remaining 564 residential units on the easterly portion of the property. Timing for Phase 2 construction is contingent on the existing lease of the TowerJazz facility, which will expire in March 2017, but could be extended to March 2027 by TowerJazz. It is conservatively assumed that Phase 2 construction could commence as early as Spring 2017, with project build -out through the year 2021. The applicant, Shopoff Management, Inc., on behalf of Uptown Newport LP, is the master developer and would be responsible for the project implementation. The following City approvals are requested by the applicant in order to implement the project: • 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 Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 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 Planned Community, pursuant to Chapter 20.66 (Amendments) of the Municipal Code. 13 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 9 • 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 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 Housinq Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -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. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a study session on October 4, 2012, and public hearings on December 6, 2012, December 20, 2012, and February 7, 2013, to consider the proposed application. On February 7, 2013, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7 -0) recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approval of the proposed project to the City Council. The Planning Commission's resolution, staff reports and minutes of the study session, and public hearings are attached (Attachments CC7 through CC15). Environmental Review An FEIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR was released for a 45 -day public review and comment period between September 10, 2012, and October 24, 2012. The City received 26 comment letters from governmental agencies, regional organizations, and individuals. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, the City has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. Subsequent to the release of Draft EIR, revisions were made to address specific comments received from the Planning Commission, public agencies, and general public. The Revisions Section to the Draft EIR is located in the FEIR. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact N94i Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 10 not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. 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. The Planning Commission considered the revisions and determined that none of the material constituted significant new information nor are there any other circumstances that required recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under the CEQA Guidelines. 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 through the implementation of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts: • Air Quality — Short term construction - related emission for Phases 1 and 2 of the project • Land Use — A determination of inconsistency with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) (discussed below) • Noise — Construction - related noise impacts for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project The FEIR identified several project alternatives to reduce or avoid these significant impacts but the alternatives do not eliminate the impacts. The Planning Commission believes that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the identified significant environmental impacts considering the type of severity and duration of the impacts. The FEIR which consists of the Draft EIR together with the public comments, responses to comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, are attached as Attachments CC16 through CC18. Project Components 1. Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan Amendment The subject property is currently zoned Planned Community and subject to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) regulations. The site is designated Industrial Site 1 which allows light industrial, office, and commercial uses; and residential is not permitted. In order to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting an amendment to PC -15 to remove the property and all relevant development standards pertaining to Industrial Site 1 from the Koll Center Planned Community with the intent of creating a separate zoning document for Uptown Newport. The redlined PC -15 Planned Community Development Plan (Attachment No. CC19) contains the proposed deletions. 15 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 11 2. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan Adoption The draft Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) is intended to serve as the zoning document for the entire project. It establishes the allowable land uses, development regulations, and implementation and administrative procedures, consistent with the ICDP and in compliance with the PCDP requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The draft PCDP is composed of three parts: 1) Land Use Development Standards and Procedures, 2) Phasing Plan and 3) Design Guidelines (Attachments CC20 through CC22) and summarized below: Land Use Development Standards and Procedures: The Land Use Development Standards and Procedures document provides land use development regulations, site development standards, and planned community development plan implementation process. It requires a master site development plan that will require review and approval by the Planning Commission. The purpose of the master site development plan is to ensure that the infrastructure improvements including the two public parks are constructed and completed in a complete and cohesive manner consistent with the overall regulatory scheme. Additionally, the master site development plan will include prototypical building elevations consistent with the Design Guidelines. Subsequent to the adoption of the master site development plans by the Planning Commission, individual site development review applications will be submitted for individual buildings for review and approval by the Community Development Director. This process requires public notice and will occur prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Phasing Plan The Phasing Plan provides a detailed description of how the project development will occur in two phases including demolition, on -site improvements, and off -site improvements. It also re- affirms the role of the master developer in completing the master site improvements within each phase prior to individual buildings being constructed. Design Guidelines The Design Guidelines document identifies site planning principles, architectural guidelines, site development and infrastructure criteria, landscape design guidelines, and sign guidelines for the entire project. The Design Guidelines apply to all improvements including the two (2) public parks as well as individual residential buildings. 10 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 12 The Planning Commission focused a lot of attention to this document. In lieu of an architectural theme, the Commission required prototypical elevations to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of the master site development plan requirements. 3. Tentative Tract Map The proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 (Attachment CC23) divides the project site and creation of streets, parks, and individual building sites for the project. The Tentative Tract Map describes the subdivision of the project site into lots for public dedication, conveyance for financing purposes, and conveyance to future builders. The Tentative Tract Map also describes the plan for grading, roadways, infrastructure, and other public improvements to serve the subdivision consistent with the PCDP. Section 19.12.070 of the Municipal Code establishes findings that must be made in order to approve a tentative map. These findings and facts in support of findings are provided in Attachment CC5. The Planning Commission recommended an extensive list of conditions of approval to ensure consistency with other components of the proposed project and compliance with City policies and regulations. 4. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) of the Municipal Code requires a traffic study to be prepared and findings be made prior to issuance of building permits if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). The TPO traffic study differs from the cumulative traffic analyses in the EIR in that, typically, the TPO's focus is on conditions one year after project occupancy, or five years after project approval for larger projects that are not expected to be completed within five years. The entire Uptown Newport project is not anticipated to be completed within five years of approval. Therefore, the TPO analysis addresses only Phase 1 of the project since it is planned to be completed within the next five years. A separate TPO analysis for Phase 2 of the project will be required to prepare prior to the issuance of building permits within Phase 2. The analysis concludes that there is no significant impact to the studied intersections. While the proposed project increases in daily trips, there is a reduction of trips on some intersection movements and an increase on others in each of the morning and evening peak hours. Furthermore, the TPO requires findings that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the proposed project complies with the TPO. These findings and facts in support of findings are provided in Attachment CC5. The Planning Commission found the proposed traffic study is consistent with the TPO. 17 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 13 5. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan The Municipal Code requires the preparation of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) pursuant to Chapter 19.54 Inclusionary Housing and Chapter 20.32 Density Bonus. The purpose of the plan is to prescribe the project's obligation to provide affordable housing. The applicant has requested a 35 percent bonus density and the City is obligated to allow it provided the project includes the construction of certain amounts of affordable housing depending upon the income level targeted. The Planning Commission considered the proposed AHIP (Attachment CC24) that identified the affordable housing obligation, methods to meet affordability requirements, terms and restrictions, and phasing of the affordable housing production that the applicant is required to provide. The Planning Commission determined that proposed construction of affordable housing is consistent with Chapter 19.54 ( Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus). 6. Development Agreement General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.12 and ICDP require a development agreement for all projects that include infill residential units in the Airport Area. The proposed development agreement (Attachment CC25) between the applicant and the City describes the development rights and public benefits to be provided by the applicant. The agreement would vest the proposed project's development approvals to allow build -out of the project site under the development standards and requirements in place at the time of project approval. The proposed term of the agreement is 15 years, with two 5 -year extensions. The public benefits of the agreement include: • 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 "). • 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. RE Units Maximum Units allowed by the General Plan 922 35% Bonus Density 322 Affordable Housing Obligation: • Minimum Very Low Income (11 %), or 102 • Minimum Low Income (20%), or 185 • Minimum Moderate Income (40 %) 369 The Planning Commission considered the proposed AHIP (Attachment CC24) that identified the affordable housing obligation, methods to meet affordability requirements, terms and restrictions, and phasing of the affordable housing production that the applicant is required to provide. The Planning Commission determined that proposed construction of affordable housing is consistent with Chapter 19.54 ( Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus). 6. Development Agreement General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.12 and ICDP require a development agreement for all projects that include infill residential units in the Airport Area. The proposed development agreement (Attachment CC25) between the applicant and the City describes the development rights and public benefits to be provided by the applicant. The agreement would vest the proposed project's development approvals to allow build -out of the project site under the development standards and requirements in place at the time of project approval. The proposed term of the agreement is 15 years, with two 5 -year extensions. The public benefits of the agreement include: • 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 "). • 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. RE Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 14 • Perpetual private maintenance of over two (2) acres of on -site public parks. • 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. • Remediation of soil and groundwater contamination on the Property that has existed on -site since the mid- 1980's. • Reduction in greenhouse gases generated within the Airport Area. • Reduction in electric, gas, water and sewer utility usage through the redevelopment of an existing industrial manufacturing site into a residential mixed -use project. • 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. • Construction of affordable housing units within the Project that will provide affordable housing opportunities to Newport Beach residents. Additional Issues 1. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Consistency Determination Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) requires the City of Newport Beach to refer the Project to the ALUC for a determination of the Project's consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport ( AELUP), due to the proposed amendments to the property's zoning regulations. ALUC voted to find the Project inconsistent with the AELUP on October 18, 2012. On January 8, 2013, the City Council voted to notify the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics of the City Council's intent to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency for the Uptown Newport project. Pursuant to State law, the City gave a 45 -day advance notice to the ALUC and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics of the City's intention to override the ALUC's determination. Staff received comments letters from both agencies and their letters are attached as Attachments CC26 and CC27. Staff reviewed both comment letters and has provided responses attached hereto (Attachment CC28). The ALUC correspondence reiterates their previous determination that the proposed Uptown Newport project is inconsistent with the AELUP with no additional information submitted. 1J Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 15 The Caltrans correspondence recognizes that the Uptown Newport project has been amended to conform to the established AELUP height restrictions, but encourages the City of Newport Beach to take into consideration the cumulative effects of horizontal surface penetration of this project and future development projects. The Caltrans correspondence states that the Division has reviewed the findings of Council Resolution No. 201 -3 and concludes that the stated facts support the findings and are consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code section 21670. Staff believes that the City Council can make the necessary findings to overrule the ALUC determination of inconsistency. The draft resolution (Attachment CC3) includes the appropriate facts in support of the prescribed findings. An action to overrule the ALUC's determination will require a two- thirds (2/3) vote of the Council. 2. School Boundary Adjustments The proposed project currently lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). The Planning Commission discussed and acknowledged 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. The Planning Commission, however, strongly supports any efforts that can be made by the applicant and the Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) to include the proposed project within NMUSD boundaries. The request to transfer territory may be initiated by the applicant as the property owner. Because the transferred territory must have boundaries that coincide with logical delineators (e.g., streets, channels, waterways, etc.) one or more surrounding property owners may need to participate in the request. Additionally, the transfer of territory may be subject to the concurrence of both affected school districts (SAUSD and NMUSD) and all property owners within the subject boundaries. The Orange County Department of Education will process the application for action by the Orange County Committee on School District Organization. Under certain conditions, the Orange County Committee decision may be appealed to the State Board of Education. Submitted by: PLO M .0 ME Attachments: CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC5 CC6 CC7 CC8 CC9 CC10 CC11 CC12 Uptown Newport Planned Community February 26, 2013 Page 16 Draft Resolution - EIR Draft Resolution — F &F and SOC Draft Resolution — ALUC Overruling Draft Ordinance — Koll Center Newport & Uptown Newport PCDP Draft Resolution — TTM, Traffic Study & AHIP Draft Ordinance — DA Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908 Planning Commission Staff Report, October 4, 2012 (without attachments) Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, October 4, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report, December 6, 2012 (without attachments) Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, December 6, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report, December 20, 2012 (without attachments) CC13 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, December 20, 2012 CC14 Planning Commission Staff Reports, February 7, 2013 (without attachments) CC15 Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, February 7, 2013 CC16 Draft EIR dated September 2012 (distributed separatel�r)' CC17 Final EIR dated February 2013 (distributed separately) CC18 Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program dated November 2012 (distributed separately)' CC19 Koll Center Newport PCDP CC20 Uptown Newport PCDP — Land Use Development Standards & Procedures' CC21 Uptown Newport PCDP - Phasing Plan' CC22 Uptown Newport PCDP — Design Guidelines' CC23 Project Plans (Site Plans & Tentative Tract Map)' CC24 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan CC25 Development Agreement CC26 ALUC Letter dated February 4, 2013 CC27 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Letter dated February 14, 2013 CC28 Response to ALUC & Caltrans Letters Note: 'These documents are not included in the staff report package due to their size and bulk. They are available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at http: / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?paqe =2029 21 22 Attachment No. CC 1 Draft Resolution — EIR Certification 23 24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2012 -001 (SCH NO. 2010051094) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR THE 25.05 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS UPTOWN NEWPORT LOCATED AT 4311 -4321 JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2011 -134) THE CITY COUNCIL 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 as Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 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. e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -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. 25 City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 58 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. Staff of the City of Newport Beach determined 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 "). 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2012 -001, SCH No. 2010051094) ( "DEIR ") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council 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. 8. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on September 10, 2012 and ending October 24, 2012. 9. 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, California. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meetings were provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The environmental documents for the Project comprising the DEIR, Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") which consists of Comments, Responses to Comments, and Revisions to DEIR (collectively, the EIR), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), staff report, and City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 58 evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these hearings. 10. On February 7, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. _ recommending certification of the EIR and approval of the Project to the City Council. 11. Staff of the City of Newport Beach reviewed the comments received on the DEIR during the public comments and review period, and prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on February_, 2013, distributed the responses in accordance with CEQA. 12. The City Council held a public hearing on February 26, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The environmental documents for the Project comprising the EIR, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled hearing, as the decision - making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA. 13. The City Council has reviewed the Revisions to the DEIR Section of the Final Draft Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 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 pursuant to CEQA, specifically 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. 14. The City Council has read and considered the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines. 15. The City Council 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. 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. 27 City Council Resolution No. Page 4 of 58 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the EIR attached Exhibit A, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, regarding the Project that have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council certifies that the EIR consisting of the Draft EIR and Appendix A (Volume 1), Appendices B through H (Volume 11), Appendices I through O (Volume III), FEIR which consists of the Responses to Comments and Revisions to DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the EIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it and the full administrative record prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as shown on the attached Exhibit B entitled "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Uptown Newport Project Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010051094," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The Community Development Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 6. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless 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 City's approval of this Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011- 003, Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002, 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 Environmental Impact Report, and the adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This go City Council Resolution No. Page 5 of 58 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 the applicant or property owner, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner 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 any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this finding. SECTION 7. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. This Resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 26th of February, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBE ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach 2j City Council Resolution No. Page 6 of 58 EXHIBIT A UPTOWN NEWPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ER2012 -001 (SCH No. 2010051094) Consists of: 1. Volume I: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Appendix A dated September 2012 2. Volume ll: Appendices B through H dated September 2012 3. Volume III: Appendices I though O dated September 2012 4. Final EIR dated February 2013 a. Responses to Comments b. Revisions to the Draft EIR 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated November 2012 The Final Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development Department or at httr) : / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2029 30 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 2010051094) 1. INTRODUCTION City Council Resolution No. Page 7 of 58 FINDINGS FOR THE UPTOWN NEWPORT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 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 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 final 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. 31 City Council Resolution No. Page 8 of 58 (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents 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 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. 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. • 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. 32 City Council Resolution No. Page 9 of 58 • 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 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 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. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. 33 City Council Resolution No. Page 10 of 58 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. Table 1 Uptown Newport Land Use Summary M4i 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 M4i City Council Resolution No. Page 11 of 58 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 retail uses. Minimum five - foot -wide sidewalks would be provided on both sides 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. 35 City Council Resolution No. Page 12 of 58 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 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. so City Council Resolution No. Page 13 of 58 • 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. 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 Final 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 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 inconsistent with the Commission's 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 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 Final EIR is provided as follows: 37 City Council Resolution No. Page 14 of 58 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 Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated September 10, 2012, 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 Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conformance with CEQA and the State 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. ON City Council Resolution No. Page 15 of 58 • 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 Draft Final EIR including Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, clarifications /revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and appended documents. The preliminary Response to Comments were provided to the City Planning Commissioners on November 21 and November 30, 2012, and posted on the City's website. The Draft Final EIR was released on November 30, 2012. • The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) scheduled a meeting on October 1, 2012, to review and comment on the Draft EIR. Due to the lack of a quorum, the meeting was not held; however, 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, California. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meetings were provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Draft 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. • In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City provided written Responses to Comments to public agencies on February 6, 2013, at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. • The City Council held a public hearing on February 26, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing. Notice for the meeting 39 City Council Resolution No. Page 16 of 58 was 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 the hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the 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 Final EIR, including but not limited to the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, AHIP, Development Agreement, and the Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; • 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 Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to Comments, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, EIRs, 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; • 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 the written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public provided at the December 6, 2012, Planning Commission Public Hearing; • The 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; • The testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the City Council public hearing on February 26, 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 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; • These Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations adopted by the City for the project, any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and IN City Council Resolution No. Page 17 of 58 • 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. (e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one - quarter mile MIN City Council Resolution No. Page 18 of 58 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. (i) 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. Q) 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. 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 rain City Council Resolution No. Page 19 of 58 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 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. IN City Council Resolution No. Page 20 of 58 (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. Q) 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 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, RZ9 City Council Resolution No. Page 21 of 58 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. 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 21 City Council Resolution No. Page 22 of 58 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. 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. 210 City Council Resolution No. Page 23 of 58 (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. • 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. 47 City Council Resolution No. Page 24 of 58 • 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. • 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 Council Resolution No. Page 25 of 58 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 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. 4J City Council Resolution No. Page 26 of 58 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 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 50 City Council Resolution No. Page 27 of 58 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. • 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 51 City Council Resolution No. Page 28 of 58 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. 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. 152 City Council Resolution No. Page 29 of 58 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). 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 153 City Council Resolution No. Page 30 of 58 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. • 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 =r City Council Resolution No. Page 31 of 58 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 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" 1515 City Council Resolution No. Page 32 of 58 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.I. 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. 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 E.1. (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. 50 City Council Resolution No. Page 33 of 58 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. 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. 57 City Council Resolution No. Page 34 of 58 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 EIR). 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. 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. ON City Council Resolution No. Page 35 of 58 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 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. 5J City Council Resolution No. Page 36 of 58 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 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. O City Council Resolution No. Page 37 of 58 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. 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 01 City Council Resolution No. Page 38 of 58 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. (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 02 City Council Resolution No. Page 39 of 58 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: • 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. (03 City Council Resolution No. Page 40 of 58 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 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 =1 City Council Resolution No. Page 41 of 58 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. 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 05 City Council Resolution No. Page 42 of 58 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 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. MM City Council Resolution No. Page 43 of 58 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 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 07 City Council Resolution No. Page 44 of 58 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 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.I. IN City Council Resolution No. Page 45 of 58 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. 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. City Council Resolution No. Page 46 of 58 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. 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 70 City Council Resolution No. Page 47 of 58 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 -H1), Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3), and Mixed Use Horizontal 4 (MU -H4), respectively. The allowed residential density for these areas, however, is less than allowed for the proposed project site. The MU -H1 and MU -H4 designations permit a density of 20.1 to 26.7 dwelling units per net acre (du /acre), and the areas designated MU -H3 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. 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 71- City Council Resolution No. Page 48 of 58 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 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 72 City Council Resolution No. Page 49 of 58 • 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 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. 7S City Council Resolution No. Page 50 of 58 Table 2 Statistical Summary Comparison 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 Report (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 per hotel employee rate for Orange County, the regional rate of 1,804 was used to develop the number of employees for this alternative. 5 Jobs -to- 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, which is currently set to expire in March 2017, but could be extended to as late as March 2027. 74 Proposed Project No Project Alternative Hotel /Office/ Commercial Alternative Office /Commercial/ Residential Alternative Reduced Density 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 — — Park Space 2.05 ac — 1.52 ac 1.40 ac 2.05 ac Population' 1 2,724 1,818 1,229 Employment Commerciale 26 — 44 16 26 Office 3 — 135 455 284 — Hotel ° — — 96 — — Industrial — 3,000 Total 26 3,135 595 300 26 Jobs -SO- 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 Report (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 per hotel employee rate for Orange County, the regional rate of 1,804 was used to develop the number of employees for this alternative. 5 Jobs -to- 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, which is currently set to expire in March 2017, but could be extended to as late as March 2027. 74 City Council Resolution No. Page 51 of 58 • 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. 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, 715 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 64 233 297 236 135 370 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. 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, 715 City Council Resolution No. Page 52 of 58 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 (]CDP), 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 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. 70 City Council Resolution No. Page 53 of 58 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 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. 77 City Council Resolution No. Page 54 of 58 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. 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 M City Council Resolution No. Page 55 of 58 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. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Office /Commercial /ResidentiaI'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 79 City Council Resolution No. Page 56 of 58 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 6.13.1.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. 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. M City Council Resolution No. Page 57 of 58 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. 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. m City Council Resolution No. Page 58 of 58 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 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. :_ Attachment No. CC 2 Draft Resolution — Findings Facts & Statement of Overriding Considerations es 24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROVAL OF 25.05 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS UPTOWN NEWPORT LOCATED AT 4311 -4321 JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2011 -134) II: I:9i11110,9K. 1110 [MI 19•101:I:9011rc•]N►IXV1Ua ]: i■: lNUA[ 6]: I: I01:M:I:i-al10I.bW.Avo7•]I11•1,aT& 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 as Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 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. 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. M City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 8 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 February 7, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (FEIR) and approval of the Project to the City Council. 5. The City Council held a public hearing on February 26, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The FEIR which consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Comments, Responses to Comments, Revisions to DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled public hearing. 6. The FEIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, as the decision - making body of the Lead Agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA. 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the FEIR and has found that FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines. 8. On February 26, 2013, the City Council considered and certified FEIR, by adopting certain CEQA Findings of Facts contained in Resolution No. 2013 -_, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 9. 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 MR City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 8 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 9. On January 8, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013 -03 to provide notice to the Airport Land Use Commission and California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics of the City of Newport Beach's intent to the find the Project consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and overrule the Airport Land Use Commission's determination on October 18, 2012, that the Project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -03 is hereby incorporated by reference. 10. On February 26, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013 -_ to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission's determination on October 18, 2012, that the Project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -_ is hereby incorporated by reference. 11. Despite the occurrence of these impacts, however, the City Council may approve the Project if it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explain, in the City Council's view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce and will render the significant effects acceptable. 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. A description of these public benefits included in Exhibit "A ". 12. The City Council 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. 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. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed and hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as "Exhibit A ", which is incorporated herein by reference. This Resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 26th of February, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: M AYES, COUNCIL MEMB NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 4 of 8 22 City Council Resolution No. Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT A 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 City Council Resolution No. Page 6 of 8 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 for the Uptown Newport Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010051094 ( "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, during construction of the Project, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Phase 2 Same significant and unavoidable impact described for Phase 1 applies to Phase 2 90 City Council Resolution No. Page 7 of 8 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. Pursuant to State law, Project approval would require a 2/3 vote by the City Council to override ALUC's 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 described 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 Findings, none of the alternatives were determined to be feasible: • No Project Alternative (Continuation of Existing Land Uses). 91 City Council Resolution No. Page 8 of 8 • Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative • Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative • Reduced Density Alternative The City evaluated the severity and duration of the significant, unavoidable impacts. The City, after 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. 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 "). 2. 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. 3. Perpetual private maintenance of over two (2) acres of on -site public parks. 4. 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. 5. Remediation of soil and groundwater contamination on the Property that has existed on- site since the mid- 1980's. 6. Reduction in greenhouse gases generated within the Airport Area. 7. Reduction in electric, gas, water and sewer utility usage through the redevelopment of an existing industrial manufacturing site into a residential mixed use project. 8. 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. 9. Construction of affordable housing units within the Project that will provide affordable housing opportunities to Newport Beach residents. 92 Attachment No. CC 3 Draft Resolution — ALUC Overruling 93 94 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AND FINDING THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21670 (PA2011 -134) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Uptown Newport LP ( "Uptown Newport' or "Applicant') with respect to a 25.05 -acre property generally located on the west side of Jamboree Road between Birch Street and the intersection of Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, legally described as Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 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 two 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 Newport Beach Municipal Code. b. Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001. A Planned Community Development Plan 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 Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002. A tentative tract map to establish lots for residential development purposes pursuant to Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. d. Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005. A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 95 Council Resolution No. Page 2 e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -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 Newport Beach 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 Newport Beach Municipal Code and Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.12. g. 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 Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). 2. The Property's General Plan designation is Mixed -Use District Horizontal 2 (MU- H2), and the Property is located within the Airport Business Area, for which the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) has been implemented. 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 Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) and is designated as Industrial Site 1. The applicant is proposing to remove the subject property from the PC -15 zoning designation by adopting a separate Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) to accommodate the proposed mixed -use residential development. The proposed Uptown Newport PCDP would be the zoning document for the project where land use and development standards would be specified. 4. Due to the proposed amendments to the Property's zoning regulations, Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) requires the City of Newport Beach to refer the Project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of the Project's consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport. 5. On October 18, 2012, ALUC determined by a voteo of four (4) to one (1) to find the Project inconsistent with the AELUP. One ALUC Commissioner recused himself and did not vote. 6. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City of Newport Beach may, after a public hearing, overrule ALUC by a two- thirds vote of the City Council, if it makes specific findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes Council Resolution No. Page 3 of Public Utilities Code Section 21670, which are stated to be to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. 7. On January 8, 2013, following a duly- noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution No. 2013 -03 and notifying ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics of the City Council's intent to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency for the Uptown Newport. 8. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City provided notice of a public hearing on the City Council's intent to overrule the ALUC determination to be held on February 26, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at the public hearing. 9. In correspondence dated February 5, 2013, ALUC Chairman Gerald Bresnahan submitted comments in response to receiving notice of the City Council's intent to overrule ALUC's inconsistency determination. 10. On February 14, 2013, the City received correspondence from the Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), confirming the Division's receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Intent to Overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and the proposed overrule findings that were included City Council Resolution No. 2013 -3. The Division acknowledged that the Project was revised to remain within the established AELUP height restrictions and that the FAA has identified similarly situated structures in the area. The Division concluded that the City's stated facts support the findings were consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and encouraged the City of Newport Beach to take into consideration cumulative effects of horizontal surface penetration with this and future projects in the City. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH No. 2010051094) was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. By Resolution No. 2013 -_, the City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094), and adopted "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Uptown Newport Project Final Environmental Impact Report" ( "CEQA Findings "). Resolution No. 2013 -_ is hereby incorporated by reference. 97 Council Resolution No. Page 4 SECTION 3. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The City Council has considered the comments received from the Airport Land Use Commission and the California Department of Transportation's Division of Aeronautics' in their entirely prior to rendering a final decision to overrule the ALUC determination. 2. The City Council does hereby overrule the ALUC determination that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, finds the Project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code 21670, and adopt the required findings in support of the City's overrule of the ALUC determination, as shown in Exhibit "A ", and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS. NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBE I�LTi /_\YI 1V ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach Council Resolution No. Page 5 1711 31111iiLVi FINDINGS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S DECISION TO OVERRULE THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DETERMINATION THAT THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) provides that the City of Newport Beach may overrule the determination by the Airport Land Use Commission that the Project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport, by a two - thirds vote of the City Council, if it makes specific findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes of in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. The purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 are included is subsection (a)(2), which reads as follows: It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Finding A The Project is consistent with the legislative purpose set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(2) to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports. Facts in Support 1. To provide for the orderly development of John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the area surrounding the airport, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport, which was most recently amended on April 17, 2008. The AELUP guides development proposals to provide for orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards for aircraft noise, safety compatibility zones, and building height restrictions in AELUP Section 2.1. 2. The ALUC staff report dated October 18, 2012, reflects that ALUC's staff reviewed the Project with respect to compliance with the AELUP, including review of appropriate noise standards, height restrictions, imaginary surfaces, safety zones, Council Resolution No. Page 6 and environmental compliance, and recommended that ALUC find the Project consistent with the AELUP. 3. The Project is consistent with the noise, height and safety standards set forth in the AELUP, and therefore provides for the orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport, based on the following: a. The residential and commercial land uses for the Project are consistent with the noise standards of the AELUP. AELUP Section 2.1.1 sets forth the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standards. A small portion of the Project on the eastern boundary fronting Jamboree Road is located within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour for JWA, with the remainder falling within the 55 dB CNEL contour. AELUP Section 3.2.4 defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact' in the 60 -65 dBA CNEL noise contour, which is Noise Impact Zone 2. Per the AELUP, noise impact in this area is sufficient to require sound attenuation. As outlined in the AELUP, the residential use interior sound attenuation requirement in this noise impact zone is required to be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dBA. The small portion of the Project area that falls within the 60 dBA CNEL triggering an interior level of 45 dBA would not include residential units. This area would be developed with a landscaped parkway and sidewalk. Future Project - related residential units that would fall within Noise Impact Zone 2 would be conditioned to achieve compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. In addition, the Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element requires that residential development in the Airport Business Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Policies LU 6.15.3 and N 3.2), and requires residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise (Policy N 3.2). The Project would be developed in accordance with these General Plan policies. The AELUP also identifies land uses that are "normally consistent' and "conditionally consistent' in each noise impact zone delineated by the CNEL noise contour. AELUP Section 3 Table 1 (Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise) identifies the 60 dB CNEL contour for residential and commercial uses as "normally consistent' requiring "no special noise reduction requirements." b. The residential and commercial land uses for the Project are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP. AELUP Section 2.1.2 sets forth Safety Compatibility Zones to support the continued use and operation of an airport by establishing compatibility and safety standards to promote air safety and reduce potential safety hazards for persons living, working, or recreating near JWA. The Property is within Safety Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone of JWA. Risk factors associated with 100 Council Resolution No. Page 7 Safety Zone 6 generally include a low likelihood of accident occurrence. Allowed uses in this safety zone include residential and most nonresidential uses, with the exception of outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities. Uses that should be avoided include children's schools, large day -care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. The residential and commercial land uses of the Project would be consistent with those outlined in Safety Zone 6 and its applicable land use restrictions. The comment letter dated February 5, 2013, does not change the City Council's conclusion that the Project is consistent with the safety standards set forth in the AELUP. ALUC's inconsistency determination was based on, in part, on ALUC's claim that the Project "may put at risk both general aviation operations and future residents of the high rise building." But the statements are speculative and provide no facts explaining how the Project places aviation operations or future residents at risk given building heights below the one definitive standard available. Furthermore, ALUC's comment referenced other high rise buildings near the airport and concluded that such buildings are ill- advised and, therefore, inconsistent with the AELUP. However, Public Utilities Code Section 21670 provides the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act and references an intent to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, emphasis added.) ALUC acknowledges that the areas surrounding the Property are already devoted to incompatible uses, and ALUC appears to set a new arbitrary standard that all high -rises in the area are inconsistent with the AELUP. C. The residential and commercial land uses for the Project are consistent with the height standards of the AELUP. AELUP Section 2.1.3 sets forth building height restrictions. This Section provides that ALUC consider only one standard, Title 14 CFR Part 77. AELUP Section 2.1.3 provides that these regulations "are the only definitive standard available and the standard most generally used." AELUP Section 2.1.3 indicates that ALUC recognizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the single "Authority" for analyzing project impact on airport or aeronautical operations, or navigational -aid siting, including interference with navigational -aids or published flight paths and procedures. The AELUP also indicates that the Commission considers the FAA as the "Authority" for reporting results of such studies and project analyses. The FAA conducted an aeronautical study for the Project consistent with FAA Part 77 Regulations. The FAA issued a "No Hazard Determination" and found that the structures would have no substantial adverse effect on 101 Council Resolution No. Page 8 the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace. The FAA reviewed the following heights: 59 feet site elevation (SE); 150 feet above ground level (AGL); and 206 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Three of the eleven points that represent the building heights were identified as obstacles under the obstruction standards of Title 14 CFR Part 77, Section 77.19(a) (which is 206 feet AMSL) by between 1 to 3 feet. The FAA stated that the adverse effect of these three building points are known, and that similarly situated structures of equal or greater height exist in the area between the Property and the John Wayne Airport runways. The FAA concluded that three building points do not result in any significant adverse effect on the aeronautical operations or on the utility of the navigable approach and departure Terminal Procedures for John Wayne Airport. The FAA further concluded that existing obstacles and terrain control the development of future instrument approach and departure procedures for John Wayne Airport. Subsequent to the FAA's aeronautical study and No Hazard Determination, and to ensure that the Project's building heights would be within the limits established by the Orange County Board of Supervisors for John Wayne Airport, the applicant amended the Project's proposed zoning regulations. The amendment limited heights for buildings and any appurtenances to no greater than the 206 feet AMSL established for John Wayne Airport, by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the heights of the Project's residential towers will not penetrate John Wayne Airport's Horizontal Surface. Additionally, the Project's proposed Planned Community Development Plan specifies that all development must be constructed in conformance with FAA Part 77 height restrictions, the Division of Aeronautics, and height restrictions in the AELUP. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the height standards contained in the AELUP. The ALUC comment letter dated February 5, 2013, does not change City Council's conclusion that the Project is consistent with the height standards contained in the AELUP. ALUC states its responsibility to consider the public's wellbeing and viability of aviation facilities and states that constructing in conformance with FAA Part 77 height restrictions does not mean that it is prudent to build a residential structure up to the 206' above mean sea level ( "AMSL") elevation. Although ALUC acknowledges that air traffic patterns were modified previously to accommodate buildings in this area, ALUC did not provide any other facts in support of the statement that more buildings will cause additional modifications to air traffic patterns and /or lead to an unsafe environment. ALUC did not provide any information as to why adjustments may be necessary at this time but simple relies on the fact that adjustments were previously made to accommodate buildings in the area. 102 Council Resolution No. Page 9 Finding B The Project is consistent with the legislative purpose set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(2) to ensure the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Facts in Support 1. To protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports, the ALUC adopted the AELUP, which serves as a land use compatibility plan to "safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operations of the airport" (AELUP, Section 1.2, p. 2.). The AELUP standards guide development proposals to provide for the orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards in AELUP Sections 2 (Planning Guidelines) and 3 (Land Use Policies). Implementation of these standards "seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace." As set forth above in the Facts in Support of Finding A, the proposed project is consistent with the AELUP noise, safety standards, and building heights. Because, the land use measures proposed as part of the Project are consistent with the AELUP, the Project serves the purpose of Public Utilities Section 21670(a)(2) to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards to the extent the area is not already devoted to incompatible uses. 2. To protect the public health, safety and welfare the ALUC adopted the AELUP to outline land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent these are not already devoted to incompatible use. The AELUP provides land use policies in AELUP Section 3 (Land Use Policies) that govern noise, safety, and building height. As set forth above, the Project is consistent with AELUP noise, safety standards, and building heights. 3. The land use measures proposed by the Project were included in the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan, which ALUC found to be consistent with the AELUP on July 20, 2006. The 2006 General Plan provided the following goal: "re- use of underperforming industrial and office properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services in the John Wayne Airport Area" (LU Policy 3.3). The General Plan also designated properties located in the Airport Business Area as Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -1­12), which allows for the intermixing of uses that include regional commercial office, multi- family residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary IOS Council Resolution No. Page 10 commercial uses. A maximum of 2,200 residential units were allocated for the MU- H2 properties. The Project is consistent with this General Plan Land Use designation as it would provide a mix of residential and neighborhood- serving uses and park and open space to the City's Airport Business Area. 4. The Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element additionally specifies that residential development in the Airport Business Area be outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and requires residential developers to notify purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. The proposed project is outside the 65 dBA and prospective purchasers and tenants will be notified. The proposed project is consistent with these policies, which are the same policies that ALUC deemed consistent with the AELUP on July 20, 2006. 5. On August 19, 2010, ALUC found the City of Newport Beach 2010 Zoning Code Update consistent with the AELUP, which included Map H -1 High Rise and Shoreline Height Limit Areas (Exhibit 1). The Project is located in the Newport Beach Zoning Code 300 -foot High Rise Height Area. Furthermore the Project is subject to review by ALUC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as specified in Section 20.30.060.E of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Project is in compliance with the Newport Beach Zoning Code's permitted building height as the residential buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet in height, with several residential towers up to 150 feet high. The Project received a determination of "No Hazard to Air Navigation" from the FAA on August 6, 2012. 6. In correspondence dated February 14, 2013, the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division) confirmed the Division's receipt of the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Intent to Overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and the proposed overrule findings that were included City Council Resolution No. 2013 -3. The Division acknowledged that the Project was revised to remain within the established AELUP height restrictions and noted that the FAA has identified similarly situated structures in the area. Therefore, the Division concluded that the City's stated facts support the findings were consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and encouraged the City of Newport Beach to take into consideration cumulative effects of horizontal surface penetration with this and future projects in the City. Finding C The City Council finds the ALUC's determination that the proposed project was inconsistent is not based on substantial evidence that was introduced, commented on, or identified in support of the inconsistency finding. WON Council Resolution No. Page 11 Facts in Support 1. The ALUC meeting minutes for October 18, 2012, reflect that a motion to find the Project inconsistent with AELUP was based upon AELUP Section 2.1.3 (Planning Guidelines, Building Height Restrictions). The AELUP Section 2.1.3 does state that a FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does not automatically equate to a project consistency determination by ALUC. Section 2.1.3 further states that the ALUC may find a project inconsistent based on an obstruction determination by the FAA. However this criterion is not applicable to this Project, since the FAA concluded that the three obstacles, as defined under the Title 14 obstruction standards, do not result in any significant adverse effect on the aeronautical operations or on the utility of the navigable approach and departure Terminal Procedures for John Wayne Airport. Additionally, subsequent to the FAA's No Hazard Determination, the applicant reduced the Project's building and appurtenances height limit to no greater than the 206 feet AMSL consistent with the horizontal surface established for John Wayne Airport, by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The City Council acknowledges ALUC's responsibility to protect existing air traffic pattern and ALUC's contention that ALUC proceedings are benefited by members with expertise in aviation who are aware of the complex legal charge to protect public airports from incompatible land use and to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens. However, the comment letter provided by ALUC includes conclusory statements which do not amount to substantial evidence to support its inconsistency determination. In particular, facts have not been provided to show how, if at all, the Project will interfere with established, planned, airport flight procedures, patterns or navigational systems. Instead, conclusory statements are made that the Project "may" interfere. However, the FAA aeronautical study states the Project structure "would have no effect on any existing or proposed [Instrument Flight Rules or Visual Flight Rules] arrival /departure routes, operations, or procedures.... The structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed [Instrument Flight Rules] minimum flight altitudes.... The structure would not penetrate those altitudes normally considered available to airmen for [Visual Flight Rules] en route flight." AELUP Section 3.2.6 also states the "standards, criteria, and procedures promulgated by the FAA for the thorough evaluation of development projects are designed to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace." The Project is consistent with FAA building heights and safety zones. The 3 building points identified by the FAA as penetrating the imaginary surfaces have been amended and are now below the threshold. The FAA also concluded that the 3 points, prior to their amendment, do not result in any significant adverse effect on the aeronautical operations or on the utility of the navigable approach and departure Terminal Procedures for JWA. The FAA further concluded that existing obstacles and terrain already control development of 105 Council Resolution No. Page 12 future instrument approach and departure procedures for JWA. The Project's construction of two residential towers up to 150' above ground level is consistent with City, FAA and AELUP requirements. 2. AELUP Section 2.1.3 allows the ALUC to utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns which is different than FAA Part 77 should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action. The ALUC's statement of evidence contained in the meeting minutes of October 18, 2012, is limited to "this area directly under the general aviation flight path is not a good place for residential and noted that if buildings this tall were built, there would eventually be a wall of building that a pilot would need to navigate through ". This statement is contrary to the ALUC's two previous determinations of AELUP consistency (General Plan and Zoning Code Updates) that allows residential uses in the Airport Business Area with a maximum building height of 300 feet above grade. Section 20.30.060C(2)(e) and Section 20.30.060E of the Municipal Code governing the height requirement and AELUP. These sections were provided to the ALUC during the 2010 Zoning Code Update, along with Map H -1 High Rise and Shoreline Height Limit Areas. The Zoning Code Update was deemed consistent with the AELUP. 3. The City Council has considered the FAA No Hazard Determination, the proposed relevant Project conditions, the AELUP standards, and the ALUC Inconsistency determination and finds the Project is consistent with the stated purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 because (1) the Project is consistent with the AELUP and therefore ensures the orderly expansion of airports; and (2) the Project's proposed land use measures are intended to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. 100 Attachment CC 4 Draft Ordinance — Koll & Uptown PCDPs 107 102 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2011 -003 AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION NO. PC2012 -001 FOR THE 25.05 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS UPTOWN NEWPORT LOCATED AT 4311 -4321 JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2011 -134) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 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 as Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 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. e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001: A program specifying how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable IL-J) 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. The Property has a General Plan designation of Mixed -Use District Horizontal - 2 (MU -H2), 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. 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. At the February 7t' hearing with a vote of _, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. _, recommending certification of the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) and approval of the Project to the City Council. 5. The City Council held a public hearing on February 26, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) which consists of the Comments, Responses to Comments, and Revisions to DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. The Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report, and adopted "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Uptown Newport Project Final Environmental Impact Report" ("CEQA Findings ") containing within Resolution No. 2013 -_ on February 26, 2013, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 110 3. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overdding Considerations for the certification of the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) by Resolution No. 2013 -_ on February 26, 2013, and is hereby incorporated reference. 4. The City Council overruled the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the Uptown Newport project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport by Resolution No. 2013- _ on February 26, 2013, and is hereby incorporated by reference. 5. The City Council 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. 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 the ICDP. The City Council concurs with the conclusion of the consistency analysis of the proposed project with these goals and policies provided in the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094). SECTION 4. DECISION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan (PC #15) shall be amended to remove Industrial Site 1 with all references, allowable land uses, and general development regulations including all written text, maps and exhibits as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto incorporated by reference. Except as amended herein, the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) shall be adopted 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 the Property. The PCDP has three (3) components: 1) Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures as depicted in Exhibit "B "; 2) Phasing Plan as depicted in Exhibit "C "; and 3) Design Guidelines as depicted in Exhibit "D'; attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect 1-1-1- the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. 4. This action shall become final and effective thirty days after the adoption of this Ordinance. 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 26th of February, 2013, and adopted on the 12th day of March, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, /, DICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attornby ` / -0113 for the City of Newport Beach 1i2 EXHIBIT A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2011 -003 113 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For Koll Center Newport Ordinance No. 1449, adopted by the City of Newport Beach August 14, 1972 (Amendment No. 313) Original draft May 5, 1972 Amendment (1) August 14, 1972 Amendment (2) August 14, 1972 Amendment (3) August 2, 1973 Amendment (4) February 7, 1974 Amendment (5) June 10, 1974 Amendment (6) May 15, 1975 Amendment (7) September 8, 1975 Amendment (8) June 28, 1976 Amendment (9) January 10, 1977 Amendment (10) July 11, 1978 Amendment (11) August 28, 1978 Amendment(12) October 19, 1978 Amendment (13) November 10, 1980 Amendment (14) March 23, 1981 Amendment (15) October 24,1984 Amendment (16) May 14, 1984 Amendment (17) December9, 1985 Amendment (18) July 14, 1986 Amendment (19) March 23, 1987 Amendment (20) July 27, 1987 Amendment (21) June 12, 1989 Amendment (22) April 25, 1994 Amendment (23) October 9, 1995 Amendment (24) February 23, 1998 Amendment (25) August 10, 1998 Amendment (26) January 11, 2000 Amendment (27) January 25, 2000 Amendment (28) August 9, 2005 Ordinance No. 2006.19 (29) July 25, 2006 Ordinance No. 2006 -21 (30) October 24, 2006 Ordinance No. 2011 -3 (3 1) January 25, 201 l Ordinance No. 2011 -8(32) March 8, 2011 Amendment (33) .2013 NOTE: See Footnotes beginning on Page 47 for description of amendments. 1i4 CONTENTS PAGE NO. PREFACE I DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 2 GENERAL NOTES 7 DEFINITIONS S PART 1. INDUSTRIAL cam- -"H-1- SiatistieaEAnalysis 40 °eaet.'eR S1- 1 :..b 1�.1 ...•.'..1 Oa�...:n...1 4..... 44 -1i 9ee6eR4V, 42 PART IL COMMERCIAL Section 1. 15 Site Area and Building Area Section 11, 26 Permitted Uses Section 30 General Development Standards for Commercial Land PART 111. GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Section I. 34 PART IV. GENERAL SIGN REOUIREMENTS Section I 37 Sign Standards Section II. 40 Sign Area - -S PAGE NO. Section 111. 41 Maintenance PART V. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS Section I. 42 General Statement PART VI. FOOTNOTES 47 PART VII. ATTACHED EXHIBITS Composite ............... ............................For Information Only Exhibit A .................. ...........................Land Use Exhibit B ..................... ........................Grading and Roads Exhibit C ................... ..........................Storm Drain Exhibit D ......................... ....................Water & Sewer Exhibit E ...................... ........................Boundary and Topography 110 PREFACE It is the intent of this Plumed Community Development to provide comprehensive zoning for what is now the Collins Radio property. Planned within this development are a hotel with banquet and convention facilities, a small retail and service center, service stations, restaurants, bars and theater /nightclubs, a site for the proposed Orange County Courthouse with the balance of the acreage developed as a business and professional office park emphasizing open space. RemainingwitMn the puk mill be the &ii96ngGaR4i,, X17 City Council Ordinance No. Page 2 of 63 DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS (1) This Planned Community Development is a project of The Koll Company. This area is most appropriate for commercial and light industrial uses, and therefore we submit the enclosed air traffic analysis, vehicular analysis, land use analysis and market analysis to substantiate this document. Attached drawings indicate land use, grading and roads, stomr drains, water and sewer, topography and traffic analysis. The site is comprised of approximately 4441:0154.0 acres and is eenerally bounded on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard. (10)_(33) In order to insure development consistent with the master plan concept, a review shall be required Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a precise development plan shall be submitted by the developer to the Planning Director for review. This precise plan shall conform to the requirements of this Planned Community text and all other applicable codes and regulations and shall be approved prior to submission by The Koll Company. Included in the plan review material shall be: a size b. location c. height d. materials 2. Parking Crited a. areas, including drives and accesses b. quantity c. size 3. Landscaped Areas a setbacks b. wells C' plazas d. pools, fountains and/or other amenities 4. Signing g dterie a location b. size c. quantity 5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director and as recommended below. Items 5a through 5e inclusive. 1-1-2 City Council Ordinance No. Page 3 of 63 Sewage System Criteri a The sewer system in the vicinity of the lake should be revised to conform to the following criteria: All sewer lines should be located such that they will not be under water even when the lake is at its maximum level. 2. Sewer lines shall be located in 15 -foot wide (minimum) easements and must be accessible to maintenance vehicles at all times. 3. The depth of sewer lines should not exceed 15 feet, with the possible exception of joining the existing system at MacArthur Boulevard b. Pedestrian Circulation A pedestrian sidewalk system along the public streets shall be constructed throughout the development. The adequacy of such system shall be analyzed independently of any on -site pedestrian walkway system proposed for a particular portion of the development. C. Bicycle Circulation A system of bicycle paths coordinated with the Citys Master Plan of Bicycle Trails and meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the Director of Parks. Beaches and Recreation shall be developed and maintained within the planned community. d Erosion Control Landscaping plans shall incorporate provisions for Erosion Control on all graded sites which will remain vacant for a considerable period of time prior to commencement of building construction e. Traffic Considerations Both MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road shall be widened to provide for 6 through lanes, double left turn lanes at all intersections, and fiee right turning lanes at all intersections. H. Von Karman shall be widened at the intersection with MacArthur Boulevard to provide 6 lanes. iii. All streets on the site except for Von Kannan shall be flared to provide at least 5 lanes at intersections with peripheral streets. �Z� City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 4 of 63 iv. Birch Street shall be flared to 5 lanes at the intersection with Von Kemnan. V. Campus Drive shall be widened to provide dual left turn lanes at Von Karman. vi. Von Karman shall be improved for its full length from MacArthur Boulevard to Campus Drive in conjunction with initial development of areas which do not take primary access from Campus Drive or Jamboree Road vii. Access rights to MacArthur Boulevard shall be dedicated to the City except for the Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue intersections. Consideration may be given to providing additional access points at a later date if more detailed traffic studies demonstrate the desirability of such additional access points. Consideration shall be limited to right turn egress and right and left turn ingress. (11) viii. Traffic signals shall be constructed at the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard with Birch Street and with Von Kansan Avenue when the latter two streets are opened The developer shall be responsible for 50% of the cost of the signal at Von Kansan and 5001. of the cost of the signal at Birch Street. ix. A traffic signal shall be constructed at the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road in conjunction with the initial stages of development. The developer shall be responsible for 25% of the cost of the signal. X. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Von Karman and Birch Street, with the developer to be responsible for 100% of the cost. Construction shall be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than June 30, 1977. (8) A. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Von Karman and Campus Drive, with the developer to be responsible for 50% of the cost. Construction shall be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than December 30, 1976. (8) A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street, with the developer to be responsible for 50% of the cost. Construction shall be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than tune 30,1977. (8) In order to accomplish the schedule for construction of these two signals, a cooperative agreement may be entered into between the 120 City Council Ordinance No. Page 5 of 63 developer and the City. The agreement shall provide for the developer to advance the nondeveloper share of the funding, if necessary; with provisions for reimbursement by the City. The agreement may also provide for a credit to the developer for funds advanced for the City's share of construction costs for signals constructed elsewhere in the project (8) xii. Provision for other traffic signals shall be investigated in conjunction with the process of development at a later date. xiii. Phasing of Development. 1,651,757 sq. ft of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the iota[ approved development plan is 1,058,863 sq.ft Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 317,658 sq. fL, shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. (12) i o (2) The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall be included in all leases or subleases for space in the Planned Community Development and shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement (2) The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: i. The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; ii. When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; iii. The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansion at the Orange County Airport; iv. Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the Orange County Airport. 121- City Council Ordinance No. Page 6 of 63 122 City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 7 of 63 GENERAL NOTES Water within the planned community area will be furnished by the Irvine Ranch Water District. Prior to or coincidental with the filing of any tentative trap or use permit, the developer shall submit a master plan of drainage to the Director of Public Works. The height of all buildings and structures shall comply with Federal Aviation Authority criteria. Except as otherwise stated in this ordinance, the requirements of the zoning code, City of Newport Beach, shall apply. The contents of this supplemental text notwithstanding, no construction shall be proposed within the boundaries of this planned community district except that which shall comply with all provisions of the Building Code and the various mechanical and electrical codes related thereto. J-23 City Council Ordinance No. Page 8 of 63 Advertising Surface: The total aces of the face of the structure, excluding supports. Area of Elevation: Total height and length of a building as projected to a vertical plane. Building Line: An imaginary line parallel to the street right -of -way line specifying the closest point from this street right - of-way that a building structure may be located (except for overhangs, stairs and sunscreens). Riahtof- -Way Line: When reference is made to right-of-way line it shall mean the line which is then established on either the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways or the filed Tract Map for Minor Roads as the ultimate right -of -way line for roads or streets. Side and Front of Comer Lots: For the purpose of this ordinance, the narrowest frontage of a lot facing the street is the front, and the longest frontage facing the intersecting strut is the side, irrespective of the direction in which the structures face. Sim: Any structure, device or contrivance, electric or non -electric and all parts thereof which are erected or used for advertising purposes upon or within which any poster, bill, bulletin, printing, lettering, painting, device or other advertising of any kind whatsoever is used placed, pouted, tacked, nailed, pasted or otherwise fastened or affixed Commerce: All those pemtitted uses as specified in Section 11, Group I through VII, inclusive, in this text. Commercial [and: The site area upon which any or all commercial permitted uses would exist. Site Area: (3) The total land area of the land described in the use or other permit, including footprint lots. 124 City Council Ordinance No. Page 9 of 63 Special Landscaned Street: Special landscaped streets are designated as MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Boulevard and Campus Drive. The landscaping requirements for special landscaped streets and for the remaining streets are described in the following text. Streets - Dedicated and Private: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of- way. In the case of private or non - dedicated streM a minimum setback from the right -of -way line of said streets of ten (10) feet shall be required for all structures. Except for sidewalks or access drives, this area shall be landscaped according to the setback area standards from dedicated streets contained herein. Driveway. Vehicular access ways onto or within private property exclusive of streets, dedicated or private. A minimum separation of five (5) feet shall be maintained between all driveways and buildings. Footprint I[A : (3) The area of land required for the building pad encompassing the peripheral area of the building. Appurtenant and contiguous to the footprint lot shall be all parking, landscape, setbacks and other areas as described and required by this text. I.andscane Area: (4) The landscape area shall include walks, plazas water and all other areas not devoted to building footprints or vehicular parking and drive surfaces. In calculating area of required landscaping any off-site landscaping such as landscaped medians or parkways in street rights -of -way shall not be included. 1215 City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 10 of 63 PART I. INDUSTRIAL- Dekacd (331 See tiafl�- .�fxti..tiroF,111x1y_. ^ aawgr: �; lnawltt» �- nrt- buildnHk- I. trnl�rta- itKknling- Ix»tM.w {rrerAxnL+ widtitr {xotfeity�l ier�- (•4}(8N -�7 -) R t6«wNWe44tt Witw -Anw %itr 1 +42,-•-'r_.S-•ft�(F. -- 'ice^'*'. _rarr5 < - Narkiq�friterie /�11?{) - — The rdkw+ an!- Wwi�ti •�.- urr- I�x- infixftxfli.xt�rflr Fk�rlulx»e»itwy -irx !lade- Mft.lrxll -tx x- hraif »ifal Ir.alrr�elMwNf� jvt, t{wa+enJ+14)l101�m wFits- efbnildineend- etone4wndnrNweaq 11 20) eaft per am I t I nnd.exfieil9nen Slxtar{#F1{� -H _— Sitr -{: Aree 15.0413--,M Flaildine I9.1Gflarrra 11.893 a qe. - itarkingareil :44Ml1h fe+ Net i.Xl?arr" 120 City Council Ordinance No. Page 11 of 63 / �— �i> Ylll ttW�ntil:: r/ atipfi {V- Mib41Y,tYl11FFC.+cNFt'1/ 11f? Fr�Nlrh; I /F <wNltYl- FIMI- �11BITix!N�IIIC+ are confined- witltul -a-hit Iding -ar buildings -an "o thmcomrilmle axee fkliv .. dw:I 4nekr. Rmatinit. Itr-.49%ir tw-fK liew matter- tt"lw --ti w'%'ntling en tigll- haeardi>,xrsltia�dura< e- nrrti +f+}trrxt>,Iat4 rrlatCFiafdF-PnM : ..' - _•.•cam- rrrrvi�i r–�.a' c'vatti4i I Fhe limRrd t *rr rarrl:IxMaak F e+atxl�acitilies: tkazlt tmental- k+heratee e.- aad- tatalk:0 -and tva nputilde- Iight- nranufacnaing- rrlaterNo- tl+rtetktwingai,r4tf- evxmi>fz+ — ! - Nitt- 4�Ilrntiex! -441nt <xxl- Vhetogrnphy — .`.Iaellaw_v - Plfamnlrmlical �..- \ ialtal: lraat�rtexrcll- a, xwdtly .- IrsFittg- avvtrywnxvtls.�kwit". egnit"flem and -+v + trfel.-- eFal -- later- and- scxtrylwlrelt, -- ;reel... -.., -: �• .trtt�;.ni+rd- to -ikfr 1'eNewing- Iwt.�frxnmr>le;e �rm.+�m,•n- ,••IMti- $enB- FtNldtlEleFi - '' mvrwnitvaialt,- �svig�an- E�nrel� Taanemi.;itar- mxi- 7irt�cyaitxt (:tgfipintwt; l atnal�EgldPlntyltanrl�y, lrms- Gaidnrxti`F:gtrilllrlrla -xad SyMtwl. �ilati -Falgrt ".�.rliagreadk�il�rring - ( kltaFrtx .r,sing- [quipnronralaEt+y;Ferw t - - Opfier l- prtietY£gaitirr andzSy.tznr. �1KKwgrxPlr,. Audio nit+,- linditiliquiprnrra -and -r-'1 - VYa'itMl-!Ytldllnlr111 - - !'Iwtagruplre- fquipnwN . nfmFed- andl- tNravielel- lyaryrtrfenEnad- S,w;tem, - � e 1 ifi -d"j %lad�nmxnl. Tetin-, 11. To allow kxution of a117we and- xrra.- essettialrJ wi4h-- andifeer.tiorv_ - trt�he penrtinetlu.r, li Wunder -A. —1. :aamini eative, proof, itgw- afallhr.iness klflkt Itz,ian rz- Iimite l 227 City Council Ordinance No. Page 12 of 63 ?-- RluelninBrt�PhuNnMNIinK; - pMNO- engrx�inK: - IKin14ng- }xdrlrlrix� --nrNl lKNtklaindittg; refwnkNl -- That- rNa rx» itrr, xnnmrixl- .rrv;,..r- is- xwwi�ttevl widrNeitEtt+e+. 4 E- xfrtrria�afr;- rr, ixrNarN-1, ar.- dxwm• niglucluMar tiNNlB.ar+rNN�aflyrry -tN the I-gu Nlrlinr.- ,rt- a'Ngh -in- T-irl of {Itr Code. wit .Y&elj B e _42:t1 — - —S. x —ms-: yeti rr.- wilLaar- IxrmixrJ.- reel yrcv�ty NN .rt,cvt»iF.y,nwiJe,l- rlxtt -n�� a »ite cnnutmcial +ervire i. awktaral witbrriJ�N.r.,: - 44watIn% nuwwJ. Nailin�a+ a-1 mnrittaFu +r.,dya•tu.tlrr�,+llowing v- NN4NirNt 1. AlEdenrnaec�IwlNar- inw{hr,aniraa- ,rwcr- .+arxt allcar -wa,h and auto detailing ,gmminNn+larli- hrcondwed within a tNNera4xraNr. - ? Fhi.- ire+ �irr-+ INtINar, k: igrmNw. axvrlNrilding- mrxrN+arNl- 1lNtir- IMUrNn erNl- gNr.tsnxN4�slw!{�l,rxrk iN�tutbr- IKinNm- {ew`I�4u1 SertkNr -I I1 —bNIN. trial- ServkearN}�Strtrtwrt f ecilitir, Frnniltrd- I�:.r..µ{ — .1-- iealkrw -a c.NNF+ireari�vruf Yerrrr-al- irNlrr+rry. 7Nr.i�:irual�.ti -Nt cnrNl irNknrnal- ,r,epaart- ,r:ri�Nir.: - IK.wirkel- tlNN -vk Ir- eclitiria +- areontNrerl- widrifr -N Mril diNg�x- iKUWirrg;- utNl--, 6 .- rNN- .,NUfiINUr�sear.i`rlwi.e. *64.,nwke. WNi1r1am1 -Wlef. 1fltundNi"wifMllt"a-n,N ctNUain- a- high -It Heard- ItaatNaf th�tt.tlw nature uf- dro- Produet,.- material tN (KHeeo e' I"%ak- E 1. All We= __nn:....I . Nitr- Ram- .,SftgN i;lr*ama! tNN�IKe it ItNltlt<afI1CC+: b. lntkNritll% try> fNnt ttw,%rlr nf-IK<Attet! + OF! rIN ieO e n:.._t ....:.... ....t NeFNtN.ing,ptnrN �ectitNrIV-- F_termN{- UrtrlcNNnrnt GanlNrd.liK- Indu.Nv M:na .ai : mte "" :hall ••"• be l" "1N/NilNfrYilNaaMaatii -!ti+a 44-4p a(e -ktt- eN 4ftl rwt4*4e+ Ilion rhirl� ilitiumand 011. 1(4- ,quare fret 1-22 City Council Ordinance No. Page 13 of 63 u -,`. "n rinwmawiWir�rrxY.l xdl- hr- x.- rrNerl-- in- rl�FlxriwiwMrwlwi..- ('wi - - -� Seetiaxtf: f— aJitax- +leieln n..a �: ng- Ixigl us�a.(. traKVUrc;-. IxrN- 4+ r-J irnilrJ- Iae- hrighr♦rf- vr`rtxv- liar{ -Z:tl -fret 1- hr- hrighta +f- x- .N�Ir- irnit:xl- �vrkxw• , � e, T,-- �._.:- v:;. lr- I.y- �. ?.1'avv- alecyrl- xwwvxle�l with off Air Sepnmtkm F Inm Ithr fumlirnt is torxnmtgu.. -i.e. mygitn. Na.: Gtxttxh-1, whit4r.uplxvr. r- .itr- nrnnufinvrxing xetioitir.. 41x11 Iw linriftetho nhKVyl'K /l Icrtalxa�r gawrKl liwrl atnhlwFl irrrK. -wny rrtvav411W hrigivi imit.;rt It, he- 4ider4h `i.Niwv- Afftlwrity -tix -( figr Castxny- Airtw�n- + \�klin�rwll� -ihir ert-lfwn- Jxmhaxee- Rt%hawl .. �{it..lwll- hr- IimiK.Nt. -.Mtr cok"w on site. -n nke-. xhrewi.r- xppnwri}- in- conjuncutw with ft u e Jr w nplxHYe(i-11Y -1iK� iinnr111g�alnHill <iNxl�tx- 11MirltK',1lHx/ 4"t-14iKtYtmo �W- 44roif .tywrwia+xrr.lurrxr- wirlr -a- new-- e. rlurrxr— F�tearyxitrv.- eri.tit>!t- thnr.trdixrr»ng MnKlwaw- -t2-i�l- F3?N3FI men hejwe eni -hne. FtwAl pugw c ttfiln+ .xditt�Kr: w-+traax-�tlr-pnhw+ty- lux -i. it x+ t -7ierr . ra+itrJ -My- Her- uhinxne- riyln�+f- wx - Iinr.tflhr-k M4*x er.trrtY: :--- &�xx- i'ard- tirfhxt*A ThiFN 1114-1- - .., r.. M. I!ke pl r1Mr- ixbtlppW ted Ftx/1ti OF- �WixYrrlh MR) - prdjret.iC -W I- train Ten 4114-feet. ercrpt- dmt- axisf"%vW ftwrl� ninl .uittcraavn- nxty1xtyect dwtst, 3l-I%vi niethe etivKA-xra hx linr+ 22j City Council Ordinance No. Page 14 of 63 ? R�lenl- 4tireel: Is; ra\M MHII- eibrie1 dW4%1gh44- in- %4w1 raw.r the tayttilevl -litme ynrd- wtbavA hall I1 Av.trved. 1, E20mti:LoK� -- � -: n.'r{1�x, -rrgai red- �l+ y- ihr- F- nifi+mr- Buiklirt���arlr- there- shell-- I+r -a»1 mHHli. vtxl-. ethael :- requiremret+o-- tAr�xtiklHl�v- within- k+cltNrHn -l.x� Frtwitlrtl. Iwwerer, tlmr lwilditlPv- within (aMl»int hqs vhnlla+e+o hwnted u,- w. da: rwrlhr. rtF+ ael ;..ai. »n+.uertsatx4rri+tittK -hM �litx.irquiravl-wxkr Fan -i: baatielt- l- V -6:1 -3 u1x1 -1. - Meaimum Wi1Jing.oremge oFtifi lull perceml,. alh varl: Perking , nicltff . vFrdl+xN -I.r a•akvil1xe11 o. -Witt llgarex:ax.werer�llpt.tnK4n� aedy ( ur- theiul6ing- .r(.enlpxrly- •rhiekv, enrydawee'lrellwia .: aM-r14 /N`leci)lhNlglllg-10 pervnm- vi,iriutNVle�ulyect�rrec ," Wl- hrn+ �xei{ tedittdfr6etxmF- Sigo-NerrlifertKVN+. egF>r 1,1 v 4 h4rravptireal.el -dil jewiripmeel. e he itxln t 4. lrygx +rt-IilediFrnrrx- to- :ldnnit -n planof-pedk trinn -net s the planting Depavenem I»it» to 11t issnattceof n Mdlding -pe ik Maid plan will de eeess o4he whijeet- propen) end ie a jaeetx- properties. -Mindi irlrtn mot» 1 - 1'aT +Y — r4an- .Hell -she"- all - ilneli.>r welkwxrrxtxl -all "I% a% 4 mehl-pirkwov of Weriif u.Jtwvdkwaw++reix . ylt1.awl All paFl kV—shall ---- be— as— speellieA- U the - Geni%R"arking Requirements, Part 111. 1- Famdvaape Ithindwoping. hall- h&as�ilicvl in lhr- Eienees11- 1- wxl..�gtr Rarluilemrlu,, pan 4L ISO City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 15 of 63 PART II COMMERCIAL Section 1. Site Area and Building Area Group PROFESSIONAL& BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) A. Building Sites (4) Total Acreage Site A 30.939 acres • (29) Site B 43.703 acres (11) Site C 18.806 acres (10) Site D 19.673 acres Site E 2.371 acres Site F 1.765 acres Site G 5.317 acres (81 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) B. Allowable Buildine Area Oft'ir. Ac_maae 30.939 acres •(29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 ac (8)(10)(11) Site A 366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30) Site B 977,720 square feet (13)(16)(28)(30)(32) Site C 674,800 square feet (10)(15) Site D 240,149 square feet (8)(13) Site E 32,500 square feet (4) Site F 42,646 square feet (4)(3 1) Site G 45.000 square feet (8) 2.378.962 square feet (15)(•)(31) C. Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Perking Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area Qa 120 cars per acre for Sites C, D, E. F and G. 131 City Council Ordinance No. Page 16;-f 63 '(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Once Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) b. One (1) space per 300 square feet of net building area Q 120 cars per acre for Sites A, B and C. (l I ) Site A Allowable Building Area ....... 366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30) Site Area ...... 19.399 acres •(3)(4)(16) a. Building Height Land Covent (16)(29)(30) Two story development ............... 4.20 acres Three story development ............... 2.80 acres Four story development ............... 2.10 acres Five story development ............... 1.68 acres Six story development ............... 1,40 acres Seven story development ............... 1.20 acres Eight story development ............... 1.05 acres Nine story development ............... 0.93 acres Ten story development ............... 0.84 acres Eleven story development ............... 0.76 acres Twelve story development ............... 0.70 acres b. Parkin Land Covent 1,221 cars .............. 10.18 acres (11,16,29,30) C. landscaped Open Space (4,11,16) land Covera¢e (29,30) Two story development ............... 5.02 acres Three story development ............... 6.42 acres Four story development ............... 7.12 acres Five story development ............... 7.54 acres Six story development ............... 7.80 acres Seven story development ............... 8.02 acres Eight story development ............... 8.17 acres Nine story development ............... 8.29 acres Ten story development ............... 8.38 acres Eleven story development ............... 8.46 acres Twelve story development ............... 8.52 acres 2. Site B Allowable Building Area ......... 977,720 square feet (13,16,28,30) Site Area .1....... 43.703 acres (4) (1 l) IS2 a Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking 3,259 cars Landwened (Jlten Space (I 1) Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development 3. 5iteC(10) Allowable Building Area Site Area ......... 18.806 acres (4) a Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development City Council Ordinance No. Page 17 of 63 Land Covent (16,28,30,32)) ......... 11.22 acres ......... 7.48 acres ......... 5.61 acres ......... 4.49 acres ......... 3.74 acres ......... 3.21 acres ......... 2.81 acres ......... 2.49 acres ......... 2.24 acres ......... 2.04 acres ......... 1.87 acres land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30,32)) ............... 27.16 acres Land Coverage (11, 13,16,28,30,32)) ............... 5.32 acres ............... 9.06 acres ............... 10.93 acres ............... 12.05 acres ............... 12.80 acres ............... 13.33 acres ............... 13.73 acres ............... 14.05 acres ...... I........ 14.30 acres .............1. 14.50 acres ............... 14.67 acres ......... 674,800 square feet (15) (17)* Land Coverage (15) ......... 7.75 acres ......... 5.16 acres ......... 3.87 acres ......... 3.10 acres ......... 2.58 acres ......... 2.21 acres ......... 1.94 acres ......... 1.72 acres ......... 1.55 acres ......... 1.41 acres ......... 1.29 acres Iss City Council Ordinance No. Page 187f 63 b. Parkin Land Coveru (15) 2,249 cars ............... 18.74 acres ' The square footage includes a maximum of 3,250 square feel for up to two (2) restaurants, bars, or theater /nightclubs. Any portion or all of the floor area not utilized for the purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. (17) Landscaped Onen Space Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development 4. Site D Allowable Building Area Site Area a. M Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Parking 1,067 cars Land Covemae (4)(15) ............... .7.68 acres ............... .5.09 acres ............... .3.80 acres ............... .3.03 acres ............... -2.51 acres ............... -2.14 acres ............... -1.87 acres .......I.....1. -1.65 acres ......... I..... -1.48 acres ............... -1.34 acres ............... -1.24 acres ......... 240,149 square feet (8)(13) ......... 19.673 acres (4) Land Covers 8) (13) ............... 2.75 acres ............... 1.84 acres ............... 1.38 acres ............... 1.10 acres ............... 0.92 acres ............... 0.79 acres ............... 0.69 acres ............... 0.61 acres ............... 0.55 acres ............... 0.50 acres ............... 0.46 acres Land Covers (8) (13) ......... 8.89 acres IS4 C. 5. Site E Landscaped Oven Snace Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six stay development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Allowable Building Area Site Area a. b. Building Helaht Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Parking 144 cars City Council Ordinance No. Page 19 of 63 Land Covemae (4) (8) (13) ............... 8.03 acres ..............1 8.94 acres ............... 9.40 acres ............... 9.68 acres ............... 9.86 acres ............... 9.99 acres ............... 10.09 acres ............... 10.17 acres ............... 10.23 acres ............... 10.28 acres ............... 10.32 acres ......... 32.500 square feet (4) ......... 2371 acres (4) Landscaped Onen Space (4) Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Lend Covers ae (4) ......... 0.37 acres ......... 0.25 acres ... 0.19 acres .......1. 0.15 acres ......... 0.12 acres ......... 0.11 acres ......... 0.10 acres ......... 0.09 acres ......... 0.08 acres ......... 0.07 acres ......... 0.06 acres Land Covemae (4) ......... 1.20 acres Land Coverage ............... 0.80 acres ............... 0.92 acres ............... 0.98 acres ............... 1.02 acres ............... 1.05 acres ............... 1.06 acres ............... 1.07 acres ............... 1.08 acres ............... 1.09 acres ............... 1.10acres ......... I..... 1.11 acres ZSJ5 6. Site F (4)(31) Allowable Building Area Site Area a. b. C. Building Height One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Parking 190 cars Landseaoed Open Space One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development 7. Site G (8) Allowable Building Area Site Area a. b. C. Building Height Building Heiebt One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development Parking 200 cars Landscaped Otten Space One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development City Council Ordinance No. Page 20 of 63 ......... 42,646 square feet ......... 1.765 acres Land Coveta¢e ............... 0.98 acres ............... 0.49 acres ............... 0.33 acres ............... 0.24 acres ...........0.20 acres ..........0.16 acres Land Coverage ......... 1.58 acres 1_and Covemge ............... <0.80> acres ............... <0.31> acres ............... <0.15> acres ............... <0.06> acres .................<0.02> acres .............. <0.03> acres ......... 45,000 square feet ......... 5.317 acres Land Covemee ......... 1.03 acres ......... 0.52 acres ......... 0.34 acres �......... 0.26 acres Land Coverage ......... 1.67 acres land Coverage ............... 2.62 acres ............... 3.13 acres ............... 3.31 acres ............... 3.39 acres ISO City Council Ordinance No. Page 21 R 33 Maximum building height shall not exceed twelve (12) stories above ground level, and shall in no way exceed the height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. Conclusi011a The preceding figures indicate that within a feed maximum density as the height of the building increases the resulting open landscaped area also increases. Group II. HOTEL & MOTEL (1) A. Building Sites For the purposes of this statistical analysis, 9.54 acre have been allotted for hotel and motel development. This acreage is for statistical purposes only. U is necessary to allot a specific acreage within this analysis to secure office building densities within their specific parcels. Development may include but shall not be limited to this acreage. The hotel and motel site size shall be determined at the time a use permit is secured B. Building Height Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. Group Ill. COURT HOUSE A. Building Site Site I: 7.80 acres B. Building Area Site 1: 90,000 square feet ........... 7.80 acres 90,000 square feet The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Parking 400 Cars D. Landsc Two story development .............. Three story development Four story development . Five story development. Six story development ... E. Building Height 3.33 acres Land Coverage 3.44 acres ........... 3.78 acres ........... 3.95 acres ............ 4.06 acres ............ 4.13 acres ZS7 City Council Ordinance No. Page 22 of 63 Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. �� g City Council Ordinance No. Page 23 of 63 Group IV. SERVICE STATIONS A. Building Sites (4) (5) (1 l) Site 3: 1.765 acres .... ............................... 1.765 acres Service station site 3 shall be located within Office Site F and shall not exceed 1.765 acres in size. Any portion or all of Site 3 not utilized for service station use shall revert to either professional and business office use or restaurant rue. (4) Group V. RESTAURANTS (1) (4) A. Building Sites Maximum acreages for Site 2 shall not exceed 1.25 (18) acres. Maximum acreage for Site 3: 1.765 acres Maximum acreages for Sites 4 and 5 shall not exceed 3.0 acres. Maximum acreage for Sites 6 and 7 shall not exceed 12 acres. (8) (The following acreages are for information only.) Site I Deleted see Group VII. .............. (18) Site 2 ..................... ............................... 1.25 acres Site 3 ..................... ............................... 1.765 acres Site 4 Deleted .......................... ...........................(30) Site 5 Deleted .................... ............................... (30) Site 6 ..................... ............................... 1.50 acres (8) Site 7 ..................... ............................... 0.70 acres (8) 5,215 acxs ........... 5.215 acm-.A ) Site I Deleted see Group VII Private Club (18) Site 2 (4101 Jamboree - Taco Bell) located within Office Site °B" (4) (16)(30) Site 3 located within Office Site "F'. (4) Site 4 (4300 Von Korman Avenue - Kato Restauran# deleted and reverted to Site B Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area (30) Site 5 deleted from Office Site "B" and transferred to Office Site "A" as Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area (30) Sites 6 and 7located within Office Site "G ". (8) Any portion or all of the restaumnt, bar, theater /nightclub acreage for Sites 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. Any portion or all of the restaurant acreage for Site 3 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to either professional and business office use or service station use. (4) (8) (18) I-3j City Council Ordinance No. Page 24 of 63 The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. la C. A A Building Area (4)(8) (30) Site 2 ................ 2,397sq. R ...... 0.06 acres (30) Site 3 ................ 10,000 sq. R ...... 0.22 acres Site 4 ................ Deleted Site 5 ................ Deleted Site 6 (8) .......... 7,000 sq. R ...... 0.16 acres Site 7 (8) .......... 3,000 . ...... 0.07 acres 22.397 sp. R ...... 0, .......0 (8, 18,30) Parkine Criteria: 300 occupants/10,000 sq. R I spacO occupants and 120 cars per acre. Site 2 .......... 24 cars ............. Site 3 .......... 100 cars ............. Site 4 .......... Deleted Sites.......... Deleted Site 6 (8) ... 70 can Site? (8)... scars 224o Landscaped Open Space (4) (30) Site 2 .......... 0.99 acres (30) Site 3 .......... 0.70 acres Site4.......... Deleted Site 5 .......... Deleted Site 6 (8) .... 0.76 acres Site 7 (8) .... 0.38 acres 2AI-a Building Height 0.20 acres (30) 0.84 acres 0.58 acres 0.25 acres 1.87 acres ....... SZac (8) (18)(30) 3 a (8) (18)(30) Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty -five (35) feet. 140 City Council Ordinance No. Page 25 of 63 Group VI. RETAIL & SERVICE CENTER A. Building Site (4) (5) Site 1 .......... 5.026 acres Site 2 Deleted (30) 5.026 acres .......... ............................... 5.026 acres (30) Site 2 shall be located within Office Site "B." Any portion or all of the retail and service Site 2 acreage not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. (4) (16) Site 2 deleted from Office Site "B" and trunsfened to Office Site "A" as Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area. (30) B. Allowable Building Area (5) • Retail Site No. I .......... 120,000 sq. & (14)(27) Retail Site No. 2 Deleted (30) • Retail Site No. 1 (sg, Ft.) Parcel Existing Total Parcel 1. R/S 588 (H) (H) 70.630 Parcel 3, R/S 506 (R) (R) 0 (0) (0) 22000 Parcel 4, R/S 506 (R) 4,115 (R) 21,896 (0) 0 (0) 5.474 Subtotal (R) 12,315 (R) 21,896 (0) 0 (0) 27,474 (H) 70,630 (R) = Retail (0) = Office (H) = Hotel C. Landscape Area (5) Twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. 1 shall be developed as landscape area If twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. l is not developed as landscape area, a specific site plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuing of building permit. 1'1- lim E. City Council Ordinance No. Page 26 R 63 Statistical Analysis (5) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. Assumed parking criteria: One (1) space per 200 square feet of net building area at 120 cars per acre. 1. &Lg—L Allowable Building Area ..... ............................... 120,000 sq. ft (14)(27) SiteArea .............................................. ............................... 5.026 acres a. Building Height (14) Two story development ........... ............................... 1.17 acres Three story development ......... ............................... 0.78 acres Four story development ........... ............................... 0.59 acres Five story development ............ ............................... 0.47 acres b. Parking (14) 460 cars .................................... ............................... 3.83 acres C. Landscaped Open Space (14) Two story development ........... ............................... 0.03 acres Three story development ......... ............................... 0.87 acres Four story development .......... ............................... 0.61 acres Five story development ........... ............................... 0.73 acres 2. Site 2 Deleted (30) Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35) feet above mean existing grade as shown on Exhibit "B." (5) Building height of structures for Service Site 1 shall be limited to a height of sixty feet (27) 1-42 City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 27 of 63 Group VII. PRIVATECLUB(18) A. Building Site Site I .......................... 2.0 acres ........ ............................... 2.0 acres Site 1 shall be located within Office Site "A." Any portion or all of the private club acreage not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. 1. Siel Allowable Building Area ............... .........................45,000 square feet (26) B. Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of fifty (50) feet Section H. Permitted Uses Group 1. PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICES To allow the location of commercial activities engaged in the sale of products or services relating to and supporting the Development Plan, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings. A. Professional Offices similar in nature to but not limited to the following: (6) 1. Accountants 2. Attorneys 3. Doctors, dentists, optometrists, oculists, chiropractors and others licensed by the State of California to practice the healing arts. 4. Engineers, architects, surveyors and planners. B. Business Offices similar in nature to but not limited to the following: (6) 1. Advertising agencies 2. Banks 3. Economic consultants 4. Employment agencies 5. Escrow offices 6. Insurance agencies 7. Laboratories a. Dental b. Medical c. X -Ray d. Biochemical e. Film, wholesale only 14S City Council Ordinance No. Page 28 of 63 f. Optomenical 8. Stockbrokers 9. Studios for interior decomtom photographers, artists and draftsmen. 10. Telephone answering services 11. Tourist information and travel agencies C. Hotel and Motel (I) To allow for the location within Office Site "A" ofa hotel or motel development, subject to a use permit. D. Restaurants, bars and theatedniehtdubs subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth In Tide 20 of the Newport Beach Munlelpal Code, in each case. (1) (3) (4) (7) (25) 1. Deleted (l8) • 2. To allow within the 43.703 acres of Office Site "B" three (3) restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub sites. (16) 3. To allow within the 18.806 acres of Office Site "C' up to two (2) restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub sites with a total area not to exceed 3,250 square feel. Specific location of these restaurants, bars or theater /nightclubs to be determined at a later date. The permitted professional and business offices' allowable building area for the site will be reduced accordingly. (17) 4. To allow within the 1.765 acres of Office Site "F' two (2) restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub sites. Specific location of these sites to be determined at a later date. All other acreage shall be adjusted and shall not increase or decrease the professional and business offices allowable building area for the site. 5. To allow within the 5.317 acres of Office Site "G" three (3) restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub sites. Specific location of these sites to be determined at a later date. All other acreage shall not increase or decrease the professional and business offices' allowable building area for the site. (8) (25) • E. Private Club (4) (18) (26) To allow within Office Site "A" one (1) private club site at 4110 MacArthur Boulevard. F. Service Station (4) To allow within Office Site "F' one (1) service station site. Specific location to be determined at a later date. All other acreages shall be adjusted and shall not 144 City Council Ordinance No. Page 29 of 63 increase or decrease the professional and business office allowable building area for the site. • (4) If restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub, or private club uses are developed, the allowable building area for Office Site "B" shall be restricted by one of the following conditions: 1. The 963,849 square feet of allowable building area shall not increase or decrease so long as twenty-five (25) percent of the 41.969 acres constituting Office Site "B" is developed as landscaped area. (16) 2. if twenty-five (25) percent of the 42.709 acres constituting Office Site 'B" is not developed as landscape area, the 963,849 square feet of allowable building area shall be reduced by the gross building area of the restaurants, bars or theater /nightclubs and/or private club. The allowable building area shall be further reduced by the number of additional parking spaces required to support a restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub, or a private club beyond what would he requited for an equivalent area of office use. The reduction shall be 225 square feet per additional space. (16) G. Sunimn Commercial (20) The uses permitted under this section are of a convenience nature ancillary to the operation and use of office facilities. These uses shall be in addition to those sites permitted under Part 11. Section 11. Group V (Restaurants). These uses shall not increase the allowable building area for Professional and Business Office. 1. Retail sales and services including tobacco stony, card shops, confectionery and newspaper stands, and other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Director, are of a similar nature Retail uses shall be located in the basement or on the first floor of a building. Storage for such uses shall be within a building. 2. Restaurants, including outdoor restaurants and take-out restaurants, bars or theater /nightclubs shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (25) Group 11. HOTEL & MOTEL (1) Subject to a use permit Group 111. COURT HOUSE State, County and/or City Facilities. Group IV. SERVICE STATIONS & MECHANICAL CAR WASH (4) A. Service stations subject to the City of Newport Beach service station standards. 145 City Council Ordinance No. Page 30 of 63 B. Mechanical car wash, subject to a use permit. Mechanical car wash shall only be allowed in conjunction with or in lieu of a permitted service station use. Group V. RESTAURANTS (7) A. Restaurants, including outdoor, drive-in or take -out restaurants, bars and theater /nightclubs, shall be subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. Facilities other than indoor dining establishments or those that qualify as outdoor, drive-in or take-out establishments shall be subject to the City of Newport Beach regulations covering drive -in and outdoor establishments. (25) Group VII. RETAIL & SERVICE CENTER (1) A. Permitted Uses 1. Restaurants, including outdoor, drive -in or takeout restaurants, bars and theater /nightclubs, shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case, except as noted under "a" and "b" below. (7) (25) a Restaurants, other than outdoor, drive -in or takeout restaurants, shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (25) b. Outdoor, drive -in or takeout restaurants shall be subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (25) 2. Barber shop and beauty parlor 3. Book and stationery store 4. Blueprinting and photostatics S. Camera Shop 6. Delicatessen store 7. Florist 8. Shoe store or repair shop 9. Tailor 140 City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 31 of 63 10. Tobacco stare 11. Office equipment rentable and repair 12. Pharmacies 13. Tourist information, travel agencies, and ticket reservation services, but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage, or freight. (1) 14. Athletic club or health clubs (5) • 15. Professional and Business Offices (5) 16. Other uses similar to the above listed 17. Hotel subject to approval of a Use Permit (27) Group VII. LODGE HALLS, PRIVATE CLUBS, ATHLETIC CLUBS, UNION HEADUARTERS (1)(4)(18) Subject to use permit Group V1111. AUTO DETAILING (19) A. All drainage shall be into the sanitary sewer system B. That all car wash and auto detailing opemdons shall be conducted within a covered area C. This service shall be designed to serve building tenants and their patrons and guests, and shall be ancillary to the primary use. Section III. General Development Standards for Commercial Land A. Site Area Minimum site area shell not be less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feel Footprint lots shall have all required appurtenant areas contiguous thereto and the sum of these areas shall not be less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. (3) • To allow, in addition to the 2,320,600 square feet of professional and business office use permitted elsewhere in the text, a maximum of 38,022 net square fat of professional and business office use within Retail and Service Center Site I. (5) (14) Exception: (9) The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to the minimum site area Application for any such exception shall be made at the time J City Council Ordinance No. Page 32 of 63 of the filing of a tentative map by the applicant. In order for an exception to be granted, the Planning Commission shall find the following facts with respect thereto: L That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. 2. That the Development Considerations and intent of this planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. B. Building Area Maximum building area for professional and business offices shall be as noted in Site Area and Building Area, Part II, Section 1, Group I.B. Parking basements or parking structures shall not be calculated as building area; however, said structures shall be used only for the parking of company vehicles, employee vehicles, or vehicles belonging to persons visiting the subject fum (4) C. Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a strut side property line is that line created by the ultimate right -of -way of the frontage street Front Yard Setback (10) Thirty (30) feet minimum; except that unsupported roofs or sunscreens may project six (6) feet into the setback area The setback for Site C from MacArthur Boulevard would be at least thirty -six (36) feet except that unsupported roofs or sun -screen any project six (6) feet into the setback 2. Side Yard Side yard setbacks will be required only when any one of the following conditions exist: a Comer Lot: Thirty (30) feet (street side setback only), except that unsupported roofs and sunscreens may project three (3) feet into setback area. b. Where property abuts other than commercially zoned property, a ten (10) foot setback is required. Unsupported roofs and sunscreens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. 3. Rear Yard 142 City Council Ordinance No. Page 33 of 63 None required except on a through -lot in which case the required front yard setback shall be observed. 4. Footprint I ots (6) Except as required by the Uniform Building Code, there shall be no additional setback requirements for buildings within footprint lots. Provided, however, that buildings within footprint lots shall be so located as to observe the setbacks from streets and existing lot lines required under Par 11, Section III, C.1, 2 and 3. D. Loading Areas 1. Street side loading on other than special landscaped streets shall be allowed providing the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right -of -way line, or one hundred ten (110) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. E. Storage Areas 1. All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (g) feet in vertical height, but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. Refine Collection Area 1. All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. 2. No refuse collection area shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. G. Telephone and Electrical Service All "on- site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal !L 4J City Council Ordinance No. Page 34 of 63 equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent Properties. H. Pedestrian Access (1) It is required of all developments in the commercial areas to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plan will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right-of-way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. L Parkin All parking shall be as specified in the General Parking Requirements, Part Ill. J. Sims i9. n1l, All signing shall be as specified in the General Sign Requirements, K Landscace All landscaping shall be as specified in the General landscape Requirements, Pan V. 1150 City Council Ordinance No. Page 35 of 33 PARTIII. GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Section 1 A. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for the site. The intent is to eliminate the need for any on -street parking. Required off - street parking shall be provided on the site of the use served, or on a contiguous site, or within three hundred (300) feet of the subject site. Where parking is provided on other than the site concerned, a recorded document shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Building and Planning Departments and signed by the owners of the alternate site stipulating to the permanent reservation of use of the site for said parking. B. Parking requirements for specific sites shall be based upon the following parking criteria. All parking shall be determined based upon building type and the area within allotted to the following functions: Business & Professional Offices One (I) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (l) space for each 250 square feet of net floorarea upon review and approval ofthe modification committee. Company parting stalls shall not exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the total number of required parking spaces. The number and design of compact parking stalls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. (11) Except n: (11) Parking Requirement for Business and Professional Office Buildings based on Parking Pool. The parking requirements for office buildings within a contiguous office site may be modified in accordance with the following schedule when the net building area or areas served exceeds 100,000 square feet. a. For the first 125,000 square feet, parking shall be provided at one space per 250 square feet of net floor area b. For the next 300,000 square feet, parking shall be provided at one space per 300 square feet of net floor area. C. Any additional floor area, parking shall be provided at one space per 350 square feet of net floor area d. For pools based on more than 425,000 square feet of net floor area, the Planning Commission may modify the parking formula by use permit, based on a demonstrated formula. _151 City Council Ordinance No. Page 36 of 63 2. Medical & Dental Offices Five (5) spaces for each doctor or one (1) space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. 3. Deleted. 33 T% 8 (2) p8diaNg SpaePS PBF e8011 thFee (3) employees, but iH He event less than - three -(3)- space ,- foreaoh- alr- thewsalxl- (1;000} ,gvarc- feet -ef gross il9BFArea- 4. Warehouse Deleted 1331 S. Lodge Halls. Private Clubs. Athletic Clubs, Union Headquarters (1) (4) (5) a One (1) space for each 75 square feet of gross Floor area plus one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross office floor area b. Specific parking requirements shall be developed for private clubs or athletic clubs based upon functions and occupancies within this use. Parking shall be in conformance to existing City of Newport Beach requirements for said occupancies or at a demonstrated formula agreeable to the Planning Director. (4) In the event that private clubs or athletic clubs are converted to another use, parking requirements for the new use shall be subject to review by the Planning Director. (5) 6. Restaurants. Bars or Theater/Nightctubs. Outdoor. Drive -In and Take -Out Re51 t n Cn a. Restaurant, bar or theater/nightclub parking shall be in accordance with Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, except as noted under "b" and "c" below. 1-152) City Council Ordinance No. Page 37 0163 b. Restaurants, other than outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, within retail and service centers shall provide one (1) space for each 200 square fect of net floor area and one (I) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, to the extent that the net flow area of all restaurants does not exceed twenty (20) percent of the net floor area of the retail and service center. In the event that any restaurant causes the total of all restaurant uses in the retail and service center to exceed the twenty (20) percent limitation noted above, that entire restaurant and any subsequent restaurants shall provide parking as noted under "a" above. C. Parking for outdoor, drive-in and takeout restaurants shall be provided in accordance with Section 20.53.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. Commercial Retail and Service Center (5) One (1) space for each 200 square feet of net flow area. One (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area Professional and business office parking shall be provided per Pan III, Section I.B.I. Athletic or health club parking shall be provided per Pan III, Section I.B.5b. 8. Hotels and Motels One (1) space for each guest unit plus employees' parking on a demonstrated formula Parking for restaurants, bars, banquet rooms, retail shops or service stores shall be as specified in the above applicable section or on a demonstrated formula acceptable to the Planning Director. Professional and business office net flow area shall be included in this provision. Athletic and health club net floor area shall be excluded from this provision. (5) 9. Count House Specific parking requirements shall be developed based upon functions and occupancies within this zone. Parking shall be in conformance to existing City of Newport Beach requirements for said occupancies, or at a demonstrated formula agreeable to the Planning Director. 1153 PART IV. GENERAL SIGN REQUIREMENTS Section I. Sim Standards Group 1. City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 38 of 63 A. Signs visible from the exterior of any building may be lighted, but no signs or any other contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. B. Signs shall be restricted to advertising only the person, Finn, company or corporation operating the use conducted on the site or the products sold thereon. C. A wall sign with the individual letters applied directly shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol and calculating the area enclosed by such line. D. All signs attached to the building shall be surface mounted. A. Ground Signs Ground signs shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height Also, ground signs in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area (double face) shall not be erected in the first twenty (20) feet, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of two hundred (200) square feet B. Wall Signs In no event shall an identification sign placed on a wall comprise more than ten (10) percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be future signs. Signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted The following exceptions apply to industrial zoning only. In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual industry may have a wall sign over the entrance to identify the tenant Said sign shall give only the name of the company and shall be limited to six (6) inch high letters. Said signs must be oriented toward the parking or pedestrian area for that building and shall not exceed a maximum area of five (5) square feet 2. Fascia mounted identification signs limited to two (2) facades for each building and structure. 1 154 City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 39 of 63 No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one -half (1 12) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building or store. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. 3. The following exceptions apply to Professional and Business Offices and Retail and Service Center uses only. In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual ground floor business may have signing in addition to permitted Building Identification signs. (6) Each individual ground floor business shall be limited to one (I) sign per frontage not to exceed two (2) signs per business. Said signs shall not be located above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed an area equal to ten (10) percent of the business face upon which it is located However, no sign shall exceed thirty -five (35) square feet in area (6). In no event shall there be more than three (3) permitted ground floor wall signs per building for Professional and Business Offices. (6) C. Pale Sims One (1) identification pole sign per site will be allowed for the following commercial businesses only: a. Restaurant b. Cocktail lounge and/or bar C. Hotel If a pole sign is utilized, it shall be in lieu of other identification signs allowed by ordinance. Pole signs shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) fat and a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet per face, double faced Group II. TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. The following signs shall conform to all requirements for "Ground Signs," Section 1, Group 1, Item A with General Sign standards above unless specifically limited below. 1-515 City Council Ordinance No. Page 40 of 63 Sale or tease Sigq A sign, advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs listed in this section. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet 2. Construction Sim One (1) construction sign denoting the architects, engineers, contractor, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of construction. Said sign shall be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy, or the tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet 3. Future Tenant Identification Sim A sign listing the name of future tenant, responsible agent or realtor, and identification of the industrial complex shall be permitted Said sign will be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy or tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs fuss Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 4. Directional Sims Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians or give instructions as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square feet (double face) in area and shall be permitted in addition to the other signs in this section 5. Excentions Group fl.A.l, 2 and 3: this information may be grouped on a single sign when the aggregate surface area does exceed the summation of the individual areas for each use. This area may be distributed on all surfaces of the sign. This sign may not exceed four (4) feet above grade. Group Ill. SPECIAL PURPOSE SIGNS A. The following permanent signs shall be permitted Permanent Directional Sim 1-50 Section U. City Council Ordinance No. Page 41 of 33 Sips used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (G) square feet in area per face, double faced and shall be permitted in addition to other signs permitted in these standards. 2. Community Directional and /or Identification Sim Permanent directional and identification signs, not exceeding two hundred fifty (250) squire feet (per face), shall he permitted but suhject to use permit. Sitat Area A. Deleted_ 33 _ _tial - - fhr- k> µsw' tng. hxNufryd} toPenttrtted- Esrs,Vxr+- �Ser:u�xrN: `". IycNtrll�F+ iuKtrfitcrd�er- tk�uble- I'xecv4 +i gt r.lxtil- br(.erntNtedgter- strrc4 fnrttxgr- ��+- tiigtr- nr- ar. ntlmtaNNSrr�t�i�- shxll�acavl- txtr -+�H syuxrr- lix�t- iu- grea-f' xr- rtndr. i+- Vu .xxkrd- 1(r041Fsyuxrr- fert��hxal NiC'xfea— iiUWCVI'FflRi1F r�i'm..rn' "kCediwfYllllnllfetl{�)Mflixre leer- ittercro-ptr- faee- Ylraddi iewl- twenty (-2141 luare-leet- shaWbe xllewed- f<x -rx =H adtfitt. wxl- lids; nr..- .4xuWateJ.xaat�.itr- -�;iwt innite�4- to�twat•_�- faeaele+ B. IMItNrixl Busines. and Professional Ofice%t3!) The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part 1, Section [it. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one -half (I 12) square feet of sign flar each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (2W) square feet in area per face. C. Commercial The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Par II, Section 11, Groups 11, 111, V and VI. Building identification shall be limited to a single entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed one and one-half (I 1/2) square feet of surface f'or each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (2IM)) square Icet per face- Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. D. Business and Professional Offices TFor M ,ft left: a', Hangap: 25' 157 City Council Ordinance No. Page 42 of 63 The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part It, Section II, Group I. Building identification shall be limited to a single entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. Section 111. Maintenance All signs indicated in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Periodic inspection shall be made as directed by the Planning Director, City of Newport Beach or his designated agent. 1-152 City Council Ordinance No. Page 43 of 33 PART V. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS Section 1. General Statement (1) Detailed landscape and irrigation plans, prepared by a registered Architect or under the direction of a Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation prior to issuance of a building permit and installed prior to issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. Landscape in the public right -of -way shall be Installed per plans and specifications approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director and in accordance with Parks, Beaches and Recreation Standards. All landscaping in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Periodic inspections will be made as directed by the Planning Director and reports submitted with regard to the condition of maintenance. If suggestions of improvement are made, and are in the realm of the Maintenance Standards, the work shall be corrected within thirty (30) days of receipt of the report A. Maintenance 1. All planting arras to be kept free of weeds and debris. 2. Lawn and ground covers to be kept trimmed and/or mowed regularly. 3. All plantings to be kept in a healthy and growing condition. Fertilization, cultivation and tree pruning are to be carried out as part of regular maintenance. 4. Irrigation systems are to be kept in working condition. Adjustment and cleaning of system should be a pan of regular maintenance. 5. Stakes, guys and ties on trees should be checked regularly for correct function; ties to be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling to the stems. 6. Damage to plantings created by vandalism, automobile or acts of nature shall be corrected within thirty (30) days. 1 ,5j City Council Ordinance No. Page 44 R-653 B. Front Yard Setback Area 1. General Statement Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover and shrubbery. All unpaved area not utilized for parking shall be landscaped in a similar manner. Full coverage of ground cover to be expected in a minimum of three (3) months. 2. Special Landscaned Street The entire area between the curb and the building setback line shall be landscaped, except for any driveway in said area Tree size to be no less than 24 -inch box. 3. Other Streets The entire area between the curb and a point ten (10) feet back in the front property line shall be landscaped except for any driveway in said area. Tree size to be no less than 24 inch box. C. Side Yard and Rear Yard General Statement All unpaved areas not utilized for parking and storage, shall be landscaped utilizing ground cover and/or shrub and tree materials. Undeveloped areas proposed for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed free condition, but need not be landscaped Screenin Areas used for parking shall be screened from view or have the view interrupted by landscaping and/or fencing from access streets, freeways and adjacent properties. Plant materials used for screening purposes shall consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees of a sufficient size and height to meet this requirement when initially installed 4. Boundary Area Boundary landscaping is required on all interior property lines. Said areas shall be placed along the entire length of these property 100 City Council Ordinance No. Page 45 of 63 lines or be of sufficient length to accommodate the number of required trees. Trees, equal in number to one (1) tree per twenty- five (25) lineal feet of each property line, shall be planted in the above defined areas in addition to required ground cover and shrub material. Minimum width of property line landscaping shall be three (3) feet 5. All landscaped arras shall he separated from adjacent vehicular areas by a wall or curb, at least sits (6) inches higher than the adjacent vehicular area. D. Parking Areas Trees, equal in number to one (l) per each five (5) parking stalls, shall be provided in the parking area Planting area around building shall not be included in packing area. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing. E. Sloped Banks All sloped banks greater than 5 to 1, or six (6) test in vertical height and adjacent to public right -of-way shall be stabilized, planted and irrigated with full coverage in accordance with plans submitted and approved by Planning Director. F. Loading Areas Street side loading on other than special landscaped streets, shall be allowed providing the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right -of -way line or one hundred ten (110) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. G. Storage Auras All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access soecM freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a 6ontage street and the building line. H. Refuse Collection Areas J-01- City Council Ordlnance No. Page 46 R 63 1. All outdoor refine collection Areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen 2. No refine collection area shall be permitted between a frontage sweet and the building line. 3. Minimum width for landscaping shall be three (3) feet around refuse collection areas. I. Telephone and Electrical Service All "on -site' electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12 KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties, or an approved method of display. J. Pedestrian Access(1) It is required of all developments in the commercial areas to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plan will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties, and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right -of- way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. K Landsraoe Plant Vocabulary (1) It is the intent of this standard to provide flexibility and diversity in plant selection yet maintain a limited variety to give greater unity to the development At the direction of the Director of Community Development and the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, material lists and a street tree master plan shall be developed to aid in this development All trees occurring in the ten (10) foot setback shall be no less than 24 inch box. The parking lot trees shall be no less than fifteen (15) gallon size. Shrubs to be planted in containers shall not be less than one (l) gallon sin. Ground covers will be planted from one (1) gallon containers or from root cuttings. Every effort should be made to avoid using plants with invasive and shallow root systems with fruit that would stain paving or automobiles. 102 City Council Ordinance No. Page 47 of 63 L Earth berms shall be rounded and natural in character, designed to obscure automobiles and to add interest to the site. In cases where the ratio of width and height of berm creates a bank greater than 3 to 1, shrubs or walls can be used as shown in illustration (b) (c). Wheel stops shall be so placed that damage to trees, irrigation units and shrubs is avoided. M. Trees in parking lots should be limited in variety. Selection should be repeated to give continuity. Regular spacing is not required and irregular groupings may add interest. Care should be exercised to allow plants to grow and maintain their ultimate size without restriction. N. Storage areas are to be provided with an opaque screen up to a point of eight (B) feet in vertical height. Combination of plantings can be used to further soften hard materials and give continuity to planting. Zos City Council Ordinance No. Page 46 of 63 PART VI. FOOTNOTES (1) Planned Community text revision incorporating Planning Commission revisions and conditions of approval. (2) Planned Community Text revision incorporating City Council conditions of approval as adopted by the city of Newport Beach. (Amendment No. 313, adopted August 14, 1972). (3) Planned Community Text revision July 6, 1973 incorporating the addition of footprint lots and the addition of two (2) restaurant sites within Office Site "A ". (Amendment No. 381, adopted August 2, 1973). (4) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 420, adopted February 7, 1974) incorporating the following changes: a. Revised Planned Community Text site acreage figures to conform to the recorded tract map. b. Revised Exhibit "A" (land use map) to conform to recorded tract map. C. Changed the size of Office Site "E" and created one parcel of land comprised of Restaurant Site No. 3, Service Station Site No. 3 and the residual of Office Site This new site is designated as Office Site "F'. d. Revised Retail and Service Site No. 2 from a specific location to a floating location within Office Site "A ". C. Added mechanical car wash subject to a use permit as a permitted use on the service station sites. f. Added private clubs or athletic clubs as a permitted use on Office Site "B ". g. Made provisions for three (3) additional restaurant sites, two sites within Office Site "B: and one site within Office Site "F'. (5) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 430, adopted June 10, 1974) incorporating the following changes: a. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 2. b. Added health or athletic club as a permitted use within the Retail and Service Center sites. C. Added Professional and Business Office as a permitted use within the Retail and Service Center sites. d. Added a minimum twenty-five (25) percent landscape requirements or site plan approval by the Planning commission to the development requirements of retail Site No. I. (6) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 444, adopted May 15, 1975) incorporating the following changes: a. Clarified the setback requirements for buildings within footprint lots. b. Clarified Professional and Business Office permitted uses. C. Added signing provision for ground Boor businesses in multi- tenant building. 104 City Council Ordinance No. Page 49 of 63 (7) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 451, adopted September 8, 1975) incorporating the following changes: a. Added the requirement that all restaurants shall be subject to the securing of a use permit with the exception of certain restaurant uses within Retail and Service Centers. (8) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 466, adopted June 28, 1976) incorporating the following changes: a. Changed the size of Light Industrial Site No. 2. b. Created Professional and Business Office Site "G ". C. Made provisions for two (2) restawant sites within Office Site "G ". d. Reduced the allowable building area of Office Site "O ". e Amended the construction timetable for traffic signals. (9) Planned community Text revision (Amendment No. 475, adopted January 10, 1977) incorporating the following changes: IL Established guidelines for an exception to the minimum site area. (10) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 505, adopted July 11, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Increased the site area of Professional and Business Office Site "C". b. Increased the allowable building area of Professional and Business Office Site .,C., (11) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 508, adopted August 28, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Made provision for consideration of additional left turn ingress from MacArthur Boulevard. b. Eliminated Service Station Site No. I and added the land area to Professional and Business Office Site "B ". C. Reviewed the parking requirement for office buildings within Professional and Business Office sites. (12) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 514, adopted October 19, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Established existing and additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978. b. Established the requirement and criteria for phasing plan approval of development beyond thirty (30) percent of the additional 1015 City Council Ordinance No. Page 50 ;T-63 (13) Planned Community text revision incorporating the transfer to allowable building area from Professional and business Office Site "D: to Professional and Business Office Site "B ". (Amendment No. 550, adopted November 10, 1980). (14) Planned Community Text revision for Retail and Service Site No. 1, which allocates existing and permitted development. (Amendment No. 558 adopted March 23, 1981). (15) Planned community Text revision increasing the allowable building area in Site C (MacArthur Court). (Amendment No. 593, adopted October 24, 1983). (16) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer of allowable office, restaurant and retail building area from Professional and Business Office Site "A" to Professional and Business Office Site "B ". (Amendment No. 606, adopted May 14, 1984). (17) Planned Community Text revision to allow up to two restaurants with a total floor area not to exceed 3,250 square feet within "Office Site C". (Amendment No. 626, adopted December 9, 1985). (I8) Planned Community Text revision deleting restaurant Site I and substituting a private club with a total floor area not to exceed 30,000 square feet within Office Site "A ". (Amendment No. 635, adapted July 14, 1986). (19) Planned Community Text revision to allow auto detailing as a permitted use. (Amendment No. 647, adopted March 23, 1987). (20) Planned Community Text revision adding support commercial uses to the permitted uses under Professional and Business Office permitted uses (Amendment No. 649, adopted July 27, 1987). (21) Planned Community text revision combining Light Industrial Sites I and 2 into Light Industrial Site 1, increasing the allowable building am for the combined site by 39,000 square feet, and increasing the permitted building height from 35 feet to 55 feet. (Amendment No. 677, adopted June 12, 1989). (22) Planned Community Text revision increasing the permitted building height in Light Industrial Site 1 from 55 feet to 75 feet. (Amendment No. 799, adopted April 25, 1994). (23) Title 20 amendment to reinstate notice and appeal procedures for specialty food service applications. (Amendment No. 829, adapted September 11, 1995, Ordinance 95.39) (24) Planned Community Text revision to increase the permitted height within "Light Industrial Site l" from 75 feet to 90 feet for a single vertical column. (Amendment No. 867, adopted February 23, 1998, Ordinance 98 -3). (25) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 876, adopted August 10, 1998, Ordinance 98.20) to allow the following changes: 100 City Council Ordinance No. Page 51 of 63 a Additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the current limited of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites), and, b. Permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Kell Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. (26) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 890, adopted 01/1 12000, Ordinance 99 -28) to allow the following changes: a Increase the permitted level of development for Office Site A by 15,000 square feet (41 l0 MacArthur Boulevard) and; b. Establish the permined level of development for Koll Center Newport Office Site A at 418,346 gross square feet (27) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 897, adopted January 25, 2000, Ordinance 2000.3) to allow the following changes: a Designate Parcel I of Koll Center Newport Retail and Service Site I for Hotel Use, and; b. Establish the pertained Gross Floor Area for Koll Center Newport Retail and Service Site 1 at 120,000 square feet, and C. Establish the permitted height for the site at 60 feet. (28) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2005.014, adopted August 9, 2005) to allow the following changes: EL Office expansion of 1,367 net square feet in the Koll Center Office Site B at 4210 Von Karrnan Avenue. (29) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2006.19), adopted July 25, 2006 to allow the following changes: a. To increase the development allocation for Professional and Business Offices of Site A by 2,129 net square feet. (PA2005 -293) (30) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2006 -21), adopted October 24, 2006 to allow the following changes: a To allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A resulting in the elimination of the entire Retail Site 41, an undeveloped portion of Restaurant Site #2 and the entire Restaurant Site #5. (31) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2011 -3), adopted January 25, 2011 to agow the following changes: i07 City Council Ordinance No. Page 52 of 63 a. To allow building area for Professional & Business Site F to increase by 18, 346 net square feel. (32) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2011 -8), adopted March 8, 2011 to allow the rollowing changes: a. To allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Site B by 9,917 net square feet 1331 1111111 ed 'Ixninanity Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2013• ), adonte4l .2013 to• ferinattaa: Tab smos: 0.3a', tan ,rte 11, low 111E Cl11Ilu:%. a Tu delete Light Industrial Sites I and 2 from PC -I 1 ►alnatted: awnbertd . tevat: 1 . h To delete Pan 1. Industrial uses in its entirety a. an allowed uu. awa6eea ": a. 0. c .. • Styr at: l . Alignment: left + Agad at: 1' + tnaen n: c To revise the total acreage within PC -I I to 1?4 0 acres to reflect the deletion of Light 122. Tae smcs: Horn -1' . -os Industrial Sitc< 1 and'_ from PC -I 1. J To undat the Comtxnite exhibit and Exhibit% A Ouough 1- its reflect the dcky(l of Ligin Industrial Site I and 2 from PC'-I 1. Insert erldbirs: Composite ............ ............................... For information Only -LJ Exhibit A ................. ........................... Land Used Exhibit B .............. ............................... Grading and Roads (33) Exhibit C' .............. ............................... Storm Drain (33) Exhibit D ............. ............................... Water & Sew cr t3 3) Exhibit E. ............. ............................... Boundary and TopographyLl3) IM City Council Ordinance No. Page 53 of 63 EXHIBIT B PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION PC2012 -001 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 8 PROCEDURES See Attachment CC20 of the February 26, 2013, City Council Staff Report. Exhibit B Is available for review at the City Hall in the offices of City Clerk and Planning Division of Community Development Department and online at www.newporibeachcagov 1 Oj City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 54 of 63 EXHIBIT C PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION PC2012 -001 PHASING PLAN See Attachment CC21 of the February 26, 2013, City Council Staff Report. Exhibit C is available for review at the City Hall in the offices of City Clerk and Planning Division of Community Development Department and online at www.newoortbeachca.gov 1- 0 City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 55 of 63 EXHIBIT D PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION PC2012 -001 DESIGN GUIDELINES See Attachment CC22 of the February 26, 2013, City Council Staff Report. Exhibit D is available for review at the City Hall In the offices of City Clerk and Planning Division of Community Development Department and online at www.newoortbeachca.cov i�� 172 Attachment No. CC 5 Draft Resolution — TTM, Traffic Study & AHIP 17S 174 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -005 AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2012 -001 FOR THE 25.05 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS UPTOWN NEWPORT LOCATED AT 4311 -4321 JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2011 -134) II:Ixi11111YK.1110[yI19• 101: 1:941r rigs] 011 WIN go] 0■: 3NVA[ 6]: I:I Ell :Ial :raw101.Ly_[.9 go] I11•1r=41 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 as Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 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. e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -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. 175 City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 36 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 February 7, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (FEIR) and approval of the Project to the City Council. 5. The City Council held a public hearing on February 26, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The FEIR which consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Comments, Responses to Comments, Revisions to DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 6. The Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 7. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report, and adopted "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Uptown Newport Project Final Environmental Impact Report" ( "CEQA Findings ") containing within Resolution No. 2013 -_ on February 26, 2013, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 8. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the certification of the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) by Resolution No. 2013 -_ on February 26, 2013, which is hereby incorporated reference. 9. The City Council overruled the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the Uptown Newport project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs 1-70 City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 36 Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport by Resolution No. 2013 -_ on February 26, 2013, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 10. The City Council 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. 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. 11. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan and the ICDP. The City Council concurs with the conclusion of the consistency analysis of the proposed project with these goals and policies provided in the DEIR. 12. 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 A and are incorporated herein by reference. 13. 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 D and are incorporated herein by reference. 14. 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. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves: a. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; 177 City Council Resolution No. Page 4 of 36 b. Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference; and C. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001, attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference. 2. This Resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 26th of February, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 5 of 36 EXHIBIT A 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 forth: 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 -H2) and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). MU -H2 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. 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 17J City Council Resolution No. Page 6 of 36 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 Finding: 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 onsite during the preparation of the El for the Project. 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: M City Council Resolution No. Page 7 of 36 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 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. 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. 121 City Council Resolution No. Page 8 of M 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. 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. 122 City Council Resolution No. Page 9 of 36 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. 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. 183 City Council Resolution No. Page 10 of 36 EXHIBIT B 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. • MNIRP — 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)(1) 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. 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 124 City Council Resolution No. Page 11 of 36 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 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 125 City Council Resolution No. Page 12 of 36 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 consistent with Section 19.52.090 of the Subdivision Code. 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. sm City Council Resolution No. Page 13 of 36 fC�►1 /_a�IaC —:A 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 1013C 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 2013C 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. 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. I: illl City Council Resolution No. Page 14 of 36 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. 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 M City Council Resolution No. Page 15 of 36 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. 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 City Council Resolution No. Page 16 of 36 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 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. 1J0 City Council Resolution No. Page 17 of 36 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. 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 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 review by the City Attorney and 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 191 City Council Resolution No. Page 18 of 36 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 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 1-92 City Council Resolution No. Page 19 of 36 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. 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. 1J 3 City Council Resolution No. Page 20 of 36 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. 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 2J4 City Council Resolution No. Page 21 of 36 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. 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 1J5 City Council Resolution No. Page 22 of 36 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). 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: 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 Igo City Council Resolution No. Page 23 of 36 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 NO] and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall detail measures and 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 297 City Council Resolution No. Page 24 of 36 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 (AGMs) shall be completed. The Asbestos - Abatement Contractor shall comply with notification and 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. 73. 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). City Council Resolution No. Page 25 of 36 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 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 19J City Council Resolution No. Page 26 of 36 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. 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. 200 City Council Resolution No. Page 27 of 36 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. 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). 201 City Council Resolution No. Page 28 of 36 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). 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. 202 City Council Resolution No. Page 29 of 36 100. 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, 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. 203 City Council Resolution No. Page 30 of 36 EXHIBIT C TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002 Exhibit C is available for review at the offices of Planning Division of Community Development and City Clerk or at http: / /newportbeachca.gov 00,19 City Council Resolution No. Page 31 of 36 EXHIBIT D 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 (8) [NBMC Section 15.40.030.8.2] can be made. Section 15.40.030.8.2 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 d. The project is required, during the sixty (60) month period immediately after approval, to construct circulation improvement(s) such that: 205 City Council Resolution No. Page 32 of 36 (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 (B)(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 (B)(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.B.2 can be made. 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 200 City Council Resolution No. Page 33 of 36 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. 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 20 j City Council Resolution No. Page 34 of 36 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. I: City Council Resolution No. Page 35 of 36 EXHIBIT E TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -005 Exhibit E is available for review at the offices of Planning Division of Community Development and City Clerk or at http: / /newportbeachca.gov 2 0j City Council Resolution No. Page 36 of 36 EXHIBIT F AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2O12 -001 See Attachment CC24 of the February 26, 2013, City Council Staff Report. Exhibit F is also available for review at the offices of Planning Division of Community Development and City Clerk or at hfti): / /newr)ortbeachca.gov 210 Attachment No. CC 6 Draft Ordinance - DA 211 212 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 601x01[07124 MER] I UA1481A041 to] OyGT0111[.1 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 as Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 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. e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -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 213 City Council Ordinance No. Page 2 of 5 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. 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. At the February 7th hearing with a vote of , the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. _, recommending certification of the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) and approval of the Project to the City Council. 5. The City Council held a public hearing on February 26, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) which consists of the Comments, Responses to Comments, and Revisions to DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report, and adopted "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Uptown Newport Project Final Environmental Impact Report" ( "CEQA Findings ") containing within Resolution No. 2013 -_ on February 26, 2013, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the certification of the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) by Resolution No. 2013 -_ on February 26, 2013, and is hereby incorporated reference. 4. The City Council overruled the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the Uptown Newport project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs 214 City Council Ordinance No. Page 3 of 5 Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport by Resolution No. 2013 -_ on February 26, 2013, and is hereby incorporated by reference. 5. The City Council 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. 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 City Council concurs with the conclusion of the consistency analysis of the proposed project with these goals and policies provided in the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094). 2. 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). 3. 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. SECTION 4. DECISION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Development Agreement shall be adopted as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. 3. This action shall become final and effective thirty (30) days after the adoption of this Ordinance. 215 City Council Ordinance No. Page 4 of 5 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 26th of February, 2013, and adopted on the 12th day of March, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL ME NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, ,8 IC� T� Y ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City A—ttom- y 77UI 13 for the City of Newport Beach 210 City Council Ordinance No. Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT See Attachment CC25 of the February 26, 2013, City Council Staff Report. Exhibit A is also available for review at the City Hall in the offices of City Clerk and Planning Division of Community Development Department and online at www.newportbeachca.gov 217 212 Attachment No. CC 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908 21J 220 RESOLUTION 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. 221 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908 Page 2 of 103 e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -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 222 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. 223 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 224 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; 225 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 ABSENT: None ma go Michael Toerge, Chairman Fred Ameri, Secretary 220 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. 227 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 1) 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. 222 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. INTRODUCTION 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. 229 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908 Page 10 of 103 (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents 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. 230 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. 231 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. 232 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908 Page 13 of 103 Table 1 Uptown Newport Land Use Summary 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 233 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 233 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 234 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. AH2012 -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 RWOCB would approve the project's compliance with the National Pollution Discharge 235 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 23 o 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, 237 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; 238 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. 23J 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. (i) 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. 240 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 241 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. Q) 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 242 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. 2.43 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. M'Z9 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. 245 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 247 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 242 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. 2`rJ 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. 250 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). 251 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. 2152 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 1 253 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.I. 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. 254 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 E.1. (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. 255 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 E I 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. 250 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 25 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 2152 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. 2�� 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. 200 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: 201 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 202 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. 20S 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 WON 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 205 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 200 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. 20 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.I. 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 -H1), 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 -H4 designations permit a density of 20.1 to 26.7 dwelling units per net acre (du /acre), and the areas designated MU -H3 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. 2 O 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 270 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 271 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. 272 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908 Page 53 of 103 Table 2 Statistical Summary Comparison 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 Report (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 per hotel employee rate for Orange County, the regional rate of 1,804 was used to develop the number of employees for this alternative. 5 Jobs- to-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, 2 3 Proposed Project No Project Alternative Hotel /Office/ Commercial Alternative Office /Commercial/ Residential Alternative Reduced Density 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 — — Park Space 2.05 ac — 1.52 ac 1.40 ac 2.05 ac Population' 1 2,724 1 1,818 1,229 Employment Commerciale 26 — 44 16 26 Office s — 135 455 284 — Hotel4 — — 96 — — Industrial — 3,000 Total 26 3,135 595 300 26 Jobs -SO- 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 Report (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 per hotel employee rate for Orange County, the regional rate of 1,804 was used to develop the number of employees for this alternative. 5 Jobs- to-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, 2 3 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. 274 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 64 233 297 236 135 370 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. 274 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 2715 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 270 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. 277 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. 272 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 6.13.1.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. 220 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 221 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. 222 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 223 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 2 224 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). 225 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--AW) 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. 227 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. 222 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 forth: 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 -H2) 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. 229 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 Finding: 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 onsite during the preparation of the El for the Project. 2J 0 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. 291 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. 2J° 2 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. 2J 3 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. 294 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. • MAMP — 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) (1) 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. 2J° 5 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 2J° 0 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 consistent with Section 19.52.090 of the Subdivision Code. 297 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 1013C 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. J00 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 301 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. 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 302 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 303 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. U001 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. 305 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. 300 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). 30 j 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: 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 NO] and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall detail measures and I: 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 30J 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. 73. 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 310 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. 311 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. 312 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). 313 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, S14 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. 315 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 http: Hnewportbeachca.ciov /index.aspx ?gape =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 15.40.030.6.2 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 317 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 (B)(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 (B)(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.B.2 can be made. 318 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. SIJ 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. 320 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. ?21 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. 322 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. 323 S24 Attachment No. CC 8 Planning Commission Staff Report — 10/4/12 (w /o attachments) 325 S20 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 4, 2012 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Uptown Newport - (PA2011 -134) 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011- 003 • Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001 • Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005 • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002 • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001 • Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 APPLICANT: Shopoff Management, Inc. PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The Uptown Newport project would redevelop a 25.05 -acre office /industrial site with a mixed use residential project consisting of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail use, and two acres of park space. The subject property is located on the north side of Jamboree Road, west of MacArthur Boulevard, and east of Birch Street. A full project description is included in the Notice of Study Sessions and Notice of Completion and Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). STUDY SESSION This is first of the two planned study sessions scheduled for the Planning Commission. The second study session has been scheduled for October 18, 2012, at 4:30 p.m. The study sessions are intended to provide the Planning Commission and public the opportunity to review and discuss details of the proposed project including the DEIR prior to public hearing. The study sessions are for discussion purposes only, and no action will be taken by the Planning Commission. A complete staff report with comprehensive analysis of the project will be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission at a future scheduled public hearing. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of the October 4 and October 18, 2012 study sessions has been provided in the following manner: 1) mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the property and to project interest groups; 2) posting of the site; and 3) noticing through the City's 327 Uptown Newport October 4, 2012 Page 2 Select Alert system. The mailing, posting of the site, and notification occurred at a minimum 10 days in advance of the October 4, 2012 meeting. In addition the agenda for this meeting was posted at City Hall and on the City's website (72 hours in advance of the meeting). Prepared by: o alinh Ung As ociate Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: Yklf 70—?Z�— e. Kimberly Brand , AICP Director The following attachments have been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review in advance of the study sessions. These attachments may be reviewed at the Planning Division of the Community Development Department (Building C, 2nd Floor), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at http : / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2029 • Draft Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 • Proposed Planned Community Development Plan Standards & Procedures) • Proposed Design Guidelines • Proposed Phasing Plan • Preliminary Site Plan • Master Tentative Tract Map (Land Uses Development 328 Attachment No. CC 9 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes — 10/4/12 S 2 s30 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES IV V u If NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, October 4, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. — Commissioner Myers ROLL CALL PRESENT: AmeX Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, ToergaX, Tucker 10/04/2012 Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, ommunity Development Dir ctor; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic En Weer; Rosalinh Ung, A ociate Planner; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Toerge invited those interested in address' the Commission to do so at this time. There was no response and the public comments portion the eeting was closed. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF S TEMBER 20, 2012 Recommended A ion: Approve and file Motion made by Co issioner Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown, nd carried 7 — 0, to approve the min ut of the Planning Commission meeting of September 20, 2012, egular meeting, as presented. Interested p�(rties were invited to address the Commission. There was no response and Ch Toerge closed PLOic comments for this item. \ AY XAmeri N S: None BSTENTIONS: None ABSENT (Excused): None STUDY SESSION ITEM Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker ITEM NO. 2 Uptown Newport Project (PA2011 -134) Site Location: 4311 — 4321 Jamboree Road Summary: The study session will be dedicated to discussing the project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed Uptown Newport Project would remove existing office and industrial uses in two phases and construct a mixed -use community consisting of 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving retail space, and approximately two acres of park space. Residential product Page 1 of 10 331 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/04/2012 types would be for sale and rental with a mix of townhomes, and mid- and high -rise condominiums. Of the 1,224 housing units, 184 units would be set aside for affordable housing. Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet in height; with several residential towers up to 150 feet high. The 25.05 -acre project site is within the Airport Business Area of the City of Newport Beach and located on the north side of Jamboree Road, at 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, which is west of MacArthur Boulevard and east of Birch Street. Project approval requires a Planned Community Development Plan amendment and adoption, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, Traffic Study, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, Phasing Plan and Design Guidelines. Recommended Action: None. The Planning Commission will take no action on this study session item. Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung reported that the study session is for discussion purposes and that no action will be taken by the Planning Commission. She provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing details of the proposal, number of residential units, retail space, location, surrounding properties, existing conditions, zoning designations and uses allowed, opportunities for residential development, proposed open space, improved and proposed residential streets and proposed pedestrian access. She noted that a conceptual plan is required in order to implement residential development and that a plan was previously approved by City Council. Ms. Ung addressed the number of residential units allowed in the various sites, master site plan, park space, circulation and access to Jamboree Road. She reported the project will be developed in two phases and presented the details of each phase including timelines and expected completion dates. Ms. Ung addressed entitlements for the project, design guidelines, phasing plans, tentative tract map, traffic study, affordable housing implementation plan, and development agreement. She addressed CEQA compliance including preparation of a draft environmental impact report (EIR) and related public review. The EIR identifies significant unavoidable impacts to air quality due to construction - related activities, noise impacts, and Ms. Ung noted the requirement for a statement of overriding considerations. She presented the project's tentative schedule including a second study session by the Planning Commission, review by the Airport Land Use Commission, Planning Commission public hearing and Council public hearings. JoAnn Hadfield, The Planning Center DC &E, provided an overview of the environmental review including previous meetings and completion of the EIR. She noted that it was scoped based on the initial study prepared and comments received during the public scoping meeting and agency and public responses to the Notice of Preparation. She indicated that the EIR was prepared including all CEQA topical sections with the exception of Agricultural /Forestry and Mineral Resources. Ms. Hadfield addressed related technical studies and noted that there was a high level of hazards analysis performed and phase assessments, health risk assessments, and a comprehensive analysis of potential hazards associated with the operation of the TowerJazz facility and their on -site storage of chemicals. She noted significant findings for Phase 1 and Phase 2 and mitigation and timing of mitigation measures for each phase. She addressed construction and demolition impacts and presented the overall findings of the EIR . In addition, she presented information regarding noise and vibration impacts, coordination with various parties to mitigate impacts, and unavoidable significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. These related to demolition and construction activities and would occur regardless of the type of development on the site. Ms. Hadfield noted that the consistency finding by the Airport Land Use Commission is still pending. Ms. Hadfield addressed project alternatives noting that two were considered but not carried through impact by impact in the EIR. Potentials included relocating the project and potential project phasing. She stated that the Draft EIR presents a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to reduce and eliminate impacts. Ms. Hadfield noted that public comments will not be responded to at this time but suggested that the public email or write and formally submit comments prior to October Page 2 of 10 332 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/04/2012 24, 2012, which is the conclusion of the public review period. The final EIR will be prepared for formal presentation to the Planning Commission and Council. Brian Rupp, Shopoff Group on behalf of Uptown Newport, addressed the Commission and noted the attendance of various colleagues related to this project. Mr. Rupp presented background, location of the Uptown Newport Project, original development of the property, current tenants, and characterization of the area, surrounding properties, existing residential units, and the integrated conceptual development plan. He addressed the number of units to be designated as affordable housing, the vision for Uptown Newport, urban plazas, streets and various residential property types as well as retail shops, outdoor spaces, patio dining and amenities. Mr. Rupp noted that design guidelines were prepared to implement the project and outline site planning, architectural design, site development and infrastructure, landscape architecture and signage for the project. He addressed primary entries, retail areas, mixed -use nodes, neighborhood parks, retail and urban plazas and private open spaces as well as architectural design guidelines and landscape design guidelines. Mr. Rupp presented details of the proposed parks, streets, incorporation of parallel parking, choker sections for traffic calming, pedestrian connectivity, and opportunities for recreation and extension to existing trail networks. He addressed the Planned Community Development Plan and the Phasing Plan and plans for the continued operation of TowerJazz during Phase 1 and presented a model of the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 development. Mr. Rupp noted that the project will implement the 2006 General Plan and 2010 Integrated Conceptual Development Plan and provides for redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial uses and will bring in a new vibrant community into Newport Beach. He noted that no variances are being requested, the project is trip neutral and includes amenities such as affordable housing, workforce housing, public parks, paseos and trails and substantial funding for public park improvements throughout the airport area. Mr. Rupp addressed beneficial environmental impacts, best management practices that will protect runoff and improve water quality into the Back Bay. In response to an inquiry from Chair Toerge regarding the timing for Phase 1, Mr. Rupp addressed the start of Phase 1 as well as the build -out phase. He noted that there will be two -to -three individual projects within Phase 1. In reply to an inquiry by Commissioner Ameri regarding phasing, Mr. Rupp reported that the primary reason for the phasing is because TowerJazz has a lease which runs through 2017 and they have a two five -year options which could extend the lease to 2027. Mr. Rupp added the intent to have the project run on its own with the operation of TowerJazz and that Phase 1 would be fully occupied first. Bill Shopoff, applicant, reported that all of the phases are set off with a number of tenants noting that Phase 1 could have as many as seven projects within it. As each project is completed, that project would be occupied. He agreed that there could, potentially, be sub - phases within each phase which would be occupied upon completion of each. The Planned Community allows for flexibility to be responsive to the market. In response to Vice Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Shopoff stated that Phase 1 and Phase 2 are two separate parcels. Mr. Shopoff reported that his organization develops the land and sells to vertical developers. He addressed the existence of soils issues, primarily related to Phase 2 of the project, behind the TowerJazz facility. He addressed steps to remediate the problem. Mr. Rupp addressed the benefit of having a water - characterized site and added that the Water Board is engaged in the process. Mr. Shopoff reported that remediation could be completed within six -to -nine months of when the building is demolished. Page 3 of 10 333 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/04/2012 Discussion followed regarding a pending risk assessment to document whether Phase 1 is clear and could be completed as early as one week. Commissioner Kramer inquired as to the possibility of consolidating the review sessions into one session and obtaining public comments earlier rather than later. Chair Toerge referenced the General Plan showing a circulation system that connects to Von Karman Avenue stating that he felt that it was a significant and important component. That it was minimized in the Integrated Community Development Plan with a desire by both parties to not cross boundaries. He referenced Figure LU -23 in the General Plan that provided unrestricted access through the area but the proposed plan provided emergency access only. He felt that the project has moved away from what was originally approved in the General Plan. He expressed concerns regarding cut -off of pedestrian connectivity during Phase 1. Chair Toerge commented that several issues are significantly different than what was originally approved in the General Plan. Interested parties were invited to address the Commission on this item. Linda Tang, Kennedy Commission, commended the City for its progress in facilitating and encouraging the development of affordable homes in the City. She felt that the proposed rental units will improve the quality of life for the City's lower- income workers. She addressed related benefits to the environment. Dan Purcell reported attending previous meetings on the matter and expressed concerns regarding the lack of bicycle access in the project. He questioned the location of sidewalks and felt that circulation and pedestrian mobility is very important. Whitney Allen, Long Beach, expressed concerns with insufficiencies in the EIR and felt there will be adverse impacts to the office parks surrounding the project due to construction. She felt that traffic study data is outdated and felt that there is a traffic burden on existing parking lots. Ms. Allen stated that the project is not consistent with the CC &Rs of the Koll Center. She felt that the alternatives are not well addressed and voiced concerns with the shadow of a thirteen -story residential building. Ms. Allen felt it is detrimental to the local economy. Chair Toerge encouraged Ms. Allen to submit her comments in writing for response by the City. Jim Mosher expressed concerns regarding the City's vision for this area and referenced the General Plan's provisions. He questioned "density bonus" units, commented on the school district boundary and stated that he was surprised that there was no impact defined under public services. He felt that the matter needs to be considered. There being no others wishing to address the Commission, Chair Toerge closed public comments for this item. Chair Toerge noted that there may or may not be another study session on this item but indicated that there will be more opportunity for comments during the public hearing for this item. Commissioner Tucker indicated that he has a page -by -page process and asked if other Commissioners have conceptual comments at this time. Commissioner Tucker commented on the parcel map and the possibility of multiple parcel maps being generated and stressed the importance of understanding how the plan will be implemented. Vice Chair Hillgren inquired regarding the approval process required for a subsequent owner of a parcel. Page 4 of 10 3S4 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/04/2012 Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt stated that the ownership does not affect the project as it moves forward and that all appropriate reviews would proceed regardless of who owns the property. Discussion followed regarding the master developer of the site. Commissioner Ameri commented on the creation of entitlements and related conditions of approval. He felt that conditions of approval must be developed requiring subsequent parcel owners to abide by. There may be special conditions added. Commissioner Tucker agreed for the need of a comprehensive program where conditions to be implemented by the master developer would place a burden on all of the properties. He also felt that the grading plan did not seem clear. Chair Toerge felt that subsequent meetings will be necessary and addressed the phasing impact that residents will face once they moved in. He referenced the various commercial uses and felt that they should be restricted to neighborhood - serving retail. He reiterated the concern over the lack of connectivity, restricted pedestrian /bicycle access, vehicle access in the northwest corner as emergency only and other restrictions. Chair Toerge addressed the importance of making sure that the project has legal access as well as access by the public to the property. He reiterated concerns that the project has evolved from its original concept in the General Plan and indicated a preference for "taller and smaller "; with taller buildings, smaller footprints, more amenities and more open space. Vice Chair Hillgren hoped that mixed -use development works in the area and stated that he would like to see increased density in the area. He expressed concerns with the lack of integration with adjacent properties and agreed with the need for retail and amenities that make life good and interesting and compelling for people to want to live there. He addressed the importance of recreation, bicycle safety, pedestrian connectivity to trails and integration. Commissioner Tucker commented on the Parcel Map and asked who will own and maintain the lettered lots. He assumed that park lands will be dedicated to the City. Ms. Brandt noted that the long -term maintenance is still a point of discussion but that the intent is that the parks will be dedicated to the City. Commissioner Brown indicated that the issue was also one of his concerns and addressed the City's high standards of maintenance. Commissioner Tucker asked regarding securing improvements to the lettered lots. Commissioner Ameri felt that the matter has not yet been determined and hoped that the lettered lots would be transferred to the association that would be formed. Commissioner Tucker felt that the site plan should identify the number of angled and off - street parking spaces and each should be numbered. He questioned traffic circulation and exit routesfrom the retail area by the public. Commissioner Tucker addressed the uncertainty as to how long industrial uses will remain on the property and allowable uses that may not be desirable at the time when residents may be nearby. Discussion followed regarding the transfer of development rights and permitted uses being modified without being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Page 5 of 10 335 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/04/2012 Chair Toerge felt that if permitted uses will be modified, there needs to be a public hearing on the matter. Uses that are listed will need to be vetted in that some uses listed may not be appropriate. Commissioner Tucker agreed that some of the commercial uses that are not appropriate with the residential uses and addressed fast -food and fitness facilities over 2,000 square feet. He felt that the details of how retail uses adjacent to residential uses will interface and needs to be considered carefully. Commissioner Tucker addressed wireless communications noting that it should be a minor use permit process. Chair Toerge opined that the commercial aspect needs to serve the community and encourage pedestrian access. Commissioner Tucker agreed with ensuring that the retail uses serve local residents, primarily. Vice Chair Hillgren asked regarding building height restrictions. Principal Planner Campbell reported that the airport area height limits are reflected in the PCDP and he indicated that the shade /shadow analysis was based upon the height limits and the applicant's proposed building footprints. Discussion followed regarding setbacks and possible similar existing projects in the City. Commissioner Tucker addressed parking and questioned the process of crediting on- street parking against the requirement for retail parking. He stated it was unclear were guests and employees would park. He felt there should be no deviation from required parking by a parking management plan. Chair Toerge added that he cannot determine how parking is clustered to serve the commercial areas, parks and how the public may be able to use the parks. Commissioner Tucker asked what the plan would be if there is a need for overflow parking. Additionally, Commissioner Tucker commented on the adjustment standards noting that the number of parking spaces should not be subject to change and questioned the need for a parking management plan. He felt that the manner of the stucco application to the building exteriors should be specified and suggested providing photographs of the plant material to be used in the landscaping plan. In addition, he stated that he would feel better if the Director would review the building elevations and landscaping on the building pads. He suggested adding streets to the definition section of the document. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed the approval criteria and felt that there needs to be an understanding of what should be required. Chair Toerge took exception to no public hearing being required for a site review application. He felt that there is a purpose for public hearings and felt that public hearings should be required. Regarding the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Tucker addressed connections between the property and the adjoining Koll property. Regarding the Master Concept Plan, he addressed framework principles and felt they need to be better defined. Vice Chair Hillgren asked regarding the implementation process of all of the guiding principles. Commissioner Tucker stated that traffic calming devices should be designed as a part of the master site plan. Page 6 of 10 33 (o NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/04/2012 Vice Chair Hillgren commented on the establishment of identifiable neighborhoods and asked how that would be accomplished. Discussion followed regarding the location of retail uses and the possibility of increasing those uses. Commissioner Tucker felt that less retail would be preferable. Discussion followed regarding the need for additional data to support the amount of retail proposed and considering that the retail would serve a broader range of users. Commissioner Brown stated that the issue should also be considered regarding parks. Commissioner Tucker felt that it should be ensured that there is no intent to have paid parking on the site. He questioned whether there will be enough street parking to accommodate visitors and retailers. Commissioner Kramer expressed concerns with the architectural theme, relative to very dense, mid - rises. He felt that the issue is vague and felt that it merits further consideration, clarification and detail. He opined that contemporary styles are not timeless and expressed concerns regarding the possible "cheapening" of the styles. He felt that the quality of the architectural style needs a much higher designation than what has been presented. Commissioner Ameri agreed with Commissioner Kramer's comments and stated that he has a problem with creating another subdivision and wondered if this is the right concept for the subject site. Commissioner Tucker commented on windows with articulated frames and felt that they should be required rather than encouraged. He addressed plexi -glass barriers and asked about optimizing grading. He noted various typographical errors throughout the draft zoning documents, use of synthetic turf on high pedestrian areas, proposed improvements in the paseo landscaping, consistency of the paseo landscape plan, timeline for building the parks, consistent design features of the proposed parks and determination of the fence design plan. Vice Chair Hillgren stated that he would like to see a fencing program that is transparent and reduces fencing wherever possible. Commissioner Tucker addressed linear walks, signage design guidelines, pylon signs, consistency in retail monument signs and making clear the number of signs and sign types. Commissioner Kramer inquired regarding undergrounding of power lines. Mr. Campbell reported that utilities to serve the project site are required to be underground. The large 66KV transmission line along the Jamboree frontage will not be undergrounded; however the applicant has indicated their desire to underground the line to benefit the project and the public. Discussions are ongoing as part of the Development Agreement. Commissioner Kramer indicated that he would be in favor of undergrounding. Chair Toerge addressed the Phasing Plan within the EIR noting that there needs to be a disclosure requirement to the first property owners and any occupant because of the proposed phasing including significant unavoidable impacts. He requested explanation of section 5.92, potential mitigation measures relative to noise impacts. Ms. Hadfield reported that a technical memorandum is included in the appendices in the EIR regarding what can and cannot be done and noted that according to CEQA standards, the Page 7 of 10 337 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/04/2012 memorandum specifies that the standards can be met including listed measures. She noted that hazard conditions and chemical studies are handled in a similar manner. Chair Toerge addressed internal noise levels, and noted various typographical errors. It was noted that TowerJazz will have access to Jamboree during construction of Phase 1. Chair Toerge stressed the need to ensure public access to the site. He questioned expansion of existing school facilities or building new schools and whether it is due to the expanded population or proximity to existing schools. Mr. Shopoff reported that both alternatives are being analyzed by the Santa Ana School District. Ms. Hadfield addressed CEQA requirements noting that if some of those decisions are deferred, that is acceptable. The EIR discloses what is currently happening and evaluates the impacts to the School Districts. The applicant has been directly coordinating with the School Districts on some of the possible solutions. Chair Toerge referred to the commercial areas serving the neighborhood. Commissioner Kramer inquired about the school district plan and questioned why the area is within the Santa Ana School District. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that school district boundaries do not follow city boundaries. She addressed considerations of impacts to school districts and noted that payment of mitigation fees seem to be the sole way of mitigating the issue. In reply to Commissioner Brown's inquiry, Ms. Mulvihill affirmed that mitigation fees are paid to the school districts. She added that the legislature has specified uses for school mitigation fees including creation of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing facilities. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Mulvihill reported that school district boundaries are pursuant to state law. Chair Toerge wondered if the project can be conditioned to allow residents to attend schools that are closest to where they live. Ms. Mulvihill indicated that she does not believe so but will provide additional information to the Commission. Mr. Shopoff stated that they reflect the same concerns but must go through a process including a possible charter school in the immediate area. Commissioner Myers indicated that he is pleased to see the emphasis on impacts to the schools. He addressed the proposed student generation rates and noted that they seem to be low. Mr. Shopoff reported that mitigation fees are based on residential square footage and are set by the district. Ms. Hadfield added that the student generation factors are from the respective school districts and referenced a school study included in the appendix. Commissioner Tucker addressed the General Plan and the importance of being consistent with the General Plan and noted that the City is statutorily bound. He felt that lower limits and higher limits should be specifically listed in the unit counts of Phase 1. He also addressed the introduction of residents to a liquid ammonia tank and expressed concerns regarding the issue. Page 8 of 10 338 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/04/2012 Chair Toerge addressed restricted access to the northwest corner of the project site and felt that what was envisioned in the General Plan has eroded. He stressed the need to consider pedestrian access and connectivity. Mr. Rupp addressed other access restrictions. Commissioner Tucker asked when Phase 1 streets will be bonded as well as pedestrian circulation phasing. He addressed the landscape master plan and felt that it needs to be expanded including a timeline. Chair Toerge expressed concerns that all of the proposed street sections show no bicycle lanes or plans. Commissioner Kramer agreed with Chair Toerge's concerns. Commissioner Tucker addressed the fence design and asked about the timeline and responsibility for such a design. Chair Toerge commented on the temporary walls between phasing and location of unlocked access gates to adjoining properties. Discussion followed regarding striping on Jamboree and noted the need to consider functional bicycle safety issues. Commissioner Tucker addressed inconsistencies in the document, shade trees in the parking areas, lack of diagrams of neighborhood streets and paseo landscaped areas. Chair Toerge expressed concerns with plans for demolitions in Phase 2 including haul routes. Discussion followed regarding the need for another study session. Ms. Brandt noted the concerns raised by the Commission and reported that all will be integrated into the staff report when the item is presented at the conclusion of the EIR review period and drafting of conditions of approval. She reiterated the intent of the study session and noted that all of the information has not been presented to the Commission. Ms. Brandt reported that there are no scheduled items for the Commission for the October 18, 2012 agenda and that meeting may be cancelled. If the Commission does not wish to hold another study session on this item, a cancellation notice will be distributed. Chair Toerge stated his preference to move directly into a public hearing after the draft EIR has been circulated and reviewed. Commissioner Ameri stated agreement with the Chair. Commissioner Brown agreed as well and noted that this was a fairly thorough review. Mr. Shopoff stated their availability as needed and desired by the Commission. Chair Toerge closed the study session noting no need to take formal action at this time. Ms. Brandt indicated that all of the study session's PowerPoint presentations will be posted on the City's website. Page 9 of 10 SSJ S40 Attachment No. CC 10 Planning Commission Staff Report — 12/6/12 (w /o attachments) 341- S42 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 6, 2012 Meeting Agenda Item 5 SUBJECT: Uptown Newport Village - (PA2011 -134) 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011- 003 • Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001 • Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005 • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002 • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001 • Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003 APPLICANT: Shopoff Management, Inc. (Uptown Newport LP) PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A proposed mixed -use residential planned community on 25.05 -acre project site for the development of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail use, and two acres of public park space. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City Council take the following actions: a. Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094); and b. Approval of Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003, Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001, Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001, and Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003. s4s S44 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 2 GENERAL VICINITY MAP i Costa Mesa i y /gyp / John Wayne < Airport / Aw Irvine �/' Site.%. Newport Beach San Diego Creek Channe �o \ Upper Newport Bayr UC Irvine S45 S40 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 3 347 S42 AO GENERAL PLAN cos O AO 1 l B MuM MU H2 AO ® O cos i MUAtl MU -H2 U -H2 P7 C ZONING Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 4 O MU H3 0 PF M 02 \/ Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan _ Uptown Newport / 'N h \. } PG 75� l 3) � �� OL1i gpWSP Wt OR� rySf I I I OAS SP -7. s4j S50 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 5 I GENERAL PLAN FIGURE LU22 I Airport Area c �3'�`, Integrated Conceptual O Development Plan Uptown Newport GENERAL PLAN FIGURE LU23 Legend OPKAT WTY Wks PROPOSED MN SPACO E� WROVEDRESIDEMIALAREEtS •O '-� r= PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SWISS � • . aE�rtE KioPOSDPEDESrau,NwArS -••• e5CNFLN06ECOMOUJr CONCFPIUAt MN NFBUPtFD 551- S52 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 6 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Industrial Site 1 of ON -SITE MU -H2 (Mixed -Use PC 15 (Koll Center Office /Industrial Horizontal 2) Newport Planned Community) NORTH MU -H2 PC 15 Office Developments SOUTH UCI North Campus UCI North Campus UCI North Campus Office /Commercial EAST MU -H2 /UCI North PC15 & UCI North Developments & UCI North Campus Campus Campus WEST MU -H2 PC 15 Office Developments INTRODUCTION Proiect Setting The subject property is located within the Airport Area and approximately 25.05 acres in size. The property is currently developed with two office /industrial buildings that are being leased to TowerJazz Semiconductor. The northernmost building located at 4321 Jamboree Road ranges from 40 to 50 feet in height and 311,452 square feet in size. The southernmost "Half Dome" building located at 4311 Jamboree Road, is approximately 25 feet in height and 126,675 square feet in size. A Southern California Edison (SCE) substation is located at the southwest corner of the property and it presently serves the existing industrial uses. The balance of the site is developed with landscaping and surface parking lots. Vehicular access to the project site is provided by two driveways from Jamboree Road (one signalized) and one driveway from Birch Street. The site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by commercial /office uses within the Koll Center Newport office park. To the north are clusters of office buildings ranging from 1 to 15 stories in height, and three restaurants. To the west are office buildings ranging from 1 to 4 stories high, landscaped areas, and two man -made lakes. To the south are two 20 -story office buildings, surface parking, and a fast -food restaurant. Jamboree Road forms the eastern boundary of the project site, and beyond Jamboree Road to the east is undeveloped open space within the North Campus of the University of California, Irvine. The North Campus is designated for mixed -use development with office, commercial and retail, university and non - university related residential and support uses. The San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve is approximately 875 feet southeast of Jamboree Road. 3153 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 7 Project Description The proposed Uptown Newport project consists of the removal of existing office and industrial uses over time in two primary phases and the construction of a mixed use community consisting of 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving retail space, and approximately two acres of park space. Residential product types would be for -sale and rental with a mix of townhomes, mid- and high -rise apartment or condominiums. Of the 1,224 housing units, 185 units would be set aside for affordable housing. Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet in height; with several residential towers up to 150 feet high. Vehicular access to the site would be from Jamboree Road, Birch Street, and Von Karman Avenue. Phase 1 will include demolition of the existing single -story office building "Half Dome ", and development of the westerly portion of the property and the frontage along Jamboree Road. Phase 1 will include up to 680 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet of retail space, and is projected to commence in 2013 and to be completed in 2018. Phase 2 will include demolition of the existing TowerJazz building, and development of the remaining 564 residential units on the easterly portion of the property. Timing for Phase 2 construction would be contingent on the existing lease of the TowerJazz facility, which will expire in March 2017, but could be extended to March 2027 by TowerJazz. It is conservatively assumed that Phase 2 construction could commence as early as Spring 2017, with project build -out through the year 2021. The applicant, Shopoff Management, Inc. on behalf of Uptown Newport LP, is the master developer and would be responsible for the project implementation including the followings: • Demolition, site preparation, and rough grading; • Backbone storm drain, sanitary sewer, water distribution, and utility systems; • Street improvements within the development, including street paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk /bike improvements, and lighting; • Common area fencing and walls; • Two (2), 1 acre neighborhood parks; • Landscape improvements within common areas and paseos, project entries, and Jamboree Road sidewalk/bike trail improvements • Community signage The application consists of the following components: • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094): An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting S54 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 8 from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 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 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 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. AH2012 -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. Background On October 4, 2012, a study session was held for the proposed project to provide the Planning Commission and the public an opportunity to review and discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and proposed project. During the study session, the Planning Commission provided both oral and written comments on the proposed zoning documents, tentative tract map, and master site plan. The Planning Commission also commented on the overall approval process for the project implementation and expressed the need to review the master site development plans (preliminary grading, street improvement, landscape, wall /fence, lighting and signage plans) prior to recordation of any final subdivision maps. A discussion of vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between the Koll Center and project site also occurred. Comments by the general public were also considered. 355 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 9 DISCUSSION Environmental Review A DEIR has been prepared 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 Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The DEIR was released for public review and comment on September 10, 2012. The 45 -day public review period ended on October 24, 2012. During that period the City received 26 comment letters from governmental agencies, regional organizations, and individuals. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, the City has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. The Final EIR, consists of the DEIR, public comments, responses to comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and revisions to the DEIR, is attached as Attachment PC 1B. 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 through the implementation of Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts: • Air Quality — Short term construction - related emission for Phases 1 and 2 of the project • Land Use — A determination of inconsistency with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) (discussed below) • Noise — Construction - related noise impacts for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project The DEIR identified three (3) significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures or project alternatives. Therefore, if the Planning Commission chooses to support the project, the Planning Commission will need to decide whether the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the identified significant environmental impacts. If the Planning Commission believes the overriding considerations, including project benefits, outweigh these unavoidable impacts, the Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment PC 1C), 35(0 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 10 which states the reasons that support its actions as part of their review of the Final EIR and the proposed project. General Plan and Integrated Conceptual Development Plan The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1­12), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area outside the high noise levels from John Wayne Airport. The MU -H -2 allows a maximum of 2,200 residential units as replacement of existing office, retail, and /or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre. A total of 550 of these units are identified as additive units meaning they are not replacement units. These 550 units may be constructed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area (east of MacArthur Boulevard), as depicted on Figure LU22 Airport Area of the Land Use Element. The Conceptual Development Plan Area has strong potential for the introduction of new residential development and is further identified in Figure LU23 Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram. Figures LU22 and LU23 are shown on page 5 of the staff report. Prior to any residential development within the Airport Area, the General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan to: "Demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses. " In September of 2010, the City approved the Koll - Conexant Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which provides a framework for the redevelopment of the 25- acre subject site (formally known as Conexant), and for the redevelopment of a 15 -acre portion of the 75 -acre Koll Center Newport office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with the existing office buildings and parking structures. The ICDP allocates a total of up to 1,504 new residential units: 1,244 of which are planned and could be developed on the property and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the property site, up to 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses that are planned to be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be additive. Also, on the property site includes the ability to construct up to 322 density bonus units onsite, to provide affordable housing in addition to that needed to satisfy the City's inclusionary housing S5 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 11 requirements. Together, the two properties would use all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the Conceptual Development Plan area by the General Plan. The approval of the ICDP was a pre- requisite for the preparation of the regulatory documents, pursuant to General Plan Policy LU6.15.11. The ICDP is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer - grained network of pedestrian - friendly streets. The ICDP also establishes the direction for each of the property owners to separately prepare and submit a regulatory plan for their holdings as a basis for environmental review, public hearings and City action. Regulatory Plans must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the ICP, particularly in terms of the number of additive residential units (except for any density bonuses for affordable units) and the connectivity between the Koll and subject property. The subject property has a maximum development limit of 442,775 square feet per Anomaly No. 8 of the General Plan Land Use Element. In order to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting to convert only the existing office and industrial square footage of 438,127 to residential and commercial retail uses and forfeit the remaining unused square footage of 4,648. The conversion results in a total of 632 residential units and 11,500 square feet of retail commercial to be developed as replacement units for redevelopment of the existing office /industrial uses. The application of the conversion factors is documented in a report titled "Airport Area Residential & Mixed Use Adjustment Factors for Traffic Analyses in Newport Beach" prepared by Richard M. Edmonston, dated March 10, 2009. Additionally, General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.7 allows a maximum density of 50 units per net acre average over the total area of each residential village in the Airport Area. The net acreage is to be exclusive of existing and new rights -of -way, public pedestrian ways and neighborhood parks. The project has a net developable residential land area of 18.46 acres, which could allow for a maximum of 922 dwelling units (18.46 x 50 du /ac) inclusive of 290 additive and 632 replacement units (62 less units converted to 11,500 sf. of retail). The 290 "additive" units have been allocated to the subject property in accordance with General Plan Land Use Element and ICDP. This density is consistent with General Plan policies. And lastly, up to 322 density bonus units are proposed based on the maximum 35% allowance pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Municipal Code. All together, a total of 1,244 residential units are being proposed for the project. The table below illustrates the project's proposed replacement, additive and density bonus residential units. 3152 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 12 As of note, the density bonus units are not a part of the 2,200 units assigned to the MU- H2 properties and therefore, the remaining developable residential units for other MU- H2 designated properties within the Airport Area would be 1,278 residential units (2,200 -922). The project is eligible for a density bonus of up to 35 percent above and beyond the allowable base residential units in accordance with Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917 and Chapter 20.32 Density Bonus of the Municipal Code. The General Plan Land Use policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed - use development within the Airport Area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian - oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies could be found in the Land Use Section of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The analysis concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies. Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan Amendment The subject property is currently zoned Planned Community and subject to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) regulations. The site is designed Industrial Site 1 which allows light industrial, office, and commercial uses; and residential is not permitted. In order to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting an amendment to PC -15 to remove the property and all relevant development standards pertaining to Industrial Site 1. The redlined PC -15 Planned Community Development Plan (Attachment No. PC 1D) illustrates the proposed deletions. 35J Phase 1 Units Phase 2 Units Total Units Replacement Units Half Dome Building - 126,675 sf. 276 0 276 TowerJazz Building - 311,452 sf. 0 418 418 Total Replacement Units 276 418 694 Additive Units 290 0 290 Sub -Total Units 566 418 984 Less Units Converted to 11,500 sf. of Retail -62 0 -62 Base Units Before Density Bonus 504 418 922 Density Bonus 35% Requested 176 146 322 Total Units Affordable Units (20 %) Market Rate Units 680 100 580 564 85 479 1,244 185 1,059 As of note, the density bonus units are not a part of the 2,200 units assigned to the MU- H2 properties and therefore, the remaining developable residential units for other MU- H2 designated properties within the Airport Area would be 1,278 residential units (2,200 -922). The project is eligible for a density bonus of up to 35 percent above and beyond the allowable base residential units in accordance with Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917 and Chapter 20.32 Density Bonus of the Municipal Code. The General Plan Land Use policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed - use development within the Airport Area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian - oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies could be found in the Land Use Section of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The analysis concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies. Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan Amendment The subject property is currently zoned Planned Community and subject to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) regulations. The site is designed Industrial Site 1 which allows light industrial, office, and commercial uses; and residential is not permitted. In order to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting an amendment to PC -15 to remove the property and all relevant development standards pertaining to Industrial Site 1. The redlined PC -15 Planned Community Development Plan (Attachment No. PC 1D) illustrates the proposed deletions. 35J Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 13 Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan Adoption To be consistent with the General Plan and ICDP, the applicant submitted the draft Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) that will serve as the zoning document for the entire project. It establishes the allowable land uses, development regulations, and implementation and administrative procedures, consistent with the ICDP and in compliance with the PCDP requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The draft PCDP consists of three (3) components: Land Use Development Standards and Procedures, Phasing Plan, and Design Guidelines. The Land Use Development Standards and Procedures document provides land use development regulations, site development standards, and planned community development plan implementation process. The use of the City's density bonus provisions for affordable housing and for the transfer of development rights from other properties are being addressed in this document. The Phasing Plan describes how the project development will be evolved in two primary phases which include demolition, on -site improvements, and off -site improvements. The Design Guidelines document identifies site planning standards, architectural guidelines, site development and infrastructure criteria, landscape design guidelines and signage allowance for the entire project. The proposed site plan of PCDP and tentative tract map dictate the location and configuration of residential development, major network of streets and pedestrian ways, and locations of parks and open space. The site plan is also identified pedestrian connectivity between the Koll property and subject property, vehicular and pedestrian access to Birch Street via an existing access easement, and an emergency access to Von Karman Avenue via an existing access easement. During the October 4, 2012, study session, drafts of the proposed Uptown Newport PCDP were considered, and the Planning Commission provided a number of comments pertaining to the project's approval and implementation processes, overall permitted uses, parking standards, tentative tract map, master site plan, design guidelines, and phasing plan. Staff has worked with the applicant to incorporate a number of revisions to Uptown PCDP that are intended to address the issues. The revised PCDP documents (Land Uses Development Standards & Procedures, Phasing Plan and Design Guidelines) are provided in Attachment PC 1E and the more substantive revisions summarized below. Land Uses Development Standards & Procedures (PC Text) • Duration of Existing Industrial Uses Soo Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 14 Existing industrial uses on the property would continue to be operated as nonconforming uses until the termination of TowerJazz's lease, which expire in March 2017, unless TowerJazz exercises options to extend the lease until 2027. The applicant indicated that they will not extend the lease and has made this commitment within the Development Agreement. • Permitted Land Use Regulations and Their Interface with Residential Uses The proposed land use regulation table has been expanded to allow more neighborhood - serving retail uses, to benefit the local residents and businesses. • Parking Provisions, On- and Off - Street As proposed, parking for the entire development will be provided within parking structures which will be encapsulated (i.e., wrap style architecture), below grade (i.e., podium style), or screened (i.e., podium with a portion of the garage wall above grade with landscape screening). Parking for the residential and retail uses including their visitors, employees and service staff will be provided within these parking structures. Surface parking is not proposed, except for on- street parking along the residential streets. On- street visitor parking is provided and made available to adjacent to retail uses and residents throughout the project. The parking management plan to deviate from the parking standards has been removed from the PCDP. • Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan has been revised as follow: • Widening of the vehicular travel lanes at the primary entry Fairchild intersection to provide additional lane width. Two inbound travel lanes are provided (12 feet - wide and 16 feet wide), and two outbound lanes are provided (12 -feet wide and 14 feet wide); • Widening of "E" Street from 24 feet to 32 feet with a cul -de -sac at the end with parking on one side. "E" Street will provide access to the Phase 1 neighborhood park and residential parcels adjacent to the streets as well as provide emergency access to Von Karman Avenue; • F" Street has been shifted to the west to align with the a traffic roundabout circle on "B" Street resulting the elimination of "G" Street, and to allow for future vehicular and /or pedestrian connection between the Uptown Newport project and the Koll Center Newport as envisioned by the City of Newport Beach General Plan; • A traffic roundabout has been provided on "B" Street to provide an alternative for residents and guests to exit the project and go east on Jamboree Road at the Sol Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 15 Fairchild intersection, additional traffic calming along "B" Street and enhance vehicular circulation within the project; and D" Street has been shifted southerly to provide functional -sized parcels; A Phase 1 Site Plan is also provided to depict the overall development within Phase 1. The overall location and size of the neighborhood parks will not be altered. Each of the parks will be a minimum of one -acre in size, having public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential parcels by pedestrian walkways, paseos, and residential streets, and a minimum dimension no less than 150 feet in order to promote useable and cohesive open space. The proposed design features of the parks are consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14. Furthermore, the parks will be deeded to the City upon completion of each phase. These parks along with common landscape areas such as pedestrian paseos and greenbelts and Jamboree Road parkway landscaping will be improved and maintained by the applicant under the master association maintenance agreement. • Master Site Development Plan Approval Process The PCDP has been revised to clarify the process for approval of subsequent implementing projects. This includes a master site development plan that will require review and approval by the Planning Commission. The purpose of the master site development plan is to ensure that as project is developed in phases consistently is maintained with the Uptown Newport PCDP, Development Agreement, environmental mitigation measures, and applicable City codes and standards. In addition this process will ensure that the infrastructure improvements are constructed and completed in a complete and cohesive manner. Master Site Development Plans for subsequent phases of this project will include the following preliminary plans: 1. Grading 2. Street improvements 3. Landscape and plant palette 4. Public parks and paseos 5. Master wall /fence 6. Master lighting (streets & common areas) 7. Signage Subsequent to the adoption of the master site development plans by the Planning Commission, individual site development review applications will be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. This process is required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for the following: 302 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 16 1. New buildings 2. Neighborhood parks and paseos 3. On -site recreational amenities Design Guidelines The Design Guidelines have been revised to provide additional clarity and details to articulate the quality intent of the proposed architecture and landscape standards, and to provide the regulatory framework and standards for implementing projects through the site development review process set forth in the PCDP. In addition to the above revisions, the applicant has submitted a list of responses to Commissioner Tucker's study session list of issues dated October 4, 2012. The applicant's response list is attached as Attachment PC 3. Phasing Plan The Phasing Plan has been revised to provide a minimum and maximum range for Phases 1 and 2; reaffirm the role of the master developer in completing the master site improvements within each phase; and provide additional details in response to questions and comments raised during the study session. Tentative Tract Map The proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 (Attachment PC 1 H) is the implementing subdivision map for the project. The Tentative Tract Map describes the subdivision of the project site into lots for public dedication, conveyance for financing purposes, and conveyance to future builders. The Tentative Tract Map also describes the plan for grading, roadways, infrastructure, and other public improvements to serve the subdivision. Approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map in conjunction with the PCDP would permit rough and precise grading, site remediation, construction of roadways, drainage and water quality improvements, backbone infrastructure, and utilities, including domestic water and sewer facilities. Future development of buildings may involve subsequent tentative and final maps. Section 19.12.070 of the Municipal Code establishes findings that must be made in order to approve a tentative map. These findings and facts in support of findings are provided in Attachment PC 1 F. Staff has recommended an extensive list of conditions of approval (Attachment PC 1G) to ensure consistency with other components of the proposed project and compliance with City policies and regulations. SOS Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 17 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) of the Municipal Code requires a traffic study to be prepared and findings be made prior to issuance of building permits if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). The TPO traffic study differs from the cumulative traffic analyses in the EIR in that, typically, the TPO's focus is on conditions one year after project occupancy, or five years after project approval for larger projects that are not expected to be completed within five years. The entire Uptown Newport project is not anticipated to be completed within five years of approval. Therefore, the TPO analysis addresses only Phase 1 of the project since it is planned to be completed within the next five years (Attachment PC 1J). A separate TPO analysis for Phase 2 of the project will be required to prepare prior to the issuance of building permits within Phase 2. Phase 1 will 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 is anticipated to generate 8,286 daily trips, 542 during the AM peak hour and 727 during the PM peak hour. Traffic patterns to and from the site due to the change in land use are accounted for (e.g. residential use and office /industrial have near reverse AM and PM trip generation). As a result, while the proposed project increases in daily trips, there is a reduction of trips on some intersection movements and an increase on others in each of the morning and evening peak hours. The analysis concludes that there is no significant impact to the studied intersections. Furthermore, the TPO requires findings that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the proposed project complies with the TPO. These findings and facts in support of findings are provided in Attachment PC 11. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan The Municipal Code requires the preparation of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) pursuant to Chapter 19.54 Inclusionary Housing and Chapter 20.32 Density Bonus. The purpose of the plan is to prescribe the project's obligation to provide affordable housing. The applicant has requested a 35 percent bonus density and the City is obligated to allow it provided the project includes the construction of certain amounts of affordable housing depending upon the income level targeted. W04r Units Maximum Units allowed by the General Plan 922 35% Bonus Density 322 Affordable Housing Obligation: • Minimum Very Low Income (11 %), or 102 • Minimum Low Income (20%), or 185 Minimum Moderate Income 40% 369 W04r Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 18 Low and very-low income units can be available to rent while moderate - income units are restricted to ownership. If a combination of income levels is constructed, the AHIP specifies the following equivalency factors: • A very-low income unit shall be deemed to be the equivalent of 3.6 moderate - income units or 1.8 low- income units. • A low- income unit shall be the equivalent of 2 moderate - income units. • For example, if 30 very-low income units are constructed, either 131 low- income or 261 moderate - income units would be required to complete the affordability requirements. If 89 low- income units are constructed, 191 moderate - income units are required. Affordable rentals will be restricted for a minimum of 30 years and moderate - income ownership opportunities will be made affordable to the initial buyer. When those units sells in the future, the City will be entitled to the initial subsidy minus some accrued equity pursuant to an equity- sharing formula prescribed in the Municipal Code and State Density Bonus Law. The AHIP provides for the following phasing of construction of affordable housing: • One -third of the total affordable units must be either under construction or completed prior to occupancy of 50 percent of the market -rate units. • The next one -third of the total affordable units must be must be either under construction or completed prior to occupancy of 75 percent of the market -rate units. • The remaining one -third of the affordable units be under construction or completed prior to occupancy of the remaining market rate units. • Additionally, since the project will be constructed in two phases, each phase will be required to provide the pro -rata share of affordable housing based upon the final number of houses constructed in each phase. The proposed construction of affordable housing in accordance with the draft AHIP (Attachment PC 1K) is consistent with Chapter 19.54 (Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus). Development Agreement General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.12 and ICDP require a development agreement for all projects that include infill residential units in the Airport Area. The proposed development agreement (Attachment PC 1L) between the applicant and the City describes the development rights and public benefits to be provided by the applicant. The agreement would vest the proposed project's development approvals to 305 Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 19 allow build -out of the project site under the development standards and requirements in place at the time of project approval. The proposed term of the agreement is 15 years, with two 5 -year extensions. Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) and John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Section 4.11 require the City to refer the Uptown Newport project to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency determination with the AELUP due to the proposed zoning amendments (planned community development amendment and adoption). On October 18, 2012, the ALUC found the proposed project to be inconsistent with the AELUP on a 4 -1 -1 vote. During the meeting, ALUC expressed their concerns with the proximity of the residential towers to the airport and based their decision on Section 2.1.3 of the John Wayne AELUP, which states "the ALUC may utilize criteria for protection 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." As a final review authority on legislative acts, the City Council may, after a public hearing, choose to overrule the ALUC's decision by following the procedure established in Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 2176.5. This two -step procedure requires the City Council to conduct two separate noticed public meetings. The initial step is to notify ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics of the City's intention to override the ALUC's determination by adopting a resolution of intent at least 45 days in advance of the overruling; and the second meeting is to make specific findings that the proposed overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. The hearing date for the City Council consideration on the resolution of intent has been scheduled for December 11, 2012. The Council's adoption of the notification resolution does not constitute the project's approval nor does it predispose the City's future action on the project. In the event that the Planning Commission does not conclude their deliberation and project recommendations to the City Council, this matter will be continued on the City Council calendar at a future date. Alternatives Staff believes the findings for approval can be made and the facts in support of the required findings are presented in the draft resolution (Attachment No. PC1). The following alternatives are available to the Planning Commission should the facts are not in evidence of support for the project application: 1. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes to the master site plan, tentative tract map, and /or the draft PCDP that are necessary to alleviate any Soo Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 20 concerns. If any additional requested changes are substantial, the item could be continued to a future meeting. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and /or conditions. 2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission may deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2). Public Notice Public notice of this meeting has been provided in the following manner: 1) mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the property and to project interest groups; 2) posting of the site; and 3) noticing through the City's Select Alert System. The mailing, posting of the site, and notification occurred at a minimum 10 days in advance of the meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: o alinh Ung As ociate Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: PC 1 Draft Resolution of Approval containing the following exhibits A. Legal Description B. Final Environmental Impact Report C. Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Revised Planned Community Development Plan #15 (Koll Center Newport) E. Draft Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan dated November 29, 2012 F. Required Findings for TTM No. 17438 G. TTM No. 17438 Conditions of Approval H. Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 I. Required Findings for Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005 J. Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005 K. Uptown Newport Affordable Housing Implementation Plan S0 L. Draft Development Agreement PC 2 Draft Resolution of Denial PC 3 List of Responses to Commissioner Tucker PC 4 Site Plan (Phase 1 Master Site Plan and Master Site Plan) PC 5 Correspondence Uptown Newport December 6, 2012 Page 21 m Attachment No. CC 11 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes — 12/6/12 3 Oj S70 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/06/2012 ITEM NO. 5 Uptown Newport (PA2011 -134) Site Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, North side of Jamboree Road. Between Birch Street and Fairchild Road Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung presented details of the proposed project addressing location, existing conditions, previous study session and consideration by the Planning Commission and public, and specified the revisions made subsequent to direction by the Commission. She addressed the number of housing units related to affordable housing requirements and the Draft Development Agreement. She noted that the Draft Development Agreement identifies public benefits provided and development rights granted and addressed the proposed term of the agreement. Ms. Brandt addressed changes to the Draft Development Agreement in consultation with the Applicant and detailed each. Ms. Ung reported receiving a total of seven letters from property owners in the Koll Center in opposition of the proposed project with concerns regarding building shadows, construction noise, excessive density, and increases in traffic and land -use compatibility. She stated that several letters were received in support of the project. JoAnne Hadfield of The Planning Center provided an overview of the components of the environmental process under CEQA. She reported that subsequent to the Planning Commission's study session, in October, the public review period for the draft EIR closed on October 24, 2012. The City received 26 comment letters on the draft EIR and Ms. Hadfield addressed the Final EIR requirements under CEQA including a list of those who provided comments, responses to individual comments and revisions required. She explained categories of revisions made and updates to the final document. She stated that the majority of remaining issues were from surrounding property owners and adjacent to the site. She addressed the issues of concern expressed by the public and referenced Section 3 of the Final EIR specifying comments and responses provided and other elements revised. She addressed an update of the traffic analyses and results of analyses for the various categories. Ms. Hadfield addressed the facts and findings and explained the latter for the Commission to consider and approve as well as significant and unavoidable impacts. She addressed project alternatives and feasibility and City requirement to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to provide reasons the City decides to approve a project in light of the significant unavoidable impacts. Ms. Ung presented recommendations and offered to respond to inquiries from the Commission. Should the Planning Commission support staff's recommendation, the project would be scheduled for City Council public hearings in the future at the new City Hall. Should the Planning Commission conclude the deliberation and make project recommendations to the City Council, the City Council will consider the Notice of Intent to override the Airport Land Use Commission's determination which has been scheduled for December 11, 2012. Chair Toerge invited the applicant to address the Commission. Coralee Newman, Government Solutions, Inc. introduced the project and addressed the start of the review process and noted that changes were made to reflect the Commission's input and comments. She expressed appreciation for staffs efforts on this matter. She reported that through outreach, the majority of residents agreed that the airport is urban in character and is different from other Newport neighborhoods. She noted that the goal for the airport area was the reuse of underperforming industrial and office properties to be redeveloped in cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services and that the proposal meets that goal. She addressed General Plan unit allocations Page 13 of 19 371 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/06/2012 and the minimum and maximum densities placed, retail square feet and the number of proposed residential units. She illustrated connectivity and how it was anticipated in future plans. Ms. Newman addressed the requirement for development of a conceptual development plan and stated that the proposed project is in conformance with the plan. Ms. Newman addressed the organization's vision and stated that residents love living in Newport Beach, the need for an urban village in the preferred location. Bill Shophoff, The Shophoff Group, noted incorporating much of the Commission's input to meet questions and concerns. He presented examples of the architecture, the Master Site Plan, connectivity to Von Karman Avenue and other connection points, revisions in setbacks, widening the paseo for added public accessibility and access to open space. He addressed entries and access to the development, parks, the ability to use an easement, pedestrian circulation, existing trails, the phasing plan, definition of the obligations of the master developer, vehicular access during the various phases and a description and details of the proposed parks and amenities. Mr. Shophoff addressed parking and options, building heights, number of structures allowed in each area, mitigation measures to address public concerns and conditions of approval. He reported that there will either be above - grade parking or subterranean. He added that a Master Association will maintain all of the public areas, including parks. The major plans for infrastructure will be back before the Commission at a later date. Mr. Shophoff addressed architecture, remediation of soil and water contamination, affordable residential units, reduction of greenhouse gases and urban water runoff volumes. Chair Toerge requested explanation of significant unavoidable impacts and Ms. Hadfield summarized what is being done to mitigate the issues as much as possible. She noted that the three impacts are construction /air quality emissions related to earthwork movement and construction equipment emissions, construction noise and inconsistency with ALUC (Airport Land Use Commission). Commissioner Tucker reported that inconsistency with ALUC can be overridden by the City but it was noted that it doesn't eliminate the significant unavoidable impacts pursuant to CEQA. Ms. Brandt noted that the process of overriding ALUC inconsistency can be done by the City Council and is a two -step process. It is scheduled for the Council Meeting of December 11, 2012. Fernando Sotelo of The Planning Center presented a summary of the impacts and why they cannot be mitigated and efforts to minimize the impacts. Commissioner Tucker questioned the level of significance of the impacts and Mr. Sotelo noted it depends of how much excavation and the number of pieces of equipment being used concurrently. Discussion followed regarding the relationship of significant unavoidable impacts to the size of the project, impacts to residences and businesses, air quality emissions issues and noise. It was noted that an impact may exceed allowable thresholds but that it doesn't necessarily mean that it will harm residents. Discussion followed regarding the ammonia tank associated with the TowerJazz building and Ms. Hadfield addressed existing City policies to address the issue. The TowerJazz facility worked closely with staff and the Fire Department to study and address the issue. Brian Rupp of The Shophoff Group addressed the location of the subject tank, use of ammonia for neutralization of waste water, proximity to the development area, current tank location, and relocation Page 14 of 19 S72 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/06/2012 of the tank and results of an analysis conducted by The Planning Center. He noted that this is a condition of the project and will be completed before any residents move in. In response to an inquiry from Chair Toerge, Mr. Rupp commented on disclosure requirements related to all of the impacts that are significant and unavoidable. Mr. Rupp noted that the conditions of approval address the issues. Discussion followed regarding notification of chemical storage as a mitigation measure Vice Chair Hillgren addressed future traffic issues and the timing for the project. He commented on no vehicular access to Birch Street within the first phasing plan. It was noted that access to Birch Street during Phase 1, will be limited to JAZZ employees and their guests and access through Jamboree Road. Mr. Rupp addressed the requirement for notification of hazardous waste proximity and addressed the requirement for an emergency alarm system. Discussion followed regarding relocation of the ammonia tank, the related mitigation measures and the TPO analysis made, Phase II conditioned upon completion of a traffic study, and addressing traffic impacts to important City intersections. It was noted trip neutrality is based on peak hour trips and related provisions of the General Plan. Chair Toerge opened the public hearing. John Adams, President of the Court House Plaza Association, noted the vision was created by the General Plan but stated that the project is basically a high- density apartment project with a token retail component. He addressed setbacks adjacent to office buildings and indicated that it is not compatible with the neighbors. He stated that there is nothing that guarantees the maximum density and felt that a viable project would include less density. He spoke in opposition to the project and addressed increases in traffic, access points and average daily trips, noting that these are significant issues. He felt there are not enough setbacks, connectivity and noted that the project size can be modified to make the project viable. He addressed the Birch Street easement and noted that the primary access is not Birch Street, but Jamboree Road. He asked that the Planning Commission consider the private easement issues and consider the rights of the existing property owners. Emery Ledger, owner of an adjacent building, expressed concerns regarding shading and shadows and suggested moving the buildings inwards and the parks outward. He addressed the easement issue, addressed the original Master Plan and felt that it was disingenuous to provide proposals using the easement. He spoke against raising the scope of an easement that was previously settled and felt that the proposal will involve the City in litigation as well as Mr. Shophoff, if a compromise is not reached. He stated that the easement does not belong to Mr. Shophoff and reiterated concerns with shadowing and use of the easement. Chair Toerge stated that the proposal has been changed to move the building setback to 100 feet. Mr. Ledger stated that he is pro - development, but not at the expense of adjoining property owners. Commissioner Tucker clarified the revised proposal regarding setbacks and the building heights. Jim Mosher noted that the Airport Land Use consistency is not a noise issue but rather a safety issue and is not an appropriate place to develop a high -rise. He pointed out document formatting issues Page 15 of 19 34 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/06/2012 and found it strange in making a finding that the project would not result in substantial increase in population or housing. He stated that the EIR omitted references to the Irvine Technology Center (ITC) and referenced a statement that responses to the ITC and other agencies would be submitted separately. Mr. Mosher, stated that he could not find them. Chair Toerge commented to Mr. Mosher that he was not restricted to provide comments only on the EIR. Brian Adams, owner of one of the Courthouse Plaza buildings, referenced a letter submitted on his behalf regarding the proposed project and how it is exceeding the General Plan and the related initial plan, not the revised tentative map. He addressed reduction of open space in order to increase density. He felt that the goal of the project was to maximize density and stated that nothing in the General Plan requires allowing the maximum density. He referenced a letter from Jim Hasty, showing that 90% of the building owners have expressed concerns with shadow, shading, mass and traffic. He suggested increasing building setbacks and reductions in density. John Fitzgibbon, owner - partner of one of the buildings in the Courthouse Plaza, indicated that his firm is pro - development but expressed concerns regarding inconsistencies with the General Plan vision. He felt that issues of concerns could be mitigated and addressed public benefit fees and how they will be used and stated a need for further discussion on the matter. Karen Martin addressed the General Plan and expressed concerns noting that she felt that affordable housing should only be a component of the site. She stated that there are several major companies that could locate in the area and provide jobs. Ms. Martin suggested allowing, within the Development Agreement and the plan, the opportunity to provide for a major corporation. Bruce McDonald, building owner, indicated opposition to the project as currently presented. He addressed leadership in City planning and its goal, site planning flaws in the project, unit density mass and problems with increased traffic and circulation. He addressed double frontage and felt that the project needs additional review and consideration. He referenced a condition of approval submitted as a suggestion for the Commission's review. Mr. McDonald addressed access, parking management plans and stated that the density lacks imagination and suggested collaboration with the existing project that begs for engagement. He suggested addressing double frontage, avoiding sea wall structures, decreasing the density and revising the project. Mr. Shophoff reported that his company has reached out to the Courthouse Plaza owners and hopes to resolve the issue of the easement. He reported that proposed utilities within the Birch Street easement have been removed. He noted this was a corporate campus and that it is time for change. He rejected the recommendations proposed by Mr. McDonald and addressed access and allocation of density by the ICDP (Integrated Conceptual Development Plan). Vice Chair Hillgren inquired regarding future review of design and other project issues. Chair Toerge mentioned the need to focus on the EIR at this time. In response to Vice Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Shophoff addressed differences in the project from surrounding residential properties in Irvine and incorporation of public and safety services including working with the Santa Ana School District. Mr. Shophoff noted that school district boundaries are set by another agency and is not related to City boundaries. He reported currently negotiating with the Santa Ana School District regarding building a Charter School within the school district boundary and addressed the option of annexing to Newport Page 16 of 19 374 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/06/2012 Mesa School District and de- annexing from Santa Ana School District. He felt that the proposed retail will serve residents appropriately and addressed the differences between this and other projects and his intention to compete with similar developments. There being no others wishing to address the Commission, Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Chair Toerge commented on previous efforts for developing the General Plan and stated recalling a discussion about residential in the General Plan noting that it was about meeting the general housing needs assessment requirements. He referenced the Land Use Element of the General Plan, specifically policies 6.15.1, 6.15.4, 6.15.10, 6.15.11 and 6.15.19, as it relates to the Airport Area including the goal and policies and noted that he would like to get to the point where the General Plan is satisfied by this development. He provided background including development of the ICDP and related General Plan provisions and requirements. He felt that the EIR is lacking and noted that many of the property owners in the Courthouse Plaza don't want connectivity. Chair Toerge addressed the phasing plan relative to pedestrian and bicycle circulation and stated it should be completed in Phase One, not later in the development as well as the easement and rights to use it. He felt that currently, the EIR does not address the issue adequately. Commissioner Tucker commented on the ICDP noting that it is not easy to integrate properties that aren't contiguous with each other. He noted that the idea was to build affordable housing to meet State requirements and addressed other affordable housing projects in the City. Regarding the EIR, he addressed physical impacts of the environment and indicated he has not seen where it causes an impact to the environment. He addressed traffic impacts but felt that it is not a significant impact. He addressed parking, the Birch Street easement and felt that it will be valid for traffic purposes. He commented on connectivity and suggested a condition prohibiting a grade differential in the area. Commissioner Kramer felt that the applicant has done a good job in incorporating comments from previous meetings. He expressed concerns regarding the School District issue and felt that language should be added to address the item. A straw vote was taken concerning recommending to the City Council that re- circulation of the EIR is not needed. It resulted in the following: AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker NOES: Toerge ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT (Excused): Ameri Ms. Brandt indicated that these are straw votes at this time since there is one resolution for all of the project components. She noted that the resolution encompasses the EIR and that all findings are included within the resolution. Ms. Mulvihill clarified that straw votes will be taken on the re- circulation, the EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations and that a formal vote will be taken on the resolution. A straw vote was taken regarding finding the EIR is adequate. It resulted in the following: AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker NOES: Toerge ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT (Excused): Ameri Page 17 of 19 S715 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES fta 12/06/2012 Commissioner Tucker commented on the Statement of Overriding Consideration that the payment of fees should be moved as number nine under the list of public benefits. A straw vote was taken regarding the accepting the Statement of Overriding Considerations and resulted as follows: AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker NOES: Toerge ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT (Excused): Amen Ms. Brandt clarified that the resolution recommends certification of the EIR and approval of the project adding that there is no resolution that only pertains to the recertification of the EIR. Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item until December 20, 2012. Commissioner Tucker indicated that he would not be available at 6:30 p.m. on the 20th, but would be available before that time. Commissioner Kramer indicated that he will not be available on January 3, 2013. Discussion followed regarding an appropriate time in which to meet to consider the matter and it was proposed to start at 1:30 p.m. The motion was amended to include the start of the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Chair Toerge re- opened the public hearing. There was no response and Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Substitute Motion made by Commissioner Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Kramer and carried 6 — 0, to continue the matter to December 20, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT (Excused): Ameri ITEM NO. 6 MOT{ FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVE PMENT DIRECTOR' Ms. Brandt asked whether there will be a qu on J5 ?i3, 2013 since some of the Commission Members indicated they would not b I able. ITEM NO. 8 AN CEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING Q MISSION EMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT - None Page 18 of 19 S70 Attachment No. CC 12 Planning Commission Staff Report — 12/20/12 (w /o attachments) 377 S72 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949)644-3210 Memorandum To: Planning Commission dw From: James Campbell, Principal Planner Date: December 20, 2012 Re: Uptown Newport Planned Community (PA2011 -134) During the public hearing conducted on December 6, 2012, staff noted several items that require clarification or response. 1. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Staff's response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry about a condition related to the need to perform a TPO analysis for Phase 2 was inaccurate. The TPO requires traffic analysis for projects that increase daily traffic by more than 300 trips and the analysis only considers projects within a 60 month horizon. This is the reason that the analysis was performed for Phase 1 and not Phase 2. No condition or Mitigation Measure was included as the Municipal Code mandates the completion of traffic study prior to Phase 2. 2. Residential Density and Traffic Neutrality Comments were made questioning the overall density, project traffic generation, and whether the project should be "traffic neutral" in the light of a projected increase in average daily trips. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5 provides that residential units may be developed on mixed -use designated sites in the Airport Area only as the replacement of underlying units ( "replacement "). The policy also provides that mixed -use development that replaces existing industrial uses not cumulatively generate more peak hour trips than the underlying permitted non - residential uses. These two provisions have led some to suggest that the project cannot increase traffic beyond existing uses but the General Plan policy also allows an additional 550 units ( "additive units') to be developed as infill development. These additive units would generate traffic above existing uses and there were accounted for in the traffic and environmental analysis. 37J Uptown Newport Planned Community (PA2011 -134) December 20, 2012 Page 2 of 3 State Law provides an opportunity to increase the density beyond General Plan or zoning limits as an incentive to create affordable housing and the City must allow it. In summary, through the potential allocation of additive units and density bonus, peak hour trip can exceed that of existing uses and no inconsistency with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5 is created. In the case of the proposed project, all three types of units are being sought. The maximum number of residential units consistent with LU 6.15.5 was determined for the proposed project with the Council approval of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) in 2010. Peak hour traffic from the existing office and industrial uses was used to establish the maximum number of replacement units (632 units). The City Council allocated 290 of the 550 available additive units to the project site through the ICDP process. The net result is the establishment of the maximum number of units allowed by the General Plan (922 units). The maximum number of units has also been referred to as "base units" for the calculation of density bonus. The applicant is seeking a 35% bonus density increase (922 *35% =322 units) resulting in a total of 1,244 units. The impact of traffic from all 1,244 units has been evaluated in the EIR. 3. Maximum Density A comment letter indicated that the proposed tract map does not provide sufficient developable area to support the proposed density. General Plan Policy LU6.15.7 establishes a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 dwelling units per net acre. Net acreage is defined by the policy and it excludes existing and new rights -of -way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. The revised tract map provides 4.54 acres of public right -of -way (streets and sidewalks), 2.05 acres of park land, and 18.46 acres of residential land. The residential area does include a number of small parcels that will be developed for landscaping and the proposed paseos (Lots N, P, S, Z and AA) that will be accessible to the public. Although the proposed paseos are publically accessible during daylight hours, they are not the public pedestrian ways to which the policy refers. The public pedestrian ways that are referenced are the proposed pedestrian ways specifically identified in Figure LU23 of the General Plan and none of them are located on the project site. 4. Missing PRIES Companies DER Comment Letter Speaker on behalf of PRIES Companies indicated that their comment letter was not included. The October 24, 2012, letter from PRIES Companies commenting on the DER is included in the Final EIR starting on Page 2 -107. M Uptown Newport Planned Community (PA2011 -134) December 20, 2012 Page 3 of 3 5. Comment Letters Staff attached 7 comment letters to the December 6, 2012, staff report. Two additional comments letters were submitted after the December 6th meeting (attached). Staff has reviewed the letters and believes that all of the issues raised have been evaluated adequately in the Final EIR, staff report, this memorandum or during the discussion at the public hearing. Additionally, staff believes that the information does not constitute significant new information that would necessitate recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment pursuant to 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 Draft EIR. 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 circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. Staff received comments from Commissioner Tucker regarding the proposed conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map. The draft resolution (attached) has been updated to include Commissioner Tucker's suggested changes to the conditions of approval, an additional finding regarding recirculation of the Draft EIR discussed at the prior meeting, and correction scriveners' errors (PC1). Based upon comments received from Commissioner Tucker regarding the draft Development Agreement (DA) that provide enhanced clarity, staff has revised the DA (PC2). Commissioner Tucker has also provided comments on the Planned Community documents (PC 3). Most of the comments improve clarity, but others will require additional dialog by the Commission. Finally, Commissioner Tucker provided comments on the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) in regards to potential clustering of units and the phasing of construction (PC4). The AHIP provides for clustering of affordable units consistent with the Municipal Code (Section IV) where the City would consider the design and location of affordable units when at the site development plan stage for the future construction of buildings to ensure that the affordable units are designed, located, and integrated appropriately. Staff has prepared revisions to the phasing of affordable housing construction to ensure that each phase includes its pro -rata share of affordable housing and that it is completed before or concurrently with market -rate construction. The revised AHIP is attached as Attachment PC5. Attachments: PC1 Revised Draft Resolution PC2 Revised DA PC3 Commissioner Tucker comments on Planned Community Documents PC4 Commissioner Tucker comments on AHIP PC5 Revised AHIP PC6 Correspondence se-1 S22 Attachment No. CC 13 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes — 12/20/12 S es S24 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, December 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 1:30 p.m. I. CALL TO'QRDER — The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. — Commissioner Brown III. ROLL CALL 12/20/2012 PRESENT: Am i, Brown, Hillgren, Kra/Myers, e, and Tucker ABSENT (Excused): None Staff Present: Ki mberly Brandt, ommunity Dector; Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; onie Mulvihiy Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner; mpbell, Principal Planner; Ruby Garciamay, Community Development Dep rtment IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF D EMBER 6, 2012 Recommended A on: Approve and file Chair Toerge noted corrections to the minutes as well as th\smitted by Jim Mosher, a member of the publ' . Interested part s were invited to address the Commission on this item. There w no response and public com nts for this item were closed. Motion ade by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Tucker and car' d 6 — 0 -1, to :a rove the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of the December 6, 201 , Regular m tino, as amended. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Ameri ABSENT (Excused): None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Uptown Newport (PA2011 -134) Site Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, North side of Jamboree Road between Birch Street and Fairchild Road Page 1 of 16 385 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/2012012 Chair Toerge read the project's title, opened the public hearing, and called for the staff report. Principal Planner Jim Campbell presented details of the report including background and consideration of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at a previous meeting and new information and documentation for review at this time. He addressed the regulatory documents including the Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Adoption, Traffic Study, Tentative Tract Map, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and the Development Agreement. Mr. Campbell addressed the zoning documents, phasing plans, design guidelines and referenced comments received from Commissioner Tucker related to the various components. He noted that the design guidelines are flexible and addressed revised conditions of approval relative to the Tentative Tract Map and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and he highlighted the recent revisions. Mr. Campbell addressed connectivity of land uses, dedication and improvement of streets, proposed new streets for increased public access, consistency with the General Plan, and details of the revised Phase 1, pedestrian connections, the existing bicycle path, and the possibility of additional pedestrian connections. . Discussion followed regarding of the need of vehicle connections to Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue, the need to revise the grading plans, and adding same as part of the conditions of approval. Chair Toerge reported receiving several letters from parties with interest in Koll Center, which expressed concern with rights to the common areas, and their lack of desire to have any connectivity or roads through Koll Center. Discussion followed regarding alternate plans should Koll withdraw their development application. Areas of concern include vehicle access and pedestrian connectivity, and access for emergency vehicles only, and possible considerations for off -site improvements. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed the Birch Street access and the access envisioned by the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). Ms. Mulvihill reported that the applicant has presented a plan that allows public egress /ingress over the Birch Street driveway, and that it is incumbent upon the applicant to make sure that they have the legal authority to do so. The issue will need to be resolved by the applicable private parties and if the applicant cannot resolve that, he will have to redesign the project. As to other access through the Koll property, the ICDP covers a large area and it is the practice of the City of doing it parcel -by- parcel. Staff did not see a nexus to support a condition at this time Chair Toerge noted that development entitlements are not a right, but rather a privilege. The City needs to demand it if the applicant will not volunteer it. He added that at some point in time, Koll will have some requirements of the applicant which would be enhanced if they were to cooperate at this time. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that the decision will be made by the Planning Commission. She felt that there is not sufficient support to require the acquisition of outside properties. Discussion followed regarding the original zoning of the property. Commissioner Ameri indicated that he understood that the project can be developed without any limitations with regard to the connection and is "stand- alone." He felt that off -site improvements are required when there is a project impact. He expressed concern with requiring the applicant to be obligated to provide an improvement when it is not required by the project's design and scope. Page 2 of 16 i NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Community Development Director Brandt stated that staff looks at the vision of the General Plan when considering a phased project. Each phase must be considered with the hope that subsequent phases will occur, but consideration must also be given to the "what ifs ". She stressed the importance of looking at the phasing and the ultimate goal of the General Plan but also the need to consider uncontrollable factors that may affect the General Plan's implementation. Ms. Brandt noted that it is very important to ensure that each phase is "stand- alone." Commissioner Tucker felt the proposal is consistent with his vision of the project. He spoke in opposition to offsite conditions noting that they are often for public improvements or where none of the land has been developed. He suggested anew condition indicating that "prior to 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. He added that the plan is dependent upon that occurring. Chair Toerge suggested amending the condition to indicate "public use" of the access and Commissioner Tucker agreed with the change. Mr. Campbell reported the amendment of Condition 15 requiring a change to the phasing document where at a future date, when connections go through; there may be additional improvements after the initial construction where the applicant will be obligated to complete any missing links to connections. Koll may make improvements before completion of phase 2 and the condition will ensure that the connections are made at the appropriate times. In response to Vice Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Campbell reported that the conditions are binding upon the applicant /property owner and if there is a successor in interest, the obligation would be transferred to them and would be part of the phasing plan. Ms. Brandt reported there are no CC &Rs at this time but that they could be drafted. She noted the importance to remember that this is the "umbrella" regulatory document and noted that there will be a Master Site Plan review process and the subsequent individual site development review; all of which will have conditions of approval, and there will be a better idea of how the phasing is proceeding in relationship to adjacent properties. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of future development agreements. Mr. Campbell presented staff's recommendations. Chair Toerge invited those interested in addressing the Commission on this item, to do so at this time. William Shophoff, Chairman and CEO of the Shophoff Group, addressed the grading, noted that it has been added to the text and that his company is agreeable to it. Regarding roads versus storm drains, he reported that they have the right to do the storm drains by existing easements. He acknowledged the efforts, work and time expended on this item and comments made by the Commission, staff, and the public. All of the comments to the planning documents are agreeable with minor issues including the Planned Community Document regarding adding a loading zone and he reported that there is a loading zone nearby and is in a more appropriate location and asked that be reconsidered. Regarding landscape guidelines, he addressed the provision of a landscape design that if flexible for a variety of uses, he proposed language to "provide a landscape design that is consistent with the urban character and theme of the Uptown Newport Planned Community." Mr. Shophoff reported on the Von Karman Avenue access issue noting that the easement allows for emergency ingress and egress and also allows for non - emergency access. He felt there are existing issues with the location of the easement and that they would prefer to defer and study at a later date. Page 3 of 16 387 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 He addressed multiple drive aisles, the parking structure, and that the area is not the best location for unrestricted public egress /ingress at this time. Discussion followed regarding location of an existing easement for interim access and addressed perimeter conditions, existing conditions, and proposed new edge conditions and fencing. Mr. Shophoff addressed comments regarding building setbacks and presented three alternatives for consideration by the Commission. Regarding architectural enhancements he noted new language to be added to the design guidelines: "Buildings adjacent to exterior property lines shall feature 'four - sided' architecture whereby continuity of the design character is extended to the front, side, and rear elevations." He addressed ways of bringing additional urban activity to the central areas and commented on elements of the design guidelines. He addressed the City's right to review CC &Rs and indicated willingness to work with adjacent property owners. He noted the attendance of his design team. Commissioner Tucker acknowledged that the applicant has been very responsive and expressed his appreciation. Roger Stone expressed concerns that the EIR allows for approximately 8,000 cars to enter and leave the project on a daily basis based upon the residents that will live there. He felt that it will negatively impact traffic during rush hour. Chair Toerge noted that the traffic study has been well -vetted and the impacts and mitigation measures are addressed in the EIR. Mr. Stone wondered if affordable housing is the same as subsidized housing and stated there may be increased crime potential in the area. He noted that he has a solar project on his building and wondered if the height of the proposed buildings will interfere with his system. Jim Hasty, on behalf of Myer Properties, expressed concerns with the proposed residential units and noted amenities needed that do not currently exist. He reported that he understands the motivation for the project in terms of meeting State requirements for providing affordable housing and generating revenue but expressed concerns with the politics that drive the project. Mr. Hasty addressed a direct correlation between the density of the project and negative impacts on adjacent properties including shade and shadow issues, traffic and mitigation efforts. He stated that the properties will experience an increase on common -area expenses and noted they have made a long -term commitment to the City. He noted unanimous opposition to the project. Sandy Throop, Cornerstone Real Estate Advisors, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt there is too much development and a lack of sensitivity to existing surrounding uses. He stated the need to complement the design objectives with the existing project and felt that the edge conditions are insensitive to the adjoining uses. He felt that the project will have a negative economic impact to existing properties and suggested that the building heights should be lowered along the entire border along Jamboree Road. He addressed connections and increased uses to common areas, subsequently increasing costs without any consideration and reimbursement to existing properties. Discussion followed regarding impacts by the proposed Koll project, increased traffic, massing, edge conditions, unknown benefits of retail uses, orientation of the structures, blocked views, and mitigation through increased setbacks. Mr. Throop felt that the proposed buildings will have an effect on the desirability of leasing suites in his building. Page 4 of 16 M NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Brian Adams requested the addition of a new condition which prohibits construction traffic during phases 1 and 2 from using the Birch Street easement. He expressed concern with the proposed density in buildable areas and the calculations used for determining density. He felt that the applicant has not addressed their request for increased setbacks and encouraged the Commission to consider decreasing the density, the building heights, and increasing the setbacks. John Adams, President of the Courthouse Plaza Association, noted that there have been a significant number of real estate professionals commenting on this project and none have commented in its support. He felt that the entire issue comes down to the density of the proposed project and suggested reducing the density, lowering the perimeter heights, mitigating some of the traffic issues, and increasing setbacks. He requested the addition of a condition related to prohibiting construction traffic during phases 1 and 2 off Birch Street. Whitney Allen, an airport area employee, spoke in opposition to the proposed project as currently planned. She stated that she is an advocate for affordable housing and supports a well - planned, sustainable project that is mutually beneficial to the region. She expressed concerns with environmental and societal issues related to the project and addressed thresholds for air quality and noise levels. Ms. Allen felt that the City should be looking at creating jobs in the area and felt that as proposed, the project would be detrimental to the City's economy. Emery Ledger addressed the easement and reported that the area is private property and felt that the burden should be shifted to the developer, Mr. Shophoff, to close the easement until he obtains a court order to use it for his intended purpose. He addressed the need to protect the property rights of the existing development. Bruce McDonald addressed consistency with the General Plan and felt that the Commission is trying to consider a project contingent upon what may or may not happen in the future. He encouraged the Commission to consider the project on its own. He reported that the present cul -de -sacs are private and permanent and wondered if the standards are correctly met. Mr. McDonald addressed the easement to Birch Street and felt that the Commission is considering building half a project without the guarantee that the second half will ever be built. He felt that the traffic study should not rely on access to relieve the congestion and wondered if access will be ever allowed to Von Karman. Mr. McDonald wondered how the Commission could place an off -site condition on an adjacent property owner. He wondered if the intentions of the General Plan are being met and addressed public parks but felt that the traffic study has not taken into account public use of those parks. He encouraged the Commission to consider building massing. There being no others wishing to address the Commission, Chair Toerge closed public comments for this item. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that the City Attorney's office was unaware of the existing easement and changed her opinion as to the issue of whether or not requiring the acquisition of right - of -way was supportable. She stated this easement is different from the Birch Street easement as far as implementation of the roadway depicted on the ICDP. She stated that there is nothing as to the applicant's ability to guarantee or maintain any particular connection. The easement is not consistent with what is depicted on the ICDP. She expressed concerns that the easement is currently not as depicted on the ICDP and therefore, not conditioned. Chair Toerge commented that the configuration of the ICDP is similar to what is on the ground and the grantor has voluntarily redirected the easement into a location that is not shown in the ICDP. Commissioner Tucker suggested addressing issues raised during the public hearing. Page 5 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Chair Toerge noted that the project is not subsidized housing, but rather affordable housing with an appropriate income limit assigned. Regarding the density calculation, Mr. Campbell explained that there is sufficient acreage to support the proposed density. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed net acreage and Mr. Campbell explained that the lettered lots are paseos and are included in the acreage. He explained that sidewalks and street parcels are not included in the density calculations. Commissioner Ameri commented on net acreage and net buildable areas and addressed the distinctions between the two. Mr. Campbell stated that staff can work with Mr. Adams to ensure clarity in the calculations. He also agreed with adding a restriction relative to prohibiting construction traffic during phases 1 and 2 along the Birch Street access. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Tucker, City Traffic is comfortable that the traffic study was conducted according t o addressed the length of the cul -de -sacs and stated he was not length of cul -de -sacs. Commissioner Ameri indicated the standard would be 1,000 feet. Engineer Tony Brine stated that he TPO and CEQA standards. He aware of a City code that sets the Commissioner Tucker commented on property rights and noted that they went through a thorough vetting process and that the density is allowed by the Code. He indicated that the project fits and what the applicant has requested is allowed. He noted that the project was driven by the need for affordable housing in the City and that this is an allowed land use within the City, and the General Plan requires a Development Agreement. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Commission does not have the ability to impose a mitigation on something that has not found to be a significant impact. Chair Toerge addressed zoning and use and that the public voted to allow this kind of development if it complies with all of the requirements of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Brief discussion followed regarding density. Ms. Brandt reported that the Koll Center Community Development Plan Amendment is included on page 72 of the agenda packet. She added that it is an amendment which deletes the subject property from the zoning regulations so that a new zoning document can be created for it. A straw vote was conducted regarding the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text amendment and it was considered acceptable, unanimously. Regarding the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan, Ms. Brandt reported it includes three separate components. Commissioner Tucker commented on page 1 of the Land Uses Development Standards & Procedures. Cora Newman, representing the applicant, referenced written comments provided under separate cover for consideration by the Commission. Chair Toerge commented on a number of typographical errors on page 7, addressed existing industrial uses, and provided suggestions for alternative language. Page 6 of 16 3J 0 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 In response to Chair Toerge's inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that the draft text allows the existing land uses to continue. The industrial use standards have been excerpted from the existing Koll Center Planned Community Text. Ms. Brandt further clarified that sections I and II are subsets of Section 2.1.1 Existing Uses and it indicates that these are how the existing light industrial uses shall be permitted until the sunset date of March 12, 2027. Mr. Campbell added that the provisions are reflective of the existing Koll PC text and that staff did not attempt to change or edit them in any way. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed Transfer of Development Rights. Discussion followed regarding the area requiring a certain amount of critical mass to be in place and transferring units out is contrary to the requirements of the General Plan and the need to require a minimum of 30 units per acre. It was noted that the General Plan provides a range from 30 units to 50 units per acre. Ensuing discussion followed regarding transferring units in, but not out. Ms. Brandt noted that the transfer of development rights is a discretionary review which would require a General Plan consistency finding. Mr. Shophoff agreed with eliminating the right to transfer units in and noted that the language came out of the General Plan and that they would agree to the right to not transfer out more than 20 units per acre. In response to Chair Toerge's inquiry, Mr. Campbell suggested appropriate language to address the issue and reported that staff will work on the matter. Chair Toerge addressed limiting the sale of animals and services. Commissioner Tucker commented on defining the terms "adult daycare" and "daycare ", animal sales and services, allowing fast food with late hours on the Jamboree Road frontage only, and implementation of the AHIP. Vice Chair Hillgren commented on issues of concentration related to adult daycare Commissioner Myers wondered if this is limited to the retail space. Ms. Brandt reported there are different types of licensed State facilities that allow six or fewer residents and the State has preempted local regulations when they are licensed facilities. She added that child daycare is an in -home use. Mr. Campbell added that both the small child daycare and small adult daycare is intended for residential occupancies, subject to licensing. Vice Chair Hillgren expressed concerns regarding limits on child daycare facilities and the possibility of setting similar limitations on adult daycare facilities. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed current State laws regarding the matter noting that small daycare facilities must be treated as residential use. The large adult daycare would be within a congregate care home or a convalescent facility and that is when the City could regulate adult care greater than six. Page 7 of 16 3�1 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Mr. Campbell referenced footnote number 3 relative to child daycare and stated that the footnote should relate to the daycare general category instead. Commissioner Tucker requested consensus to delete "animal sales and services" and allow grooming and veterinary services but no boarding of animals. CONSENSUS: Members of the Commission concurred to delete "animal sales and services" and to allow grooming and veterinary services but no boarding of animals. Mr. Shophoff requested limiting fast food with late hours to the Fairchild entrance. Discussion followed regarding addressing the issue of fast food with late hours through a minor use permit. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed the issue of setbacks and building heights and the various options offered. He indicated his preference towards option C which allows for increased heights along Jamboree and the 100 -foot height limit adjacent to properties on Birch Street and allowing a 55 -foot height limit along the first row of units on the western boundary to allow better integration with adjacent properties. Discussion followed regarding the differences between the various options. In response to Commissioner Kramer's inquiry regarding a 55- foot height limit in the center portion of the project, Mr. Campbell reported that the lower height is intended to allow more sunshine to the park. Vice Chair Hillgren reported that the park to the south would be in the sun and stated he agreed with having increased height along the park since one park would be in the sun and the other would have increased shade. Commissioner Ameri commended the applicant for incorporating his previous suggestions and stated that he would accept option C because it seems logical to have more density along the park to allow open areas along the buildings. He indicated he would like other areas converted to high rises between the parks and suggested increasing the building setbacks to 200 feet and converting that area to a high rise. Chair Toerge agreed with the concept of bringing the high rises to the center of the project. He did not agree with increasing setbacks to 200 feet and suggested option A with the opportunity to include high rise on the parcel between the parks. Commissioner Ameri indicated he would like to see more concentration of residential and more open space to allow for increased amenities and facilities. Commissioner Tucker stated that he would support option A with a high rise between the two parks. Vice Chair Hillgren agreed but suggested allowing a 55 -foot row along the western edge of the project, with the units along the east at 75 feet. Commissioner Brown indicated that he supports the lower heights along the perimeter. Commissioner Myers agreed with Commissioner Brown and stated that he would encourage increased setbacks along Jamboree Road. Page 8 of 16 3J° 2 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/2012012 Commissioner Kramer suggested making the adjacent building also at a 55 -foot height Mr. Shophoff clarified that the first row of units would be at 55 feet with the second row stepping to 75 feet and the high rises requiring a 100 -foot setback. Discussion followed regarding parcels becoming high rise zones and the need to specify dimensions. Mr. Shophoff stated support for a 50 -foot setback along the property line with no more than a 55 -foot height limit along the edge. He noted there would be a "wedding cake" look as it moves towards the high rise with a shift in intensity. Mr. Campbell explained the basis for calculating the setbacks and stated that staff could work with the applicant to determine the height and setback standards. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed the revised exhibits relative to activating ground floor building frontage and it was noted that the issue is addressed in the Design Guidelines. He commented on the proposed size of the balconies and felt that the stated 60 square foot minimum is too large. He felt that there should not be a minimum square footage for the balconies. Ms. Brandt suggested providing a minimum dimension and noted the intent to provide a usable balcony area. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of having a mix of balcony sizes, balconies not being required but provided as an option, noise issues, and the possibility of requiring no balconies. CONSENSUS: Members of the Commission concurred to delete the sentence regarding a minimum size for balconies. Chair Toerge commented on the northerly cul -de -sac grading. Mr. Campbell reported that the phasing document shows a conceptual grading plan and suggested discussing that issue at a subsequent Master Site Plan review. Regarding page 20, Chair Toerge wondered regarding requiring no public hearing regarding the site development application. Mr. Campbell clarified that no public hearing notices would be sent out to the area. Ms. Mulvihill reported that it would be up to the Commission to decide if it should be a noticed public hearing and that the item will be presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Brandt reported that two discretionary review processes are proposed noting that the next step is a Master Site Plan review which will be a noticed public hearing with all of the City's standard procedures for more definitive information and conditions of approval. The next step is a Site Development review and the approval for that is proposed to be delegated to the Community Development Director which would not require a public hearing. Chair Toerge suggested removal of the word "other' under page 20 number 1. He addressed typographical errors needing correction. Commissioner Tucker addressed neighborhood parks regarding public and private uses. Ms. Brandt suggested that it could simply indicate public use. Page 9 of 16 3J° 3 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Commissioner Tucker addressed the street definition noting that some may be private, and Ms. Brandt suggested addition that these streets are available for public access. Discussion followed regarding a master association and its membership. It was noted that in general, the City does not regulate them but would make sure that there are CC &Rs in place to ensure there is a functioning management association that is capable of meeting obligations including remedies should the association not meet its obligations. Commissioner Tucker noted there is a provision added to the conditions of approval that make all of the maintenance duties in the CC &Rs enforceable by the City. Chair Toerge addressed the Land Uses Development Standards and Procedures and noted that the applicant has done an enormous amount of work to address many of the Planning Commission's concerns. He stated that the proposed community is a "bicycle unfriendly' place and there are no bike lanes delineated on the streets. He expressed concerns with the lack of bicycle accessibility. A straw vote was taken regarding support of the document with the changes discussed and Vice Chair Hillgren and Commissioners Ameri, Brown and Tucker indicated acceptance of the document. Chair Toerge introduced the Phasing Plan and commented regarding the ceasing of the use of the Tower Jazz facility. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reported that if it were not to occur, it would be a breach of the Development Agreement. She added that the City Council would have the right to extend the Development Agreement beyond the stated 15 years and noted that there are options to extend it. Mr. Campbell reported that the Land Use Development document has the provision to modify uses ceasing at that point. Chair Toerge addressed demolition of the liquid ammonia tank and wondered if the distance for relocation could be increased. Mr. Campbell reported that 200 feet is the minimum distance Mr. Shophoff reported that the location being evaluated exceeds the 200 foot distance and would be located in the rear of the TowerJazz facility. Chair Toerge proposed no change to the item. He addressed the grade differential issue and requested the addition of a condition addressing the matter. Vice Chair Hillgren inquired regarding drainage and water quality and potential impacts to storm runoffs on adjacent properties. He felt that the proposed project would improve water quality. Chair Toerge commented regarding page 13 relative to the northerly access into the site off Jamboree Road allows a left -hand turn and felt that it was a good addition. Regarding the grade differential, Mr. Campbell indicated that it is anticipated to be a five -foot grade differential. Chair Toerge indicated he wants to make sure that it is workable. Page 10 of 16 S�4 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Commissioner Tucker commented on the roadway and the possibility of a pedestrian gate with steps down. Mr. Campbell stated there may be a need to place ramps in that location and addressed edge conditions between phase 1 and 2. Vice Chair Hillgren questioned the need for a significant amount of fencing in the area and he suggested requiring less fencing in order to make the area more inviting. Mr. Campbell indicated that the matter may be addressed within the Design Guidelines. Chair Toerge addressed the "emergency only" easement leading to Von Karman Avenue and felt it may have similar rights as the Birch Street easement and noted no requirements to use that easement were placed on phase 1. Discussion followed regarding what would be provided by the connection Chair Toerge felt that it provides a secondary access in and out of the site to Von Karman Avenue, to the airport, and areas west. He commented on the importance of circulation, integration, cohesiveness, and the opportunity for vehicle access flowing west. Commissioner Ameri commented on the differences between the two easements. Commissioner Tucker felt that is the wrong place to locate access to Von Karman because it would be too close to MacArthur Boulevard. Chair Toerge noted that his proposal is that phase 1 includes a complete public access to Von Karman Avenue, not simply an emergency access. A straw vote on Chair Toerge's proposal failed with 5 noes and 2 ayes. Mr. Campbell addressed modification to condition number 15 adding language to include additional provisions as listed in the presentation to ensure accommodation of future connections at the appropriate time. Discussion followed regarding amending the phasing plan rather than including a condition, and Mr. Campbell agreed to include the language in the phasing plan and delete condition 15. Commissioner Tucker suggested requiring the applicant to allow Koll to complete the street connection. Discussion ensued, and Brian Rupp representing the Shophoff Group stated that as a condition of approval, the applicant is obligated to offer dedication for their streets up to the property boundary. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill suggested adding a condition requiring the applicant to provide access rights for the purposes of constructing the access connections. It was noted that it only needs to be in the CC &R document. A straw vote of the Phasing Plan resulted in approval of the document with changes discussed above. Chair Toerge introduced the Design Guidelines for consideration. Page 11 of 16 35 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Commissioner Tucker felt that there is no particular architectural theme and suggested developing an understandable theme or deciding that each building should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brown agreed and wondered what "enhanced" architecture means. He felt that there is a need to define a theme. Chair Toerge addressed changes made in the document, bicycle access, and the vision statement. Discussion followed regarding the retail center (core). Vice Chair Hillgren referenced page 7 relative to images depicted and felt that the images should be consistent with the theme. Commissioner Ameri felt that the images are helpful in illustrating what the applicant intends to do. Vice Chair Hillgren commented on better describing the retail core suggested. He reported visiting the area noting that it has an appropriate amount of retail that serves the community well. He felt that if the appropriate uses are included and the sidewalk is widened, it would create a "town" in Uptown Newport and an inviting environment for the public. He suggested incorporating other retail uses in other than the L- shaped area. Chair Toerge reported that the current plan shows the retail further south on the building that fronts Jamboree Road. Commissioner Ameri stated that he doesn't get a sense of community within the project and felt there needs to be a core. Commissioner Myers felt that the sizes of the proposed parks are inadequate and felt that to create a usable friendly environment, more than two acres of parks would be required. Mr. Campbell noted that the General Plan requires a minimum of two acres but that doesn't mean that the parks cannot be larger. Commissioner Brown also expressed concerns regarding the size of the proposed parks. Chair Toerge agreed that the retail is located where there is more off -site visibility but not necessarily placed where it will best serve the community. He agreed with a lack of a sense of community center. Commissioner Tucker indicated that he is agreeable with the scale of the parks and felt that they are consistent with the General Plan. He commented on the location of retail uses and felt that the plans are acceptable. Commissioner Kramer indicated it all depends on the market and that there is always an opportunity that higher densities will create more ground area for additional parks. Commissioner Myers felt that the project will attract many young families and that it is so isolated that the demand for more park space will be greater rather than smaller. He felt that the parks, as proposed, are not adequate. Brian Rupp indicated that a large amount of private recreation amenities are planned as part of every building. They will have private pools, outdoor courtyard areas, seating areas, club houses, theaters and business centers, in addition to the parks. He believes the parks are of adequate size and Page 12 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 addressed the revenues generated in park fees. He reported that activating the spine street in the center will help to create a town center environment and addressed graphics provided to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry, Mr. Shophoff addressed construction cost differentials between the various heights of the buildings. He reported that an urban environment will not have an active sports park. Commissioner Brown questioned whether the parks are large enough for any organized activities. Chair Toerge addressed angle parking on public streets. Mr. Brine replied that is allowed in the City and originally he was concerned with vehicles stacking onto Jamboree Road. Discussion followed regarding the lack of bicycle accessibility, architectural themes, and designs. Commissioner Kramer felt that some of the guidelines are confusing and need to be cleaned up. He felt that the main concern is quality of construction and design and that there needs to be formal parameters requiring all buildings to have certain massing, incorporating traditional forms of architecture, and eliminating a bias towards contemporary architecture. Mr. Shophoff noted that one option would be to bring the architecture back to the Planning Commission as part of the Master Site Plan process. Rather than bringing back individual buildings, he suggested returning to the Commission with an increased level of details and understanding what the quality and materials will be. Commissioner Kramer expressed concern regarding making sure that the language is clear and specific enough to guide future approvals. Chair Toerge agreed with the need for specific language relative to the architecture. Discussion followed regarding the timeline for subsequent project approvals, and Mr. Shophoff indicated he expected to be working on this issue immediately. Commissioner Tucker noted that final maps will drive subsequent approvals and felt that all other documents will return at the same time. Commissioner Hillgren suggested making Chapter 3 subject to the Master Site Plan approval which will return to the Commission. In response to Chair Toerge's inquiry, Ms. Brandt noted that specific sections could be carved out because this is a multi -step project and the architectural guidelines are a sub -set of the overall plan. The Commission could forward on their recommendations with a component trailing Commissioner Ameri suggested that there is sufficient information to vote on the entire project at this time. He disagreed with carving out little pieces and suggested approving the project and place a condition that prior to the time the matter goes before Council, the applicant would have a presentation that would satisfy the Commission with regard to the architectural aspects of the project. Chair Toerge indicated that he wants to be respectful of each Commissioner's opinions. Mr. Shophoff presented various alternatives and indicated intentions to move forward with the project asking the Commission to approve the project except for the Design Guidelines. Page 13 of 16 3J7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 In response to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry, Ms. Mulvihill indicated that to carve out the Design Guidelines in its entirety, would compromise all of the other project - related findings. She agreed with Ms. Brandfs suggestions to recommend the project except for the architectural style. Ms. Brandt expressed concerns regarding trailing an entire document or documents because it is an integrated project and the findings are all interrelated. She noted that what Ms. Mulvihill referenced was the architectural theme which doesn't affect height, massing or placement. She addressed the Master Site Development Plan review process and recommended including review of the architecture design and materials as part of the Master Plan review. Commissioner Tucker expressed concerns that documents would have already been approved without a theme element to guide the future review. RECESS /RECONVENE Chair Toerge called for a recess at 5:30 p.m. The assembly reconvened at 5:40 p.m. with all Members present. Mr. Shophoff presented suggestions including adding language that the architectural design will come back as part of the Master Plan review process and eliminate the rest of the section in Chapter 3. He noted that those are not things that will be part of mitigation measures. Ms. Brandt clarified Mr. Shophoffs recommendations. She reported that the Airport Land Use Commission overrule process is scheduled for City Council consideration on January 8, 2013. She noted there is one more Planning Commission meeting on January 3, 2013, prior to the City Council meeting. If it is the Planning Commission's desire, to take a straw vote in terms of the overall position on the project, it could forward on to Council a recommendation that the Commission is considering approval of the project however, the Commission is still refining the architectural design and theme for the project. Ms. Mulvihill reported that the straw vote would not bind the Planning Commission on the final vote on the project. In reply to Chair Toerge's inquiry, Ms. Mulvihill reported on the significance of Council's meeting on January 8, 2013, regarding the Airport Land Use Commission overrule process. Discussion followed regarding the need for Design Guidelines before further consideration and acting before the item is set to appear before Council for consistency and thoroughness. Ensuing discussion followed regarding next steps and possible recommendations to Council. Chair Toerge reported that he is not ready to vote on the project, absent the Design Guidelines. Discussion followed regarding providing Council with an update regarding the Planning Commission's thoughts on the project thus far. Motion made by Vice Chair Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Tucker and carried 6 — 1, to direct staff to provide notice to Council that the Planning Commission has considered this project over the course of three meetings and straw votes in favor of some components of the project were made and that formal, final approval will not occur until the Design Guidelines are considered. Page 14 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Commissioner Tucker added that the motion should include that the Commission sees no reason that Council should not send a notice of intent to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission at this time. Discussion followed regarding issues related to the Airport Land Use Commission's concern of introducing residential under the John Wayne Airport flight zone. Ms. Brandt reported that the consistency determination rests with the Airport Land Use Commission and they are looking at safety, noise and land uses for compatibility. The report that staff would present to Council is that the Planning Commission has reviewed the building heights and spatial layout of the project, has taken straw votes, and the components remaining for the project are the Development Agreement, the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, Conditions of Approval on the Tentative Tract Map, and the Design Guidelines. Vice Chair Hillgren agreed to Commissioner Tucker's proposed amendment to the motion. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers and Tucker NOES: Toerge ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Motion made by Commissioner Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 7 — 0, to continue this item to February 7, 2013. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Chair Toerge commented positively on the collaborative process. Mr. Shophoff expressed his appreciation to the Commission. ITEM NO. 3--MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO.4 COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORfi� ITEM NO. 5 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON M HAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PSI A D O UTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT one ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS -FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Vice Ch ' illgren and Commissioners Kramer and Tucker indicated they will not be giterriTthe meeting of January 3, 2013. Page 15 of 16 400 Attachment No. CC 14 Planning Commission Staff Reports — 2/7/13 (w /o attachments) -401 402 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 7, 2013 Meeting Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: Uptown Newport Village - (PA2011 -134) 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011- 003 • Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001 • Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005 • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002 • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001 • Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003 APPLICANT: Shopoff Management, Inc. (Uptown Newport LP) PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov On December 20, 2012, the Planning Commission continued the consideration of the Uptown Newport project to February 7, 2013. The commission took straw votes on the following: 1. No need to re- circulate the draft environmental impact report. 2. The draft environmental impact report is adequate and should be referred for certification by the City Council. 3. The draft statement of overriding considerations is appropriate and should be referred to the City Council for consideration. 4. The proposed amendment of the Koll Center PC is appropriate and should be referred to the City Council for consideration. 5. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Integrated Conceptual Development Plan as it relates to vehicle and pedestrian connectivity with surrounding properties. 6. The following components of the proposed Uptown Newport Planned Community documents are adequate and should be referred to the City Council for adoption: a. Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures (as modified) Rr Uptown Newport February 7, 2013 Page 2 b. Phasing Plan (as modified) The Commission did not complete the review of the proposed Design Guidelines, Tract Map conditions, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and Development Agreement. Based on the Planning Commission's comments from the previous meeting, the applicant has revised the Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures (PC Text), Phasing Plan, and Design Guidelines. These revised documents along with a document showing the changes to the text are attached for the Commission consideration. Also attached is the latest revised Affordable Housing Implementation Plan with changes highlighted. Staff has reviewed and supports the changes made to these documents. Staff received 2 letters (attached) addressed to the Planning Commission regarding the Uptown Newport project. One letter supports the project and the other expresses a concern regarding public notice of the 2006 General Plan Update where the change in General Plan designations for the Airport Area were approved. Prepared by: Submitted by: Ro alinh Ung , Kimberly Brand AICP As ociate Planner Director ATTACHMENTS PC1 Revised Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures' PC2 Revised Phasing Plan' PC3 Revised Design Guidelines' PC4 Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures - Red -lined Word Document' PC5 Phasing Plan - Red -lined Word Document' PC6 Design Guidelines - Red -lined Word Document' PC7 Correspondence Note: 'These documents are not included in the staff report due to their size and bulk. They are available at the City Hall in the office of Planning Division and online at www.newportbeachca.gov/planninqcommission. 14 ,1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949)644-3210 Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: James Campbell, Principal Planner Date: January 29, 2013 Re: Agenda Item #3, Planning Commission Meeting dated February 7, 2013 Uptown Newport Beach (PA2011 -134) Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) Attached is a copy of the most recent draft AHIP highlighting only the changes from the previous draft that is attached to the December 20, 2012, memorandum to the Planning Commission. The prior draft included revisions in an "underline /strikeout' format and those changes have been incorporated within the attached draft. 1. Section VIII - Phasing of the Affordable Housing Production The attached draft requires the commencement of construction of 50% of the affordable units prior to occupancy of 50% of the market -rate units. The prior draft had the same quantity of affordable units being commenced prior to occupancy of 75% of the market - rate units. Staff was concerned that a significant portion of each phase could be constructed early delaying affordable housing production to the later stages of each phase. By requiring the commencement of construction of 50% of the affordable units earlier in project implementation, a sizable remaining amount of market -rate units will provide sufficient incentive to ensure timely completion of the affordable units. 2. Section XI — Right to Assign The changes to this section simply clarify the ability to assign the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) with the approved AHIP. Section VIII requires a future AHA to be executed and recorded prior to recordation of the Final Map for the project. Attachment: Draft Affordable Housing Implementation Plan dated January 29, 2013. REM 400 Attachment No. CC 15 Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes — 2/7/13 407 402 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/7/13 ITEM NO. 3 Uptown Newport (PA2011 -134) Site Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, North side of Jamboree Rd. between Birch St. and Fairchild Rd. Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung presented background on the aforementioned item including previous consideration by the Planning Commission of the EIR, the Planned Community Amendment and the proposed PC Text phasing plan. She noted that the Planning Commission did not complete the review of the Design Guidelines, the Planned Community Development Plan proposal, the Tract Map, the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan nor the Development Agreement. She noted that after deliberations, the Planning Commission continued the item to today's meeting. She reported that based on comments from the Commission, the applicant has worked with staff extensively to address the Commission's concerns and that staff has reviewed and accepted the changes made. She reported that staff received four written comments. Chair Toerge invited the applicant to provide a presentation. Bill Shophoff, applicant, presented an update of the work that has occurred and commended the Commission and staff for its input. He reported on subsequent meetings with owners and tenants and addressed changes to the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, the Conditions of Approval, the Development Agreement and revisions to the PC and Phasing plan documents based on feedback from the Commission. He addressed revisions to the Design Guidelines based on feedback from the Commission, noted planned amenities for residents and guests and reported that there is a minimum requirement of 44 square feet of private open space per residential dwelling unit and stated that over five acres of the project will be for private or public recreational space. Mr. Shopoff reported that sidewalks were expanded along the spine street to provide a pedestrian promenade to link the parks and paseos to retail uses as well as further delineating street activators residence - serving uses that will front the spine street including fitness centers, clubhouse rooms, mail rooms, and building lobby entries. Mr. Shopoff addressed expansions to the Architectural Design Guidelines including specific design requirements, massing and articulation, community focal points, corner conditions, balconies and railings, and materials and colors. He addressed the architectural style and proposed coming back at a later date to present prototypical building elevations and additional architectural elements. He introduced the project architect, Ken Nilmeier of MVE and listed other projects within the City of Newport Beach with which MVE has been involved. Mr. Nilmeier presented a brief history on his organization's background and experience within the City and provided details of the Design Guideline changes. He highlighted the creation of a focal point for the project and noted the expansion of the promenade to link park spaces and create more of an active zone through the area. He reported on additional updates including modifying the building height diagram to reflect lower building heights along the north side perimeter and higher structures. He presented a brief overview of the guidelines including theme and character, urban design conditions, building orientations and architecture. Mr. Nilmeier reported that Uptown Newport has an eclectic commercial environment and stated that the intent is for the theme of a dynamic environment that would blend different styles of architecture and create a more diverse area likened to a small cityscape than a singular project. He addressed the introduction of more traditional architecture, modern contemporary aesthetics, building orientation and maintenance of a street presence, pedestrian activity, links to the parks, and enhancement of the spine street and maintaining an active pedestrian edge. He addressed mixed -use retail areas, opportunities for seating and landscaping, building design, horizontal and vertical architectural elements, creation of stepped high -rise structures, setbacks and corridor conditions. Page 4 of 12 4 0J NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/7/13 Mr. Nilmeier addressed proposed balconies and reported that in addition to all of the project -wide guidelines, they have added a series of layers of regulations to the plan introducing mandatory inclusion of focal points at key locations and presented details of an architectural enhancement zone. He noted significant massing breaks throughout the project to minimize the perception of large, overly - scaled buildings. He reported that the goal is to create a high - quality project including special attention to various architectural areas. Interested parties were invited to address the Commission on this matter. Jim Mosher addressed school district issues and the adequacy of the environmental review. He felt that the process suffered from adequate vetting by EQAC and referenced Council Policy K -3. He referenced the finding of inconsistency by the Airport Land -Use Commission and expressed concerns that the Commission's recommendation to Council will include overriding their findings. He felt that the Airport Land -Use Commission provides a needed balance of checks and findings and that their input is an important consideration. He did not feel that it is in the City's interest to rush this project along and referenced written comments in which he suggested that the Planning Commission recommend sending the item back to the Airport Land -Use Commission to determine and address their concerns. Vice Chair Hillgren inquired whether Mr. Mosher is aware of the specific issues of concern by the Airport Land -Use Commission. Mr. Mosher reported that their concerns were in relation to the fact that the project had not been finalized and they didn't want to express a final opinion on something that might go through changes. He added that they had concerns about the project creating a "wall" of buildings in an area where general aviation aircraft take off as well as whether residential zoning was appropriate in the area. Mr. Mosher also stated that their attorney indicated that if the City overrides their determination, the City would take on the responsibilities regarding their concerns in the future. Vice Chair Hillgren noted that there are other residential projects as well as taller buildings in the area. Mr. Mosher felt that the Airport Land -Use Commission did not deliberate on the matter entirely since they believed the project was premature at the time it was reviewed. He reiterated that he felt it is in the interest of Newport Beach citizens to have the item reviewed by the Airport Land -Use Commission before it is presented before Council. John Adams referenced a letter from co- owners, tenants and management of the Koll Center Newport noting that one of the big issues of concerns are the setback requirements. He stated that they would like to see equal setbacks of at least thirty -four feet around the entire project. He questioned why architectural features cannot be continued along the Courthouse Plaza and the remaining Jamboree side. Vice Chair Hillgren clarified Mr. Adams' request. Mr. Campbell reported that buildings along that side are along the property line. It was noted that the proposed plan provides a 15 -foot setback from where it currently exists. Discussion followed regarding the location of the building wall and an adjacent service area as well as the existing configuration in comparison with the plans. Mr. Campbell reported that the proposed setback is fifteen feet and that there is a larger setback for high -rise buildings, discussed earlier. He showed a photograph of the westerly edge conditions and noted that the mechanical spaces are behind the wall shown. Page 5 of 12 410 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/7/13 Mr. Adams reiterated that they believe the setbacks should be consistent around the entire project. There being no others wishing to address the Commission, Chair Toerge closed public comments for this item. Chair Toerge reported that the Commission has spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the components of the project except for the Design Guidelines, the Tract Map and conditions, the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan and the Development Agreement. He requested comments or concerns from the Commission regarding the Design Guidelines. In response to an inquiry from Chair Toerge regarding reviewing the architectural theme at a later date, Mr. Campbell reported that the language has been presented to the Commission under separate cover. Commissioner Tucker reported that when the project was last reviewed by the Commission, the applicant was asked to return with a architectural style of the project. He referenced changes made to the Design Guidelines and noted that there was no specific theme. Commissioner Tucker reported speaking with the applicant regarding the theme and presenting it to the Commission at the time of the Master Site Plan review. He referenced the handout distributed by the applicant and noted the objective and purpose of the Guidelines. Furthermore, Commissioner Tucker reported that "conceptual exterior elevations will be prepared for review by the Newport Beach Planning Commission as part of the Master Site Development Plan review process ". He continued noting that "the prototypical elevations will clearly demonstrate the architectural style of all structures and will illustrate exterior materials, colors and building heights. The requirement shall be applied to all buildings in Phase 1 and Phase 2 ". Commissioner Tucker indicated that the Commission will have an opportunity to review exactly what is being proposed. Deputy City Attorney Michael Torres departed at this juncture. (6:09 p.m.) Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill arrived at this juncture. (6:10 p.m.) Commissioner Tucker felt that the applicant is going a step beyond their business plan. The Commission will be able to review details at the time of the building review process. It will entail, at the developer level, exactly what will be on each pad. He reported that he will propose minor changes to the review process and stated that he feels comfortable voting in support of the project and that ultimately, the Commission will see exactly what the project entails. Commissioner Kramer commended the applicant for their work on the Design Guidelines and indicated he supports Commissioner Tucker's recommendations with respect to the process. He stated that many of his previous concerns have been alleviated and reported that he will support the project. Vice Chair Hillgren commended the applicant for the Design Guidelines and agreed with Commissioner Tucker's recommendation. He addressed the proposed expanded hardscape and suggested including specific dimensions relative to the expansion. Mr. Nilmeier explained that it will be a combination of hardscape from the curb to building phase with planters and tree pockets. He reported that the overall general hardscape area will be twenty -seven feet. Commissioner Ameri commented positively on the Design Guidelines and expressed concerns with micro - management of the project noting that focus should be on the concept. Initially, he reported that he did not like the project but felt that a variety of architecture can be implemented that will fit the site. He addressed the creation of the spine and areas with different patterns of paving and landscaping Page 6 of 12 '4'11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/7/13 which will set the theme for related uses. He reported that his main concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Motion made by Commissioner Ameri to approve the project with the language specifically written in the agenda under recommended actions of the December 6, 2012 Planning Commission. Commissioner Tucker reported that he will not second the motion at this time because of needed corrections to the language. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Tucker referenced the Design Guidelines, Section 2.4 regarding structure parking, he suggested adding "will provide" rather than "as anticipated ". In addition, he referenced Section 3.4.10 (page 59) and suggested adding "enhanced materials application techniques ". Commissioner Brown questioned the exclusion of enhanced architectural elements along the section referenced earlier by Mr. Adams. Chair Toerge re- opened the public hearing. Mr. Nilmeier reported that initially, the primary focus was on the public -realm elements of the project along Jamboree and the neighborhood parks. He reported that a high level of design is anticipated throughout the project as will be demonstrated in the Design Guidelines. He added that the area was not necessarily omitted, but rather would not have some of the additional treatments recommended for the more public visible areas. Commissioner Tucker stated that he hasn't noticed any enhanced architectural techniques on the properties that the subject properties will be facing. He felt that the applicant has done an excellent job and did not support having the entire project being enhanced. Commissioner Myers noted agreement that the changes include substantial improvements compared to what was originally presented. He commented positively on the proposed enhancements and the opportunity for additional resident - serving retail. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed the Land Use Development Standards relative to private open space and questioned if open space refers to open space at the ground level or on the interior or rooftops of the residential buildings. Brian Rupp, Shopoff Group, reported that a lot of these residential products have open space on rooftops that are highly amenitized with pools, outdoor BBQs, outdoor seating areas and spas. He felt that these are areas that will provide recreational opportunities. Vice Chair Hillgren questioned if the rooftop amenities will be included to satisfy the forty -four feet per unit of open space. Mr. Rupp responded that it is not required, but should be eligible as open space. Mr. Shopoff stated that the space is typically counted in Newport Beach, as long as they are public spaces or private open space. Mr. Campbell reported that the forty -four square foot standard is within the General Plan, Land Use Policy 6.15.16 and is part of on -site recreational amenities. Page 7 of 12 412 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/7/13 Vice Chair Hillgren suggested changing the reference of forty -four feet of open space to forty -four feet of "on -site recreational amenities ". Regarding the Tract Map conditions, Mr. Campbell reported that staff would like to eliminate Condition No. 15. Regarding the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, Mr. Campbell reported that staff would like to change the phasing of the construction relative to the percentage when the Affordable Housing units need to be occupied and constructed (Section 7.3) from 100% to 90 %. Commissioner Tucker referenced Section VI (handwritten page 10), noted that it refers to Section 8, below, but that the correct Section is 7. Commissioner Hillgren referenced page 4, Section 3, regarding the percentage of income for rent and ownership. Mr. Campbell reported that the provision mimics the density bonus laws and the City's zoning ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reported that it is difficult, under the Housing Law, to provide ownership to the lower income range. Regarding the Development Agreement, Commissioner Tucker noted that the definition of the Development Plan date needs to be updated in various places. In addition, he referenced page 8, relative to a defined term, lot termination date and stated that a Master Site Development Plan will go through a review process that will have specific site work improvements that need to occur. He suggested that in addition, in order for the lot to be released, the document should indicate, "The Master Site Improvement as described in the Development Plan, and approved as part of the Master Site Development Plan review, have been completed for said lot ". Mr. Shopoff reported that he cannot get to the final Certificate of Occupancy until the preceding steps have been accomplished. He felt that the Certificate of Occupancy becomes an inclusive statement. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill inquired whether Commissioner Tucker's concern is with the terms of the Development Agreement that as the individual lots are completed, termination of the applicability of the Development Agreement for individual lots will occur. Commissioner Tucker explained that he is concerned about the completion of individual lots and the termination of the Development Agreement for those lots before the master improvements are completed. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill requested clarification. Commissioner Tucker reported that the concept of the Development Plan relates to what gets approved at the time the project gets approved but noted that there are subsequent approvals that need to occur that have not been presented. These will be presented at the Master Site Development Plan review process. He addressed the purpose of the Development Agreement and subsequent Certificates of Occupancy which will require additional impositions. Commissioner Tucker reported that the Development Plan does not have any duties that go to the same level as the Master Site Development Plan review. Mr. Shopoff suggested adding a phrase to the Development Agreement, after the Development Plan, "and, the Master Site Development Plan improvements ". Page 8 of 12 4-IS NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/7/13 Vice Chair Hillgren inquired about providing guaranteed funding for maintenance of the public parks. Ms. Mulvihill reported that maintenance funding would be addressed through the Master Association Agreement for the future maintenance of private improvements that will be treated as public. She stated that it is required as part of the Conditions of Approval. Discussion followed regarding in lieu options in terms of the Affordable Housing and Ms. Mulvihill reported that under the terms of the AHIP, there are none. Vice Chair Hillgren referenced Section 2.3 and inquired about the voluntary or involuntary petitions. Ms. Mulvihill reported that is a legal term. Mr. Shopoff agreed with adding "bankruptcy" to that section. Brief discussion followed regarding Section 3.2.3 relative to the use of "may ". Vice Chair Hillgren addressed the extension and indicated that he was surprised that after fifteen years, an extension would be granted with only 250 units in place. Ms. Mulvihill reported that her office was directed to provide that option. Commissioner Kramer inquired regarding the school district issue as well as the undergrounding of utilities. Mr. Shopoff reported that the undergrounding of utilities is part of the first phase of the project and that their intention is to move forward with that. Ms. Mulvihill reported that there is no binding language in the Development Agreement either requiring the applicant to underground facilities or require the City work in good faith. She noted that there are various ways that undergrounding occurs. Mr. Shopoff has begun the efforts with the City's Public Works Department. Commissioner Kramer stressed the need to underground utilities and noted it increases the value of the project. Mr. Shopoff reported inviting the Koll Center Newport to become involved with the undergrounding of utilities. Regarding the school district, he reported that they are continuing their dialogue with the Santa Ana School District and stated that he would gladly accept a non - binding resolution that encouraged the implementation of a Charter School. Ms. Mulvihill suggested that language be added to the resolution, approving the project, citing that the Commission would be supportive of the project's effort to provide for a trans jurisdiction of the school. Commissioner Kramer indicated that he would support the suggestion and asked that the Commission direct Ms. Mulvihill to draft language that would reflect that intent. A straw vote of the Commission resulted in consensus to direct Ms. Mulvihill accordingly. Commissioner Tucker addressed the PC Text relative to the Master Site Development Plan review process, Section 4.2. He suggested adding the language, "the purpose of Site Development Review Process is to ensure projects within Uptown Newport PC are implemented consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Provisions of this document plans approved as part of the Master Page 9 of 12 414 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/7/13 Site Development Plan review ". He addressed Section 4.2.2 and made typographical corrections. He requested adding another paragraph as follows, "Only after first making the following findings, the development is in compliance with the Planned Community Planned Land Uses Development Standards and Procedures, is in compliance with the Design Guidelines and in substantial conformance with the Master Site Development Plan application ". Furthermore, he suggested the addition of language as follows, "The Development shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans and prototypical building elevations approved as part of the Master Site Development Plan application ". Community Development Director Brandt reported that the documents will be renumbered appropriately. Associate Planner Ung reported that the only additional change being requested in the resolution is the finding for the Tract Map, C -3 (handwritten page 130) regarding impacts on migratory birds be deleted. She reported that all the recommended changes are highlighted and will be incorporated into the documents. Mr. Campbell reported that all the proposed changes will be incorporated before the documents are presented to Council. Commissioner Tucker presented suggested changes to the resolution, page 66 of the resolution (handwritten page 71), regarding the Statement of Overriding Considerations, "the City, considering the severity and duration of the unavoidable impacts and ". In addition, he referenced paragraph 1 regarding park land dedication, he suggested adding, "in addition, park in -lieu fees will be available for park improvements elsewhere in the City ". Ms. Brandt presented suggested language. Commissioner Ameri expressed concerns regarding adding language regarding severity of impacts. Commissioner Tucker clarified that the City, after considering the severity and duration of the unavoidable impacts, decided that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts. Commissioner Ameri expressed concerns with possible liability or weakening the approval of the project. Ms. Mulvihill indicated that the item is already in the record and that discussion has already occurred regarding the severity of the impacts. A straw vote resulted in a majority of the Commission agreeing to the changes proposed by Commissioner Tucker. Motion made by Commissioner Ameri to adopt Resolution No. 1908 recommending the City Council take the following actions: Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094); and approval of Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003, Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001, Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001, and Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003 with modifications as stated above. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Tucker, Ms. Mulvihill reported that the changes recommended to the EIR are included in the resolution. Commissioner Tucker seconded the motion. Page 10 of 12 41 5 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/7/13 Chair Toerge addressed side yard setbacks versus front setbacks and noted that the project has many challenges, especially with the school district issue, under which the Commission has no jurisdiction. He noted there is significant mitigation required to place the residential community adjacent to heavy and medium industrial and felt the need to rely on the mitigation measures as proposed. He stated that integrating access with the adjacent business district is an important component to the project. In addition, he stated that he respects the objections from the adjacent property owners but recognizes that the ideal achievement of the General Plan regarding interconnectivity is not manifested in this project at this point. Given the way the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission throughout the process, he expressed support for the motion. The motion carried, 7 — 0. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Page 11 of 12 250 Attachment No. CC 16 Draft EIR (September 2012) This document is not included in the staff report package due to its size and bulk. It is available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at http: / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2029 417 412 DRAFT 411 '/107aA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2010051094 VOLUMEI prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER IDC &E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Principal, Environmental Services SEPTEMBER 2012 DRAFT UPTOWN NEWPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT SCH NO. 2010051094 VOLUMEI eON 08 prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Contact: Newport Beach, CA 92658 Rosalinh Ung Tel: 949.644.3208 Associate Planner 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 E -mail: information @planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER IDC &E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Principal Environmental Services CNB -13.OE SEPTEMBER 2012 Table of Contents Section Page VOLUME 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1 INTRODUCTION_ .... ....................... .............................. ............................................... 1-1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ...................................................... ............................1 -1 2.3 1.2.1 EIR Format ........................................................................... ............................... 1 -2 2.4 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DEIR ................................... ............................... ........ 1 -3 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................... ............................... 1 -4 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY .......................................................................... ............................1 -4 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ....................................... ............................... 1 -6 2.5 1.5.2 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping Project/Planning -11 2.6 Process................................................................................................ ............................1 -6 2.7 1.5.3 No- Project Alternative ... ............................... ........................................ ............... 1 -7 3.5 1.5.4 Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative ....................................... ............................1 -7 1.5.5 Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative .......................... ............................... 1 -8 1.5.6 Reduced Density Alternative ....... ........................................................................ 1 -9 1.5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative ..................................... ...........................1 -10 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ................................................................ ...........................1 -11 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ............................................................ ..............................1 11 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION .............................. ...........................1 -12 e7 Iil i1 :1015111011Is]Z 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .................. ............................2 -1 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY .............................. ............................2 -1 2.3 SCOPING MEETING ............................................................................ ............................2 -8 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR ......... .......................................................................................... 2 -10 2.4.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant ........................... ...........................2 -10 3.3 2.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts ................................. ...........................2 -11 3.4 2.4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts ............................. ...........................2 -11 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ................................................... ...........................2 -11 2.6 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION ................................................................ ...........................2 -12 2.7 MITIGATION MONITORING ................................................................ ...........................2 -12 5� ;i �oajxoil1l *1Zd 11a111611 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION .............. ........................................................................................ 3 -1 3.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2.1 Planning Background ............................................................. ............................3 -1 3.2.2 Related Development Proposals ........................................... ...........................3 -13 3.2.3 Existing Improvements .......................................................... ...........................3 -13 3.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES ........................................................... ...........................3 -14 3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................... ...........................3 -14 3.4.1 Proposed Site Plan and Land Use ......................................... ...........................3 -14 3.4.2 Project Construction and Infrastructure ....... ................................................ ..... 3 -16 3.4.3 Design Guidelines and Community Character ...................... ...........................3 -33 3.5 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR ........................................................... ...........................3 -34 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page i E 3 4, 08 Table of Contents Section Page !�4L' III I:T671' h4I=1i YC_1W94aiIk' 4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................4 -1 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................ ............................4 -1 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................... ............................4 -3 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................... ...........................4 -11 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................... ..........................5.1 -1 5.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................... ..........................5.1 -1 5.1.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.1 -1 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance .................................................... ..........................5.1 -4 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... ..........................5.1 -4 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.1 -22 5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions .................... .........................5.1 -23 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.1 -23 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures .............................................................. .........................5.1 -24 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................... .........................5.1 -24 5.2 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................... ..........................5.2 -1 5.2.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.2 -1 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... .........................5.2 -10 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................... .........................5.2 -12 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................ ............................... 5.2 -26 5.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions .................... .........................5.2 -26 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.2 -27 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures .............................................................. .........................5.2 -27 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................... .........................5.2 -29 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................. ............................... .........................5.3 -1 5.3.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................... ............................... 5.3-1 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................... ............................... 5.3 -5 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... ..........................5.3 -6 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................ ............................... ..........................5.3 -7 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ..................... ..........................5.3 -8 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .................................. ..........................5.3 -9 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures ................................ ............................... ..........................5.3 -9 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................ ............................... 5.3 -9 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................... ..........................5.4 -1 5.4.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.4 -1 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................... ............................... 5.4 -5 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... ..........................5.4 -6 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... ..........................5.4 -7 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ..................... ..........................5.4 -8 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .................................. ..........................5.4 -8 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures ............................................................... ..........................5.4 -8 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................ ............................... 5.4 -9 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................... ..........................5.5 -1 5.5.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.5 -1 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance .................................................... ..........................5.5 -7 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts ........................... ............................... ..........................5.5 -8 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.5 -12 Page ii • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Table of Contents Section Page Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page iii r 5.5.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions .................... .........................5.5 -12 5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.5 -12 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures ............................... ............................... .........................5.5 -13 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................... .........................5.5 -13 5.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ....................... ............................... ..........................5.6 -1 5.6.1 Environmental Setting ............................. ............................... ..........................5.6 -1 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... .........................5.6 -10 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts .......................... ............................... .........................5.6 -11 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................ ............................... 5.6-15 5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval ......................... 5.6 -15 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.6 -16 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures ............................... ............................... .........................5.6 -16 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................... .........................5.6 -16 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................... ..........................5.7 -1 5.7.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................... ............................... 5.7 -1 5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... .........................5.7 -15 5.7.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................... .........................5.7 -16 5.7.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.7 -30 5.7.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval ......................... 5.7 -30 5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.7 -31 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures .............................................................. .........................5.7 -33 5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................... .........................5.7 -36 5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................... ............................... 5.8 -1 5.8.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.8 -1 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... .........................5.8 -11 5.8.3 Environmental Impacts .......................... ............................... .........................5.8 -11 5.8.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.8 -22 5.8.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval ......................... 5.8 -23 5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.8 -23 5.8.7 Mitigation Measures .............................................................. .........................5.8 -23 5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................... .........................5.8 -23 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................... ..........................5.9 -1 5.9.1 Environmental Setting ............................. ............................... ..........................5.9 -1 5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................... ............................... 5.9 -6 5.9.3 Environmental Impacts .......................................................... ..........................5.9 -7 5.9.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................ ............................... ........................5.9 -40 5.9.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval ......................... 5.9 -40 5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.9 -40 5.9.7 Mitigation Measures .............................................................. .........................5.9 -41 5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................... .........................5.9 -41 5.10 NOISE ................................................................. ............................... .........................5.10 -1 5.10.1 Environmental Setting ............................. ............................... ........................5.10 -1 5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance ................... ............................... ........................5.10 -18 5.10.3 Environmental Impacts ......................... ............................... ........................5.10 -22 5.10.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................... ............................... .......................5.10 -47 5.10.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ................... ........................5.10 -48 5.10.6 Mitigation Measures .............................. ............................... ........................5.10 -52 5.10.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................ ............................... 5.10 -57 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page iii r Table of Contents Section Page 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................ ............................... .........................5.11 -1 5.11.1 Environmental Setting ............................ ............................... .........................5.11 -1 5.11.2 Thresholds of Significance .................... ............................... .........................5.11 -4 5.11.3 Environmental Impacts .......................... ............................... .........................5.11 -5 5.11.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................ ............................... ........................5.11 -6 5.11.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval .........................5.11 -7 5.11.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .. ............................... .........................5.11 -7 5.11.7 Mitigation Measures ............................... ............................... .........................5.11 -8 5.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..... ............................... .........................5.11 -8 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................. ............................... .........................5.12 -1 5.12.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services ................. ........................5.12 -1 5.12.2 Police Protection ................................... ............................... ........................5.12 -10 5.12.3 School Services .................................... ............................... ........................5.12 -12 5.12.4 Library Services ............................................................ ............................... 5.12 -24 5.13 RECREATION ...................................................... ............................... .........................5.13 -1 5.13.1 Environmental Setting ............................ ............................... .........................5.13 -1 5.13.2 Thresholds of Significance .................... ............................... .........................5.13 -4 5.13.3 Environmental Impacts .......................... ............................... .........................5.13 -7 5.13.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................... ............................... .........................5.13 -9 5.13.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval .........................5.13 -9 5.13.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .. ............................... .........................5.13 -9 5.13.7 Mitigation Measures ............................... ............................... .........................5.13 -9 5.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..... ............................... .........................5.13 -9 5.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .................... ............................... .........................5.14 -1 5.14.1 Environmental Setting ............................ ............................... .........................5.14 -1 5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance ................... ............................... ........................5.14 -18 5.14.3 Environmental Impacts ......................... ............................... ........................5.14 -20 5.14.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................... ............................... .......................5.14 -69 5.14.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ................... ........................5.14 -70 5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ......................... ............................... 5.14 -70 5.14.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................ ............................... 5.14 -70 5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................. ............................... .........................5.15 -1 5.15.1 Environmental Setting ............................. ............................... ........................5.15 -1 5.15.2 Thresholds of Significance .................... ............................... .........................5.15 -8 5.15.3 Environmental Impacts .......................... ............................... .........................5.15 -9 5.15.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................... ............................... .......................5.15 -20 5.15.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ................... ........................5.15 -20 5.15.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation . ............................... ........................5.15 -21 5.15.7 Mitigation Measures .............................. ............................... ........................5.15 -21 5.15.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................ ............................... 5.15 -21 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ............................. ............................6 -1 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................. ............................7 -1 7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ............................... 7 -1 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................ ............................7 -1 7.1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................... ............................7 -2 7.1.3 Significant Impacts of the Project ...................._...................... ............................7 -2 Page iv • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Table of Contents Section Page 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS ................. ............................... 7.2.1 Alternative Project Location .............................. ............................... 7.2.2 Optional Project Phasing Alternative ................ ............................... 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS ............................. 7.4 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ........................................ ............................... 7.4.2 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts. ................... ................... 7.4.3 Ability to Achieve Project Objectives ................ ............................... 7.5 HOTEL / OFFICE /COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE ............ ............................... 7.5.2 Environmental Assessment .............................. ............................... 7.5.3 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts ......... ............................... 7.5.4 Ability to Achieve Project Objectives ................ ............................... 7.6 OFFICE / COMMERCIAL /RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE . ............................... 7.6.1 Environmental Assessment .............................. ............................... 7.6.2 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts ......... ............................... 7.6.3 Ability to Achieve Project Objectives ................ ............................... 7.7 REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE .............................. ............................... 7.7.1 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts ......... ............................... 7.7.2 Ability to Achieve Project Objectives ................ ............................... 7.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE .......... ............................... 8. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................... ............................... .............. 7 -4 .............. 7 -4 .............. 7 -5 .............. 7 -6 .............. 7 -8 ............ 7 -15 ............ 7 -15 ............ 7 -15 ............ 7 -19 ............ 7 -26 ............ 7 -26 ............ 7 -27 ............ 7 -28 ............ 7 -38 ............ 7 -38 ............ 7 -39 ............ 7 -50 ............ 7 -50 ............ 7 -50 8 -1 8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY ............................................... ............................8 -1 9. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............ 9 -1 10. GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........ ...........................10.1 11. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ................................. ...........................11 -1 12. QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS PREPARING EIR ............................. ...........................12 -1 13. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................... ...........................13 -1 13.1 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... ...........................13 -1 112 WEBSITES ................. .......................................................... ........................ .................. 13 -2 13.3 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................... ...........................13 -4 Uptown Newport Draft EIR Cite of Newport Beach • Page v E(NO 08 Table of Contents VOLUME II APPENDICES Appendix A: Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comment Letters Appendix B: Shade /Shadow Analysis Exhibits Appendix C: Air Quality and GHG Modeling Appendix D: Health Risk Assessment Appendix E: Biological Technical Report Appendix F: Archeological and Paleontological Assessment Appendix G: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Appendix H: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment; Vapor Intrusion Health Risk Assessment; City of Newport Beach Fire Department Hazards Conditions; Offsite Consequence Analysis VOLUME III APPENDICES Appendix I: Preliminary Hydrology Report; Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix J: Noise Calculations and Modeling; Noise and Vibration Impact Mitigation Memo Appendix K: Service Provider Correspondence Appendix L: School Impact Analysis and Mitigation Report Appendix M: Traffic Impact Assessment Appendix N: Water Supply Assessment Appendix O: Sewer Flow Report Page vi • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 List of Figures Figure Page Figure 3 -1 Figure 3 -2 Figure 3 -3 Figure 3 -4 Figure 3 -5 Figure 3 -6 Figure 3 -7 Figure 3 -8 Figure 3 -9 Figure 3 -10 Figure 3 -11 Figure 3 -12 Figure 3 -13 Figure 4 -1 Figure 4 -2 Figure 4 -3 Figure 4 -4 Figure 5.1 -1 Figure 5.1 -2 Figure 5.1 -3 Figure 5.1 -4 Figure 5.5 -1 Figure 5.7 -1 Figure 5.7 -2 Figure 5.7 -3 Figure 5.7 -4 Figure 5.8 -1 Figure 5.8 -2 Figure 5.8 -3 Figure 5.8 -4 Figure 5.8 -5 Figure 5.10 -1 Figure 5.10 -2 Figure 5.10 -3 Figure 5.10 -4 Figure 5.10 -5 Figure 5.10 -6 Figure 5.10 -7 Figure 5.12 -1 Figure 5.12 -2 Figure 5.13 -1 Figure 5.14 -1 Figure 5.14 -2 Figure 5.14 -3 Figure 5.14 -4 Figure 5.14 -5 Figure 7 -1 Figure 7 -2 Figure 7 -3 Regional Location Map .......... ............................... LocalVicinity .................................................................................. ............................3 -5 AerialPhotograph .......................................................................... ............................3 -7 Airport Area Planning Designations .............................................. ............................3 -9 Integrated Conceptual Development Plan ................................... ...........................3 -11 Site Plan and Phasing Plan .......................................................... ...........................3 -19 Conceptual Grading and Earthwork: Phase 1 and Phase 2 ........ ...........................3 -21 Phase1 Circulation Plan ............................... ............................... ...........................3 -25 ............. 3 -27 ............. 3 -29 ............. 3 -31 ............. 3 -35 ............. 3 -37 ............... 4 -5 ............... 4 -7 ............. 4 -17 ............. 4 -19 ............ 5.1 -7 ............ 5.1 -9 .......... 5.1 -11 .......... 5.1 -13 ...... I..... 5.5-3 ............ 5.7 -5 ............ 5.7 -7 .......... 5.7 -19 .......... 5.7 -23 ............ 5.8 -5 ... I........ 5.8 -7 ............ 5.8 -9 .......... 5.8 -13 .......... 5.8 -17 .......... 5.10 -7 ........ 5.10 -13 .................... ............................... 3 -3 Phase 2 Circulation Plan ............................................ ............................... Storm Drainage Concept: Phase 1 and Phase 2 ....... ............................... Proposed Water System: Phase 1 and Phase 2 ........ ............................... Proposed Sewer System: Phase 1 and Phase 2 ....... ............................... Illustrative Site Plan and Vision .................................. ............................... SitePhotographs ........................................................ ............................... Photographs of Surrounding Uses ............................. ............................... Approved Traffic Phasing Ordinance Projects ........... ............................... Cumulative Projects Location Map ............................. ............................... UCI Land Use Plan for 2007 Long Range Development Plan ................... Building Height Limit Plan .......................................... ............................... General Project Character: Architecture and Lighting .............................. General Project Character: Circulation and Landscaping ........................ FaultMap .................................................................... ............................... Location of Former Underground Storage Tanks ...... ............................... VOC Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater ........... ............................... Soil Gas Probe Locations (GP -1 through GP -10) ...... ............................... Phase 1 Site Layout and Chemical Storage Locations ............................. Newport Bay Watershed ........................................... ............................... Existing Drainage Conditions ..................................... ............................... Orange County Main Groundwater Basin and Irvine Subbasin ................ Phase 1 Storm Drain Concept ................................... ............................... Proposed Drainage Plan ............................................ ............................... Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix ......................... ............................... Noise Monitoring Locations ........................................ ............................... John Wayne Airport Existing Noise Level Contours ... ............................... Combined Ambient Noise Levels, Phase 1 ................ ............................... Combined Ambient Noise Levels, Phase 2 ................ ............................... Nearest Offsite Noise- and Vibration - Sensitive Receptors ........................ John Wayne Airport Future Noise Level Contours ..... ............................... Fire and Police Facilities Map ..................................... ............................... SAUSD and NMUSD Boundaries ............................... ............................... Service Area 4 Recreation and Open Space Plan ..... ............................... Study Intersections ..................................................... ............................... Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls ..... ............................... Bus Routes Currently Operated in the Project Study Area ....................... Trip Distribution ( Existing) .......................................... ............................... Trip Distribution (Proposed) ....................................... ............................... Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Site Plan and Phasing Plan ............. Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative Site Plan and Phasing Plan... Reduced Density Alternative ...................................... ............................... ........ 5.10 -19 ........ 5.10 -31 ........ 5.10 -33 ........ 5.10 -37 ........ 5.10 -49 .......... 5.12 -3 ........ 5.12 -13 .......... 5.13 -5 .......... 5.14 -3 .......... 5.14 -5 .......... 5.14 -7 ........ 5.14 -25 ........ 5.14 -27 ............. 7 -17 ............. 7 -29 ............. 7 -41 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page vii r2� List of Tables Table Page Table 1 -1 Uptown Newport Land Use Summary .......................................... ............................1 -5 Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation .................................................. ...........................1 -13 Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary .............................................................. ............................2 -2 Table 2 -2 Scoping Meeting Comment Summary .......................................... ............................2 -8 Table 3 -1 ICDP Unit Allocation Summary ...................................................... ............................3 -2 Table 3 -2 Uptown Newport Land Use Summary ......................................... ...........................3 -15 Table 3 -3 Construction Schedule and Duration ........................................... ...........................3 -17 Table 3 -4 Earthwork /Material Quantities and Construction Trips ................ ...........................3 -17 Table 4 -1 Approved Projects per Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance ........................4 -13 Table4 -2 Cumulative Projects ...................................................................... ...........................4 -14 Table 5.2 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants .................. ..........................5.2 -6 Table 5.2 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ...................5.2 -8 Table 5.2 -3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary .................................... ..........................5.2 -9 Table 5.2 -4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ............................................ .........................5.2 -10 Table 5.2 -5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ............................. .........................5.2 -11 Table 5.2 -6 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds .........................5.2 -12 Table 5.2 -7 Maximum Daily Construction Regional Emissions, Phase 1 ...... .........................5.2 -15 Table 5.2 -8 Maximum Daily Construction Regional Emissions, Phase 2 ...... .........................5.2 -16 Table 5.2 -9 Maximum Daily Construction Regional Emissions, Summary .... .........................5.2 -17 Table 5.2 -10 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions, Phase 1 .....................5.2 -19 Table 5.2 -11 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions, Phase 2 ......................5.2 -20 Table 5.2 -12 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions, Total .. .........................5.2 -21 Table 5.2 -13 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions, Phase 1 (Portion) .......................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -22 Table 5.2 -14 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions, Phase 1 (Portion) and Phase 2 ........................................................... .........................5.2 -23 Table 5.2 -15 Health Risk Assessment .............................................................. .........................5.2 -25 Table 5.2 -16 Maximum Daily Construction Regional Emissions, Summary with Mitigation......................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -30 Table 5.2 -17 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Overlap with Mitigation ........................................... .........................5.2 -31 Table 5.5 -1 Estimated Grading Volume and Net Export Volume in Cubic Yards .....................5.5 -8 Table 5.5 -2 Estimated Material Export from Site, cubic yards ................... ............................... 5.5 -9 Table 5.5 -3 Construction BMPs ...................................................................... .........................5.5 -11 Table 5.6 -1 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Comparedto COz ............................................................. ............................... 5.6 -2 Table 5.6 -2 Summary of Global Climate Change Risks to California ............. ..........................5.6 -4 Table 5.6 -3 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions toward2020 Target ........................................................... ............................... 5.6-7 Table 5.6 -4 Project - Related GHG Emissions, Existing ............................... ............................... 5.6 -9 Table 5.6 -5 Project - Related GHG Emissions, Phase 1 .................................. .........................5.6 -12 Table 5.6 -6 Project - Related GHG Emissions - Phase 2 ................................ .........................5.6 -13 Table 5.6 -7 Project - Related GHG Emissions, Total ....................................... .........................5.6 -14 Table 5.7 -1 Environmental History of Project Site ........................................... ..........................5.7 -3 Table 5.7 -2 Concentrations of Contaminants in Soil Gases above Regulatory ScreeningLevels ................................................................... .........................5.7 -17 Table 5.7 -3 Risk Assessment Results and Conclusions: Assessment of Vapor Page viii • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 List of Tables Table Page Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page ix Intrusion Risks for Future Residents of Phase 1 ................... .........................5.7 -18 Table 5.7 -4 Chemical Usage at TowerJazz .................................................... .........................5.7 -22 Table 5.7 -5 Chemical Locations and Maximum Container Amounts ............. .........................5.7 -22 Table 5.7 -6 Offsite Consequence Analysis Results ........................................ .........................5.7 -26 Table 5.8 -1 Site Drainage Rates and Volumes, Existing Conditions .............. ..........................5.8 -3 Table 5.8 -2 Water Quality Impairments and Total Maximum Daily Loads for ReceivingWaters ................................................................... ..........................5.8 -4 Table 5.8 -3 Site Drainage Rates and Volumes ............................................... .........................5.8 -15 Table 5.8-4 Pollutants of Concern ................................... ............................... .........................5.8 -19 Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ....................................... ............................... 5.9 -11 Table 5.9 -2 SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals Consistency Analysis ...... ............................... 5.9 -38 Table 5.10 -1 Change in Apparent Loudness .................... ............................... .........................5.10 -2 Table 5.10 -2 Typical Noise Levels ..................................... ............................... .........................5.10 -3 Table 5.10 -3 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards (Laq) ............... .........................5.10 -5 Table 5.10 -4 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise - Sensitive Uses (dBA CNEL) ................... ............................... ........................5.10 -6 Table 5.10 -5 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Human Annoyance ................. ........................5.10 -11 Table 5.10 -6 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage ............. ........................5.10 -11 Table 5.10 -7 Short-Term Noise Measurements ....................................... ............................... 5.10 -15 Table 5.10 -8 Long -Term Noise Measurements ........................................ ............................... 5.10 -16 Table 5.10 -9 Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Levels ............................. ............................... 5.10 -17 Table 5.10 -10 Project - Related Traffic Noise Increases, Existing Conditions ............................ 5.10 -23 Table 5.10 -11 Project - Related Traffic Noise, Phasel ......... ............................... ........................5.10 -24 Table 5.10 -12 Project - Related Traffic Noise, Phase 2 ........ ............................... ........................5.10 -25 Table 5.10 -13 Phase 1 (2018) Combined Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) ............... ........................5.10 -29 Table 5.10 -14 Phase 2 (2021) Combined Noise Level (dBA CNEL) ................. ........................5.10 -30 Table 5.10 -15 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ........................... ............................... 5.10 -35 Table 5.10 -16 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment during Phase 1 (VdB) .................5.10 -36 Table 5.10 -17 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment during Phase 2 ........................... 5.10 -39 Table 5.10 -18 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ........ ............................... ........................5.10 -41 Table 5.10 -19 Maximum Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites during Phase 1 Construction (dBA L,„J ........................ ............................... ........................5.10 -43 Table 5.10 -20 Average Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites during Phase 1 Construction (dBA I.,q) .......................... ............................... ........................5.10 -44 Table 5.10 -21 Maximum Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites During Phase 2 Construction (dBA L,.) ........................ ............................... ........................5.10 -45 Table 5.10 -22 Average Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites During Phase 2 Construction (dBA Leq) ................................................ ............................... 5.10 -46 Table 5.11 -1 2012 Adopted RTP Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Newport Beach, 2008 -2035 ............. ............................... .........................5.11 -1 Table 5.11 -2 2012 Adopted RTP Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Southern California Region and Orange County, 2008 - 2035 .................. 5.11 -1 Table 5.11 -3 Newport Beach Housing Trends, 2000 - 2007 ............................. .........................5.11 -3 Table 5.11 -4 Housing Unit Mix, 2007 ................................ ............................... .........................5.11 -3 Table 5.11 -5 2012 Adopted RTP Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Newport Beach, 2008 -2035 (with project) ...................... .........................5.11 -5 Table 5.11 -6 Projected Cumulative Housing, Employment, and Population Growth ...............5.11 -6 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page ix List of Tables Table Page Table 5.12 -1 Local Fire Stations- Equipment and Staffing ............................. .........................5.12 -2 Table 5.12 -2 NBFD Response Time Goals ....................... ............................... .........................5.12 -2 Table 5.12 -3 Residents Generated by Project Phase ....... ............................... .........................5.12 -6 Table 5.12 -4 Growth Estimates for City of Newport Beach .............................. .........................5.12 -8 Table 5.12 -5 Santa Ana Unified School District Overall Capacity ( 2011 - 2012 ) ......................5.12 -12 Table 5.12 -6 Santa Ana Unified School District Schools near Project Site (2011 -2012) .......5.12 -15 Table 5.12 -7 Newport Mesa Unified School District Overall Capacity ( 2011 - 2012) ...............5.12 -15 Table 5.12 -8 Newport Mesa Unified School District Schools near Project Site (2011- 2012) ............................................................................. ............................... 5.12 -15 Table 5.12 -9 Student Generation Rates for Proposed Project ........................ ........................5.12 -18 Table 5.12 -10 Estimated Student Population ..................... ............................... ........................5.12 -19 Table 5.12 -11 Student Generation by Cumulative Projects ....................... ............................... 5.12 -22 Table 5.12 -12 Newport Beach Public Libraries .................. ............................... ........................5.12 -24 Table 5.13 -1 Service Area 4 Recreational Amenities ........ ............................... .........................5.13 -4 Table 5.13 -2 Required Parkland Compared to Parkland Provided .................. .........................5.13 -7 Table 5.13 -3 Dedicated Park Minimum Acreage ............... ............................... .........................5.13 -8 Table 5.14 -1 Local Intersection Evaluation Levels of Service Descriptions .... ........................5.14 -11 Table 5.14 -2 State Highway Intersection Evaluation Levels of Service Descriptions .............5.14 -12 Table 5.14 -3 Summary of Intersection Operations Existing Conditions .. ............................... 5.14 -14 Table 5.14 -4 Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations Existing Conditions ......... 5.14 -16 Table 5.14 -5 Summary of Freeway Mainline Operations Existing Conditions ........................5.14 -17 Table 5.14 -6 Summary of Phase 1 Trip Generation ......... ............................... ........................5.14 -22 Table 5.14 -7 Summary of Full Project Trip Generation ............................ ............................... 5.14 -23 Table 5.14 -8 Summary of Intersection Operations Existing plus Project Conditions .............5.14 -29 Table 5.14 -9 Summary of Freeway Mainline Operations Existing plus Project Conditions (Phases 1 and 2) ........................................ ............................... 5.14 -35 Table 5.14 -10 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions withPhase I ................................................................... ............................... 5.14 -37 Table 5.14 -11 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 2 (Project Buildout) ............. ............................... ........................5.14 -43 Table 5.14 -12 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 TPO Analysis . ........................5.14 -49 Table 5.14 -13 Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations Year 2018 Cumulative with Phase 1 ....................... ............................... ........................5.14 -55 Table 5.14 -14 Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations Year 2021 Cumulative with Phase 2 ........................ ............................... .......................5.14 -59 Table 5.14 -15 Summary of Freeway Mainline Operation 2018 Cumulative Conditions withoutProject ...................................... ............................... ........................5.14 -62 Table 5.14 -16 Peak Hour Freeway Mainline Operation 2018 Cumulative Conditions withPhase 1 .......................................... ............................... ........................5.14 -63 Table 5.14 -17 Peak Hour Freeway Mainline Operation 2021 Cumulative Conditions withoutProject ...................................... ............................... ........................5.14 -64 Table 5.14 -18 Peak Hour Freeway Mainline Operation Year 2021 with Project Phase 2 ........5.14 -65 Table 5.14 -19 Phase 1 Construction Traffic ....................... ............................... ........................5.14 -68 Table 5.14 -20 Phase 2 Construction Traffic ....................... ............................... ........................5.14 -69 Table 5.15 -1 Current and Projected IRWD Water Supplies and Demands without Project( AFY) .......................................... ............................... .........................5.15 -2 Table 5.15 -2 Current and Projected IRWD Water Supplies and Demands for Single - Year Dry Scenario without Project (AFY) .............................. .........................5.15 -3 Page x • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 List of Tables Table Page Table 5.15 -3 Current and Projected IRWD Water Supplies and Demands for Multiple - Year Dry Scenarios without Project (AFY) ............................ .........................5.15 -3 Table 5.15 -4 Existing Sewer Capacity ............................... ............................... .........................5.15 -4 Table 5.15 -5 Existing Onsite Wastewater Generation ....... ............................... .........................5.15 -5 Table 5.15 -6 Daily Intake and Remaining Capacity for the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill .........5.15 -6 Table 5.15 -7 Existing Solid Waste Generation on Project Site ........................ .........................5.15 -6 Table 5.15 -8 Projected Sewer Capacity with Project ....... ............................... ........................5.15 -10 Table 5.15 -9 OCSD Wastewater Treatment Capacity, with Project ................ ........................5.15 -11 Table 5.15 -10 Project Water Demand: Phase 1 ................. ............................... ........................5.15 -12 Table 5.15 -11 Project Water Demand: Phase 2 and Project Buildout .............. ........................5.15 -13 Table 5.15 -12 Current and Projected IRWD Potable Water Supplies and Demands with Project( AFY) ......................................... ............................... ........................5.15 -14 Table 5.15 -13 Current and Projected IRWD Potable Water Supplies and Demands for Single -Year Dry Scenario, with Project, in AFY ............ ............................... 5.15 -15 Table 5.15 -14 Current and Projected IRWD Potable Water Supplies and Demands for Multiple -Year Dry Scenarios, with Project, in AFY ............... ........................5.15 -15 Table 5.15 -15 Current and Projected IRWD Normal Year Nonpotable Water Supplies and Demands with Project ( AFY) ......... ............................... ........................5.15 -16 Table 5.15 -16 Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation: Phase 1 ................ .........................5.15 -18 Table 5.15 -17 Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation: Phase 2 .......... ............................... 5.15 -18 Table 5.15 -18 Proposed Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation: Phase 1 .................. 5.15 -19 Table 5.15 -19 Proposed Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation: Phase 2 .................. 5.15 -20 Table 7 -1 Statistical Summary Comparison ............................................... ............................... 7 -7 Table 7 -2 Trip Generation Comparison ...................................................... ............................... 7 -8 Table 7 -3 Utility /Service System Needs Comparison — No Project Alternative .......................7 -14 Table 7 -4 Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Trip Generation .............. ............................... 7 -16 Table 7 -5 Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative Trip Generation ......... ...........................7 -28 Table 7 -6 Reduced Density Alternative Trip Generation .......................... ............................... 7 -40 Table 7 -7 Summary of Impacts of Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project ..............7 -51 Table 7 -8 Alternatives Ability to Achieve Project Objectives .................... ............................... 7 -52 Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant ......................................... ............................... 8 -1 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page xi r Abbreviations and Acronyms AAQS ambient air quality standards AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos- containing materials ADT average daily traffic AELUP airport environs land use plan AFY acre -feet per year ALUC airport land use commission AMP Allen McColloch Pipeline amsl above mean sea level AQMP air quality management plan BAU business as usual bgs below ground surface BMP best management practices BP (years) before present CAA Clean Air Act Cal /EPA California Environmental Protection Agency Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association CARB California Air Resources Board CAT Climate Action Team CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDWR California Department of Water Resources CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFC California Fire Code CFD community facilities districts cfs cubic feet per second CHHSL California Human Health Screening Levels CMP congestion management program Page xii • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 Abbreviations and Acronyms CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide COZe carbon dioxide equivalent Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers CPUC California Public Utilities Commission cREL chronic reference exposure levels CSO combined sewer overflows CUPA certified unified program agency CWA Clean Water Act cy cubic yards DATS deep aquifer treatment system dB decibel dBA A- weighted decibel DEIR draft environmental impact report DPM diesel particulate matter DRWF Dyer Road Wellfield EHD Orange County Environmental Health Division EIR environmental impact report EOCF East Orange County Feeder EPA Environmental Protection Agency (federal) EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act ESA environmental site assessment ESL environmental screening level FAA Federal Aviation Administration FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration g acceleration of gravity GHG greenhouse gases gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute GWP global warming potential GWRS groundwater replenishment system Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page xiii Abbreviations and Acronyms HAP hazardous air pollutant HCP habitat conservation plan HHRA human health risk assessment HRA health risk assessment HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system Hz Hertz ICDP Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRIS Integrated Risk Information System (EPA) IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District JWA John Wayne Airport Leq equivalent continuous noise level Lm� maximum noise level L,n minimum noise level LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County LBP lead -based paint LCFS Low- Carbon Fuel Standard LEPC local emergency planning committee LID low impact development LOS level of service LRDP long range development plan LST localized significance thresholds LUST leaking underground storage tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd million gallons per day MMI modified Mercalli intensity MMTons million metric tons MPO metropolitan planning organization MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system MTons metric ton MWD Metropolitan Water District NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NBFD Newport Beach Fire Department Page xiv • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Abbreviations and Acronyms NBPD Newport Beach Police Department NBPL Newport Beach Public Library NCCP natural communities conservation plan NHPA National Habitat Preservation Authority NMUSD Newport-Mesa Unified School District NO, nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List 03 ozone OCF Orange County Feeder OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (state) Pb lead PC planned community PCDP planned community development plan PCE perchloroethylene PM particulate matter POTW publicly owned treatment works ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity RCP reinforced concrete pipe REC recognized environmental condition RfC reference concentration RHNA regional housing needs assessment RMS root mean square RPS renewable portfolio standard RTP regional transportation plan RWQCB regional water quality control board SAUSD Santa Ana Unified School District SB Senate Bill SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Edison Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page xv Abbreviations and Acronyms SCGC Southern California Gas Company SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SFNA school facilities needs analysis SGR student generation rate SIP state implementation plan SUM sound level meter SO, sulfur oxides SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SPL sound pressure level SRA source receptor area STC sound transmission class SVE soil vapor extraction SWP State Water Project SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminants TCE trichloroethylene TMDL total maximum daily load TTCP traditional tribal cultural places UCI University of California, Irvine USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service UST Underground Storage Tank UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V/C volume -to- capacity ratio VdB velocity decibels VMT vehicle miles travelled VOC Volatile Organic Compounds WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRMP water resources master plan Page xvi • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 1. Executive Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Uptown Newport project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discre- tionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public document designed to provide the public and local and state governmental agency decision - makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision - making. This document focuses on those impacts determined to be potentially significant as discussed in the Initial Study completed for this project (see Appendix A). This DEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Newport Beach's CEQA procedures. The City of Newport Beach, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Data for this DEIR was obtained from onsite field observations, discussions with affected agencies, analysis 8B of adopted plans and policies, review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature, and specialized environmental assessments (aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This DEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are listed below: 1) To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities. 2) To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. 3) To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 4) To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects. 5) To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. 6) To enhance public participation in the planning process. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -1 1. Executive Summary An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full - disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision - making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must considerthe information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project's significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in a significant impact or impacts that cannot be avoided. 1.2.1 EIR Format This DEIR has been formatted as described below Section 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. Section 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the Notice of Preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification. Section 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, the objectives of the proposed project, the project area and location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the project, the necessary environmental clearances for the project, and the intended uses of this EIR. Section 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and regional perspective. The environmental setting provides baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. Section 5. Environmental Analysis: Provides, for each environmental parameter analyzed, a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the proposed project; the level of significance of the adverse impacts of the project after mitigation is incorporated, and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area. Section 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project. Section 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Describes the impacts of the alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. Page 1 -2 a The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 1. Executive Summary Section 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant: Briefly describes the potential impacts of the project that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR. Section 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project: Describes the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project. Section 10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Project: Describes the ways in which the proposed project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental impacts. Section 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR for the proposed project. Section 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing the EIR: Lists the people who prepared this EIR for the proposed project. Section 13. Bibliography: A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the preparation of this EIR for the proposed project. Appendices. The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the front cover) contain the following supporting documents: • Appendix A: Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comment Letters • Appendix B: Shade /Shadow Analysis Exhibits • Appendix C: Air Quality and GHG Modeling • Appendix D: Health Risk Assessment • Appendix E: Biological Technical Report • Appendix F: • Appendix G: • Appendix H: • Appendix I: • Appendix J: • Appendix K: • Appendix L: • Appendix M: • Appendix N: • Appendix O: Archeological and Paleontological Assessment Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment; Vapor Intrusion Health Risk Assessment; City of Newport Beach Fire Department Hazards Conditions; Offsite Consequence Analysis Preliminary Hydrology Report; Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Noise Calculations and Modeling; Noise and Vibration Impact Mitigation Memo Service Provider Correspondence School Impact Analysis and Mitigation Report Traffic Impact Assessment Water Supply Assessment Sewer Flow Report 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DEIR This DEIR has been prepared as a "project EIR" as defined by State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15161, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). This type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, demolition, construction, and operation. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -3 "301 1. Executive Summary ilf ;J;T Nt•3rS•Z9_rrcd,9 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 located on the west side of Jamboree Road, between Birch Street and the intersection of Von Karmen 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, as shown in Figure 3 -1, Regional Location, in Chapter 3, Project Description. Vehicular access to the site is from Jamboree Road, Birch Street, and Von Kerman Avenue. MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karmen Avenue pass west of the site, and Birch Street passes to the north. 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Objectives The following objectives have been established for the Uptown Newport project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: • Implement the goals and policies that the Newport Beach General Plan has established for the Airport Area and the Integrated Conceptual Plan Development Plan. • 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. • Develop up to 11,500 square feet of retail commercial uses to serve local residents, businesses and visitors. • Provide housing in close proximity to jobs and supporting services, with pedestrian- oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. • Integrate neighborhood parks inter - connected by pedestrian walkways to encourage a sense of community. • Develop an attractive, viable project that yields a reasonable return on investment. • Provides for the phased transition from existing industrial and office uses to a mixed -use residential village. • Provide beneficial site and improvements including implementing a Water Quality Management Plan. 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 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 Page 1 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 1. Executive Summary 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 -1, Land Use Summary. Table 1 -1 Uptown Newport Land Use Summary Housing Avariety 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 88 A retail component would provide neighborhood - serving retail and services. Permitted uses would include but not be limited to restaurants, 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 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. General Phasing The project would be developed in two primary phases. The first phase 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 setto expire in March 2017, but could be extended to as late as March 2027. This DEIR conservatively assumes 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. This DEIR, therefore, addresses the potential impacts of the Phase 1 development (an interim condition with 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -5 Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Number of Units 680 564 1,244 Developable Area (ac.) 8.65 10.02 18.67 Park Area (ac. ) 1.03 1.02 2.05 Retail (sf ) 11,500 0 11,500 Right of Way Area (ac.) 2.61 1.72 4.33 Total Area (ac.) 12.29 12.75 25.05 Housing Avariety 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 88 A retail component would provide neighborhood - serving retail and services. Permitted uses would include but not be limited to restaurants, 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 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. General Phasing The project would be developed in two primary phases. The first phase 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 setto expire in March 2017, but could be extended to as late as March 2027. This DEIR conservatively assumes 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. This DEIR, therefore, addresses the potential impacts of the Phase 1 development (an interim condition with 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -5 1. Executive Summary 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. 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]) state that an EIR must address "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to reduce or eliminate the following impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable for the proposed project: Air Quality Phase 1 • Impact 5.2 -2: Short-term construction - related emissions for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Land Use • Impact 5.9 -3: A determination of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) is pending, and until finalized, this impact is potentially significant and unavoidable. Noise • Impact 5.10 -6: Construction - related noise impacts for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. As described in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of this DER, four project alternatives were identified and analyzed for relative impacts compared to the proposed project: • No Project Alternative • Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative • Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative • Reduced Density Alternative Please refer to Chapter 7 for a complete discussion of how the alternatives were selected and the relative impacts associated with each alternative. The following presents a summary of each of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR and those considered and rejected from further review. 1.5.2 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping Project /Planning Process The following alternatives were considered but not carried through for analysis in the EIR: • Alternative Project Location —the summary evaluates the potential for an alternate site within the City Limits to accommodate a development similar to the proposed project without requiring a General Plan Amendment. No candidate sites were determined to meet this criteria. Page 1 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 1. Executive Summary 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 adjacentto Phase 1 residences that would occur under the proposed project. Although this alternative would eliminate significant impacts related to the proximity Phase 1 residents to the TowerJazz operation, these impacts are mitigated to less than significant under the project. This alternative was also deemed to be economically infeasible. 1.5.3 No- Project Alternative Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the "No Project' alternative. 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. 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 potentially significant land use and planning impact related to a consistency finding for the AELUP required 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, 8B the No Project Alternative would have less environmental impact than the proposed project and would eliminate all of its significant, unavoidable impacts. 1.5.4 Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative 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. 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). 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. 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -7 1. Executive Summary 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. In comparison tothe proposed project, the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative would have lower impacts to air quality, GHG, hazards, noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and services. It would comply with California Fire Code (CFC) Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment) since it would not locate residents adjacent to extremely dangerous chemicals, and thus would eliminate a significant impact (prior to mitigation) associated with the project as proposed. This impact, however, would be mitigated to less than significant, so the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative would not eliminate a significant, unavoidable impact. Land use and planning, and population and housing impacts for this alternative would be greater than the proposed project, and aesthetics, biological resource, cultural resources, geology and soils impacts, and hydrology /water quality impacts would be similar. 1.5.5 Office/Commercial /Residential Alternative 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 forthe 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. 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 with 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 with a mix of apartments, townhouses, and condominiums. Residential buildings may Page 1 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 1. Executive Summary include low -rise row houses and four- and five -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. In comparison to the proposed project, the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative would have lower impacts to air quality, GHG, hazards, noise, public services, recreation, and utilities and services. It would comply with CFC Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment) since it would not locate residents adjacent to extremely dangerous chemicals, and thus would eliminate a significant impact (prior to mitigation) 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 the proposed project, and aesthetics, biological resource, cultural resources, geology and soils impacts, and hydrology /water quality impacts would be similar. 1.5.6 Reduced Density Alternative 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 forthe 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. 8B 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. Residential buildings may include low -rise row houses and four- and five -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. The commercial component would include neighborhood- serving retail and services that would include but not be limited to restaurants, 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. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, a total of 2.05 acres of park space would be developed under this alternative, with 1.03 acres occurring under Phase 1 and 1.02 acres under Phase 2. The parks would be privately maintained and publicly accessible. In addition to the neighborhood parks, 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 within low -, mid- or high -rise buildings, or a mix of these building Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -9 1. Executive Summary types. Phase 1 would also include up to 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving commercial uses. Due to the substantial reduction in residential uses, this alternative could provide additional open space in addition to a neighborhood park. 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 provide expanded open in comparison to the proposed project. In comparison to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would have less environmental impact to air quality, GHG, hazards, noise, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities and services. Since residential uses would still be included in Phase 1, it would not eliminate the significant impacts (prior to mitigation) associated with resident incompatibility with adjacency to the TowerJazz facility during an interim period. It would lessen these impacts in comparison to the proposed project, however, both because of the reduction in units and increased distance to TowerJazz. Under both the Reduced Density Alternative and the proposed project, the significant noise and hazards impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. 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. 1.5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative" and, in cases where the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. Of the development alternatives, the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Because this alternative would eliminate residential uses in Phase 1, it would eliminate the significant impacts associated with resident adjacency to the TowerJazz facility, an interim condition which would last between 6 and 12 years. Although mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project, the following impacts would be significant prior to mitigation: • Operational noise impacts to Phase 1 residences related to 24 -hour operation of the TowerJazz facility • Compliance with CFC 2704.1.1 (amendment), which prohibits use or storage of any extremely hazardous substance equal to or greater than disclosable amounts adjacent to residential uses. • Potential exposure to hazardous materials during Phase 2 development related to site groundwater and soil contamination of TowerJazz site Additionally, this would eliminate the following impact of the project on the TowerJazz facility: • Phase 1 vibration impacts to sensitive TowerJazz equipment Page 1 -10 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 1. Executive Summary Each of these impacts, however, would be mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project. None of the development project alternatives were determined to eliminate any of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to the following: 1. Whether this DEIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. 2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area. 4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. 5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the DEIR. 6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. 88 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR summary must identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. There are no specific areas of known controversy concerning the proposed project. The City of Newport Beach has no knowledge of any expressed opposition to the proposed project. Priorto preparation of the DEIR, a public scoping meeting was held on December 15, 2011, to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies and the community regarding the proposed project. The scoping meeting was held at the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers, and was attended by a number of community members and interested parties. Issues raised during this scoping meeting included concerns with bicycle and pedestrian transportation and safety; concerns with the Birch Street access drive; school district boundary impacts; soil and groundwater impacts; project phasing; traffic, circulation, and traffic impacts; land use impacts; aesthetic impacts, including shade and shadow, and population and housing impacts. The environmental issues raised from the scoping meeting are fully addressed in their respective topical area in Chapter 5.0 of this DEIR. A summary of the scoping meeting comments is provided in Section 2.3, Scoping Meeting. This DEIR has taken into consideration the comments received from the various agencies and jurisdictions in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that was issued by the City of Newport Beach on December 8, 2011, to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and interested parties. Written comments received during the NOP period, which extended from December 8, 2011, to January 9, 2012, are contained in Appendix A. A summary of the NOP comments is provided in Section 2.2, Notice of Preparation and Initial Study. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -11 1. Executive Summary 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Table 1 -2 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this DEIR. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant and for all significant impacts mitigation measures are identified. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented. Page 1 -12 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -13 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1 -1: The proposed project would not have Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than a substantial adverse effect on significant significant significant significant scenic vistas. 5.1 -2: The proposed project would Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than substantially alter the visual significant significant significant significant character of the project site. 5.1 -3: The proposed project could cause Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than shade /shadow impacts on significant significant significant significant surrounding uses. 5.1 -4: The proposed project would generate Less than ILessthan Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than additional light and glare in the significant significant significant significant project area that could impact surrounding land uses. 5.2 AIR QUALITY 5.2 -1: The Uptown Newport project would Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than not conflict with the South Coast Air significant significant significant significant Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. 5.2 -2: Short-term construction emissions Potentially Potentially Phase 1 and Phase 2 Significant and Significant and generated by the Uptown Newport significant significant unavoidable unavoidable project would result in N0, emissions 2 -1 The construction contractor shall use construction equipment that exceed South Coast Air Quality (Substantial (Substantial rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as Management District's regional short-term air short-term air having Tier 3 or higher exhaust emission limits for equipment significance thresholds and would quality quality over 50 horsepower that are onsite for more than 5 days. Tier 3 cumulatively contribute to the construction construction engines between 50 and 750 horsepower are available for 2006 nonattamment designations of the emissions) emissions) to 2008 model years. After January 1, 2015, equipment over 50 South Coast Air Basin. 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -13 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 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. 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -14 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -15 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures provided, where necessary, to maintain smooth traff ic 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. 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. 5.2 -3: Land uses associated with buildout Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than of the Uptown Newport project would significant significant significant significant not generate a substantial increase in criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional significance thresholds or significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. 5.2 -4: Construction activities associated Potentially Potentially Phase 1 and Phase 2 Less than Less than with the Uptown Newport project significant significant 2 -4 The construction contractor shall prepare a dust control plan and significant significant could expose sensitive receptors to implement the following measures during ground- disturbing substantial pollutant concentrations (Exposure of (Exposure of activities for fugitive dust control in addition to South Coast Air of PM2,. sensitive sensitive Quality Management District Rule 403 to reduce particulate receptors to receptors to matter emissions. The City of Newport Beach shall verify construction construction compliance that these measures have been implemented during emissions) emissions) normal construction site inspections. • During all grading activities, the construction contractor shall Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -15 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1188 — compliant, PM1 0- 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. 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 contractor shall install Level 2 Verified Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -16 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 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. The City of Newport Beach shall verify compliance that one of these measures has been implemented during normal construction site inspections. 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -17 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -I8 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 72 -5: Operation of the proposed Uptown Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than Newport project would not expose significant significant significant significant offsite sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. 5.2 -6: The project would not expose Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than sensitive land uses to substantial significant significant significant significant concentrations of toxic air contaminants. 5.2 -7: The Uptown Newport project would Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than not expose a substantial number of significant significant significant significant people to nuisance odors. 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.3 -1: Development of the proposed project Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than would not directly impact sensitive significant significant significant significant species and would not indirectly impact federal- or state - listed endangered or threatened species. 5.3 -2: Local and regional plans and policies Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than protect habitats and state- and significant significant significant significant federally listed plant and animal species, but do not separately list endangered or threatened species. Project development would not impact sensitive species listed in local or regional plans or policies. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -I8 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -19 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 7-3: The proposed project would remove Potentially Potentially Phase 1 and Phase 2 Less than Less than habitat that could be used for nesting significant significant 3 -1 Prior to any proposed actions during the breeding season, significant significant by migratory birds. January 31stthrough September 15th, the monitoring biologist conduct a pre - construction survey(s) to identify any active (Construction (Construction nests in and near the project area no more than three days prior nests impacts on impacts on to project initiation. If the biologist does not find any active nests migratory migratory that would be potentially impacted, the proposed action may birds) birds) 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. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.4 -1: Development of the project would not Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than impact an identified historic significant significant significant significant resource. 5.4 -2: Development of the project site, Potentially Potentially Phase 1 and Phase 2 Less than Less than including excavation as deep as 15 significant significant 4 -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant significant significant feet, could impact archaeological shall demonstrate to the Community Development Department and /or paleontological resources. (Construction (Construction that an Orange County— certified professional archaeologist has impacts on impacts on been retained to monitor any potential impacts to archaeological cultural cultural or historic resources throughout the duration of any ground - resources) resources) disturbing activities at the project site. The archeologist shall Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -19 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 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. 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: Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -20 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -21 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures • 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. • 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. 5.4 -3: Project - related grading activities Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. LTS LTS could potentially disturb human significant significant remains. 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.5 -1: Project development would subject Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than people and structures to strong significant significant significant significant seismic ground shaking. 5.5 -2: Development of the project could Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than subject people and structures to significant significant significant significant hazards arising from liquefaction. 5.5 -3: The project could cause soil erosion. Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than significant significant significant significant Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -21 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -22 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 75 -4: Development of the project could Potentially Potentially Phase 1 and Phase 2 Less than Less than expose people and structures to significant significant significant significant hazards arising from expansive soils. 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. 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. 5.5 -5: Project development would not Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than subject people or structures to significant significant significant significant substantial hazards arising from soil subsidence. 5.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.6 -1: The Uptown Newport project would Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than result in a temporary increase in significant significant significant significant greenhouse gas emissions during Phase 1 operations but would not exceed the proposed South Coast Air Quality Management District per capita significance threshold. At buildout, the project would result in a net decrease in GHG emissions. 5.6 -2: The proposed project would not Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than conflict with plans adopted for the significant significant significant significant purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -22 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -23 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.7 -1: Prior to the demolition of the Potentially Less than Phase 1 Less than Less than TowerJazz manufacturing facility in significant significant 7 -1 In compliance with CFC Section 381.1 (Amendment), prior to significant significant Phase 2 of the project, residents of issuance of building permits for Phase 1, the project applicant Phase 1 of the project could be at shall submit a geologic study from a state - licensed and risk from an accidental release of department- approved individual or firm to the Newport Beach chemicals stored at the TowerJazz Fire Department Fire Prevention Division for review and approval facility. (due to the proximity of the proposed project to a semiconductor facility). 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 Cade 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 to the satisfaction of the Fire Department prior installation of the new tank. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -23 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 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). 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. 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -24 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -25 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 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. 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. 5.7.2: The project site is included on a list Potentially Potentially Phase 1 Less than Less than of hazardous material sites. Project significant significant 7 -5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for development within significant significant development, including soil Phase 1, the project applicant shall obtain a "No Further Action" disturbance from site grading and (Migration of (Contaminate declaration or Letter of Allowance for residential construction construction activities, could pose VOCs from soil for Phase 1 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. substantial hazards to people or the TowerJazz) disturbance Phase 2 environment through the release of from removal 7.6 The project applicant shall submit copies of applicable reports hazardous materials. of TowerJazz) 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. 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -25 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -26 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 77 -3: Demolition of onsite buildings could Potentially Potentially Phase 1 and Phase 2 Less than Less than result in a health risk due to the significant significant 7 -8 Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the project applicant significant significant release of hazardous building shall have the following inspections and assessments materials, including asbestos and conducted for the Half Dome building (Phase 1) and TowerJazz lead paint. 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 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 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. 5.7 -4: Future residents and visitors of Potentially Potentially Phase 1 Less than Less than Phase 1 of the project would not be significant significant Mitigation Measure 7 -3 also applies to Impact 5.7 -4. significant significant exposed to unacceptable levels of Phase 2 VOCs as a result of vapor intrusion (Migration of (Groundwater 7 -9 Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the project into buildings. The health risk VOCs from contaminatio applicant shall retain a registered environmental assessor or associated with potential soil vapor TowerJazz) n) other professional qualified to conduct a human health risk intrusion of VOCs for future Phase 2 assessment (HHRA) of potential volatile organic compound residents is undetermined. 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -26 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -27 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 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. 5.7 -5: The existing SCE substation may Less than Potentially Phase 2 Less than Less than present health hazards related to significant significant significant significant electric and magnetic fields (emf) 7 -11 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for Phase 2, the and /or upon demolition, release of construction dates for the SCE Substation shall be confirmed. If hazardous materials. the facility was constructed prior to the 198O'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 Impact 5.7 -5. 5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.8 -1: Development pursuant to the Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than proposed project would decrease the significant significant significant significant amount of impervious surfaces on the site and would reduce stormwater volumes and peak flow rates into drainage systems. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -27 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -28 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 78 -2: Increases in short -term Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than unquantifiable pollutant significant significant significant significant concentrations could resultfrom onsite construction activities. 5.8 -3: After project development, the quality Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than of storm runoff (sediment, nutrients, significant significant significant significant metals, pesticides, pathogens, and hydrocarbons) may be altered. 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.9 -1: Project implementation would not Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than divide an established business significant significant significant significant community. 5.9 -2: Project implementation would Potentially Potentially There are no applicable mitigation measures. Significant and Significant and potentially conflict with applicable significant significant unavoidable unavoidable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and (Potential (Potential environmental effect. finding of finding of inconsistency inconsistency with the with the AELUP by AELUP by ALUC) ALUC) 5.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION 5.10 -1: The increase in traffic from operation Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than of the proposed project would result significant significant significant significant in barely perceptible noise increases less than 0.2 dBA CNEL to area noise levels. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -28 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -29 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 5.10 -2: The proposed project would Potentially Potentially Phase 1 and Phase 2 Less than Less than introduce new stationary noise significant significant significant significant sources that would result in small 10 -1 The parking lot surface of all parking garages shall be textured to noise level increases in the vicinity of eliminate tire squeal noise. Ventilation equipment for the parking noise - sensitive land uses. 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. 10 -2 Truck deliveries shall be restricted to the daytime hours between 7 AM and 10 PM. 5.10 -3: Proposed onsite noise - sensitive uses Potentially Potentially Phase 1 Less than Less than would be exposed to exterior noise significant significant significant significant levels from vehicular traffic and from 10 -3 Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1, a detailed operation of the TowerJazz facility (Exposure of (Exposure of acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared exceeding the 65 dBA CNEL standard patios and patios and by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the for residential and park uses. balconies balconies Community Development Department for review and approval. facing facing The study shall demonstrate that all residential units would meet TowerJazz to Jamboree the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, noise levels Road to noise and common outdoor living areas (playgrounds, parks, and of 65 dBA) levels of 65 swimming pools). The necessary noise reduction may be dBA) 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:: Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Noise Control o Exhaust Fan Noise Control: The exhaust fan noise can Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -29 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 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. • 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. • Screen: The performance of the existing sheet metal parapet wall /screen can be enhanced by treating the upper 8 feet of the screen with acoustical absorption. • Cooling Towers Noise Control • Relocation: Moving the cooling towers away from the Phase 1 development would be an effective approach to noise control. • Replacement: Replacement of the existing cooling towers can be considered, as new towers would have new coils with improved air flow and efficiency. • Additional Cooling Towers: Additional cooling towers would reduce the cooling demand on individual units, allowing the fans to operate at lower speed. • 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -30 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 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 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. Phase 2 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -31 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -32 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 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 harriers (patio enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall /berm), and the property owner /developer shall install these barriers and enclosures. 5.10 -4: Proposed noise - sensitive uses would Potentially Potentially Phase 1 Less than Less than be exposed to interior noise levels significant significant significant significant exceeding the 45 cEA CNEL 10 -5 Prior to issuance of building permits for each residential structure standard. (Exposure of (Exposure of located within Phase 1, a detailed acoustical study based on noise- noise- architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical sensitive uses sensitive uses consultant and submitted to the Community Development to noise to noise Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet levels above levels above the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards for habitable rooms 45 dBA) 45 dBA) (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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -32 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -33 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Phase 2 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 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. 5.10 -5: Construction of the Uptown Newport Potentially Potentially Phase 1 Less than Less than project would generate vibration significant significant significant significant levels that exceed the FTA criterion 10 -7 During Phase 1 construction, the construction contractor shall for human annoyance at nearby (Construction (Construction implement a vibration control program to reduce vibration levels residential structures and affect the vibration vibration at the TowerJazz facility. The Technical Memorandum prepared operation of vibration- sensitive affecting affecting by Wilson Ihrig and Associates includes several measures to equipment at the TowerJazz facility. TowerJazz office and control vibration at the TowerJazz facility, outlined below: operation) residential Pile Driving: buildings) o Augured piles shall be employed to the extent possible. Impact and vibratory pile drivers shall not be used Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -33 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 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: • 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. • 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. • 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -34 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 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 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: • A vibration level of 0.125 in /sec will trigger a warning that will notify the construction operator and TowerJazz; • 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. • 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -35 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -36 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Phase 1 and Phase 2 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, 5.10 -6: Construction activities at Uptown Potentially Potentially Phase 1 and Phase 2 Significant and Significant and Newport would substantially elevate significant significant unavoidable unavoidable the daytime noise environment in the 10 -9 The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction vicinity of nearby uses. (Exceedance (Exceedance equipment onsite is properly maintained and tuned to minimize of daytime of daytime noise emissions. noise levels noise levels during project during project 10 -10 The construction contractor shall ensure that construction construction) construction) equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 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. 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. 5.10 -7: The Uptown Newport project site is Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than located outside the 65 dBA CNEL significant significant significant significant noise contour of John Wayne Airport and would not result in substantial aircraft noise exposure to future occupants and workers. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -36 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Before Mitigation Level of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact I Phase f I Phase 2 I Mitigation Measures I Phase 1 Phase 2 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.11 -1: The proposed project would directly Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than result in a projected population significant significant significant significant growth of 2,724 residents in the project area. 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 5.12 -1: The proposed project would Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than introduce new structures, residents, significant significant significant significant and workers into the Newport Beach Fire Department service boundaries, thereby altering the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel. POLICE PROTECTION 5.12 -2: The proposed project would Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than introduce new structures, residents, significant significant significant significant and workers into the Newport Beach Police Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for police protection facilities and personnel. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -37 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -38 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures SCHOOL SERVICES 5.12 -3: The proposed project would generate Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than 341 new students who would impact significant significant significant significant the school enrollment capacities of Monroe Elementary, McFadden Intermediate, and Century High Schools in the Santa Ana Unified School District. LIBRARY SERVICES 5.12 -4: At buildout the proposed project Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than would potentially house 2,724 significant significant significant significant residents who would constitute a population increase in the service area of the Newport Beach Mariners Branch and Central Libraries. This population increase would create an increased demand for service from the Newport Beach Public Library system. 5.13 RECREATION 5.13 -1: At project butdout the proposed Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than project would introduce an estimated significant significant significant significant 2,724 residents to service area 4 (Santa Ana Heights /Airport Commercial). Based on the City's parkland dedication requirements, the project would require 13.62 acres of park space. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -38 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -39 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 5.14 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 5.14 -1: The proposed project at buildout Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than would generate an additional 8,286 significant significant significant significant daily trips, 542 during the AM peak hour, and 727 during the PM peak hour. These project - related trips would not conflict with applicable City plans governing the performance of the area -wide circulation system. 5.14 -2: Project - related traffic would not Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than result in traffic impacts per traffic significant significant significant significant phasing ordinance analysis requirements. 5.14 -3: The project - related traffic would not Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than result in significant impacts to significant significant significant significant Congestion management plan facilities in the study area. The project, therefore, would not result in a designated road or intersection exceeding county congestion management agency service standards. 5.14 -4: The project - related traffic would not Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than result in significant impacts to state significant significant significant significant highway intersections in the study area. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -39 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -¢0 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 714 -5: Project - related trip generation would Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than not result in additional freeway significant significant significant segments falling to unacceptable levels of service. 5.14 -6: The proposed project complies with Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than adopted policies, plans, and significant significant significant significant programs for alternative transportation. 5.14 -7: Project - related construction worker, Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than delivery, and construction vehicle significant significant significant significant trips would not result in a detriment of levels of service at intersections and roadways in the study area. 5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.15 -1: Project - generated wastewater would Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than not exceed the capacity of existing significant significant significant significant sewer pipelines and would be adequately treated by Orange County Sanitation District. 5.15 -2: Projected water supply and delivery Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than systems would be adequate to meet significant significant significant significant project requirements; project site water demand would be substantially reduced upon implementation of the project in comparison to existing water use. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -¢0 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -¢1 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Level of Significance Level of Significance Before Mitigation After Mitigation Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures 715 -3: Post - development site stormwater Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than flow would be reduced in significant significant significant significant comparison to existing conditions, and proposed onsite and existing offsite storm drain systems would have adequate capacity to capture and convey runoff. 5.15 -4: The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than adequate capacity to accommodate significant significant significant significant project - generated solid waste. 5.15 -5: In comparison to existing uses, Less than Less than Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less than Less than project development would significant significant significant significant substantially reduce demand for electricity and natural gas. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -¢1 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 1. Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 1 -42 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 2. Introduction 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on those projects. This draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. The environmental impact report (EIR) is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the lead agency means "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment." The City of Newport Beach has the principal responsibility for approval of the Uptown Newport project. For this reason, the City of Newport Beach is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The intent of the DEIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the 8B proposed Uptown Newport project to allow the City of Newport Beach to make an informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City and potential project permits and approvals required from other regulatory agencies are described in Section 3.5, Intended Uses of the EIR. This DEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the: • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (herein referenced as CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.) The overall purpose of this DEIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers and the general public of the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed Uptown Newport project. This DEIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project, including effects that may be significant and adverse, evaluates a number of alternatives to the project, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects. 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY The City of Newport Beach determined that an EIR would be required for this project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on December 8, 2011, to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and interested parties. Comments received during the public review period, which extended from December 8, 2011, to January 9, 2012, are contained in Appendix B. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -1 2. Introduction The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the DEIR. Based on this process and the Initial Study for the proposed project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in Chapter 5 of this DEIR. Issues identified as Less Than Significant or No Impact are not addressed beyond the discussion contained in the Initial Study and summarized in Chapter 8. Please refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for a discussion of how these initial determinations were made. Atotal of 16 agencies /interested parties responded to the NOR. Table 2 -1 summarizes the issues identified by the commenting agencies, along with a reference to the section(s) of this DEIR where the issues are addressed. Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: Adams, John S. & Associates Land Use and Traffic . Stated that the proposed project Sections 5.9, Land Use (1/9/12) would divide an established and Planning, and 5.14, business park and conflict with Transportation and Traffic surrounding uses. . Stated that Birch Street is a private easement and was not designed to be a primary access point; the project's use of Birch Street will exacerbate traffic and traffic accidents. . Suggested that Jamboree Road be maintained as primary access to the TowerJazz building during Phase 1 of construction. • Stated that the impact of Kali development should be addressed in the DEIR, particularly with respect to the proposed connectivity between the sites and how this will affect parking. . Suggested that the density be reduced to be trip neutral for traffic; any mitigation above trip neutral should be borne entirely by Uptown Newport and Kali projects. Airport Land Use Commission Hazards, Land Use, . Stated that the DEIR should Sections 5.7, Hazards, (1/9/12) and Noise discuss the height at which the 5.9, Land Use and notification surface would be Planning, and 5.10, Noise penetrated compared to the proposed building heights; if the notification surface is penetrated, applicant will be required to file form 7460 -1 with FAA. . Stated that the DEIR should discuss whether residential development will be located Page 2 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 2. Introduction Table 2 -7 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: within the 60dB CNEL contour of John Wayne Airport. . Stated that the DEIR should identify if the project will include a heliport. City of Irvine (12/27/11) Traffic . Stated that the City of Irvine staff Section 5.14, should be contacted to discuss Transportation and Traffic the IBC Vision Plan methodology to be used in the traffic study for evaluating the impact of the project along arterials and intersections affecting City of Irvine. . Stated that the traffic study area boundaries shall be reviewed and approved by City of Irvine staff. . Stated that the traffic study area should cover MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road from SR -73 to 1 -405, including freeway ramps. . Stated that the IBC Vision Plan performance criteria should be used in evaluating intersection and roadway link deficiencies in or partially in City of Irvine. . Stated that fair share contributions and /or construction improvements to mitigate impacts in City of Irvine shall be required and identified in the traffic study. City of Newport Beach Public Works Utlities . Stated that the project applicant is Section 5.15, Utilities and Department (1/5/12) required to monitor current sewer Service Systems flows on the existing lines along Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Main objective is to see if all of Phase 1 and TowerJau facility discharge can be routed into existing sewer system. City of Newport Beach Recreation Park Space . Requested appropriate park Section 5.13, Recreation and Senior Services Department dedication fees to be determined; (12/8/11) that the in -lieu fees should take into consideration the 2.05 acres of dedicated park space, which shall be included in the development agreement. Department of Toxic Substances Hazards . Stated that the DEIR should Section 5.7, Hazards Control (1 /30/12) evaluate whether conditions within the project area may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -3 2. Introduction Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: . Stated that the DEIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated. . Offered several specific procedures that should be followed with respect to demolition and construction and how to handle related hazardous waste issues that may arise, including handling and cleanup of hazardous substances. Jim Mosher (1/9/12) Land Use . Stated that the DEIR should Sections 5.9, Land Use, analyze the project in the context and 5.11, Population and of the considerable amount of Housing residential conversion anticipated as a result of the General Plan and latest Housing Element. • Stated concern about the impact to schools and community cohesiveness and that the DEIR should include a comparison of alternatives with respect to which school district the project site will belong to. . Stated that a more detailed plan of what is to be built is necessary in order for the DEIR to adequately address impacts such as noise and shade to surrounding neighborhoods. Kennedy Commission (1/6/12) Population, Housing . Stated thatthe provision of Sections 5.6, Greenhouse and Employment and affordable housing be outlined in Gas Emissions, 5.11, Traffic the DEIR and that the Population and Housing, development of affordable and 5.14, Transportation housing be made a priority at the and Traffic project site, especially for the lower income categories. • Stated that the DEIR should address the City's jobs- housing "fit ", which is different from jobs - housing balance. The jobs - housing fit analyzes the discrepancies between the types of jobs and wages (especially for low -wage jobs) that will be created in a city and the housing costs and opportunities that are available in the city. . Stated that the DEIR conduct a detailed analysis of the proposed Page 2 -¢ • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 2. Introduction Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: project's affordable housing units (i.e., amount, housing types and affordability) and the impacts this would have on vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, and other traffic impacts. . Stated that the DEIR provide a detailed analysis of how many jobs and what types of jobs and wages will be generated from the proposed project. • Stated that the DEIR provide a detailed analysis of how many people live outside the City and commute into the City to work and how many residents live in the City but commute out of the City to work. . Stated that the DIER should identify trip - reduction measures. • Stated that the City should continue with meaningful outreach and incorporate public comments into the project's planning process. Native American Heritage Cultural Resources . Stated that the Native American Section 5.4, Cultural Commission (12/9/11) Heritage Commission Sacred Resources Lands File search did not identify Native American cultural resources within the project area. . Requested that the lead agency contact the Native American contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. Orange County Sanitation District Sewer Capacity and . Requested that the City indicate Section 5.15, Utilities and (12/28/11) Discharges how connection to the City Service Systems sewers will lead into the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) system. . Stated concern that existing sewer may not have capacity to serve the project. . Requested that a sewer study be prepared. . Requested specific flow factors to be used in DEIR. . Stated that OCSD staff will need to review and approve the water quality of any discharges and the measures necessary to eliminate Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -5 2. Introduction Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: materials prior to discharge into the sewer system. Southern California Association of Housing and Land . Found the project to be regionally Sections 5.9, Land Use Governments (12/9/12) Use significant. and Planning, and 5.11, . Stated that the DEIR should Population and Housing provide a side -by -side analysis in a table format of all the applicable SCAG regional goals and policies, with a discussion of consistency, inconsistency, or nonapplicability and supportive analysis. . Stated that the DEIR should reflect the most current SCAG forecasts, which are the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan population, household, and employment forecasts. . Stated that all feasible measures needed to mitigate any potential negative regional impacts associated with the revised project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. South Coast Air Quality Management Air Quality . Stated that the lead agency Section 5.2, Air Quality District (12/23/11) should identify any potential air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project. . Requested that PM25 emissions be quantified and compared to recommended PM25 significance thresholds. . Recommended calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds. Sapetto Group, Inc. (1/9/12) Traffic, Land Use, . Requested that the DEIR address Sections 5. 1, Aesthetics, Schools, Water Use, cumulative impacts from 5.9, Land Use and and Shade /Shadow vehicular traffic. Planning, 5.12, Public . Requested that the traffic study Services, and 5.14, evaluate traffic generated in the Transportation and Traffic context of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Should also evaluate increased traffic related to trips to and from school facilities. . Requested that the DEIR address whether or not the project has the legal right to access the property site through the Koll Center and Birch Street. . Requested that the DEIR examine parking implications and whether Page 2 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 2. Introduction Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: or not parking will meet the City's Zoning Code requirements. . Requested that the DEIR address pedestrian access over and through Koll Center to Uptown Newport project. . Requested that the DEIR examine the interaction between residential and business uses. . Stated concerns about potential shadow issues within Koll Center. . Requested that the DEIR address school impacts, including potential impacts from construction of new school facilities. . Requested that the DEIR clarify the water supply assessment, as it is difficult to understand, and clarify all seemingly contradictory calculations contained in the document. State of California, Governor's Office Not Applicable . Confirmed receipt of NOP and Not Applicable of Planning and Research (12/8/11) noted distribution of NOP to appropriate state agencies and departments. The Gas Company (1/18/12) Natural Gas . Stated that there are existing Section 5.15, Utilities and facilities in the area to serve the Service Systems proposed project. . Stated that the comment letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the project and is only provided as an informational service. University of California, Irvine Land Use and Traffic . Stated that the Initial Study Sections 5.10, Land Use (1/9/12) assumed a portion of the North and Planning, and 5.14, Campus is undeveloped open Transportation and Traffic space, while the approved Long Range Development Plan for the area includes 950,000 gross square feet of office and /or research and development space and 435 multifamily units. . Requested that the DEIR analyze the impact of the projects vehicular traffic generation on the LRDP's traffic improvement program; impacts to UCI's vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation plans; and land use compatibility with existing and proposed UCI land uses. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -7 2. Introduction 2.3 SCOP/NG MEETING Prior to preparation of the DER, a public scoping meeting was held on December 15, 2011, for the proposed project. The scoping meeting was held to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies and the community regarding the proposed project. The scoping meeting was held at the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers, and was attended by a number of community members and interested parties. Table 2 -2 summarizes the issues identified at the scoping meeting, along with a reference to the section(s) of this DER where the issues are addressed. Table 2 -2 Scoping Meeting Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: Bruce D. Goettinger Project phasing; bicycle Comment regarding Phase 2 of project Chapters 1, Executive and pedestrian and the potential of it extending beyond Summary, and 3, Project transportation and the anticipated time frame (2017 - 2021). Description, and Sections safety; school district Inquired about the potential for second 5.12, Public Services, boundary impacts project phase to be extended. and 5.14, Transportation • Comment regarding the content, level of and Traffic detail, complexity, and length of the EIR. City should be mindful of these when developing this EIR. • General concern with alternative mobility (bicycles, pedestrians, children) and their safety with regard to being introduced into a busy traffic area and office park. Inquiry whether EIR will address bicycle path continuity with areas to the north and south. Comment about very dangerous biking locations, including the crossing at Jamboree Road /SR -73. • Noted that it would be logical for Uptown Newport students to attend Newport Mesa Unified School District ( SAUSD) schools instead of Santa Ana Unified School District schools. Suggested that SAUSD attendance would result in dividing an existing community (per CEQA Land Use checklist). Travis Smith Soil and groundwater Noted the presence of several ons to Chapter 3, Project impacts; project wells and inquired about the scope of the Description, and Sections phasing; demolition technical assessments (what pollutants 5.2, Air Quality, 5.7, impacts will be tested). Wanted to know the Hazards and Hazardous purpose of the wells onsite. Materials, 5.8, Hydrology Asked if there was the possibility of the and Water Quality, and TowerJazz facility closing down earlier 5.14, Transportation and and therefore Phase 2 starting earlier. Traffic • Concern with demolition impacts. Page 2 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 2. Introduction Table 2 -2 Scoping Meeting Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: John Adams EIR process; access, Concern that preparation of separate Sections 5.9, Land Use circulation, and traffic; EIRs forthe Koll Center and Uptown and Planning, and 5.14, parking; bicycle and Newport projects is piecemealing under Transportation and Traffic pedestrian transportation CEQA. Commented that the projects are and safety; land use essentially one project and should impacts therefore be analyzed under one EIR. • Stated that Birch Street access is a private easement between Uptown Newport property and his property and the EIR should address access issues with Birch Street use intensifying under Phase 1 of the project. Concern that upon development of Phase 1 residential, TowerJazz traffic will exclusively use the private easement accessed from Birch Street and will create traffic congestion at this exit/entry drive. • Concern about parking availability, including loss of Jamboree Road street parking and potential of Koll Center users to use TowerJazz facility parking to avoid fees. • Safety and security concern on existing business uses from project - related pedestrian, bicycle, skateboarding activity. • Concern of traffic generated by public use of onsite parks. • Stated that response to Initial Study Checklist Land Use Question a) regarding division of an existing community was inappropriate and that the project would clearty divide an existing business community. Suggested that this issue be included in the EIR. • Parking impacts should be analyzed in the EIR. • Question concerning potential uses that could be developed on UCI property east of the project site across Jamboree Road. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -9 2. Introduction Table 2 -2 Scoping Meeting Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: Jim Mosher Population and housing; • Inquired about status of Koll Center EIR Sections 5.1, Aesthetics, aesthetics and and project. 5.11, Population and shade /shadow; EIR • Comment about the recent Housing Housing, and 5.12, Public scope; school district Element and how many potential Services boundary impacts residential units could be developed within the overall Airport Area. • Comment about product type, height, and bulk of buildings and whetherthese details will be available in the EIR. What level of detail will be available in the EIR? • Question about how shade /shadow impacts will be analyzed in the EIR if specific building heights and locations are not known. • Concern about the length of the EIR. • Suggestion that project applicant and City should request that school district boundaries be modified to include the project site within NMUSD instead of its current location within SAUSD. Surrounding area is within NMUSD and if future students attend schools within the SAUSD, this could be considered as physically dividing the community (per CEQA Land Use checklist question 'a'). 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form (see Appendix A), the City of Newport Beach staff determined that a DEIR should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce these impacts to levels of insignificance or eliminate the impact altogether. The information in Chapter 3, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future project - related environmental impacts. 2.4.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant Two environmental impact categories are identified here as not being significantly affected by or affecting the proposed project, and therefore are not discussed in detail in this DEIR. This determination was made bythe City of Newport Beach in its preparation of the Initial Study. The following topical issues are not addressed in the DEIR: • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources Page 2 -10 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 2. Introduction 2.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Fifteen environmental factors have been identified as potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented. The factors addressed in this DEIR are: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems 2.4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts This DEIR identifies three environmental topics with significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined 88 by CEQA, thatwould result from implementation of the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project- specific basis, cumulatively significant, and /or potentially significant. If the City, as the Lead Agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts will result from the project, it must prepare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before it can approve the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision - making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. The impacts that were found in the DEIR to be significant and unavoidable are: • Air Quality • Land Use • Noise 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Per Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of other documents that are a matter of public record or are generally available to the public. The following documents are incorporated by reference in this DEIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. • City of Newport Beach General Plan, 2006. • City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, prepared by EIP Associates, 2006. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -11 2. Introduction 2.6 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION This DEIR is being circulated for public review for a period of 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the DEIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45 -day review period, the City will review all written comments and prepare written responses for each comment. A Final EIR (FEIR) will then be prepared incorporating all of the comments received, responses to the comments, and any changes to the DEIR that result from the comments received. This FEIR will be presented to the City for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who commented on the DEIR will be notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City. The DEIR is available to the general public for review at the following locations: City of Newport Beach Planning Division, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach Public Libraries: • Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Mariners Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Corona del Mar Branch, 420 Marigold Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 • Orange County Public Library, 1501 E. St. Andrew Place, Santa Ana, CA 92705 The DEIR will also be posted online on the City's website, http:// www. newportbeachca .gov /cegadocuments. 2.7 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project will be completed as part of the Final EIR and will be completed prior to consideration of the project by the Newport Beach City Council. Page 2 -12 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description 3.1 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 Kerman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. The two existing onsite office and industrial buildings at 4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road are referred to as the Half Dome building and the TowerJazz facility, respectively. Regional access to the site is from State Route 73 (SR -73) via Jamboree Road to the south and Interstate 405 (1 -405) via Jamboree Road to the north, as shown in Figure 3 -1, Regional Location. Vehicular access to the site is from Jamboree Road, Fairchild Road, Birch Street, and Von Karmen Avenue. MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue pass west of the site, and Birch Street passes to the north (see Figures 3 -2, Local Vicinity, and 3 -3, Aerial Photograph). 3.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND /yam 3.2.1 Planning Background City of Newport Beach General Plan The project site is in the City's "Airport Area" planning subarea, which is bounded by Campus Drive to the north and west, SR -73 to the south, and Jamboree Road to the east. This boundary also coincides with statistical area' 14" in the City's General Plan. As shown on Figure 3 -4, Airport Area Planning Designations, the Uptown Newport project site is in a Mixed -Use District and the site is designated MU -H2, Mixed -Use District Horizontal -2. This designation applies to properties located in the Airport Area and provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood uses. A total of 2,200 residential units are permitted within the MU -H2 designated properties to replace existing office, retail, and /or industrial uses, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as additional infill units. General Plan Land Use Policies for the mixed -use districts are included as policies LU 6.15.4 through 6.15- 23. A key land use policy (LU 6.15.7) for the district requires residential units to be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units per net acre (prior to any affordable housing density bonus) as averaged by the total area of the residential village. Strategy and Process policies require: • Regulatory Plans. A regulatory plan for each 10 -acre minimum residential village to coordinate the location of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways, and a strategy to accommodate neighborhood serving commercial uses and other amenities (Policy LU 6.15.10). • Conceptual Development Plan Area. One conceptual development plan for the area depicted on General Plan Figure LU22 (see DER Figure 3- 4) (Policy LU 6.15.11). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -1 3. Project Description • Development Agreements. A Development Agreement for all projects that include infill residential units shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units (Policy LU 6.15.12). Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Pursuant to the General Plan requirement (Policy LU 6.15.11), the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) was approved by the Newport Beach City Council on September 28, 2010. It provides for the redevelopment of the approximately 25 -acre Uptown Newport site (formerly known as the Conexant property), and 12.7 acres between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue (Koll property), with new residential development and open space (see Figure 3 -5). The ICDP would result in up to 1,504 residential units, 1,244 on the Uptown Newport site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. No office or industrial uses would be removed within the Koll property, and the 260 units would therefore be "additive." On the Uptown Newport site, up to 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses, which would be demolished, 290 units would be additive, and 322 units would be density bonus units. Together, the two properties would use all 550 additive units allocated to the ICDP area by the City's General Plan. According to the ICDP, the Uptown Newport project would result in the complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial /office complex to a master - planned residential village. In addition to the residential units, the ICDP allows up to 11,500 square feet of ground -level retail and commercial uses and neighborhood park areas. A summary of the residential unit allocation for the ICDP is shown in Table 3 -1. Table 3 -1 ICDP Unit Allocation Summary Property Additive Replacement Density Bonus Totals Uptown Newport 290 632 322 1,244 Koll 260 260 Total 550 1 632 1 322 1,504 The ICDP is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory documents required by the General Plan for the project area. As noted in the General Plan summary above, these documents include a Regulatory Plan and a Development Agreement. The zoning designation of the project site is Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15). Permitted uses in this zoning designation include light industrial and support office- and commercial - related uses. In order to accommodate the proposed project, an amendment to the PC -15 zoning designation would be required to remove the subject property from the Planned Community district and a new Planned Community Development Plan (PC Development Plan) would be adopted as the Regulatory Plan for the project site. The PC Development Plan would implement the Newport Beach General Plan and ICDP and serve as the controlling zoning designation and ordinance for the property. The PC Development Plan would outline the development standards and permitted uses for Uptown Newport. Since the project would be built over time, existing land uses on the site would continue to be allowed as nonconforming uses and not be required to conform to the regulations outlined in the PC Development Plan. The regulations are also intended to provide a range of development options and maintain flexibility to accommodate changes in the economy, land value, and demand. Page 3 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 3. Project Description Regional Location 0 3 Scale (Mlles) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -1 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 3. Project Description Local Vicinity vy wCosta Mesa / John Wayne < Airport / \ a j > Irvine Site, �f Newport Beach San Diego Creek Cha,06\ Upper Newport Bay I —4/ . UC Irvine — — Site Boundary - - - - -- City Boundary o 2,000 r Scale Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -2 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 3. Project Description Aerial Photograph Airport Area •• —••- Integrated Concept Development Plan – – – – Project Site Source: Google Earth 2011 o 1,500 Scale Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -3 �� 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 3. Project Description Airport Area Planning Designations Project Site Boundary LAND USE POLICY OUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail, Residenbal Village: Housing and Mixed-Use (wdh Guidelines for Design and Development) Airport- Supporting Businesses Commercial and Office 0 1 000 V� Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3-4 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -10 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 ti �Y ® Residential ■ Existing Office Buildings Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 3. Project Description Integrated Conceptual Development Plan :L ♦ a ""° i 1 J a, ♦,�- ,. 4rswEnnu �. 4( r c. ♦ t ♦I t(e ♦ I tt 1 — — Project Site Boundary i g ti rVI VAMW o soo S M Scale Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -5 do I`9t u5 I ilHO�tq vMlWlo BtNJCf1111! � ky. t + r c. ♦ t ♦I t(e ♦ I tt 1 — — Project Site Boundary i g ti rVI VAMW o soo S M Scale Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -5 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -12 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description 3.2.2 Related Development Proposals Uptown Newport Village Specific Plan: Conexant Prior to the current application, Conexant, the previous property owner submitted a development application to the City, whose proposed land use was the same as the currently proposed Uptown Newport project, including 1,244 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet retail commercial. Similarly, the project was proposed to be developed in two phases. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report was circulated June 1, 2010, and a CECA Initial Study completed. The EIR was initiated but never completed for the project. The current Uptown Newport project applicant purchased the property from Conexant in December 2010. Koll Project A project application for development of the Koll property (the adjacent 12.7 acres within the ICDP), was submitted to the City on July 13, 2011. The application requests an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Plan for the construction of up to 260 residential units, consistent with the ICDP. The project would be an infill project to be built on existing surface parking and landscaping areas within the master planned park. The application anticipates three residential buildings of varying heights (54 feet to 90 feet) and the average density is projected to be in the low 40s du /ac. The proposed development would incorporate approximately 3,400 square feet of retail space to be located in the corner of one of the residential buildings. A one -acre neighborhood park would be provided for public uses and would be accessible to all residents (see Figure 3 -5, Integrated Conceptual Development Plan). The environmental review for the Koll project, including a separate EIR, is proposed to proceed separately 88 from the Uptown Newport project. This DEIR addresses the Koll project as a cumulative, related project and incorporates the information available for the project at the time of preparation of the DER. 3.2.3 Existing Improvements Site History of Industrial Use The Uptown Newport project site has been used for the development and manufacturing of radio components and semiconductors for telecommunication equipment, including facsimiles, modems, and high -speed data transmission equipment. The buildings (4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road) were built between 1967 and 1969 and between 1968 and 1972, respectively. Rockwell Semiconductor Systems acquired the property in 1972 and Conexant Systems purchased the property in 1990 and held it until 2010. TowerJazz is the majority tenant and operates a semiconductor manufacturing facility at the property. The environmental history of the site is summarized in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Existing Site Improvements Existing site conditions are depicted in Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. The Half Dome building (4311 Jamboree Road) in the southwestern part of the project site is one story and 126,675 square feet. It is used for office, light industrial, storage, and caf6 services. The northernmost building, the TowerJazz facility (4321 Jamboree Road) is two and three stories and 311,452 square feet. A Southern California Edison (SCE) substation exists along the southwestern boundary of the site. The balance of the site consists of landscaped areas and surface parking lots. Vehicular access to the project site is via two driveways from Jamboree Road, including Fairchild Road, a driveway from Birch Street, and a driveway connection to Von Karman Avenue. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -13 3. Project Description 3.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been established for the Uptown Newport project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: • Implement the goals and policies that the Newport Beach General Plan has established for the Airport Area and the Integrated Conceptual Plan Development Plan. • 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. • Develop up to 11,500 square feet of retail commercial uses to serve local residents, businesses and visitors. • Provide housing in close proximity to jobs and supporting services, with pedestrian- oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. • Integrate neighborhood parks inter - connected by pedestrian walkways to encourage a sense of community. • Develop an attractive, viable project that yields a reasonable return on investment. • Provides for the phased transition from existing industrial and office uses to a mixed -use residential village. • Provide beneficial site and improvements including implementing a Water Quality Management Plan. 3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS "Project," as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1) ... enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100 -65700" (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15378[a]). 3.4.1 Proposed Site Plan and Land Use At buildout, Uptown Newport is intended to be a multi - family residential community with neighborhood - serving retail uses. The proposed site plan and associated land use statistics are shown on Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan. Consistent with the ICDP and General Plan 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 3 -2, Land Use Summary. Page 3 -14 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description Table 3 -2 Uptown Newport Land Use Summary 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. The proposed project would comply with the City's affordable housing requirements. Commercial A retail component would provide neighborhood - serving retail and services. Permitted uses would include but not be limited to restaurants, 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 PC Development Plan. Parks The two 1 -acre minimum park areas would be principal focal points forthe 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 Korman 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 retail uses. Minimum five - foot -wide sidewalks would be provided on both sides 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 ' Based on 2.19 persons per household and 1 employee per 450 SF /retail (Census 2010; SCAG 2001). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -15 Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Number of Units 680 564 1,244 Developable Area ac. 8.65 10.02 18.67 Park Area ac. 1.03 1.02 2.05 Retail (sf) 11,500 0 11,500 Right of Way Area ac. 2.61 1.72 4.33 Total Area (ac.) 12.29 12.75 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. The proposed project would comply with the City's affordable housing requirements. Commercial A retail component would provide neighborhood - serving retail and services. Permitted uses would include but not be limited to restaurants, 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 PC Development Plan. Parks The two 1 -acre minimum park areas would be principal focal points forthe 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 Korman 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 retail uses. Minimum five - foot -wide sidewalks would be provided on both sides 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 ' Based on 2.19 persons per household and 1 employee per 450 SF /retail (Census 2010; SCAG 2001). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -15 3. Project Description 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. 3.4.2 Project Construction and Infrastructure General Phasing The project would be developed in two primary phases, as shown on Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, and detailed in Table 3 -2, Land Use Summary. 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. This DEIR conservatively assumes 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. This DEIR, therefore, addresses 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. Demolition, Grading, and Construction Summary demolition, grading, and construction information by project phase is provided in Tables 3 -3, Construction Schedule and Duration, and 3 -4, Earthwork /Material Quantities and Construction Trips. Anticipated construction equipment by development phase is shown in Table 3 -5, Construction Equipment. The following describes demolition, grading (earthwork), and construction phases for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development. Phase 1 Phase 1 would include demolition of the 126,675 square feet, single -story building at 4311 Jamboree Road (Half Dome building). This building is currently used for office, light industrial, storage, and care services. Demolition activities would involve removing equipment, furniture, and machinery from the Half Dome building; abating asbestos and lead -based paint as needed; decommissioning utilities serving the building; and removing foundations, footings, and above - ground storage tanks. The asphalt parking lot, light fixtures, and landscaped islands would also be removed. An estimated 15,277 tons of construction debris and concrete would need to be removed from the site. The grading operation would involve cutting and filling the site to establish building pads, roadway sub - grades, and park areas. Phase 1 grading would require interim slopes and /or retaining walls along the interface with the TowerJazz building and its associated mechanical equipment areas. The grading concept is based on one level of subterranean parking within the larger building envelope and results in a balance of cut and fill earthwork. If a second subterranean parking level is developed, up to approximately 90,000 cubic yards of material would require to be exported from the site. Figure 3 -7, Conceptual Grading and Earthwork: Phase 1 and Phase 2, shows the anticipated areas for cut and fill, depth of grading and finished elevations, and total earthwork for each project phase (summarized in Table 3 -3). Page 3 -16 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description Table 3 -3 Construction Schedule and Duration Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Hours of Construction* Monday — Friday 7:00 am -6:30 pm 7:00 am -6:30 pm NA Saturday 8:00 am -6:00 pm 8:00 am -6:00 pm NA Demolition 3 months 77 days 4 months 103 days Not sequential Site Improvements 6 months 155 days 6 months 155 days Not sequential Building Construction 40,935 tons Earthwork Overall project development (this phase to overlap with site Approx. 54 months Approx. 41 months projected to extend approx. improvement phase ) 98,500 CY Fill raw 91 months 7.5 years Total Phase (phases overlap) Approx. 61 months Approx. 53 months Approx. 7.5 years Up to 100,000 CY plus 5 years 4.5 years Up to 90,000 CY * Construction hours are based on Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity, Noise Regulations) of the City's municipal code. Table 3-4 Notes: CY = cubic yards; NA = not applicable ' Number of trips is based on round -trips and estimated 16 CY /haul truck. P Demolished materials include building, concrete, asphalt, and landscape materials. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -17 �xy1 J• Materials Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Demolished Materials' 15,277 tons 25,658 tons 40,935 tons Earthwork Cut raw 48,200 CY 50,300 CY 98,500 CY Fill raw 48,900 CY 65,200 CY 114,100 CY Net Export (if 2nd subterranean Up to 100,000 CY plus parking level included) Up to 90,000 CY approx. 29,000 CY 190,000 CY emediated soils Construction Trips (Round Trips) Demolished Materials and Site Work 23 trips /day 29 trips /day NA haul trucks Earthwork export (haul trucks) 288 trips /day 343 trips /day NA 39 days Phase 1, 47 days Phase 2 Notes: CY = cubic yards; NA = not applicable ' Number of trips is based on round -trips and estimated 16 CY /haul truck. P Demolished materials include building, concrete, asphalt, and landscape materials. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -17 �xy1 J• 3. Project Description Table 3 -5 Construction Equipment Project Subphase (tor both Phase 1 and Phase 2) Equipment Type Quantity Truck Trips Per Day (Phase 1) * Truck Trips Per Day (Phase 2) * Days (Phase 1) Days (Phase 2) Demolition Concrete Saws 2 23 29 66 88 Cad Skid Steers 3 Excavators (75k Ibs) 2 Excavators (100k to 175k Ibs) 3 Track Loaders 2 Rough Grading D8R Dozer 1 144 172 39 47 627F Scrapers 2 824C Compactor 1 14F Blade 1 Water Truck 1 Wet Utilities 330 Excavators 2 2 2 83 85 3.5 Yard Loaders Dor 1 Crew Trucks 2 Concrete 5700 -C Curb and Gutter Machine 1 105 105 18 12 Wheel Loader 1 Concrete Trucks 105 Asphalt Paver 1 440 440 18 is Roller 2 Motor Grader 1 Seal Crater 1 Conveyor Belt Grinder 1 Wheel Loader 1 Dump Truck Loads 440 Walls 545 545 20 0 Paving Vendor Truck 545 Building Construction Cat 325L Excavators 3 8 8 992 992 CatCP563C Compactor 1 Grove TR760 60 -Ton Crane 1 Mantiwoc 3900 Track Crane 1 Cat D9R Dozer 1 Cat 980G Front End Loader 2 Lincoln Classic IIID Welder 6 Cat 14H Grader 1 HHDT Freightliner FLD 120SD 8 Architectural Coating 175 140 Source: Shopoff Management, Inc. Note: For a detailed list and breakdown of the construction equipment, quantity and trips please refer to Appendix C. * All trips shown are round- trips. Page 3 -18 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 I- 3. Project Description Site Plan and Phasing Plan . . . . . Site Boundary � � � Phasing Boundary Source: ShopofiManagement, Inc. 2011 ® Ground -Level Neighborhood- Serving Retail 0 zoo Scab Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -6 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -20 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description Conceptual Grading and Earthwork: Phase 1 and Phase 2 Legend Range Beg. Range End Percent A ea (S.F.) 8� .1 5.W 10.00 0.0 132 8� -10A0 -5.00 28.5 311,313 a� 5.00 0.00 18A 200,805 PROPERTY LINE _ 0.00 5.00 28.1 306.032 / (TYP) 5.00 10.00 19.6 214,117 - — -J— -- - -� � 10.00 15.00 4.2 46.243 I 15.00 20.00 1.1 12,313 _ e Overall Earthwork Quantities Raw Cut: 98,500 C.Y. f�-`� i Raw Fill: 11a,100CY JAMBOREE ROAD zoo rSource: MVE & Partners, Inc Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 3 -7 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -22 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description Phase 2 Phase 2 would include demolition of the 311,452 square -foot TowerJazz building at 4321 Jamboree Road and associated mechanical equipment located along the northwestern property boundary. Demolition activities would involve removing equipment, furniture, and machinery from the TowerJazz building; abating asbestos and lead -based paint; and decommissioning utilities serving the facility, including the SCE substation and mechanical equipment. Activities would include removal of foundations and footings, above- ground storage tanks, and asphalt parking lot on the northeastern side of the property. Demolished materials would be recycled on- or offsite, as feasible. Site preparation for the second phase of the project would include removal of undocumented fill'2 stockpiles, vegetation, and interim retaining walls and slopes. Soil and groundwater remediation would also be necessary to facilitate Phase 2 development. An estimated 29,000 tons of soil removal within an area of 22,160 square feet at 5 to 30 feet below ground surface has been estimated. These soils would be transported offsite for disposal at a permitted facility. An estimated 80 to 90 percent of the 29,000 tons of removed soils is anticipated to be classified nonhazardous and may be accepted at an approved and permitted municipal solid waste landfill. The remaining soils (10 to 20 percent) that are classified hazardous waste are anticipated to be disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill. Groundwater remediation under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, already underway as of 2012, is anticipated to be completed within 1 to 3 years, then monitored for an additional 2 to 3 years. Grading for Phase 2 would be designed to optimize the balance of cut - and -fill material. The grading concept assumes one level of subterranean parking within the larger building envelope. Should two levels of subterranean parking be provided, approximately 100,000 cubic yards would need to be exported from the project site (see Figure 3 -7, Conceptual Grading and Earthwork: Phase 1 and Phase 2). Infrastructure Circulation Phase 1 The circulation plan for Phase 1 is shown in Figure 3 -8. Forthis phase, the project site would be accessed by two intersections on Jamboree Road: the existing signalized entry opposite Fairchild Road and an unsignalized intersection north of the Fairchild Road intersection. The unsignalized intersection would be restricted right- and left -turn ingress and right- turn -only egress. The onsite roadway system would be privately owned and maintained, but open to the public. Access to the subterranean parking structures would be provided along internal private streets. Street parking would be available in designated areas. Roadway widths, turning radii, and turn - around dimensions would be designed to accommodate truck movements and fire equipment. As shown in Figure 3 -8, Phase 1 Circulation Plan, employee access to the TowerJazz parking area would be from the northernmost Jamboree Road intersection and the existing access easement from Birch Street. The Jamboree Road access would be gated to prohibit Uptown Newport resident entry into the TowerJazz parking lot. The Phase 1 plan would also provide emergency vehicle access via the Koll property and vehicular access to the SCE substation at the south end of the property. 2 Undocumented fill is artificial fill from previous development activity. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -23 3. Project Description Pedestrian circulation for Phase 1 would be provided through a sidewalk system on each of the internal streets. These paths, as well as paseos between buildings and around the park, would connect residential buildings with the onsite retail uses, parks, and adjacent developments. The right -of -way for a future Class 1 bike trail would be provided along Jamboree Road. Phase 2 As shown in Figure 3 -9, Phase 2 Circulation Plan, for buildout of the project, the internal roadway system would include a connection to Birch Street via the existing access easement. The two intersections at Jamboree Road would be maintained, as well as the emergency vehicle access via the Koll property. Pedestrian improvements would complete elements from the site to connectto the adjacent Koll and nearby properties. Storm Drainage and Water Quality Phase 1 Runoff from the site is currently conveyed by underground storm drains to the existing drainage ponds along Von Karman Avenue to the northwest of the property. During the development of Phase 1, much of the existing underground site storm drain system would remain in place to serve the TowerJazz facility and parking area. Within the Phase 1 development area, existing underground lines would be removed during site preparation and grading and a new underground storm drainage system installed. The site would continue to discharge into the offsite drainage ponds. The drainage system would be designed to comply with the requirements of the North Orange County MS4 Permit that regulates stormwater discharges. Best management practices as outlined in the water quality management plan (WQMP) would be implemented. Low impact development (LID) measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to stormwater runoff quality and quantity. Such measures would include infiltration with bioretention in landscape and park areas, planter boxes with underdrains, vegetated filter strips, and proprietary treatment systems. Phase 2 The completed storm drainage system upon completion of Phase 2 is shown in Figure 3 -10, Storm Drainage Concept: Phase 1 and Phase 2. Upon demolition of the TowerJazz facilities, the Phase 1 storm drain system would be extended to the northwestern property line to connect with the existing offsite system. Existing storm drains in the Phase 2 area would be removed and replaced with a new underground system that would tie into the offsite public storm drain system in the Koll site. Drainage for the entire project site would continue to discharge into the drainage ponds in the Koll site. Water and Sewer Improvements Water System: Phase 1 and Phase 2 The proposed water system at buildout is shown as Figure 3 -11, Proposed Water System: Phase 1 and Phase 2. It is anticipated that the Phase 1 onsite water system would connect to an existing Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) line in Jamboree Road. The system must include connections to supply both domestic and fire protection water to the TowerJazz facility. Page 3 -24 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description Phase 1 Circulation Plan Emergency Vehicle Access Connection Only to Koll (� o 0 0 oN 181 Emergency I II , ` — Vehicle Access/ Service TCon�O� ction 0 : s6 to To terJa2z er JE � � r a' Jambor-- - --_ == _________________________ � Lea Uptown Newport Uptown Newport Vehicular Circulation Pedestrian Circulation Existing Towedau Vehicular Jamboree Road Trail Circulation (Class I Bike Trail) 0 200 Source: MVE &Partners, Inc 2011 c Scale (Feet) Gates �OD Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -8 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -26 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 Emergency Vehicle Access Only Source: MVE & Partners. Inc 2011 Connection - V-11 i I 3. Project Description Phase 2 Circulation Plan - IIIILIU411l11 -T i II !! _t 1 I 1 I oa'�1 U U � m ____________ __— ___ -- --- JamtioreeRd — -= ___ - =_ _._ ____ -__ Ladend Phase 1 Uptown Newport Phase 1 Uptown Newport J Vehicular Circulation Pedestrian Circulation 1 I 1 I. 1 � - , I I 1 Phase 2 Uptown Newport Phase i Uptown Newport l(^A�W�_ Vehicular Circulation Pedestrian Circulation 0 200 v Phase I Jamboree Road Trail Seale (Feet) (Class I Bike Trail) Uptown Neauport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -9 w - Connection - V-11 i I 3. Project Description Phase 2 Circulation Plan - IIIILIU411l11 -T i II !! _t 1 I 1 I oa'�1 U U � m ____________ __— ___ -- --- JamtioreeRd — -= ___ - =_ _._ ____ -__ Ladend Phase 1 Uptown Newport Phase 1 Uptown Newport J Vehicular Circulation Pedestrian Circulation 1 I 1 I. 1 � - , I I 1 Phase 2 Uptown Newport Phase i Uptown Newport l(^A�W�_ Vehicular Circulation Pedestrian Circulation 0 200 v Phase I Jamboree Road Trail Seale (Feet) (Class I Bike Trail) Uptown Neauport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -9 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -28 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 1 3. Project Description Storm Drainage Concept: Phase I and Phase 2 == J-:AiN63�RE =Rc3- _ --------------- ------ ------- -- UM - -- -- --- -- JAMBOREERO/� - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - = - -- - - -- - - --- - - -- -- - - -- --- Storm Drain Ishase 1 Storm Drainji 3 wkting Storm Drain Existing Storm Drain to Source: VVE & Partners, Inc be Fnand.md 0 200 V� Scab Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 3 -10 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -30 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description Proposed Water System: Phase I and Phase 2 Source: MVE & Partners, Inc ------------ -- _ ---= =JAAMREERd/� == _-= ________________ ____ ________ LeMd Proposed Water phase t Proposed Fire SeMOe Proposed water Phase T — - Exisnngwater 0 200 —� m Existing Fire Sereke to Scale �� be Abandoned Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 3 -11 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -32 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description The system installed in the first phase would be extended to the Phase 2 area, generally within the site roadways. It is anticipated that the Phase 2 onsite water system would include an additional connection to the IRWD line in Birch Street. This would include an approximately 200 -foot extension offsite, anticipated to be aligned with the Birch Street easement to the property. The water system would be installed in accordance with IRWD standards so that upon completion of construction it may be turned over to IRWD for operation and maintenance. Sewer System: Phase 1 and Phase 2 It is anticipated that Phase 1 sewer improvements would be located within the site roadway systems. These lines would tie into existing lines for the TowerJazz facility. The sewer concept upon development of Phase 2 is shown in Figure 3 -12, Proposed Sewer System: Phase 1 and Phase 2. In Phase 2, the cessation of the TowerJazz manufacturing use would result in a major reduction in the volume discharged to the sewer system (even in comparison to buildout of Uptown Newport). Demolition of the TowerJazz facilities would include removal of the sewer line to which portion of the Phase 1 system connected. New underground sewer lines would be constructed to extend those lines to the offsite system within the Koll property. The northern portion of Phase 2 is anticipated to tie into an existing City of Newport Beach sewer in Birch Street. 3.4.3 Design Guidelines and Community Character All new residential and commercial development within the subject property would be subject to the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines. The project is envisioned as a distinctive, interconnected residential /mixed -use village. A variety of residential building types and housing opportunities are anticipated. Residential buildings may include low -rise row -house and 4- and 5 -story apartments or condominiums featuring a range of floor plans. Mid- to high -rise buildings are also possible. Street -level shops and restaurant are envisioned to provide gathering places and encourage pedestrian activity. 8B Figure 3 -13, Illustrative Site Plan and Vision, shows a schematic of the overall site plan along with photographs and illustratives of project components from the Design Guidelines to portray the anticipated character for Uptown Newport. The Design Guidelines include the following components • Site Planning Guidelines and Standards. Includes guidelines and standards for urban design framework, roadway circulation, fire /emergency access, land use distribution, pedestrian circulation, building setbacks, high -rise building location, variation in building height /tower elements, roof projections, balconies and private open space, bike lanes, etc. • Architectural Guidelines. Includes guidelines for building orientation, vehicular access, massing principles, roofs, windows, color, wall materials, etc. • Signage Design Guidelines. Includes a comprehensive sign program for the entire development, including guidelines for project entry monuments, retail Signage, and building and wayfinding signage. • Site Development and Infrastructure. Includes guidelines for grading and earthwork, sewer and water system development, storm drainage, water quality, and utilities. • Landscape Design Guidelines. Includes guidelines for landscape framework, common area landscape, community parks, hardscape plan (walls /fending, walks and trails, lighting plan, and site furnishing), and plant list. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -33 3. Project Description 3.5 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This DEIR is a project -level EIR, which examines the environmental impacts of the proposed residential project. This DEIR is also being prepared to address various actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the proposed residential project. It is the intent of this DEIR to enable the City of Newport Beach, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated approvals required for this project are as follows: Lead Agency Action • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and Adoption • Development Agreement • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan Phasing Plan City of Newport Beach • Design Guidelines • Certification of the Environmental Impact Report • Traffic Study Approval • Tentative Tract Map Responsible Agencies Action • Site Remediation (Remediation Action Plan) Approval Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Management Plan Approval • Airport Environs Land Use Plan consistency determination Airport Land Use Commission California Department of Toxic Substance Site Remediation approval Control Federal Aviation Administration Project Site Building Height Clearance Page 3 -34 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 / I J F U 20) aZ Y a a z cv Z Q F /) r WIR Source: Hall & Foreman Inc 2012 L ' }Y, 3. Project Description Proposed Sewer System: Phase 1 and Phase 2 EX. DETENTION & �. WATER QUALITY BASIN -KOLL SITE =56 � F ,o, _ __ ____ _ -------- 17 ii IL PE_43.00 FF -55.00 PE53.00 . � J� FF -5 E =54.00 Sul FF =55.60 W x5.65 _ N P Eg 4.00 I = HASE FF 6.00 f i m PE=44Op _ A pY PL -- ------- - - - - -- _ - - -- JAMBOREE RO6dF------------- - - - - -- - - -- a- 0 250 V� Scab Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 3 -12 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -36 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 3. Project Description Illustrative Site Plan and Vision Note: For conceptual purposes. only. Source: Design Guidelines, MVE & Partners 2011 g 200 Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 3 -13 �� 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -38 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a "description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a regional perspective." The environmental setting will provide a set of baseline physical conditions that will serve as atool from which the lead agency will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Location The 25.05 -acre project site is located in the southwestern part of Orange County in the City of Newport Beach (see Figure 3 -1, Regional Location). Regional access to the site is from State Route 73 (SR -73) via Jamboree Road to the south and Interstate 405 (1 -405) via Jamboree Road to the north. Orange County is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Los Angeles County to the north and northwest, San Bernardino County to the northeast, Riverside County to the east, and San Diego County to the south. Orange County comprises approximately 798 square miles; it has approximately 40 miles of coastline and extends inland approximately 20 miles. The City comprises 13,062 acres in area and is located atthe southwestern edge of 88 Orange County, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. Generally, Newport Beach is bordered by Costa Mesa to the northwest, Huntington Beach to the west, Irvine to the northeast, and Laguna Beach and unincorporated portions of Orange County to the southeast. Regional Planning Considerations Air Quality The City of Newport Beach is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SoCAB incorporates approximately 12,000 square miles within four counties: San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange. The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted to protect health and welfare are known as criteria air pollutants and are: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), sulfur dioxide (SO,), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM,,), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM,.,), and lead (Pb). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are air pollutant precursors that go on to form 03 through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Air basins are classified as attainment /nonattainment areas for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet AAQS for that pollutant. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03, PM,.,, PM,,,' and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for NO, under the California AAQS. The proposed project's consistency with the applicable AAQS is discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. CARB approved SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM,, to attainment for PM,, under the national AAQS on March 25, 2010 because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24 -hour PM,, standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -1 4. Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. AB 32 requires the state's global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Projected GHG emissions in California are estimated at 596 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent (COZe) pollutants. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons (471 million tons) of CO2e for the state. The 2020 target requires emissions reductions of 169 million metric tons, 28.5 percent of the projected emissions. Pursuant to the requirements of AB 32, the state's reduction in global warming emissions will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on global warming emissions that will be phased starting in 2012. In order to effectively implement the cap, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan that identifies the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and reduction strategies for the various emission sectors within the state. The proposed project's consistency with CARB's Scoping Plan is discussed in Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. SCAG cooperates with SCAQMD, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the proposed project include the 2012 -235 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS): Towards a Sustainable Future and the Compass Growth Vision, which are described in detail in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The proposed project is considered a project of regionwide significance pursuant to the criteria outlined in SCAG's Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as it encompasses more than 500 residential units. Therefore, Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, addresses the project's consistency with the applicable regional planning guidelines and policies. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport In 1975, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County adopted an Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP, amended April 17, 2008) that included John Wayne Airport (JWA); Fullerton Municipal Airport; and the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos. The AELUP is a land use compatibility pan that is intended to protect the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure the people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable space. The AELUP identifies standards for development in the airport's planning area based on noise contours, accident potential zones, and building heights. ALUC is authorized under state lawto assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. Primary areas of concern for ALUC are noise, safety hazards, and airport operational integrity. ALUC is not implementing agency in the manner of local governments, nor do they issue permits for a project such as those required by local governments. However, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21676, local governments are required to submit all general plan amendments and zone changes that occur in the ALUC planning areas for consistency review by ALUC. If such an amendment or change is deemed inconsistent Page 4 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting with the ALUC plan, a local government may override the ALUC decision by a two- thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670(a)(2) of the Public Utilities Code: "to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards in areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." The proposed project's consistency with the AELUP is discussed in Sections 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 5.9, Land Use and Planning, and 5.9, Noise. 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Location The project site is in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach and is approximately 0.6 mile southeast of John Wayne Airport and occupies Assessor's Parcel Nos. 445 - 131 -02 and 445 - 131 -03. The site encompasses a portion of the Koll Center Newport office park and is located on the east side of Jamboree Road, between Birch Street and the intersection of Von Karmen Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. 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 (see Figures 3 -2, Local Vicinity, and 3 -3, Aerial Photograph). Onsite Land Uses Existing project site uses and conditions are depicted in Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 4 -1, Site 8B Photographs. The project site is currently developed with two industrial buildings, which are being leased to multiple tenants, including TowerJazz. The Half Dome building in the southwestern part of the project site is one story and 126,675 square feet. It is used for office, light industrial, storage, and cafe services. The TowerJazz building located in the northern part of the project site is two and three stories and 311,452 square feet. A Southern California Edison (SCE) substation exists along the southwestern boundary of the site. The balance of the project site is developed with landscaped areas, surface parking lots, and other hardscape improvements. The parking lots are located in the eastern and northern parts of the site. An existing Southern California Edison substation is also located at the southern end of the project site. Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses are depicted in Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 4 -2, Photographs of Surrounding Uses— Photographs. The project site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by commercial /office uses within the Koll Center Newport office park. To the north are clusters of office buildings ranging from 1 to 15 stories in height, and three restaurants, including fast food. To the west are office buildings ranging from 1 to 4 stories high, landscaped areas, and two man -made lakes. To the south are two 20 -story office buildings, surface parking, and a fast -food restaurant. Jamboree Road forms the eastern boundary of the project site, and beyond Jamboree Road is undeveloped open space within the North Campus planning area of the University of California, Irvine. As shown in Figure 3 -3, the UCI Child Care Development Center and the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve (approximately 875 feet southeast of Jamboree Road) are also located east of the project site across Jamboree Road. Further northeast of the project site at the Jamboree Road /Campus Drive intersection are the 3000 The Plaza residential towers. Further to the southwest (approximately 0.8 mile) is the Upper Newport Bay. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -3 4. Environmental Setting Environmental Resources and Infrastructure Biological Resources The project site is currently developed with two industrial buildings, with the balance of the site consisting of landscaped areas, surface parking lots, and other hardscape improvements (see Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 4 -1, Site Photographs). No native vegetation communities occur within or immediately adjacent to the project site. The existing landscaping throughout the project site consists of nonnative ornamental vegetation, which provides very limited habitat for wildlife. While a few species of birds may utilize the ornamental plantings for roosting and /or nesting, the majority of the project area does not provide suitable foraging, nesting /breeding, movement, or refuge for common or sensitive wildlife species. However, the site contains several large ornamental trees and shrub vegetation that have potential to support nesting migratory birds. No drainages traverse the project site and no potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands areas are present on or immediately adjacent to the site. Refer to Section 5.3, Biological Resources, for additional information concerning biological resources and an analysis of project impacts on such resources. Climate and Air Quality The project site is approximately 4.9 miles inland from the Orange County coast, within the western portion of the SoCAB. The climate in the SoCAB is mild, tempered by cool ocean breezes. Temperatures are normally mild (620 to 72 0F), with rare extremes above 100 °F or below freezing (32 0F). Precipitation is typically 9 to 15 inches annually in the SoCAB. The climate of Orange County is typified by warm temperatures and light winds. The average monthly high temperatures range from about 52 °F in the coastal areas in January to 72 °F in the inland areas of the coastal plain in August. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rains fall between November and April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers nearthe coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Annual average humidity is 70 percent along the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03, PM2.5, PM10, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for NO, underthe California AAQS. An air quality analysis was performed for the project and the results are discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. Additionally, project - related impacts from GHG emissions are discussed in Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Geology and Landform The project site is at the southeastern edge of the Los Angeles Basin, near the northeastern edge of the Newport Mesa, which is a flat- topped platform at an elevation of about 50 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and deeply dissected by stream erosion. The geologic units present within the project site can be characterized as generally stiff to very stiff silty to sandy clay fill soils overlying native sands, silts, clays, and gravels of marine terrace deposits to the depths explored. More specifically, the geologic units found under the site include artificial fill, compacted artificial fill, terrace deposits, and bedrock units. Page 4 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting Site Photographs non" Basketball Court 2 Secondary Entrance 3 Y Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 4 -1 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting Photographs of Surrounding Uses Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 4 -2 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting The Peninsular Ranges are traversed by dominant northwest- trending faults, including the San Andreas Fault approximately 47 miles northeast of the project site; San Jacinto Fault approximately 44 miles northeast of the site; Whittier - Elsinore Fault approximatelyl7 miles northeast of the site; and Newport- Inglewood Fault approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the site. All four of these faults are classified active. They have had surface displacement within the last 11,000 years, and earthquakes have been recorded along all fourfaults in historic time. In addition to these active faults, blind thrust faults are also thought to be present under the Los Angeles Basin. The Pelican Hills Fault also passes approximately two miles southwest of the site, and is classified potentially active. Furthermore, afault extending northwest- southeast across the UCI campus was identified in 1991 and is classified potentially active. That fault passes near University Drive approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site (PBS &J 2007). There are no known faults on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Overall site topography can be characterized as relatively flat. Elevations onsite range from 41 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the northern boundary to 54 feet amsl along the southern boundary (Google Earth 2012). Refer to Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, for additional information concerning geological and soil conditions and an analysis of project impacts on geology and soils. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is in the Newport Bay Watershed, which spans 152 square miles in central and southern Orange County. The Newport Bay Watershed is defined by the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains to the east (Loma Ridge) and the San Joaquin Hills to the west and southwest. Nine cities are partly or fully within the watershed: Costa Mesa, Irvine, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Newport Beach, Orange, 8B Santa Ana, and Tustin. The watershed also includes several unincorporated areas of Orange County. Water quality in the Newport Bay Watershed is currently listed by the State of California as impaired by various pollutants, including pesticides. Existing site drainage is via a series of underground storm drain lines; the direction of flow onsite is generally from southeast to northwest. Drainage released from the project site is conveyed through a reinforced concrete pipe along MacArthur Boulevard that eventually discharges into San Diego Creek; San Diego Creek flows into Upper Newport Bay, which is contiguous with the Pacific Ocean. Refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information regarding hydrological conditions and an analysis of project impacts on hydrology and water quality. Noise Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A- weighted decibel" (dBA). A- weighting is afrequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels to the frequency response of the human ear. The noise rating scale used in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents atime - weighted, 24 -hour average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. Noise levels in the project area are influenced primarily by motor vehicle traffic on Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, which is a steady source of ambient noise. Noise from the existing mechanical equipment (ground level and rooftop) of the TowerJazz building also adds to the noise levels in the project area. Takeoffs and landings at John Wayne Airport contribute to the intermittent aircraft noise in the project area. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -9 4. Environmental Setting Refer to Section 5.10, Noise, for additional information concerning the noise environment and an analysis of project - related noise impacts. Public Services and Utilities The project site is located in a highly urbanized area of the City with existing public services and utilities available to the site. Local utilities and service systems that serve the existing industrial uses are available to serve the proposed project. Fire protection services are provided by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department via eight fire stations. Station No. 7 at 20401 Acacia Street is the closest station to the project site, approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the site. Law enforcement services are provided by the City of Newport Beach Police Department located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. The project site is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District. Schools within this district that may serve the proposed project are James Monroe Elementary, McFadden Intermediate, and Century High School. Library services are provided by the Newport Beach Public Library. Domestic and reclaimed water service for the project site is provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District. Wastewater service to the project site is provided by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Operations Department and treated by the Orange County Sanitation District. The City of Newport Beach is under contract with Waste Management of Orange County for solid waste hauling and disposal. Electricity and natural gas services are provided by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. Refer to Sections 5.12, Public Services, and 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, for additional information regarding public services and utilities and service systems, respectively, and an analysis of project impacts on services and utilities. Transportation and Traffic The existing local roadway network in the project area includes Jamboree Road, Fairchild Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Birch Street. Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard are designated Major Arterials (six - lane divided roadway) in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Access to the project site is provided via two access drives off of Jamboree Road and a private access drive off of Birch Street. The regional transportation system in the vicinity of the project site includes SR -73 to the south and 1 -405 to the north. The project site is located adjacent to and in close proximity of existing Orange County Transit Authority bus routes provided along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Additionally, the John Wayne Airport is located approximately 0.6 mile northwest of the project site. Refer to Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, for additional information concerning existing transportation facilities and traffic conditions and an analysis of project - related impacts. Local Planning Considerations Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on September 28, 2010, is intended to implement Newport Beach General Plan land use policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area). This policy requires a single conceptual Page 4 -10 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting development plan for any residential development in that portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street before residential can be developed in this area (see Figure 3 -3 for ICDP and Airport Area boundaries). The ICDP is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the City's General Plan and it provides a framework for residential development on both the Koll and Uptown Newport (formerly Conexant) properties. The regulatory plans are required to describe more fully the proposed residential density, design of buildings, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open spaces, and how infrastructure required to support the proposed development will be provided. The project site is part of the ICDP and therefore requires the preparation and adoption of a regulatory plan. The proposed project's consistency with the ICDP is discussed in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. University of California, Irvine, 2007 Long Range Development Plan The University of California, Irvine (UCI), 2007 Long Range Development Plan (2007 LRDP) is a comprehensive policy and land use plan that guides the growth of the campus. It identifies the physical development needed to achieve the academic needs and goals of the campus while demonstrating responsible conservation of limited resources. The 2007 LRDP provides a framework of policies and guidelines to shape land use and physical development at UCI through a horizon year of 2025 -26. The plan is designed to support key academic and student life goals, identifies development objectives, delineates campus land uses, and estimates the new building space needed to support projected program expansion through the planning horizon year (UCI 2007). The 2007 LRDP is neither an enrollment plan nor an implementation plan; rather, it provides a framework of policies and guidelines to influence future decisions on land use, enrollment, housing, parking, academic facilities, and urban and landscape design. 8B Jamboree Road forms the eastern boundary of the project site, and beyond Jamboree Road is undeveloped open space within the North Campus planning area of UCI, which is covered under the 2007 LRDP and is currently occupied by a few academic and support facilities, an arboretum, and a child development center. Per Figure 5 -2 of the LRDP, Land Use Plan for 2007 LRDP, (reproduced as Figure 5.1 -1, UCI Land Use Plan for 2007 Long Range Development Plan, in this DEIR) the North Campus area is designated Mixed Use - Commercial. The approved development program for North Campus under the 2007 LRDP includes 950,000 square feet of office and /or research and development space and 435 multifamily dwelling units. The proposed project's consistency with the LRDP is discussed in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. General Plan and Zoning The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -1­12), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 designation applies to properties in the Airport Area, which includes the project site. The existing zoning designation of the project site is Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15). Permitted uses in the PC -15 zoning designation include commercial and light industrial and support office and commercial - related uses. 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -11 4. Environmental Setting likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be "...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 [b] [1 1) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area -wide conditions. The cumulative impact analyses contained in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this DER uses a combination of both Method A and Method B. The approach is discussed in each respective topical section. Following is a discussion of related projects as used to analyze cumulative impacts under Method A. The City of Newport Beach compiled a list of approved and reasonably foreseeable projects in the project study area. Table 4 -1 provides a list of approved projects included for analysis pursuant to the City's traffic phasing ordinance (TPO). The locations of these projects are shown in Figure 4 -3, Approved Traffic Phasing Ordinance Projects. As noted in Table 4 -1, some of these projects have already been built. They have been included in this table for purposes of the traffic analysis. Available City traffic counts for some intersections were conducted in 2004 and 2005, prior to completion of these projects. Trip generation for these projects, therefore, was added to baseline traffic information. Other reasonably foreseeable, cumulative projects identified by the City are listed in Table 4 -2, and mapped on Figure 4 -4, Cumulative Projects Location Map. Page 4 -12 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting Table 4 -1 Approved Projects per New ort Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance Source: City of Newport Beach, Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Includes approved projects less than 100 percent complete). Notes: DUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -13 City Project Project Name and Location Number Land Use(s)lStatus Fashion Island Expansion 148 Approximately 192,846 SF of remaining entitlement; 40 percent Fashion Island Area complete Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 154 Temple building; 65 percent complete 1011 Camelback Street CIOSA -Irvine Project West of Jamboree Road, North of 555 Entitlements constructed with exception of Hyatt Regency Pacific Coast Highway expansion; 91 percent complete Newport Dunes West of Jamboree Road, North of 910 275 rooms remaining; not yet built Pacific Coast Highway Hoag Hospital Phase III 945 130,000 SF of outpatient facilities for Hoag lower campus; not 1 Hoag Drive yet built St. Mark Presbyterian 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road 949 28,667 SF church plus 5,206 SF preschool; 77 percent complete OLOA Church Expansion 954 55,530 SF church plus 600 - student elementary school; under 2046 Mar Vista Drive construction 2300 Newport Boulevard 955 27 condominiums plus 36,000 SF retail /office space; not yet built Newport Executive Court 20372 Birch Street 957 Four- story,65,205 SF mixed -office building; not yet built Hoag Health Center 510 Superior Avenue 958 350,000 SF medical office; 75 percent complete North Newport Center Planned Community 959 430 DUs, 205,161 SF office, and 75,000 SF retail; not yet built Fashion Island Area Santa Barbara Condominiums Santa Barbara Drive, west of Fashion 960 79 condominiums; not yet built Island Newport Beach City Hall 961 98,000 SF City Hall, 17,000 SF library expansion, 14.3 acre park, 1100 Avocado Avenue and 0.5 acre dog park; under construction Newport Medical Office 962 Demolition of three existing buildings and construction of a 25,725 328, 332, & 340 Old Newport Boulevard SF medical office building; not yet built Coastline Community College 505 -1533 Monrovia Avenue 963 Three -story, 66,610 SF learning center; under construction Bayview Medical Office 964 Conversion of 38,759 SF of office /retail to medical office; not 3501 Jamboree Road yet built Mariners's Paint Commercial /retail complex that includes a two -story building 200 -300 W. Coast Highway 965 totaling 23,015 SF and a three -story onsite parking garage; under construction 4221 Dolphin Striker Way 963 Demolition of existing 7,996 SF restaurant and construction of 12,351 SF commercial retail; not yet build Source: City of Newport Beach, Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Includes approved projects less than 100 percent complete). Notes: DUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -13 4. Environmental Setting Table 4 -2 Cumulative Projects Page 4 -14 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 Project Name No. Project Location Proposed Land Use(s) City of Newport Beach • 5 Residential DUs • 27 Hotel Rooms Newport Beach County Club 2,048 SF Concierge and Guest Center 1 1600 & 1602 E. Coast Highway' 3,725 SF Tennis Club 7,490 SF SPA • 54,819 SF Golf Club 7 Tennis Courts and a Swimming Pool 2 Mariner's Medical Arts 12,245 SF Medical Office Addition 1901 W. Westcliff Drive • 1,375 Residential DUs 3 Banning Ranch 75,000 SF Commercial Retail 4520 W. Coast Highway 75 -Room Hotel Accommodations • 28 Acres of Parks and Open Space 4 Sunset Ridge Park 13.67 Acre Active Park 4850 W. Coast Highway 2 Fields Soccer Complex • 10.45 Acre Public Marina, Beach, and Park 26,990 SF Balboa Center Complex 6 Marina Park 23 Slips Visiting Vessel Marina 1700 Balboa Boulevard 1,328 SF Marina Services Building • 5,500 SF Girl Scout House • 153 Parking Spaces 6 Koll Center 260 Residential DUs 4343 Von Karman Avenue 3,400 SF Commercial 7 AERIE 6 -Unit Condominium with 201 Carnation Avenue' Subterranean Parking Newport Coast Planned Community 3,180 Single- family DUs 8 Newport Coast Drive 1,298 Condominiums/Townhomes • 582 Multifamily DUs City of Irvine 9 Element Hotel 122 Room Extended Stay Hotel 17662 Armstrong Avenue 10 Diamond Jamboree 25,362 SF Office Southwest corner of Millikan Avenue /Alton Parkway Irvine Crossing 178,500 SF Office 11 17386 Gillette Avenue and 17871 Von Karman Avenue Central Park 1,380 DUs 12 Northwest corner of Jamboree Road /Michelson Drive 90,000 SF Office • 19,700 SF Retail 13 Metlife 481 DUs 2567 Main Street 14 Essex 132 DUs 2552 Kelvin Avenue 15 The Lofts 116 DUs 2300 Dupont Drive 16 Avalon 1 280 DUs 2701 Alton Parkway Page 4 -14 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting Table 4 -2 Cumulative Projects Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine. Notes: DUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet ' Project does not have a net increase in traffic. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -15 Project Name No. Project Location Proposed Land Use(s) 17 2801 Alton Parkway 178 DUs 18 Plaza III and IV 105 DUs 3000 Scholarship 19 Carlyle 156 DUs 2201 Martin Court 20 Granite Court 71 DUs 17421 Murphy Avenue 21 2801 Kelvin Avenue 248 DUs 22 17352 Von Karman Avenue 32,066 SF Office • 67,698 SF Warehouse 23 Metropolis 457 DUs 2500 Main Street and Cartwright Road 24 Aloft Extended Stay Hotel 170 Rooms 2320 Main Street 25 HINES 785,000 SF Office 18582 Teller Avenue and 2722 Michelson Drive 15,500 SF Retail • 3,697,770 SF Office 26 Park Place 350,000 SF Retail Northwest corner of Jamboree Road /Michelson Drive 2,008 DUs • 308 Hotel Rooms 27 2851 Alton Parkway 171 DUs 28 Martin Street Residential 82 DUs 18301 Von Karmen Avenue and 2301 Martin Court Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine. Notes: DUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet ' Project does not have a net increase in traffic. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -15 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 -16 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting Approved Traffic Phasing Ordinance Projects j © John Wayne Airport UQ' la �m m Costa Mesa sss sss Victoria St �� 964 00 upper - �Q Newport �¢, bay University of California Irvine 154 P � ; / Irvine sss SSS 965 sio sso 148 949 0 z ` sss i 3Im ° 96 Newport Beach Pacific Ocean Q i Joe ias Fashion Island Expansion 958 Hoag Health Center Fashion Island Area 510 Superior Avenue tsa Temple Bat Yahm Expansion sss North Newport Center Planned Community Q 1011 Camelback Street Fashion Island Area CIOSA - Irvine Project sso Santa Barbara Condominiums 555 West of Jamboree Road, North of PCH Santa Barbara Drive, west of Fashion Island sst Newport Beach City Hall Newport Dunes sio 1100 Avocado Avenue West of Jamboree Road, North of PCH Newport Medical Office say Hoag Hospital Phase III ssz 328, 332, & 340 Old Newport Boulevard 1 Hoag Drive Coastline Community College 963 sas St. Mark Presbyterian 505 -1533 Monrovia Avenue 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road 964 Bayview Medical Office OLOA Church Expansion 3501 Jamboree Road ss4 2046 Mar Vista Drive 965 Mariners's Point 200 -300 W. Coast Highway 955 2300 Newport Blvd sss 4221 Dolphin Striker Way Newport Executive Court ° 2 957 20372 Birch Street Scale (Miles) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 4 -3 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 -18 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 4. Environmental Setting Cumulative Projects Location Map Newport V Beach _ I Newport Beach Country Club. 12 Central Park , NW Corner of Jamboree Road/ 1600 E Coast Highway Michelson Drive Mariner's Medical Arts 1901 W. Westcliff Drive Metlife Banning Ranch 13 2567 Main Street �./ 4520 W. Coast Highway Essex Q14 Sunset Ridge Park 2552 Kelvin Avenue �:J 4850 W. Coast Highway Marina Park The Lofts 15 1700 Balboa Boulevard 2300 Dupont Drive ©Kell Center 16 Avalon I 4343 Von Karmen Avenue 2701 Alton Parkway QAERIE 17 2801 Alton Parkway �.•} 201 Carnation Avenue Plaza III & IV ONewport Coast Planned Community 18 3000 Scholarship Newport Coast Drive OElement Hotel 19 Carlyle 17662 Armstrong 2201 Martin Court 10 Diamond Jamboree Granite Court 2U Southwest Corner of Millikan /Alton 17421 Murphy Avenue 11 Irving Crossing 17836 Gillette and 17871 Von Karmen 21 2801 Kelvin Avenue Irvine 8 22 17352 Von Karmen 4 Metropolis 2500 Main and 17872 Cartwright 4 24 Aloft Extended Stay Hotel 2320 Main Street Q2g HINES 18582 Teller and 2722 Michelson Park Place 26 NE Corner of Jamboree Road/ Michelson Drive 27 2851 Alton ^ Martin Street Residential 28 18831 Von Karmen 4 and 2301 Martin 0 2 Scale (Milos) Uptown Newport Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 4-4 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 -20 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis 5.1 AESTHETICS This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) describes the existing landform and aesthetic character of the project site and surrounding area and describes views of the project site from surrounding vantage points. The potential aesthetic and visual impacts resulting from implementation of the Uptown Newport project are addressed in this section. The information presented in this section is based on field reconnaissance, review of the project site and aerial photographs, and shade /shadow simulations prepared for the proposed project. 5.1.1 Environmental Setting Methodology Approach Aesthetic /Visual Character Analysis The assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature. Aesthetics generally refer to the identification of visual resources and the quality of what can be seen, as well as an overall visual perception of the environment. This analysis attempts to identify and objectively examine factors that contribute to the perception of aesthetic impacts. Potential aesthetic impacts can be evaluated by considering proposed 88 grade separations, landform alteration, building setbacks, scale, massing, typical construction materials, and landscaping features associated with the design of the proposed project. It should be noted, however, that there are no locally designated or defined standards or methodologies for the assessment of aesthetic impacts. The aesthetic compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding area and potential impacts to visual resources and viewers in the project area are examined in this section. In the project area, viewers of the project site consist of commercial /office uses to the north, south, and west of the project site (see Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph). Intermittent views by passing motorists along Jamboree Road are also considered. Potential land use effects of the proposed project on surrounding land uses are considered in the discussion of land use compatibility in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. Light and Glare Analysis Nighttime illumination and glare analysis addresses the effects of a project's exterior lighting upon adjoining uses and areas. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with the proposed lighting plan or policies. If the project has the potential to generate spill light on adjacent sensitive receptors or generate glare to receptors in the vicinity of the site, mitigation measures can be provided to reduce potential impacts, as necessary. Shade /Shadow Analysis The issue of shade and shadow pertains to whether onsite buildings or structures block direct sunlight from adjacent properties. Shading is an important environmental issue because the users or occupants of certain land uses have expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun for function, physical comfort, or conduct of commerce. Factors that influence the extent or range of shading include: season; time of day; weather (i.e., sunny vs. cloudy day); building height, bulk, and scale; topography; spacing between buildings; sensitivity of adjacent land uses; and tree cover. The longest shadows are cast during the winter Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach a Page 5.1 -1 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS months, when the sun is lowest on the horizon, and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months. Shadows are longer in the early morning and late afternoon. Consequences of shadows upon land uses may be positive, including cooling effects during warm weather, or negative, such as the loss of natural light necessary for solar energy purposes or the loss of warming influences during cool weather. The relative effects of shading from structures are site specific. Visual Setting Character and Land Use Existing project site uses and conditions are depicted in Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 4 -1, Site Photographs. As shown in Figure 3 -3, the project site is currently developed with two industrial buildings (Half Dome and TowerJazz buildings). The western boundary consists of a large outdoor mechanical equipment area. The balance of the project site is developed with landscaped areas, surface parking lots, a variety of fencing and walls, and other hardscape improvements; the parking lots are in the eastern and northern part of the site. An existing Southern California Edison substation is also located at the southern end of the project site. Surrounding land uses are depicted in Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 4 -2, Photographs of Surrounding Uses Photographs. As shown in these figures, the project site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by commercial /office uses within the Koll Center Newport office park. To the north are clusters of office buildings ranging from 1 to 15 stories in height, and three restaurants. To the west are office buildings ranging from 1 to 4 stories high, landscaped areas, and two man -made lakes. To the south are two 20 -story office buildings, surface parking, and a fast -food restaurant. Jamboree Road forms the eastern boundary of the project site, and beyond Jamboree Road is undeveloped open space within the North Campus planning area of the University of California, Irvine (UCI). As shown in Figure 3 -3, the UCI Child Care Development Center and the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve (approximately 150 feet east of Jamboree Road) are also located east of the project site across Jamboree Road. Further northeast of the project site at the Jamboree Road /Campus Drive intersection are the 3000 The Plaza residential towers. Further to the southwest (approximately 0.8 mile) is the Upper Newport Bay. Landform and Topography Overall site topography can be characterized as relatively flat. Elevations onsite range from 41 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the northern boundary to 54 feet amsl along the southern boundary (Google Earth 2012). Light and Glare As described above, the project site is developed with two industrial buildings parking lots, an electrical substation, and other site improvements. Sources of light or glare exist within the confines of the project site, including building (exterior and interior), security, and parking -area lighting. Other sources of light and glare in the project area include street lights along Jamboree Road, Macarthur Boulevard, and Birch Street and from commercial /office uses to the north, south, and west of the project site. Another source of nighttime light in the project area is vehicular traffic along surrounding roadways. Shade /Shadow Shadows cast by the existing buildings and structures predominantly fall within the project site, with some shading occurring on the adjacent office parking areas to the west at certain times of the day. Page 5.1 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Regulatory Setting Local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code The following provisions from the City's Municipal Code help minimize light and glare impacts associated with new development projects and are relevant to the proposed project. Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), Chapter 20.60 (Property Development Standards), Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting). A. General Outdoor Lighting Standards. 1. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. Parking lot light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings shall be full cut -off fixtures. B. Light Standards within Parking Lots. Light standards within parking lots shall be the minimum height required to effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light and glare onto adjoining properties and roadways. To accomplish this, a greater number of shorter light standards may be required as opposed to a lesser number of taller standards. C. Outdoor Lighting Standards for Buildings, Statues, Other Manmade Objects, and 88 Landscapes. Spotlighting or floodlighting used to illuminate buildings, statues, signs, or any other objects mounted on a pole, pedestal, or platform or used to accentuate landscaping shall consist of full cut -off or directionally shielded lighting fixtures that are aimed and controlled so that the directed light shall be substantially confined to the object intended to be illuminated to minimize glare, sky glow, and light trespass. The beam width shall not be wider than that needed to light the feature with minimum spillover. The lighting shall not shine directly into the window of a residence or directly into a roadway. Light fixtures attached to a building shall be directed downward. Airport Business Area Integrated Concept Development Plan The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council in September of 2010, is intended to implement Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area). This policy requires a single conceptual development plan for any residential development in that portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street before any residential development in this area (see Figure 3 -5, Integrated Concept Development Plan, for ICDP boundary), which includes the project site. The regulatory plans called for in the ICDP are required to describe more fully the proposed design of buildings, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open spaces, and how infrastructure required to support the proposed development will be provided. The regulatory plans are also required to adhere to the following guiding principles: • Establish a pattern of pedestrian - scaled streets and paseos that break up the large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and with community amenities. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -3 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS • Create a neighborhood park as the principal focal point of the village, with additional pocket parks that provide community identity and amenity. • Provide for building massing that creates a strong spatial definition along streets, and steps down to promote a pedestrian - scaled character. • Integrate residential with ground -level uses that promote active and engaging street fronts. • Establish a diversity of housing types, including row house and podium mid- and high -rise apartments. 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AE -1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. AE -2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. AE -3 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. AE -4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: AE -2. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts The proposed project would include the development of a new master - planned community that would introduce residential and neighborhood - serving retail uses and park space adjacent to an existing office business park known as the Koll Center Newport. More specifically, the proposed project would consist of mixed uses with up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving retail space, and 2.05 acres of park space (see Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan). Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet in height, with residential towers up to 150 feet high. Residential product types would include a mix of townhomes, mid- and high -rise condominiums, and affordable housing. The proposed project would be developed in two phases, as summarized in Table 3 -2, Uptown Newport Land Use Summary. Phase 1 would involve demolition of the Half Dome building and other site improvements (e.g., parking area, drive aisles) to accommodate the initial residential units and commercial development of Uptown Newport. The TowerJazz would continue operating during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. The parking lot located on the north end of the site would also remain under this phase, as it would serve the parking needs of the TowerJazz building. Additionally, the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) substation located atthe southern end of the project site would continue to operate during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. Phase 2 would include demolition of the TowerJazz facility, the SCE substation, and other site improvements (e.g., parking area, drive aisles) to accommodate the remainder of residential units. Development of Phase 1 is projected to start in 2013 and be completed in 2018 and Phase 2 is anticipated to begin in 2017 and be completed in 2021. Page 5.1 -¢ • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS A detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Chapter 3, Project Description. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.1 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVER SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON SCENIC VISTAS. [THRESHOLD AE -1] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area and are generally located at a point where surrounding views are greater than one mile away. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage points over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of panoramic views might include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, a large open space area, the ocean, or otherwater bodies. Policies NR20.1 and NR20.3 in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan identify public view corridors and points to protect significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. As shown in Figure NR3, Coastal Views, of the City's General Plan, the portion of Jamboree Road on which the project site is located is not a designated coastal view road and not considered a public viewpoint. The closest coastal -view designated portion of Jamboree Road to the project site is south of SR -73, approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project site. Due to the distance and highly urbanized nature of the 88 project area, public coastal views along this view corridor would not be impacted by the proposed project. The only scenic vista afforded to the project site and the office uses adjacent to and west of the site is undeveloped open space beyond Jamboree Road within the North Campus planning area of UCI (see Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph). However, only partially obscured views of this undeveloped open space are afforded from limited areas of the existing office uses west of the project site because of the buffer created by the existing dense and mature landscaping and the Half Dome and TowerJazz buildings. New structures and buildings associated with the proposed project would not substantially affect existing limited /intermittent views of the undeveloped open space. Additionally, the North Campus planning area is covered under UCI's 2007 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). Per Figure 5 -2, Land Use Plan for 2007 LRDP, which is reproduced as Figure 5.1 -1 in this section, the North Campus area is designated as Mixed Use - Commercial. The approved development program for North Campus under the 2007 LRDP includes 950,000 square feet of office and /or research and development space and 435 multi - family dwelling units. The undeveloped open space is slated forfuture development and will not always remain as open space. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a valued panoramic view and no scenic vista impacts would occur. Phase 2 The analysis for Phase 1 also applies to Phase 2 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -5 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS IMPACT 5.1 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT SITE. [THRESHOLD AE -31 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Given the existing industrial, office, and commercial nature of the project site and its surroundings, the transition to residential land uses would change the general character of the project area. Phase 1 would introduce new structures into an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. Although the proposed residential building heights (up to 150 feet within the designated towerzones shown in Figure 5.1 -2, Building Height Limit Plan), massing, and site coverage under Phase 1 would overall be slightly greater than the existing industrial buildings onsite, the proposed project's variable building scale would be comparable to existing office building skylines to the north, south, and west. To the north are clusters of office buildings ranging from 1 to 15 stories in height, to the west are office buildings ranging from 1 to 4 stories high, and to the south are two 20 -story office buildings. Also the massing and heights of the proposed residential buildings would not create a significant visual barrier or separation within the office park. As shown in Figures 3 -13, Illustrative Site Plan and Vision, 5.1 -3, General Project Character: Architecture and Lighting, and 5.1 -4, General Project Character: Circulation and Landscaping, the proposed project would be characterized by defined architectural, site, landscape, lighting and streetscape design, which would be driven bythe project's Design Guidelines and its regulatory plan, the Planned Community (PC) Development Plan. The standards and guidelines outlined in the Design Guidelines, PC Development Plan, and Phasing Plan would ensure the orderly development of the proposed project and that the project is developed in a manner that is not visually detrimental to the surrounding commercial and office uses. The standards and guidelines would comprise the basic framework that the City of Newport Beach would use to evaluate individual development projects within the project site. In particular, the design standards and guidelines would establish the framework for high - quality development features throughoutthe project site through site design (e.g., building orientation, pedestrian spaces, circulation and parking, walls and fences, screening and placement of service and utility areas), architecture (e.g., mass, scale and form, style, material and color), and streetscape elements (e.g., lighting, street furnishings, paving materials). The project's PC Development Plan and Phasing Plan also outline a framework for the orderly development of site improvements and infrastructure such as new pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks, paseos), driveways, and roadways. Following is a discussion of some of the key elements of the proposed project. Implementation of the standards and guidelines outlined in the Design Guidelines and PC Development Plan would ensure the orderly design and development of the project's buildings, landscaping, circulation, and other site improvements. Architectural Character As shown in Figure 5.1 -3 and outlined in the Design Guidelines, building masses, elevations, and rooflines would be modulated to promote visual interest; complement the existing architecture of the surrounding area; break up long continuous masses; and provide visual interest to the overall project. Following are a few of the provisions from the Design Guidelines that would be incorporated into the proposed project: Page 5.1 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis UCI Land Use Plan for 2007 Long Range Developlment Plan — — — — Project Site Boundary o z000 Source: UCI 2007 Long Range Developement Plan Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.1 -1 �� S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Building Height Limit Plan ••,r•'• i VIII II ilalll It IUP y "Tower Zone" 55' Height Limit 75'HeightLimit 150' Height Limit 1 ^; TOWER ZONE 2 II� �I r. Project Site Boundary Phasing Boundary Source: MVE & Partners Inc ase 2 I� I u a 0 200 Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.1 -2 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 r A // / /N / IMP / / ■�I rassall Note: For conceptual purposes only. Source: Design Guidelines, MVE & Partners 2011 Uptown Newport Draft EIR Architecture 5. Environmental Analysis General Project Character: Architecture and Lighting Lighting IP 1 ♦ vc'ln The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.1 -3 �� S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Circulation Note: For conceptual purposes only. Source: Design Guidelines, MVE & Partners 2011 5. Environmental Analysis General Project Character: Circulation and Landscaping Landscaping Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.1 -4 Mn Cot) S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS • Roofs. Roof forms should be integrated into the overall massing composition of each major building component and be complete or appear complete. • Massing Principles. All four sides of each building should be designed with elevations that are well integrated with the overall architectural style. • Windows. Window fenestration between floors should be aligned whenever possible and windows should generally be recessed to add shadow and depth. • Color. The palette of building colors should generally be warm and rich in tone and be appropriate to the style of the building. • Wall Materials. Colors, materials, and finishes should be coordinated on all exterior elevations to achieve continuity of design. Additionally, the proposed project's PC Development Plan would ensure that buildings and structures proposed within the project site would be developed to be sensitive to and compatible with existing and future surrounding land uses. For example, as outlined in the PC Development Plan, tower portions of high - rise buildings are required to be at least partially surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures (up to 75 feet) fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale. Among other components, the proposed project's PC Development Plan includes development standards for building setbacks and heights, landscaping, lighting, and residential compatibility. Lighting 88 As shown in Figure 5.1 -3, light fixtures and standards would be installed to promote visual interest and a unified theme. Lighting fixtures throughout the project site would be designed and installed in accordance with the provision outlined in the project's Design Guidelines. For example, as outlined in the Design Guidelines, a unified lighting theme in common areas and street fixtures is encouraged; a hierarchy of lighting fixture heights and sizes should be implemented within the community; the overall unified lighting style could range from modern to classical; and the lighting is encouraged to match the architecture style of the buildings. Additionally, the PC Development Plan provides lighting standards for outdoor areas, parking structures, buildings, and ancillary structures. Landscaping The landscape guidelines outlined in the Design Guidelines call for planting dense evergreen trees and screen walls along the project site boundaries in orderto buffer the proposed residential development from the surrounding office park uses (see Figures 3 -13, Illustrative Site Plan and Vision, and 5.1-4, General Project Character: Landscaping and Circulation). The standards outlined in the Phasing Plan also call for temporary transitional landscape along the entry drive adjacent to the existing electrical substation to be planted with dense evergreen trees and a screen wall in order to block views from the entry drive experience; temporary transitional landscape in between the spine street and the TowerJazz building to be planted with dense trees and a screen wall or fence in order to block views from the street experience; and temporary transitional landscape to be planted within the paseo adjacent to the TowerJazz building. The landscape guidelines and standards would not only ensure the provision of high - quality landscape design, but would also ensure that adequate community buffers and edges would be provided; help soften the features and massing of the proposed project's buildings throughout the project site and along the various site boundaries; help minimize the visibility of the buildings; and help buffer site improvements such as surface parking and utility and service areas (see Figures 3 -13 and 5.1 -4). Additionally, the PC Development Plan requires submittal of Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -15 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS landscape and irrigation plans to be prepared by qualified professionals and be subject to the review and approval of the City. These plans must be consistent with the project's Design Guidelines and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (Chapter 14.17 of the City's Municipal Code). The TowerJazz building would continue to operate during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. The industrial building would be adequately screened from the proposed project's residences. Specifically, the proposed project's comprehensive landscape plan outlined in the Phasing Plan and the landscape guidelines outlined in the Design Guidelines call for the planting of dense evergreen trees and screen walls along the project site boundaries in order to buffer the proposed residential development from the surrounding uses, including the continued operation of the TowerJazz building underthis phase. The dense landscaping and screen walls would help minimize the visual impacts of the building. Circulation As shown in Figure 5.1 -4, pedestrian and circulation improvements would be designed and installed in a manner that would complement and enhance the architectural and landscape character of the project site and its surroundings. All circulation improvements would be implemented in accordance with the provision outlined in the project's PC Development Plan and Design Guidelines. Following are a few of the provisions from the Design Guidelines that would be incorporated into the proposed project: • Street Hierarchy. The proposed development should create attractive streetscapes that promote both safe and convenient driving practices as well as encourage street level pedestrian activity. • Streetscapes. Streetscapes within the proposed development should be scaled according to their function within the circulation hierarchy and promote both safe and convenient driving practices as well as encourage street level pedestrian activity. • Neighborhood Street. Neighborhood streets should be lined with formal deciduous street trees. • Paseos. Paseos could be lined with vertical palms or canopy trees and the beginning and end of paseos should be enhanced with accent trees or palms. Phase 2 Under Phase 2, the TowerJazz building, northern parking area and other remaining site improvements would be demolished to develop the remaining residential units and other site improvements of the proposed project. Redevelopment of this portion of the project site would result in the construction of additional residential buildings, neighborhood streets, parks and common areas, paseos, and sidewalks. As with Phase 1, the transition to residential land uses under Phase 2 would change the general character of the project area. Although the proposed residential building heights, massing and coverage under Phase 2 would overall be slightly greater than the existing TowerJazz building, the proposed project's variable building scale would be comparable in size to existing office building skylines to the north, south, and west and to the residential buildings associated with Phase 1 of the proposed project. The massing and heights of the proposed residential buildings under Phase 2 would also not create a significant visual barrier or separation within the office park. As shown in Figures 3 -3, Illustrative Site Plan and Vision, 5 -3, General Project Character — Architectural Character and Lighting, and 5 -2, General Project Character — Landscaping and Circulation, Phase 2 of the proposed project would also be characterized by high - quality architectural, site, landscape, lighting and streetscape design, which would be driven by the project's Design Guidelines and Phasing Plan and its regulatory plan, the PC Development Plan. Page 5.1 -16 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Conclusion As demonstrated above, although the proposed project would alter the visual appearance and character of the project site and its surroundings under both phases, adherence to the development standards and design guidelines outlined in the proposed project's PC Development Plan, Design Guidelines and Phasing Plan would ensure that the proposed project would be developed as a high - quality master planned community and would not negatively degrade the visual character of the project site or surrounding area. Additionally, as outlined in Section 4.1.2 (Submittal Contents) of the proposed project's PC Development Plan, project development submittals for Site Development Review by the City are required to include plans that contain: • Existing conditions including adjacent structures and proposed improvements. • Schematic elevations of principal fagades (only those fagades facing public rights of way and not interior - oriented courtyards /spaces) that clearly demonstrate the architectural theme of all structures, including site walls and signs. • A schematic landscape plan. As outlined in Section 4.1.3 (Review and Action) of the PC Development Plan, Site Development Review submittals are required to be reviewed by the Community Development Director and the following findings are required to be made: The proposed use and /or development is consistent with the City's General Plan. The proposed use and /or development is consistent with the Uptown Newport PC Development Plan and Design Guidelines. 8B IMPACT 5.1 -3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD CAUSE SHADE /SHADOW IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING USES. (THRESHOLD AE -31 Impact Analysis: With the exception of the man -made lake west of the project site near Von Karmen Avenue, there are no other shade - sensitive uses (e.g., residential, recreational and park areas, plazas, schools, and nurseries) on or nearthe project site. The nearest shade - sensitive residential use are residences within 3000 The Plaza residential development located approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the project site at the northeast corner of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. However, office uses and their related common areas are located adjacent to and west of the project site. Although the majority of the proposed project (Phases 1 and 2) would include low and mid -rise residential buildings (30 feet to 75 feet in height), the high - rise residential buildings (up to 150 feet high or 13 stories) that would be developed under both project phases would block sunlight and cast shadows on the adjacent office uses and areas at certain times of the day during the winter and summer solstice and the fall equinox. Shadows cast by buildings and structures vary in length and direction throughout the day and from season to season. Shadow lengths increase during the "low sun" or winter season and are longest during the winter solstice. The winter solstice, therefore, represents the worst -case shadow condition and the potential for loss of access to sunlight that a project could cause is greatest. Shadow lengths are shortest during the summer solstice, while shadows cast during the spring and fall equinox fall midway between the summer and winter extremes. Figures 1 a through 1 c, Fall Equinox Shadows, in Appendix B illustrate the approximate shadows that the proposed project's buildings would cast during the month of September at 9 AM, 12 PM, and 3 PM. Figures 2a through 2c, Winter Solstice Shadows, illustrates the approximate shadows cast during the month of Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -17 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS December at 9 AM, 12 PM, and 3 PM. Figures 3a through 3c, Summer Solstice Shadows, illustrate the approximate shadows cast during the month of June at 9 AM, 12 PM, and 3 PM. The figures conceptually depict shadows cast based on the potential location of where high -rise residential towers could occur. The shadows cast during the spring equinox are similar to those of the fall equinox; therefore, separate exhibits demonstrating the shadows cast during the spring equinox were not provided. Figure 5.1 -2, Building Height Limit Plan, depicts the location of the potential tower zones. These zones are the designated areas where residential towers could be located. As outlined in Section 3.1 (Permitted Height of Structures) of the proposed project's PC Development Plan and as demonstrated in the shadow /shadow analysis figures (Figures 1 a through 3c in Appendix B), no more than two residential towers are permitted to be located in any of the designated tower zones. The City of Newport Beach does not have criteria for shade or shadow impacts. Other jurisdiction's guidelines, however, suggest that potentially significant impacts may occur if 50 percent of shadow- sensitive areas are in shade /shadow for at least 50 percent of daylight hours during a season. For example, as a sample industry standard, project impacts might be considered significant if a substantial amount of shadow - sensitive uses /areas would be shaded by project - related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October). Although the City of Newport Beach has not adopted shade /shadow thresholds, these guidelines have been applied to this project for evaluating project - related impacts. Phase 1 Fall Equinox, Winter Solstice, and Summer Solstice Note that the shadow analysis figures (Figures 1a through 3c in Appendix B) show the project buildout condition only and represent a worst case scenario. The TowerJazz building that would remain during the initial operational phase of Phase 1 is not shown in these figures. Potential Phase 1 impacts on the TowerJazz building are based on shadows cast by residential buildings that would be developed under this phase. Although shadows would be cast by mid- and high -rise buildings under the Phase 1 development at different times of the days during the various seasons, shadows would be projected predominantly within the project site, with minimal shadows being projected on surrounding office uses and their related common areas, parking areas, and drive aisles. Additionally, partial shadows would be cast on the TowerJazz building at certain times of the day. Applying the threshold described above as a guideline and as illustrated in the shadow /shade analysis figures, no onsite or surrounding land uses or areas would be shaded for more than four hours on any day during the fall equinox or summer solstice or for more than three hours on any day during the winter solstice. Therefore, shade /shadow impacts would not occur under Phase 1 during the fall equinox, winter solstice, or summer solstice months. Shadow Impacts on Solar Collectors With regard to natural sunlight for solar collectors (thermal or photovoltaic), based on a review of aerial imaging, none of the affected adjacent office buildings or the TowerJazz building currently have solar collectors on the roofs or along the building parapets that would be affected by shadows cast by the proposed project's buildings. Additionally, in a worst case scenario, any portion of the buildings affected where solar collectors could potentially be placed in the future by building owners would not be shaded for Page 5.1 -I8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS more than three hours during the summer solstice or fall equinox or for more than four hours during the winter solstice. Therefore, no impacts on solar collectors are anticipated. Conclusion As demonstrated above, no significant shade /shadow impacts are anticipated to occur during the fall equinox, winter solstice, or summer solstice under Phase 1. Phase 2 Fall Equinox Shadows As shown in Figures 1 athrough 1c, Fall Equinox Shadows, shadows cast by the proposed project's buildings under Phase 2 at 9:00 AM on the fal I equinox would primarily fall to the west within the project site, with afew of the residential buildings casting some shadows on buildings, common areas, and parking areas and drive aisles of the adjacent office uses. At noon, shadows would be cast to the north primarily within the project site, with a few of the residential buildings casting some shadows on parking areas and drive aisles of the adjacent office uses. At 4:00 PM, shadows would be cast to the northeast and east predominantly within the project site, with a few of the residential buildings casting some shadows on buildings, common areas, and parking areas and drive aisles of the adjacent office and commercial uses. Applying the threshold described above as a guideline and as illustrated in Figures 1 athrough 1 c, no surrounding land uses or areas would be shaded for more than four hours on any day. Therefore, shade /shadow impacts would not occur during the fall months. Winter Solstice Shadows 88 As shown in Figures 2a through 2c, Winter Solstice Shadows, shadows cast by the proposed project's buildings at 9:00 AM on the winter solstice would primarilyfall to the west within the project site, with afew of the residential buildings casting some shadows on buildings, common areas, and parking areas and drive aisles of the adjacent office uses. At noon, shadows would be cast to the north primarily within the project site, with afew of the residential buildings casting some shadows on one office building and common areas, parking areas and drive aisles of other adjacent office uses. At 4:00 PM, shadows would be cast to the northeast and east predominantly within the project site, with a few of the residential buildings casting some shadows on buildings, common areas, and parking areas and drive aisles of the adjacent office and commercial uses. Applying the threshold described above as a guideline and as illustrated in Figures 2a through 2c, a very small portion of the adjacent office building to the northeast would be shaded for more than three hours on any day. The amount and area of shading would be minimal and the area of shading consists mainly of the office building walls. Therefore, shade /shadow impacts would not occur during the winter solstice months. Summer Solstice Shadows As shown in Figures 3a through 3c, Summer Solstice Shadows, shadows cast by the proposed project's buildings at 9:00 AM on the summer solstice would primarily fall to the west within the project site, with afew of the residential buildings casting some shadows on parking areas and drive aisles of the adjacent office uses. At noon, minimal shadows would be cast to the north primarily within the project site. At 4:00 PM, shadows would be cast to the northeast and east predominantly within the project site, with a few of the residential buildings casting some shadows on parking areas and drive aisles of the adjacent office and commercial uses. Applying the threshold described above as a guideline and as illustrated in Figures 3a Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -19 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS through 3c, no surrounding land uses or areas would be shaded for more than four hours on any day. Therefore, shade /shadow impacts would not occur during the summer months. Shadow Impacts on Solar Collectors With regard to natural sunlight for solar collectors (thermal or photovoltaic), based on a review of aerial imaging, none of the affected office buildings currently have solar collectors on the roofs or along the building parapets thatwould be affected by shadows cast by the proposed project's buildings. Additionally, in a worst case scenario, any portion of the buildings affected where solar collectors could potentially be placed in the future by building owners would not be shaded for more than three hours during the summer solstice or fall equinox or for more than four hours at the winter solstice. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Conclusion As demonstrated above, no shade /shadow impacts are anticipated to occur at the fall equinox or summer or winter solstice under either phase of the proposed project. Additionally, as outlined in Section 3.1 (Permitted Height of Structures) of the proposed project's PC Development Plan, no more than two residential towers are permitted to be located in any of the designated tower zones (see Figure 5.1 -2, Building Height Limit Plan). Limiting the number of towers by zone would minimize the shadows cast on adjacent properties.. IMPACT 5.1 -4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE ADDITIONAL LIGHTAND GLARE IN THE PROJECT AREA THAT COULD IMPACT SURROUNDING LAND USES. [THRESHOLD AE -41 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Under Phase 1, redevelopment of this portion of the project site would result in additional lighting to provide better nighttime illumination forthe proposed residential buildings, parking areas, parks and common areas, paseos, and sidewalks. Nighttime illumination would also be used to enhance security and safety for pedestrians and vehicles. Other sources of light would include security lighting, nighttime traffic, and sign illumination. Lighting and glare from the project site would be visible from surrounding areas that are currently developed with commercial /office uses to the north, west, and south. These new sources of nighttime lighting have the potential to increase nighttime light and glare in the project area. The City of Newport Beach does not have a lighting ordinance specifying the maximum amount of light that may be generated by new projects. However, the City does have adopted standards that apply to the installation and illumination of light fixtures. All project- related exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination onsite, in accordance with Section 20.30.070.A (General Outdoor Lighting Standards) of the City's Municipal Code and Standard Lighting Condition 1 (outlined at the end of this section), thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and /or roadways. Lighting would be installed to accommodate safety and security while minimizing impacts on surrounding areas. Parking area lighting would be the minimum necessary that is consistent with the City's Municipal Code. Consistent with Standard Lighting Condition 3 (outlined at the end of this section), project applicants are also required to submit an electrical engineer's photometric study prior to the issuance of building permits to demonstrate that lighting requirements are met. Page 5.1 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Additionally, as outlined in Section 4.1.2 (Submittal Contents) of the proposed project's PC Development Plan, development submittals for Site Development Review by the City are required to include a schematic lighting plan (site and exteriors), which would include lighting fixture locations, heights, and product type. Public areas would also be required to be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 foot - candle on the driving or walking surface during hours of operation and one hour thereafter, as outlined in Section 3.5 (Lighting) of the PC Development Plan. Development of the proposed project would also be required to comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaires. Furthermore, the light sources proposed for the project would be generally similar to those of existing onsite and surrounding land uses. Because the project site and surrounding area are largely developed, the lighting associated with improvements and structures of the proposed project would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare within the project site or its surroundings. With adherence to the provisions of the City's Municipal Code and standard lighting conditions, the proposed project's PC Development Plan, and California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, nighttime lighting and glare impacts and potential spillover of the proposed project would not occur on surrounding land uses or roadways. With regards to nighttime light and glare sources that would continue to emanate from the TowerJazz building under Phase 1, the residential units under Phase 1 would be adequately screened from this building and its associated light sources. Specifically, the proposed project's comprehensive landscape plan outlined in the PC Development Plan and the landscape guidelines outlined in the Design Guidelines call for planting dense evergreen trees and screen walls along the project site boundaries in order to buffer the proposed 88 residential development from the surrounding uses, including the TowerJazz building. The dense landscaping and screen walls would help minimize the light and glare sources that would emanate from this building. Phase 2 Under Phase 2, the TowerJazz building, northern parking area and other remaining site improvements would be demolished to develop the remaining residential units and other site improvements of the proposed project. Redevelopment of this portion of the project site would result in additional lighting to provide better nighttime illumination for the proposed residential buildings, parking areas, parks and common areas, paseos, and sidewalks. As with Phase 1, all Phase 2 project - related lighting sources would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Municipal Code and standard lighting conditions, the proposed project's PC Development Plan, and California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. With adherence to these provisions, nighttime lighting and glare impacts and potential spillover of the proposed project would not occur on surrounding land uses or roadways. Additionally, the light sources proposed for this phase would be generally similar to those of existing onsite and surrounding land uses. Because the project site and surrounding area are largely developed, the lighting associated with improvements and structures of this phase of the proposed project would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare within the project site or its surroundings. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -21 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Aesthetic /Visual Character Because aesthetic impacts are localized to the project site and immediate surrounding area, cumulative impacts would include nearby projects (Koll project and UCI's North Campus). As shown in Figures 4.3, Approved Traffic Phasing Ordinance Projects, and 4.4, Cumulative Projects Location Map, cumulative projects in the immediate project vicinity includes the Koll project, immediately west of and adjacent to the project site. As with the proposed project, this cumulative project would alter the visual character within the Koll Center Newport office park. However, because of the highly developed nature of the project area, development of the proposed project in addition to the Koll project would not negatively impact the visual character of the project area. Additionally, this would not constitute a significant adverse impact as the project site and Koll site is anticipated to be developed in accordance with the anticipated developmentthat would occur in these areas in accordance with the City's General Plan and the ICDP. Furthermore, as with the proposed project, the Koll project applicant would be required to prepare site design and regulatory plans. The North Campus planning area of UCI (see Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 5.1 -1, UCI Land Use Plan for 2007 Long Range Development Plan) is covered under UCI's 2007 LRDP. The approved development program for North Campus under the 2007 LRDP includes 950,000 square feet of office and /or research and development space and 435 multi- family dwelling units. Therefore, the undeveloped open space that makes up the North Campus area is slated for future development and will not always remain as open space. Development of this area would be consistent with and guided by UCI's 2007 LRDP. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts would be rendered less than considerable, and therefore, less than cumulatively significant. Light and Glare Due to the highly developed nature of the project area and the existence of light and glare from the existing industrial use and the surrounding properties, the proposed project is not anticipated to add significantly to the creation of nighttime light and glare in the project vicinity. Lighting levels would not be substantially greater than existing lighting levels at the project site, and project - related light sources would be similar to those of the surrounding land uses. As shown in Figures 4.3, Approved Traffic Phasing Ordinance Projects, and 4.4, Cumulative Projects Location Map, the only cumulative project in the immediate vicinity of the project site is the Koll project. Lighting from the proposed project would combine with the potential increase in lighting associated with the future development of the Koll project. However, as with the proposed project, development of the Koll project would occur in a highly urbanized area of the City and substantial sources of light already exist in the project area. Additionally, the Koll project would be required to adhere to the same lighting standards and requirements as the proposed project. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to cumulative light and glare impacts would be rendered less than considerable, and therefore less than cumulatively significant. Shade /Shadow The relative effects of shading from structures are site specific. As concluded above, shade /shadow impacts of the proposed project would not be significant. As with the proposed project, the Koll center project would be required to undergo an analysis at the time the environmental review process is initiated. Furthermore, as with the proposed project, the Koll project applicant would be required to prepare site design and regulatory Page 5.1 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS plans to regulate development on the Koll site, which would include provisions for shade /shadow analysis and design standards. 5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Regulations California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), Chapter 20.60 (Property Development Standards), Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: 1. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero- cut -off fixtures and light standards shall be the minimum height required to effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light and glare to the adjacent property. 2. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. 4. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or of final building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 5. Public areas shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 -foot candle on the driving or walking surface during hours of operation and one hour thereafter. 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.1 -1, 5.1 -2, 5.1 -3, and 5.1 -4. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -23 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.1 -1 Phases 1 and 2 No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Compliance with the existing regulations and provisions outlined in the proposed project's PC Development Plan and Design Guidelines would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to aesthetics, shade /shadow, and lighting remain. Page 5.1 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.2 AIR QUALITY This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for the Uptown Newport project (proposed project) to impact air quality in a local and regional context. The analysis in this section is based on the proposed project's land uses and trip generation provided by Kimley -Horn and Associates (Appendix M to this DEIR). The air quality model output sheets are included in Appendix C of this DEIR. A Health Risk Assessment is included as Appendix D of this DEIR. 5.2.1 Environmental Setting South Coast Air Basin The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi - permanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD 2005). Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit ( °F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the project site is the Newport Beach Harbor Monitoring Station (ID No. 046175). The average low is reported at 46.9 °F in January while the average high is 73.4 °F in August (WRCC 2012). In contrastto a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages 11.05 inches per year in the project area (WRCC 2012). Humidity Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth's surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the "ocean effect" is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB (SCAQMD 2005). S'f�l Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high - pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -1 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward transport. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (SCAQMD 2005). Inversions In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollu- tant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These are the marine /subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area (SCAQMD 2005). Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), sulfur dioxide (SO,), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM,,), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM,.,), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO,, NO,, PM,,, and PM,,, are "criteria air pollutants," which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NO,) are air pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (03) and NO, are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface -based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion, engines and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic - congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels (CARIB 2011). Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by VOCs, but rather by reactions of VOCs to forms of secondary pollutants such as ozone (SCAQMD 2005). There are no ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of 03, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established a significance threshold forthis pollutant (SCAQMD 2005). Page 5.2 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUAUTY Nitrogen Oxides (NO,J are a byproduct of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of 03, PM,,, and PM,.,. The two major forms of NO, are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO,). The principal form of NO, produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO,, creating the mixture of NO and NO, commonly called NOx. NO, acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO, is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO, and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm). NO, absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish -red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and /or high pressure (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated as an attainment area for NO2 under the National AAQS and nonattainment under the California AAQS (CARE 2011). Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high - sulfur- content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO, (SCAQMD 2005). When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO,) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOJ. Thus, S02 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, S02 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO, may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. The SoCAB is designated as attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2011). Suspended Particulate Matter (PM,, and PM2.d consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM,,, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM,.,, have an aerodynamic diameter 88 of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on and landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading (i.e., fugitive dust). Both PM1, and PM2,5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems (SCAQMD 2005). The US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) scientific review concluded that PM..,, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM,, to contribute to health effects and at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM,, standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a carcinogen. The SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM,., and PM,, under California and National AAQS (CARB 2011).1 Ozone (03) is commonly referred to as "smog" and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NO„ both by- products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. O, is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O, concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for the formation of this pollutant. O, poses a health threatto those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Additionally, O, has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted 1 CARB approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM,, to attainment for PM,, under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24- hour PM,, standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -3 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY growth and premature death. O, can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated as extreme nonattainment under the California AAQS (1 -hour and 8 -hour) and National AAQS (8 -hour) (CARB 2011). Lead (Pb) concentrations decades ago exceeded the state and federal AAQS by a wide margin, but have not exceeded state or federal air quality standards at any regular monitoring station since 1982 (SCAQMD 2005). However, in 2008 the EPA and CARIB adopted more strict lead standards, and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources2 recorded very localized violations of the new state and federal standards. As a result of these localized violations, the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB was designated in 2010 as nonattainment under the California and National AAQS for lead (CARIB 2011). The project is not characteristic of industrial -type projects that have the potential to emit lead. Therefore, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the project. Toxic Air Contaminants The public's exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (PACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code §7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal /EPA), acting through CARIB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics "Hot Spot" Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARIB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARIB adopts an "airborne toxics control measure" for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARIB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold. Airtoxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California underthe Air Toxics "Hot Spot" Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARIB had designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARIB 1999). Additionally, CARIB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be 2 Source - oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead- related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 identified that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (SCAQMD 2010). Page 5.2 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel - fueled engines. In 1998, CARIB identified particulate emissions from diesel - fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 2000, SCAQMD conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the air toxics risk. In 2008, SCAQMD conducted its third update to its study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,200 in one million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 84 percent of the air toxics risk (SCAQMD 2008). In the vicinity of the project site, excess cancer risk is 711 in a million (SCAQMD 2012). Regulatory Framework AAQS have been promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels for criteria pollutants. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by SCAQMD, as well as the California AAQS adopted by CARIB and federal AAQS. Ambient Air Quality Standards ffl The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The CaliforniaAAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns. These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect "sensitive receptors" most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both California and the federal government have established health -based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 5.2 -1, these pollutants include 03, NO,, CO, SO,, PM,o, PM,.,, and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -5 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Page 5.2 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Averaging California Federal Primary Pollutant Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources Ozone (05) 1 hour 0.09 ppm Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm solvents. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily 8 hours 9.0 ppm g ppm gasoline - powered motor vehicles. Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum- refining Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) operations, industrial sources, aircraft, 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm ships, and railroads. Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppmz Sulfur Dioxide (SO) Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm' recovery plants, and metal processing. 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.014 ppmz Annual 20 pg /m3 Dust and fume - producing construction, Respirable Coarse Arithmetic Mean industrial, and agricultural operations, Particulate Matter combustion, atmospheric photochemical (PM,o) 24 hours 50 pg/m3 15Opg /ms reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind - raised dust and ocean sprays). Annual 12 3 p� m 15 /m3 pg Dust and fume - producing construction, Respirable Fine Arithmetic Mean industrial, and agricultural operations, Particulate Matter combustion, atmospheric photochemical (PM2.5) 24 hours * 35 jig/ml reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind - raised dust and ocean sprays). Monthly 1.5pg/m3 Present source: lead smelters, battery Quarterly 1.5 pg /m3 Lead (Ph) manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. 3 -Month Average * O.15pg/m3 Sulfates (SO,) 24 hours 25 pg /m3 * Industrial processes. Visibility- reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that Visibility- Reducing ExCo = 0.23 /km Federal No F consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores Particles 8 hours visibility of 10? Standard with liquid coatings, and small droplets of miles' liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, sail, dust, and salt. Page 5.2 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Major Pollutant Sources Hydrogen sulfide (112S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed No Federal during bacterial decomposition of sulfur - Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm Standard containing organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and Standard vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Source: GARB 2012 Notes: ppm: parts per million: Ng/m': micrograms per cubic meter ' When relative humidity is less than 70 percent. On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour S02 standard was established and the existing 24 -hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1971 S02 national standards (24 -hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. 8B * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. Air Quality Management Planning SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The most recent plan was adopted on June 1, 2007, and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM,,,standards through a more focused control of SO„ directly emitted PM,.,, and focused control of NO, and VOC by 2015. The eight -hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.1 strategy, augmented with additional NO, and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming an extended attainment date is obtained. The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Areas are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -7 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 5.2 -2. The SoCAB is also designated in attainment of the California AAQS for sulfates. According to the 2007 AQMP, the SoCAB will have to meet the new federal 8 -hour O, standard by 2024, PMz,sstandards by 2015, and the recently revised 24 -hour PM,., standard by 2020. SCAQMD has recently designated the SoCAB as nonattainment for NOz (entire basin) and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS. Transportation conformity for nonattainment and maintenance areas is required under the Federal CAA to ensure federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP. The U.S. EPA approved California's SIP revisions for attainment of the 1997 8- hour 03 National AAQS forthe SoCAB in March 2012. Findings for the new 8 -hour 03 emissions budgets for the SoCAB and consistency with the recently adopted 2012 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS) were submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval. Table 5.2 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone -1 -hour Extreme Nonattainment No Federal Standard Ozone -8 -hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe -17 Nonattainment' PM, Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment' PM, Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment N0, Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance SOz Attainment Attainment Lead Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)' Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)' All others AttainmenUUnclass'died Attainment/Unclassified Source: GARB 2011. SCAQMD may petition for Extreme Nonattainment designation. Annual standard revoked September 2006. GARB approved SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM,o to attainment for PM1, underthe National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24 -hour PM,, standards from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. ' The Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainmentfor lead underthe newfederal and existing state AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas within the SoCAB are unclassified. Existing Ambient Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site and project area are best documented by measurements made by SCAQMD. The project site is in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 20 - Central Orange County Coastal. The air quality monitoring station closest to the project is the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. This station does not monitor PM1e or PM2.5; therefore, data from the Mission Viejo monitoring station was obtained for these criteria pollutants. Datafrom these stations are summarized in Table 5.2 -3. The data show that the area occasionally exceeds the state and federal one - hour and eight -hour O, standards and occasionally exceeds the state PM10 and federal PM2., standards. The CO, SO,, and NO, standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the project vicinity. Page 5.2 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUArsrr Table 5.2 -3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Source: CARB 2012. ppm: parts per million; Ng/m': or micrograms per cubic meter. ' Data obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. t Data obtained from the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -9 Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pollutant /Standard Ozone (0,)' State 1 -Hour? 0.09 ppm 0 0 0 0 1 State 8- hour >_ 0.07 ppm 0 2 5 3 2 Federal 8 -Hour > 0.075 ppm 0 0 3 0 1 Max. 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.074 0.082 0.094 0.087 0.097 Max. 8 -Hour Cone. m 0.062 0.073 0.080 0.072 0.076 Carbon Monoxide CO)' State 8 -Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 8 -Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 8 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 3.01 3.13 1.97 2.16 2.09 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,)' State 1 -Hour >_ 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.101 0.074 0.081 0.065 0.070 Sulfur Dioxide (SO,)' State 1 -Hour >_ 0.04 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.002 Coarse Particulates PM 2 State 24 -Hour > 50 pg /m' 1 3 0 1 0 Federal 24 -Hour > 150pg/m3 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 24 -Hour Cone. (Ng /m') 57.0 74.0 42.0 56.0 34.0 Fine Particulates (plyi")z Federal 24 -Hour > 35 pg/m3 1 2 0 1 0 Max. 24 -Hour Cone. (Ng /m3) 46.9 46.8 32.6 39.2 19.9 Source: CARB 2012. ppm: parts per million; Ng/m': or micrograms per cubic meter. ' Data obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. t Data obtained from the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -9 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY The closest sensitive receptor to the project site is the University of California Irvine (UCI) Child Development Center, which is across Jamboree Road, approximately 260 feet from the project boundary. Other residential land uses are over 1,330 feet from the project site. 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AQ -1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AO-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. AQ -3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). AQ -4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ -5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds The analysis of the proposed project's air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the significance thresholds on SCAQMD's website a CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts and localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Regional Significance Thresholds SCAQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine a project's cumulative impact on air quality in the SOCAB. Table 5.2 -4 lists SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds. Table 5.2 -4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/ Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs 75 Ibs /day 55 Ibs /day Carbon Monoxide CO 550lbs /day 550lbs /day Nitrogen Oxides (NOJ 100lbs /day 55lbs /day Sulfur Oxides (SOO 150lbs /day 150lbs /day Particulates (PM) 150lbs /day 150lbs /day Source: SCAQMD 2011. 3 SCAQMD's Air Quality Significance Thresholds are current as of March 2011 and can be found here: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.htmi. Page 5.2 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY CO Hotspots Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse without improvements (Caltrans 1997). Localized Significance Thresholds SCAQMD developed localized significance thresholds (LSTS) for emissions of NO,, CO, PM1O, and PM.., generated at the project site (offsite mobile- source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable to all projects of five acres and less; however, it can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. In accordance with SCAQMD's LST methodology, construction LSTs are based on the acreage disturbed per day based on equipment use. Based on the anticipated equipment use, construction activities would disturb approximately four acres per day, and therefore the four -acre LSTs are the significance localized thresholds for construction and the five -acre LSTs are the localized significance thresholds for operation. The construction and operational LSTs in SRA 20 are shown in Table 5.2 -5 for nonsensitive receptors within 82 feet (25 meters) and sensitive receptors at 260 feet (79 meters) for Phase 1, and within 82 feet (25 meters) for Phase 2 and when Phase 1 overlaps with Phase 2. Because the project is not an industrial project that has the potential to emit substantial sources of stationary emissions, operational LSTs are not an air quality impact of concern associated with the project. Table 5.2 -5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Threshold (lbs /day) Construction Operation Phase 1 Phase 1 Overlap l Phase 2 Nitrogen Oxides (NOJ 175 175 197 Carbon Monoxide CO 1,461 1,461 1.711 Coarse Particulates (PM,) 44.1 11.7 4.0 Fine Particulates PM 1 13.4 7.7 2.0 Source: SCAQMD 2003; SCAQMD 2006, Based on receptors in SRA 20. Notes: Operational LSTs are based on a 5 -acre site with receptors within 82 feet (25 meters). Phase 1 Construction LSTs are based an 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses at 260 feet (79 meters) for PM1a and PMzs and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NO2. Note that during overlap of Phase 1 and Phase 2, a portion of Phase 1 residential buildings are assumed to be occupied and analyzed based on the LSTs for sensitive receptors within 25 meters for PM10 and PM25 Phase 2 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for PM10 and PMzs and non - sensifive land uses at 90 feet (27 meters) for CO and NO2. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport BeachePage 5.2 -11 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Health Risk Thresholds Whenever a project would require use of chemical compounds that have been identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401, placed on CARB's air toxics list pursuant to AB 1807, or placed on the EPA's National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, a health risk assessment is required by the SCAQMD. Table 5.2 -6 lists the SCAQMD's TAC incremental risk thresholds for operation of a project. Residential, commercial, and office uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs, and these thresholds are typically applied for new industrial projects. Although not officially adopted by SCAQMD, these thresholds are also commonly used to determine air quality land use compatibility of a project with major sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a proposed project. Table 5.2 -6 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk >_ 10 in 1 million Hazard Index (project increment) >_ 1.0 Source: SCAQMD 2011. 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development associated with the Uptown Newport project. SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) with updates on its Web site that are intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project- specific air quality impacts. The Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in environmental impact reports and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. SCAQMD has published two additional guidance documents — Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA Evaluations (2003) and Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Significance Thresholds and Calculation Methodology (2006) —that are intended to provide guidance in evaluating localized effects from emissions during construction. These documents were used in the preparation of this analysis, as was the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1, for determination of daily construction and operational emissions, and guidance included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for localized construction impacts. Construction emissions are based on the construction schedule and equipment list provided by the applicant (see Appendix C) A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared to evaluate potential cancer and noncancer risk to persons residing at the project. Guidance from the Cal /EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) was used to determine the impacts of hazardous air emissions upon land use projects that place receptors in the vicinity of existing sources. Cancer and noncancer risk is based on modeling conducted using the EPA Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST3) model. The HRA is included as Appendix D to this DEIR. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Page 5.2 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY IMPACT 5.2.1: THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2007 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN. [THRESHOLDAQ -1] Impact Analysis: A consistency determination with the AQMP plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in the AQMP. The regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB is compiled by SCAQMD and SCAG. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based, in part, on the City's general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), compiled by SCAG to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the SCAG region. The AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality - related regional plan. The proposed project is considered a major project because it is a residential project with more than 500 dwelling units. Changes in the population, housing, or employment growth projections associated with this project have the potential to affect SCAG's demographic projections and therefore the assumptions in SCAQMD's AQMP. While the project is considered regionally significant, the project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan, which assumed conversion of the industrial land uses to residential /mixed -use land uses onsite. Pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11, the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), was prepared and approved. The ICDP planned for residential /mixed- use on the project site and an adjacent, 12.7 -acre portion of the Koll Center Newport office park to allow up to 1,504 residential units (1,244 on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the Koll property). The project is also directly adjacent to major employment in Orange County. Orange County is traditionally jobs -rich (see Section 5.11, Population and Housing). Increasing residential land uses near major employment centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT. Therefore, the project would be consistent with regional goals to reduce trips and VMT. Furthermore, at buildout, the proposed project would generate less emissions for some criteria air pollutants than are generated by the existing industrial use onsite. The proposed project would be considered consistent with the AQMP. IMPACT 5.2 -2: SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS GENERATED BY THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN NO, 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. [THRESHOLDS AQ -2 AND AQ -31 Impact Analysis: Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as onsite heavy -duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM,, and PM,.,) from demolition and soil- disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities onsite would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The proposed Uptown Newport project would be constructed in two phases. Construction of the two phases could overlap. Construction air pollutant emissions are based on the preliminary phasing schedule and Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach *Page 5.2 -13 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY construction equipment list developed for the project. Criteria air pollutants generated during Phase 1 and Phase 2 are described in more detail below and a summary of maximum daily emissions is also described, including potential overlap of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Construction Phase Regional Emissions — Phase 1 Phase 1 would commence in 2014 and would involve the demolition of the one -story, 126,675- square -foot office building (Half Dome Building) and associated facilities and construction of the mixed -use buildings containing 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet of retail /restaurant space and 1.03 acre park. During this Phase, the TowerJazz facility and Southern California Edison (SCE) substation would remain onsite. Demolition would take place over an approximately three -month period and require approximately 46 truck trips for removal of materials .4 Demolition and removal of asbestos - containing materials would be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Site improvements, including grading, paving /concrete pour, and utility installation would take approximately six months. Grading activities could involve up to 90,000 cubic yards of soil export associated with up to two stories of subterranean parking, resulting in up to 288 truck trips per day. Building construction would occur over an approximately four- year period and would overlap with some site improvements (e.g., paving /concrete pour, utilities). Paving and concrete activities over an approximately 20 -day period would require up to 445 truck deliveries per day for materials. Architectural coatings would be applied as buildings are completed, over an approximately eight -month period. An estimate of maximum daily construction emissions for Phase 1 is provided in Table 5.2 -7. As shown in this table, construction activities associated with the project would exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NO, during grading and paving activities but would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during vertical building construction. °Modeling assumes up to 5 percent of demolished materials contain asbestos and /or lead -based paint and would be taken to the Azusa Land Reclamation Facility. Page 5.2 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -7 Maximum Daily Construction Regional Emissions, Phase 1 Construction Phase Demolition 8 58 34 <1 6 3 Grading 15 142 87 <1 13 7 Utilities 4 34 15 <1 1 1 Paving /Concrete 22 210 143 <1 18 9 Building Construction 15 90 81 <1 12 5 Maximum Daily Emissions 2014 42 335 240 1 31 1 15 2015 Building Construction 14 1 82 1 77 1 <1 1 12 1 4 2016 Building Construction 13 75 73 <1 11 4 2017 Building Construction 12 69 70 <1 11 4 Architectural Coatings 33 3 6 <1 2 <1 Maximum Daily Emissions 2017 45 72 76 <1 13 4 2018 Building Construction 12 63 67 <1 11 3 Architectural Coatings 33 2 6 <1 2 <1 Maximum Daily Emissions 2018 44 66 73 <1 12 3 Construction Emissions Summary Phase 1 Maximum Daily Emissions — Phase 1 45 335 240 1 31 15 SCAOMD Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? No Yes No No No No Source: CalEEMod, Version 2011.1.1. Totals may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Notes: Emissions that exceed SCAOMD Thresholds are underlined. Construction phasing and equipment is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CaIEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCADMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CaIEEMod that calculates PM10 fugitive dust from hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PMIO and PMz.s fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsite to 15 miles per hour. Construction Phase Regional Emissions: Phase 2 Phase 2 would commence in March 2017 and involve the demolition of the two- to three - story, 311,452 - square -foot industrial TowerJazz building, the SCE substation, and associated facilities and construction of the remaining 564 residential units and 1.02 acre park onsite. Demolition would take place over an approximately four -month period and require approximately 58 truck trips for removal of materials.' Demolition and removal of asbestos - containing materials would be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Site improvements, including grading, paving /concrete pour, and utility installation, would take approximately six months. Soil remediation would require excavation and removal of 26,000 cubic yards of soil for reclamation. Grading activities could involve an additional 100,000 cubic yards of soil export 'Modeling assumes up to 5 percent of demolished materials contain asbestos and /or lead -based paint and would be taken to the Azusa Land Reclamation Facility. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -15 @ONO 48 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY associated with up to two stories of subterranean parking. Grading and excavation of soil would result in up to 8,063 truckloads of soil export and up to 343 truck trips per day. Building construction would occur over an approximately four- year period and would overlap with some site improvements (e.g., paving /concrete pour, utilities). Paving and concrete activities over an approximately 20 -day period would require up to 445 truck deliveries per day for materials. Architectural coatings would be applied as buildings are completed, over an approximately 6.4 -month period. An estimate of maximum daily construction emissions for Phase 2 is provided in Table 5.2 -8. As shown in this table, construction activities associated with the project would exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NO, during grading and paving activities but would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during vertical building construction. Table 5.2 -8 Maximum Daily Construction Regional Emissions, Phase 2 (in pounds per day) Construction Phase VOC NOx CO S02 PM,n PM2.5 2017 Paving /Concrete Demolition 6 44 32 <1 6 2 Grading 16 154 96 <1 17 8 Utilities 4 1 26 13 <1 1 1 Paving /Concrete 18 1 160 120 1 <1 16 7 Maximum Daily Emissions 2017 21 1 186 133 1 1 18 9 2018 Building Construction 11 61 62 <1 9 3 Paving /Concrete 16 148 114 <1 15 5 Maximum Daily Emissions 2018 27 209 176 1 24 8 Building Construction 10 51 58 <1 9 2 2021 Building Construction 9 47 56 <1 9 2 Architectural Coating 32 2 5 <1 1 <1 Maximum Daily Emissions 2021 41 49 61 <1 10 2 Construction Emissions Summary Phase 2 Source: Gal EEMod, Version 2011.1.1. Totals may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Notes: Emissions that exceed SCAOMD Thresholds are underlined. Construction phasing and equipment is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCADMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CalEEMod that calculates PM10 fugitive dust from hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PMIO and PMz.s fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds rnsite to 15 miles per hour. Page 5.2 -16 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Construction Phase Regional Emissions: Summary Construction emissions associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 are described above. Based on the preliminary construction schedule, Phase 2 construction activities could overlap with Phase 1. A summary of the worst - case construction emissions from Phase 1 and Phase 2 and potential overlap of these phases is shown in Table 5.2 -9. Table 5.2 -9 Maximum Daily Construction Regional Emissions, Summary (in pounds per day) Construction Phase VOC NOx CO S02 PM,e PMzS Maximum Daily Emissions - Phase 1 45 335 1 240 1 1 31 15 Maximum Daily Emissions - Phase 2 41 209 1 176 1 1 24 9 2017 Overlap - Phase 1 + Phase 2 Phase 1 Worst Case Emissions 1 45 1 72 1 76 1 <1 1 13 1 4 Phase 2 Worst Case Emissions 1 21 1 186 1 133 1 <1 1 18 1 9 Maximum Daily Emissions Phase 1 + Phase 2 2017 1 66 258 1 210 1 1 1 30 1 13 2018 Overlap - Phase 1 + Phase 2 Phase 1 Worst Case Emissions 44 66 73 <1 12 3 Phase 2 Worst Case Emissions 27 209 176 1 1 24 1 8 Maximum Daily Emissions Phase 1 + Phase 2 2017 1 72 275 249 1 1 37 12 SCACMD Regional Significance Threshold 1 71 1" 550 150 150 55 Sianificant? No Yes No No No No Source: UalttMod, Version ZU11.1.1. t otals may nottotal to 10U percent due to rounding. Notes: The highest emissions generated during the construction of the proposed project are bolded. Emissions that exceed SCACMD Thresholds are underlined. Construction phasing and equipment is based on the preliminary information provided bythe applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCACMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CalEEMod that calculates PM,a fugdive dustfrom hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PM,i, and PM,,, fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsite to 15 miles per hour. As shown in Tables 5.2 -7 through 5.2 -9, construction activities associated with the project would exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NOx 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). 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 eightyears of construction, project - related construction activities would only exceed SCAQMD's threshold for three of those years as significant off -road equipment use and haul trucks are not necessary during vertical building construction. Emissions of NO, are precursors to the formation of 03. In addition, NOx is a precursor to the formation of particulate matter (PM,, and PM,,). Consequently, emissions of NO, that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds would contribute to the 03, NO., and particulate matter (PM,o and PM,.,) nonattainment designation of the SoCAB under the national and California AAQS. Consequently, the project would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach*Page 5.2 -17 "301 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY IMPACT 5.2 -3: LAND USES ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDOUT OF THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATEA SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN CRITERIAAIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS THAT EXCEED SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS OR SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS OF THE SOUTH COASTAIR BASIN. [THRESHOLDS AQ -2 AND AQ -3] Impact Analysis: Buildout of the Uptown Newport project would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (e.g., natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., gas fireplaces, aerosols, and landscaping equipment). Transportation sources of criteria air pollutant emission are based on the traffic impact analysis conducted by Kimley -Horn Associates. Area and energy sources for the existing TowerJazz facility are based on the 2011 emissions report submitted to SCAQMD. All other criteria air pollutant emissions were modeled using CalEEMod. The results of the criteria air pollutant modeling for the Uptown Newport project are included in Tables 5.2 -10 through 5.2 -12 for Phase 1 emissions, Phase 2 emissions, and total emissions, respectively. Operational Phase Regional Emissions: Phase I Buildout of Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport project is forecast to occur by 2018. The existing 126,675 - square -foot Half Dome Building would cease to operate. Based on traffic counts conducted by Kimley -Horn Associates, the existing land use generates 270 average daily trips. The proposed project would result in operation of 680 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail land uses, and a 1.03 -acre park. These land uses would generate a total of 5,282 average daily vehicle trips, for a net increase of 5,012 average daily vehicle trips. Table 5.2 -10 shows the criteria air pollutant emissions generated at buildout of Phase 1 of the proposed project. As shown in this table, the project would generate an increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, but emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds. Therefore, criteria air pollutant emissions generated by Phase 1 of the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Page 5.2 -I8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -10 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions, Phase 1 Phase Area 18 0 0 0 0 0 Energy <1 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 Transportation 17 1 10 <1 3 <1 Total Half Dome Building 36 1 10 <1 3 <1 Phase 1 Area 18 1 57 0 1 1 Energy <1 3 1 <1 <1 <1 Transportation 17 15 148 <1 42 2 Total Phase 1 36 18 206 <1 1 44 3 Net Change Phase 1 Area 15 1 57 0 1 1 Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1 Transportation 16 14 138 <1 39 2 Net Change 31 17 196 <1 41 3 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod Version 2011.1.1. Based on highest winter or summer emissions. Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Operational Phase Regional Emissions: Phase 2 Buildout of Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport project is projected to occur by 2021. The existing 311,452- square -foot TowerJazz building would cease to operate. Based on traffic counts conducted by Kimley -Horn Associated, the TowerJazz facility generates 747 average daily trips. Onsite emissions (area and energy) generated by the TowerJazz facility are based on emissions reported to SCAQMD for year 2011. Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport project would result in operation of an additional 564 residential units and a 1.02 -acre park. These land uses would generate an additional 3,751 average daily vehicle trips, for a net increase of 3,004 average daily vehicle trips in Phase 2. Table 5.2 -11 shows the criteria air pollutant emissions generated at buildout of Phase 2 of the proposed project. As shown in this table, the project would generate a net decrease in VOCs, NO,, SO„ PM,,, and PM2., emissions and a net increase in CO. However, CO emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds. Therefore, criteria air pollutant emissions generated by Phase 2 of the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach*Page 5.2 -19 r S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -11 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions, Phase 2 Phase Area 42 24 49 1 28 27 Energy — — — — — — Transportation 3 2 24 <1 9 <1 Total TowerJazz Facility 1 45 26 72 1 37 27 Phase 2 Area 15 1 47 0 1 1 Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1 Transportation 11 8 92 <1 32 1 Total Phase 2 26 11 140 <1 1 33 2 Net Change Phase 2 Area -27 -24 -2 -1 -27 -26 Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1 Transportation 8 6 68 <1 23 1 Net Change -18 -16 68 -1 -4 -25 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No Source: Cal EEMod Version 2011.1.1 and the TowerJazz 2011 SCAQMD Emissions Report. Notes: Based on highest winter or summer emissions. Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Based on information provided by the applicant's engineer, the existing TowerJazz facility uses 124,000,000 kwh of electricity per year (requiring the SCE substation), 240,000,000 KBtu per year, and 516,000,000 gallons of water per year. Natural gas use (energy) is included as an area source for existing land uses based on the SCAQMD emissions report forth TowerJazz facility. Operational Phase Regional Emissions: Total A summary of the existing, Phase 1, and Phase 2 criteria air pollutant emissions is shown in Table 5.2 -12. As shown, operation of the Uptown Newport project would generate fewer SO, and PM,,, emissions than existing land uses onsite and a slight increase in VOC, NO„ CO, and PM10 emissions. Operation of Uptown Newport project would generate an increase in transportation emissions, which would be offset by a decrease in area/energy emissions when the TowerJazz facility is closed. The project would not generate a net increase in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds. Therefore, criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Page 5.2 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -12 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions, Total Phase Half Dome Building 4 1 10 <1 3 <1 Tower,lazz Facility 45 26 72 1 37 27 Total Existing 1 49 1 28 83 1 40 27 Phase 1 11 1 11 206 1 44 3 Phase 2 26 11 140 <1 33 2 Total Uptown Newport 1 62 1 29 1 346 1 1 1 77 1 5 Area -30 -24 -2 -1 -27 -26 Energy <1 1 1 0 <1 <1 Transportation 25 20 206 1 63 2 Net Change 13 1 264 -1 37 -22 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No ouur m GaiEEMud versiuirzu i i. i. i and mu owerdazz reumry 20i i SCAOMD crmssiuns nupun. Based on highest winter or summer emissions. Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. IMPACT 5.2 -4: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT COULD EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL t0 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS OF PM,,,. (THRESHOLD AQ -41 Impact Analysis: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated levels. Unlike the mass of construction emissions shown in the regional emissions analysis in Tables 5.2 -7 through 5.2 -9, described in pounds per day, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or pg /m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. Health risk assessment is based on risk accumulated over a 70 -year lifetime. Given the relatively short-term construction schedule for activities (8 years compared to 70 years) and distance to the nearest sensitive land uses, the proposed project would not result in a long -term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions. Based on this, SCAQMD does not require a risk assessment for short-term emissions generated by diesel exhaust from construction equipment. Therefore, project - related diesel particulate matter impacts during construction would not be significant. LSTs are the amount of project - related emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or Ng /m3) could exceed the ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated nonattainment. LSTs are based on the project site size and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Thresholds are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS, established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -21 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Localized Construction Analysis Onsite construction emissions generated during Phase 1 for years 2014 through 2016 are shown in Table 5.2 -13. Between 2017 and 2018, several of the residential buildings in Phase 1 would be occupied. In addition, construction of Phase 1 would overlap with construction of Phase 2. Table 5.2 -14 shows onsite emissions between 2017 and 2021. The tables show that maximum daily construction emissions would exceed the LSTs for PM25 when building construction activities in Phase 1 overlap with site improvement construction activities in Phase 2 and some residential buildings in Phase 1 are occupied. Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of PMZS. Table 5.2 -13 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions, Phase 1 (Portion) Source Pollutants 110X Co PM,o PMZ.; 2014 Onsite 1,461 1 44.1 1 13.4 Demolition Phase 1 50 26 4.6 2.5 Grading Phase 1 46 21 5.4 3.2 Utilities Phase 1 34 14 1.3 1.3 Paving/Concrete Phase 1 50 28 3.0 3.0 Building Construction Phase 1 76 45 3.7 3.7 Maximum Daily Emissions 2014 160 87 7.9 7.9 Building Construction Phase 1 1 70 1 43 1 3.3 1 3.3 2016 Building Construction Phase 1 64 41 2.7 2.7 SCADMD LST Phase 1 175 1,461 1 44.1 1 13.4 Potentially Significant? No No I No I No Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1., SCADMD 2003, and SCADMD 2006. Notes: Based on receptors in SRA 20. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Phase 1 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed perday with sensitive land uses at 260 feet (79 meters) for PM,, and PM2,, and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NOz. Note that during overlap of Phase 1 and Phase 2, a portion of Phase 1 residential buildings are assumed to be occupied and analyzed based on the LSTs for sensitive receptors within 25 meters for PM, and PMis (see Table 5.2 -14). Construction phasing and equipment is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding prolect- related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CaIEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCADMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CalEEMod that calculates PM,o fugitive dustfrom hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PM,o and PMz.s fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at leasttwo times daily, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsite to 15 miles per hour. Page 5.2 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -14 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions, Phase 1 (Portion) and Phase 2 Pollutants Source NOr CO I PM,� PM,s 2017 Building Construction Phase 1 58 41 2.7 2.7 Architectural Coatings Phase 1 2 2 0.2 0.2 Total Building Construction + Coatings Phase 1 60 43 2.9 2.9 Demolition Phase 2 36 25 4.4 1.7 Grading Phase 2 36 17 5.0 2.8 Utilities Phase 2 25 12 0.9 0.9 Grading + Trenching Phase 2 61 30 5.9 3.7 Paving /Concrete Phase 2 38 27 2.2 2.2 Utilities + Paving /Concrete Phase 2 99 1 57 8.2 6.6 Maximum Daily Emissions 2017 160 1 99 11.0 8.9 2018 Building Construction Phase 1 53 40 2.4 2.4 Architectural Coatings Phase 1 2 2 0.2 02 Total Building Construction + Coatings Phase 1 55 42 2.6 2.6 Paving/Concrete Phase 2 35 27 2.0 2.0 Building Construction Phase 2 53 40 2.4 2.4 Building Construction + Paving Phase 2 88 67 4.4 4.4 Maximum Dail Emissions 2018 143 109 7.0 TO Building Construction 1 49 I 39 1 2.2 1 2.2 2020 Building Construction 44 39 1.9 1.9 2021 Building Construction 40 38 1.7 1.7 Architectural Coating 2 2 0.1 0.1 Maximum Daily Emissions 2021 42 40 1.8 1.8 SCAQMD LST Phase 2 & Overlap of Phase 1 + Phase 2 175 1,461 11.7 1.7 Potentially Significant? No No No Yes Sources: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1., SCAQMD 2003, and SCAQMD 2006. Notes: The highest emissions generated during the construction of the proposed project are bolded for PMzs _Emissions that exceed SCAQMD Thresholds are underlined. Based on receptors in SPA 20. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Phase 1 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses at 260 feet (79 meters) for PM,, and PMzs and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NO, (see Table 5.2 -13). Note, during overlap of Phase land Phase 2, a portion of Phase 1 residential buildings are assumed to be occupied and analyzed based on the LSTs for sensitive receptors within 25 meters for PM,o and PMz, Phase 2 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for PM,, and PMzs and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NO,. Construction phasing and equipment is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CalEEMod that calculates PM,o fugitive dust from hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PM,o and PMz, fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at leasttwo times daily, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsite to 15 miles per hour. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -23 88 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY IMPACT 5.2.5: OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE OFFSITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS. [THRESHOLD AO -41 Impact Analysis: Operation of the Uptown Newport project would not generate substantial quantities of onsite, stationary sources of emissions. In addition, demolition of the TowerJazz facility in Phase 2 would result in removal of a large stationary source, resulting in a reduction in air pollutant emissions onsite. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions that would require a permit from SCAQMD include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing, and warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur onsite. Operation of the residential /mixed -use buildings and park would include occasional use of landscaping equipment and natural gas consumption for heating. Air pollutant emissions generated from these activities are nominal, and no significant impact would occur. CO Hotspot Analysis Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SoCAB was designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the SoCAB was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. The CO hot spot analysis conducted for the attainment by SCAQMD for busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods plan did not predict a violation of CO standards. 6 As identified in SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB in previous years, prior to redesignation, were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour —or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal air does not mix —in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). The proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile- source emissions would therefore be less than significant. IMPACT 5.2 -6: THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE LAND USES TO SUBSTANTIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS. [THRESHOLD AO -41 Impact Analysis: A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would expose onsite sensitive receptors (new residents) to substantial pollutant concentrations emitted from offsite sources. Recent air pollution studies have shown an association between proximity to major air pollution sources and a variety of health effects. Because sensitive land uses are outside CARB jurisdiction, CARB established the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective in May 2005 to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome - plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline- dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed as atool for assessing compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance 6 The four intersections were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour. Page 5.2 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY separations. CARB's recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were developed from a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximityto air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that close proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects relative to the existing background concentrations in the air basin. However, the impact of air pollution from these sources is on a gradient that at some point becomes indistinguishable from the regional air pollution problem. An HRA was prepared for the Uptown Newport project to identify potential cancer and noncancer risks to persons residing at the project site, using the ISCST3 model. Cancer and noncancer risks were based on sources within a 1,000 -foot radius of the site. Emissionsfrom the existing TowerJazz facility were included for impacts to Phase 1 residents. However, this facility would cease to operate once construction of Phase 2 commences. The results of the HRA indicate that the incremental risk would not exceed SCAQMD's thresholds. Air quality impacts to onsite sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Table 5.2 -15 Health Risk Assessment SOUfCe: US EPA ISCST3. I % IMPACT 5.2.7: THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO NUISANCE ODORS. (THRESHOLD AQ -51 Impact Analysis: The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. During construction activities, emissions from off -road equipment, such as diesel exhaust, may generate some odors; however, these would be low in concentration, temporary, and not expected to affect a substantial number of people. No substantial long -term odors would be generated by the proposed residential mixed -use project. Restaurants within the retail component of Phase 1 could generate odors, but such odors would not be considered objectionable and would be required to comply with Rule 403. The project would also not expose proposed land uses to substantial odors from adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses include restaurants and industrial uses. The TowerJazz facility is not the type of industrial facility that generates objectionable odors, and no nuisance odors were observed during site visits. Adjacent land uses are also subject to the restrictions of SCAQMD Rule 403. Consequently, the proposed project would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odor impacts. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -25 Cancer Noncancer Phase 1 2.6 in one million <1 Phase 2 0.5 in one million <1 SCAQMD TAC Threshold 10 in one million 1 Significant? No No SOUfCe: US EPA ISCST3. I % IMPACT 5.2.7: THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO NUISANCE ODORS. (THRESHOLD AQ -51 Impact Analysis: The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. During construction activities, emissions from off -road equipment, such as diesel exhaust, may generate some odors; however, these would be low in concentration, temporary, and not expected to affect a substantial number of people. No substantial long -term odors would be generated by the proposed residential mixed -use project. Restaurants within the retail component of Phase 1 could generate odors, but such odors would not be considered objectionable and would be required to comply with Rule 403. The project would also not expose proposed land uses to substantial odors from adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses include restaurants and industrial uses. The TowerJazz facility is not the type of industrial facility that generates objectionable odors, and no nuisance odors were observed during site visits. Adjacent land uses are also subject to the restrictions of SCAQMD Rule 403. Consequently, the proposed project would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odor impacts. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -25 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts In accordance with SCAQMD's methodology, any project that produces a significant project -level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects within the local area include new development and general growth within the project area. The greatest source of emissions within the SoCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SoCAB), SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project - related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds shown in Table 5.2 -4. No significant cumulative impacts were identified with regard to CO hotspots. Construction The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03, PM2.5, PM,,, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for NO, under the California AAQS.7 Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measures for related projects would reduce cumulative impacts. Project - related construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NO.. Consequently, the project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant. Operation For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Operation of the project would not result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with regional plans to reduce air pollution. Therefore, the project's air pollutant emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and are less than significant. 5.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Regulations • SCAQMD Rule 201: Permit to Construct • SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors • SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust • SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings • SCAQMD Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities • SCAQMD Rule 1186: Street Sweeping 7 CARB approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM,, to attainment for PM,, under the national AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24- hour PM,, standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. Page 5.2 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY • CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR 2480): Airborne Toxics Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools: limits nonessential idling for commercial trucks and school buses within 100 feet of a school. • CARB Rule 2485(13 CCR 2485): Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fuel Commercial Vehicle Idling: limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for commercial trucks. • CARB Rule 2449(13 CCR 2449): In -Use Off -Road Diesel Idling Restricts: limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for diesel - powered off -road equipment. • Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) • Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20) • Motor Vehicle Standards (AB 1493) City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval 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.. 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.2 -1, 5.2 -3, 5.2 -5, 5.2 -6, and 5.2 -7. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.2 -2 Short-term construction emissions generated by the Uptown Newport project would result in NO, emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. • Impact 5.2 -4 Construction activities associated with the Uptown Newport Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM,.,. 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.2.2 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -27 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY 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. 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. 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. Impact 5.2 -4 Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 applied to reduce regional criteria air pollutants of NO, would assist in reducing localized air pollutant impacts of PM2.1. 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. • 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, PM,o efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried overto adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Page 5.2 -28 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY • 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. 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 contractor 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 88 construction contractor onsite. Or Phase 2 site improvements (grading, utilities installation, paving, and concrete construction subphases) shall not overlap with Phase 1 building construction. The City of Newport Beach shall verify compliance that one of these measures has been implemented during normal construction site inspections. 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 complaintwithin two working days. A log of the complaints and resolutions to the complaints shall be maintained onsite. 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.2 -2 Mitigation Measure 2 -1 would reduce NO, 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 NO, and would continue to exceed SCAQMD's regional significance threshold during site preparation (year 2014 for Phase 1 and year 2017 and 2018 for Phase 2) Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -29 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY 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 NO, emissions. Therefore, of the eight years of construction, project - related construction activities would only exceed SCAQMD's threshold for three of those years as 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. Table 5.2 -16 Maximum Daily Construction Regional Emissions, Summary with Mitigation (in alounds per day) Construction Phase VOC NOx CO SO2 PM,e PM2. Maximum Daily Emissions - Phase 1 44 275 263 1 30 1 14 Maximum Daily Emissions - Phase 2 42 198 196 1 25 1 9 2017 Overlap - Phase 1 + Phase 2 Phase 1 Worst Case Emissions 1 44 61 89 1 <1 13 1 4 Phase 2 Worst Case Emissions 1 20 173 149 1 <1 18 1 9 Maximum Daily Emissions Phase 1 + Phase 2 2017 1 65 234 238 1 1 31 14 2018 Overlap - Phase 1 + Phase 2 Phase 1 Worst Case Emissions 1 44 1 59 1 86 1 <1 1 13 1 4 Phase 2 Worst Case Emissions 1 27 1 198 1 196 1 1 1 25 1 9 Maximum Daily Emissions Phase 1 + Phase 2 2017 1 71 1 257 1 283 1 1 1 39 13 Notes: Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding Construction phasing and equipment is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCADMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CalEEMod that calculates PM,o fugitive dust from hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PM,o and PMz.s fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, managing haul road dust by watering three times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsite to 15 miles per hour. Includes use of Tier 3 construction equipment. Impact 5.2 -4 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. Page 5.2 -30 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -17 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Overlap with Mitigation Source 2017 Onsite Pollutants co I PM Total Building Construction + Coatings Phase 1 49 55 3.4 3.4 Demolition Phase 2 37 38 3.6 1.3 Grading + Trenching Phase 2 47 1 47 4.5 2.6 Utilities + Paving/Concrete Phase 2 50 1 55 1.8 1.8 Maximum Daily Emissions 2017 100 1 111 7.9 6.0 2018 Total Building Construction + Coatings Phase 1 49 55 3.3 3.3 Building Construction + Paving Phase 2 77 87 3.0 3.0 Maximum Daily Emissions 2018 126 142 6.3 6.3 SCAQMD LST Phase 2 & Overlap of Phase 1 + Phase 2 175 1,461 11.7 7.7 Potentially Significant? No No No No Sources: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1., SCAOMD 2003, and SCAQMD 2006. Notes: Based on receptors in SRA 20. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Phase 1 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses at 260 feet (79 meters) for PM10 and PM2, and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NO, (see Table 5.2 -13). Note that during overlap of Phase 1 and Phase 2, a portion of Phase 1 residential buildings are assumed to be occupied and analyzed based on the LSTS for sensitive receptors within 25 meters for PM,, and PMzs. Phase 2 Construction LSTS are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for PM1a and PMis and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NO,. Construction phasing and equipment are based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CaIEEMOd that calculates PM,o fugitive dust from hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PM,o and PM2 s fugdive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at leasttwo times daily, managing haul road dust by watering three times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsite to 15 miles per hour. Includes use of Tier 3 construction equipment (Mitigation Measure 2 -1). Site improvements associated with Phase 2 (grading, utilities, paving/concrete) calculated with installation of diesel particulate fitters. Alternatively, site improvements (grading, utilities, paving/concrete) of Phase 1 could be scheduled to not overlap with Phase 1 construction. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -31 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.2 -32 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report(s): Biological Technical Report, Uptown Newport Village, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California, Cadre Environmental, January 2012. A complete copy of this study is included in Appendix E of this DEIR. 5.3.1 Environmental Setting Applicable Plans and Regulations Federal and State Regulations Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (US Code, Title 16, §§ 1531 et seq.), as amended, was promulgated to protect and conserve any species of plant or animal that is endangered or threatened with extinction and the habitats in which these species are found. "Take" of endangered species is prohibited under Section 9 of the FESA. "Take," as defined under the FESA, means to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on proposed federal actions which may affect any endangered, threatened or proposed (for listing) species or critical habitat that may support the species. Section 4(a) of the FESA requires that critical habitat be designated by the USFWS "to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at the time a species is determined to be endangered or 88 threatened." Critical habitat is formally designated by USFWS to provide guidance for planners /managers and biologists with an indication of where suitable habitat may occur and where high priority of preservation for a particular species should be given. Section 10 of the FESA provides the regulatory mechanism that allows the incidental take of a listed species by private interests and nonfederal government agencies during lawful activities. Habitat conservation plans (HCPs) for the impacted species must be developed in support of incidental take permits for nonfederal projects to minimize impacts to the species and develop viable mitigation measures to offset the unavoidable impacts. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916 (META; US Code, Title 16, §§ 703 -712) is the domestic law that affirms, or implements, the United States' commitment to four international conventions with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the MBTA. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -1 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Clean Water Act, Section 404 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States "' (Including wetlands and non - wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria) pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA; US Code, Title 33, §§ 1251 et seq.), a permit is required for any filling or dredging within waters of the United States. The permit review process entails an assessment of potential adverse impacts to Corps wetlands and jurisdictional waters, wherein the Corps may require mitigation measures. Where a federally listed species may be affected, a Section 7 consultation with USFWS may be required. If there is potential for cultural resources to be present, Section 106 review may be required. Also, where a Section 404 permit is required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would also be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). Clean Water Act, Section 401 and 402 Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA specifies that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters shall provide the federal permitting agency a certification, issued by the state in which the discharge originates, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA. In California, the applicable RWQCB must certify that the project will comply with water quality standards. Permits requiring Section 401 certification include Corps Section 404 permits and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 402 of the CWA. NPDES permits are issued by the applicable RWQCB. The City of Newport Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8). California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code requires that a project proponent notify the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) of any proposed alteration of streambeds, rivers, and lakes. The intent is to protect habitats that are important to fish and wildlife. CDFG may review a project and place conditions on the project as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA). The conditions are intended to address potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFG's jurisdictional limits. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the CDFG. Its intent is to prohibit take and protect state - listed endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Unlike its federal counterpart, CESA also applies the take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (state candidates). Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Com- mission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Under certain conditions, CESA has provisions for take through a 2081 permit or Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected Species. California Species of Special Concern are species designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population ' "Waters of the United States," as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act, includes: all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce; water impoundments; tributaries of waters; territorial seas; wetlands adjacent to waters. The terminology used by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act includes "navigable waters" which is defined at Section 502(7) of the Act as "waters of the United States including the territorial seas." Wetlands are defined under the CWA as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. Page 5.3 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES levels, limited ranges, and /or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFG's California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) project, which maintains a database of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species. Informally listed species are not protected per se, but warrant consideration in the preparation of biological resources assessments. Regional Habitat Conservation Plan The project site is within the plan area of the Orange County Central - Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). This regional habitat conservation plan has a plan area of 208,000 acres — covering much of central Orange County —and a reserve system of 37,380 acres, and it protects 39 covered species and 12 covered natural communities. The NCCP is managed by the Nature Reserve of Orange County, and the City of Newport Beach is a participating jurisdiction in the NCCP. Wildlife agencies have issued incidental take authorizations for covered species to participating agencies and entities.2 The project site is not in a reserve designated under the NCCP, and there are no survey requirements for the project site pursuant to the NCCP. Local Policies Protecting Habitats Environmental Study Areas The City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan designates 28 Environmental Study Areas (ESAs). Portions of ESAs within the Coastal Zone that contain sensitive or rare species are referred to as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). The California Coastal Act requires that ESHAs be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. Only uses dependent on those resources are allowed within ESHAs and adjacent development must be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the ESHA and must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA. Upper Newport Bay Upper Newport Bay, one of few remaining estuaries in Southern California, is home to nearly 200 species of birds, including several endangered species, as well as numerous species of mammals, fish, and plants. It is an important stopover for migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway. The water and lowland wetlands areas of Upper Newport Bay are protected as the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park. An additional 140 acres of uplands next to the north and northwest shores of Upper Newport Bay were designated as the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve by the County of Orange in 2000. Plant Communities /Habitat The biological study for this project consisted of a literature review of information from the USFWS and CDFG, including the CDFG's California Natural Diversity Database, and a field reconnaissance survey of the project site by Ruben Ramirez of Cadre Environmental on November 28, 2011. During the reconnaissance survey, a plant inventory and wildlife inventory were conducted, and information obtained from the literature survey regarding potential use of the project site for wildlife movement was field checked. 2 "Take" of a sensitive species includes killing, injuring, harassing, or pursuing individuals of that species, and changes to the habitat of a species that indirectly harm the species. "Incidental take" occurs accidentally in the course of another lawful activity, such as construction of a development project. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -3 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Plant Community The project site is fully developed with industrial uses and is in an urban setting. Vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping that covers about 4.3 acres, or 17 percent, of the project site. Approximately 3.7 acres, or 86 percent, of the vegetation onsite is within the Phase 1 portion of the project site. Plants Plant species in the ornamental vegetation include an understory of African daisies (Gazania sp.) and St. Augustine (Stenotaphrum secundatum). Scattered tree and shrub species include olive (Olea europaea), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), pine (Pinus sp.), king palms (Archontophoenix Cunninghamiana), magnolia (Magnolia sp.), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.), bird of paradise (Strelitzia regime), cut -leaf philodendron (Philodendron bipinnatifidum), and weeping fig (Ficus benjamina). Wildlife The non - native ornamental vegetation provides limited habitat for wildlife. While a few species of birds may use the ornamental plantings for roosting and /or nesting, the majority of the study area does not provide suitable foraging or nesting /breeding habitat for common or sensitive wildlife species. Amphibians: The common Baja California chorus frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) may occasional occur onsite in extensively irrigated ornamental landscaping. No other common amphibian species is expected to occur onsite. Reptiles: The common Great Basin fence lizard (Scleroporus occidentalis biseriatus) may occasionally occur onsite; no other common reptile species is expected to occur on the site. Birds, Including Raptors: The ornamental plantings onsite are suitable roosting and nesting habitat for several common bird species that have become naturalized to urban environments. Although no nests were documented within the study area during the reconnaissance survey, several common birds species were observed, including rock dove (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), black phoebe (Sayornis saya), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). No raptors or raptor nests were observed onsite. Larger trees onsite are potential roosting and habitat for common species, including the red - tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparveruis). However, such species are unlikely to nest onsite due to industrial uses on the site and the proximity of Jamboree Road. Sensitive Resources Sensitive species and habitats are those that have been assigned a special status by federal, state, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations, mainly due to the species' declining or limited population sizes, usually resulting from habitat loss. Sensitive habitats are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife. No sensitive habitats, plant species, or animal species were observed onsite. Sensitive Bird and Bat Species A list of sensitive animal and plant species occurring in the region was compiled from information from the CDFG — including the CNDDB —and from the USFWS and the California Native Plant Society. The potential Page 5.3 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES for 13 sensitive bird species and 2 sensitive bat species to occur onsite was evaluated based on whether suitable habitat for each species is available onsite. The larger eucalyptus trees onsite are suitable roosting and nesting habitat for Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperh), which is on the California Watch List. There is a row of large eucalyptus trees along the northeast boundary of the site of Phase 2 and a cluster of such trees in the southwest corner of the Phase 1 area. American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is known to prey on bird species that were observed on the site, including mourning dove and rock dove; however, peregrine falcon rarely occurs in the project region. There is no suitable nesting habitat for peregrine falcon onsite. American peregrine falcon is a federal bird of conservation concern and a state fully protected species. There is no suitable foraging or breeding habitat onsite for any of the other 11 bird species and 2 bat species assessed. The entire potential occurrence assessment is included in the biological technical report, included as Appendix E to this DER. Wildlife Movement Corridors The project site is completely developed with and bordered by urban land uses and lacks native habitat onsite. Although the ornamental trees onsite are expected to be occasionally used by resident and migratory bird species for roosting and potentially for nesting, the site is not classified as a wildlife corridor. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands No waters of the United States, wetlands, or streambed or riparian habitats jurisdictional to the CDFG were observed onsite. 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: B -1 Have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. B -2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. B -3 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. B -4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. B -5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. B -6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -5 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: B -2, B -3, B -5, and B -6. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.3 -1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT DIRECTLY IMPACT SENSITIVE SPECIES AND WOULD NOT INDIRECTLY IMPACT FEDERAL- OR STATE - LISTED ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES. [THRESHOLD B -1] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 No sensitive habitats, plant species, or animal species were observed onsite. The larger eucalyptus trees onsite are suitable roosting and nesting habitat for Cooper's hawk, which is on the California Watch List. American peregrine falcona federal bird of conservation concern and a state fully protected species preys on bird species that were observed on the site, including mourning dove and rock dove. However, peregrine falcon rarely occurs in the project region, and no suitable nesting habitat for peregrine falcon is available onsite. Approximately 3.7 acres of ornamental vegetation would be removed by development of Phase 1 of the project, including a cluster of eucalyptus trees in the southwest corner of the Phase 1 site that is suitable as Cooper's hawk habitat. The vegetation onsite is also habitat for common bird species — including mourning dove and rock dove —that American peregrine falcon is known to prey upon. No Cooper's hawks or peregrine falcons were observed onsite. Phase 2 The project would remove all the vegetation on the Phase 2 portion of the site — approximately 0.6 acres. A row of large eucalyptus trees along the northeast boundary of the site of Phase 2 is suitable as Cooper's hawk habitat. No Cooper's hawks were observed onsite. IMPACT 5.3 -2 LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES PROTECT HABITATS AND STATE - AND FEDERALLY LISTED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES, BUT DO NOT SEPARATELY LIST ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT IMPACT SENSITIVE SPECIES LISTED IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS OR POLICIES. Impact Analysis: Phase 1 The regional plan for protection of sensitive species and habitats in central and coastal Orange County is the NCCP described above in Section 5.3.1. Local policies for protection of habitats and sensitive species include Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) and two protected areas in Upper Newport Bay: one state marine park and one County nature preserve. The project site is not in an ESA; the nearest such area to the site is Page 5.3 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES the San Diego Creek ESA about 0.6 miles to the south (Newport Beach 2006a). The project site is also not in either the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park or the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve; each of those two areas is about 0.7 mile southwest of the site (Newport Beach 2006b). The NCCP, protected areas in Upper Newport Bay, and many of the 26 ESAs all protect habitat for State- and Federally - listed endangered and /or threatened species. However, none of these plans or policies pertaining to areas in the City of Newport Beach list endangered or threatened species separately from State or federal listings. Thus, project development would not adversely impact species listed as sensitive species in local or regional plans or policies. Phase 2 The analysis for Phase 1 also applies to Phase 2. IMPACT 5.3 -3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD REMOVE HABITAT THAT COULD BE USED FOR NESTING BY MIGRATORY BIRDS. [THRESHOLD B -4] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Trees and other vegetation onsite could be used for nesting by migratory birds protected underthe Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Phase 1 of the project would remove all 3.7 acres of existing vegetation onsite. Phase 2 Development of Phase 2 of the project would include removal of an estimated 0.6 acres of vegetation onsite 88 that could be used by nesting migratory birds. 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts The NCCP provides a regional means of addressing impacts to the 39 species and 12 natural communities covered under the NCCP. Developers may obtain coverage for take of covered species by payment of a mitigation fee to the Nature Reserve of Orange County, the organization that manages the NCCP. The City of Newport Beach identified 26 related projects, the great majority of which will redevelop land with existing land uses. Two of the projects, Newport Coast and Banning Ranch, are planned for development on vacant sites. (The Banning Ranch site includes some scattered uses such as oil production and storage for construction equipment.) The City of Newport Beach lies within three topographic quads: Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, and Tustin. Within those quads, 63 sensitive species are documented on the CNDDB. The Wildlife Habitats map of Orange County (prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention) shows that habitat types in or near the Newport Coast and Banning Ranch project sites include coastal sage, valley foothill riparian, mixed chaparral, and annual grassland (CAL FIRE 2004). In addition, the CNDDB lists occurrences of 3 sensitive natural communities in the region that could be classified within the valley foothill riparian habitat category: south coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, and southern sycamore alder riparian woodland (CDFG 2012). One additional sensitive natural community documented in the region, valley needlegrass grassland, could be classified within the annual grassland habitat category. Development of the Newport Coast and Banning Ranch projects could impact sensitive species directly and through habitat loss. Both sites are within the NCCP plan area, though neither is within reserves designated Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -7 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES by the NCCP. However, the Banning Ranch site is in an Existing Use area, in which the NCCP does not authorize incidental take due to development of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. The Banning Ranch project would mitigate take of coastal California gnatcatcher through separate authorization by the USFWS requiring both onsite and offsite preservation and restoration of habitat (Bonterra Consulting 2011). The UCI North Campus is across Jamboree Road from the project site. While most of the North Campus is open space, a small area is developed with afew academic and support facilities, an arboretum, and a child development center. The grassland community in the North Campus Area shows relatively low diversity and is vegetated mostly with non - native annual grasses such as wild oats, bromes, and hare barley, as well as ruderal (weedy) herbs and forbs, particularly mustard, fennel, and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus). The area provides foraging and potential breeding habitat for various common mammals, birds, and reptiles. The San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve is immediately southeast of the UCI North Campus open space, approximately 875 feet southeast of the project site. The North Campus area is designated Mixed Use - Commercial in the UCI 2007 Long -Range Development Plan (LRDP). Permitted uses in this land use designation include facilities for office, research and development, and academic activities; commercial and retail space; conference facilities; university- and non - university- related residential facilities; support uses such as child care and recreation facilities; parking; and other related uses. The approved development program for North Campus under the 2007 LRDP includes 950,000 square feet of office and /or research and development space and 435 multi - family dwelling units. The North Campus site is not within a reserve designated by the NCCP, nor is it within an Existing Use area designated under the NCCP. Thus, the University of California is eligible to obtain take authorizations for NCCP- covered species by payment of a mitigation fee to the Nature Reserve of Orange County. The proposed project would not combine with Banning Ranch, Newport Coast, or North Campus projects to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources. 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act, United States Code Title 42, Sections 9601 et seq. • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), United States Code, Title 16, Sections 703 -712. State • Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, Section 2080 Regional • Orange County Central - Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan Page 5.3 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.3 -1 and 5.3 -2. This conclusion applies to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project and to project- specific and cumulative impacts. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.3 -3: The project would remove vegetation that could be used for nesting by migratory birds. This conclusion applies to project- specific impacts for both Phases 1 and 2 of the project. Cumulative impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures 3 -1 Prior to any proposed actions during the breeding season, January 31 st 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 88 biologist does not find any active nests that would be potentially impacted, the 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. 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion applies to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project and to project- specific and cumulative impacts. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -9 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.3 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources include places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious, archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities. Such resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Uptown Newport project to impact cultural resources in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the following technical report: • Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment of the Uptown Newport Village Project, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California, Cogstone, January 2012 A complete copy of this study is included in Appendix F of this DER. 5.4.1 Environmental Setting Study Methodology The cultural resources assessment conducted by Cogstone involved two paleontological records searches. The first search was conducted by staff of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LRCM) in 2011. Cogstone then conducted a search of the University of California at Berkeley online paleontology database on January 3, 2012. A literature review of paleontological specimens identified in Orange County was also conducted. The assessment by Cogstone also involved an archaeological and historical records search at the South 88 Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historic Resources Inventory System. These searches involved a review of several inventories and registers, including the California Register of Historic Places. Additionally, historical maps and historical aerial photographs were consulted. A sacred lands record search was requested by Cogstone staff from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in October 2011. NAHC responded that while there were no known sacred lands with the projects Area of Potential Effect boundaries, NAHC requested that Cogstone contact 16 Native American tribes or individuals for further information. Letters requesting information and containing maps and project information were sent to these 16 tribal contacts on November 14, 2011. One response was received from the Acjachemen tribe, stating that the area is sensitive in general. No other responses were received. Natural Setting California is divided into geomorphic provinces, which are distinctive, generally easy -to- recognize natural regions in which the geologic record, types of landforms, pattern of landscape features, and climate in all parts are similar. The project site is located in Orange County in the northern Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is composed of mountain ranges separated by northwest - trending valleys. The Peninsular Ranges Province is bound by the Transverse Range Province to the north and the Transverse Range and Colorado Desert to the east. More specifically, the project site is in the northeastern portion of the City of Newport Beach, adjacent to the City of Irvine and approximately five miles from the Pacific Ocean. The 25 -acre project site has been developed since the 1970s, and is currently used by the TowerJazz semiconductor facility for the production of computer components. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -1 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES The project site is at the eastern margin of Orange County's coastal province and lies atop paralic (coastal) sediments. These deposits consist of poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish - brown, interdigiated strandline, beach, estuarine, and colluvial deposits of silt, sand, and gravel. The deposits are overlain by a thin layer of younger, sandy alluvial soil. Cultural Setting Prehistoric Setting Archaeological evidence suggests habitation of the project site by a mobile population during the early Millingstone Period, about 8,000 to 6,500 years before present (B.P.). During the Late Millingstone Period, about 6,500 years to 3,000 year B.P., this population appears to have expanded their settlement to take advantage of new habitats and resources available. By the end of the Intermediate Period, 3,000 to 1,000 years B.P., the settlement became more stationary, as indicated by the hearths, mortuary features, and houses found in archaeological sites from this time period. The project site and surrounding area became inhabited by Native Americans known as the Gabrielino about 3,500 years ago, toward the end of the Late Millingstone Period. Gabrielino territory encompassed more than 2,500 square miles of southern California, stretching from Topango Canyon in the northwest to Mount Wilson in the north, San Bernardino in the east, and Aliso Creek in the southeast. By the time of European contact the tribe consisted of approximately 5,000 people living in various settlements throughout the area. The Gabrielino utilized local marine, woodland, and grassland food zones. Diet consisted primarily of plant foods, particularly acorns. Wild game was also consumed and consisted principally of deer, antelope, duck, and small mammals such as squirrels, rabbits, and mice. Marine animals, including fish and crustaceans, were also hunted and gathered from both the shoreline and the open ocean. The project area is not near any recorded major village; the closest settlement, the village of Kengaa, is approximately four miles south of the project site. However, multiple prehistoric archaeological sites are known within a mile radius of the project area (Cogstone 2012). Historic Setting Between 1769 and 1822 the Spanish colonized California and established missions, presidios, and pueblos throughout the area. After winning its independence from Spain, Mexico worked to lessen the wealth and power held by these missions. In 1833, with the passage of the Secularization Act, the missions and their lands were given to the Mexican governor, who redistributed them in the form of grants to private owners, who set up ranchos. When California was granted statehood in 1850, the US promised to honor rancho land grants. However, the process of defining land boundaries and proving legal ownership was often costly and time consuming. In combination with environmental factors detrimental to the cattle industry, many ranchos incurred debt and went into bankruptcy. This resulted in ranchos being divided up and sold inexpensively. The project area lies within the boundaries of what was Rancho San Joaquin, the result of two land grants awarded to Jose Andres Sepulveda in 1837 and 1842. In 1864 Sepulveda sold the rancho to a group of four investment partners, one of whom was James Irvine. Twelve years later in 1876, Irvine bought out his partners and became the sole owner of the Irvine Ranch. Page 5.4 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES The project area remained undeveloped until the early 1970s. Historical topographic maps from 1902 and 1935 reveal that the project area was fairly isolated and that no buildings were in its immediate vicinity. Aerial photographs as late as 1952 confirm that the project area was vacant until at least mid - century. The next available aerial photograph available, dated 1972, shows the project area fully developed. Archaeological and Historical Resources Archeological resources are the physical remains and traces of past human activity, such as artifacts, residues, and built features. Historic resources include buildings, objects, structures, areas, or sites that are historically important. As previously mentioned, an archaeological and historical records search was completed at SCCIC in November 2011 by Cogstone. The search included a review of several registers and inventories, including the national Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. The records search determined that there are no known cultural resources within the proposed project site's boundaries. Further, while the search identified several historic and prehistoric resources within a one -mile radius of the project area, none of these resources are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, California landmarks, or local registers. Paleontological Resources Two paleontological records searches were conducted for the project site and surrounding area. The first record search was conducted by the LRCM in 2011, the second by Cogstone via UC Berkeley's online paleontology database. Both searches were negative for fossil specimens within the project boundary. However, the LACM search reported fossils recorded from the same sediments near and directly adjacent to the project area ( Cogstone 2012). Additionally, the literature review revealed that numerousfossils have been recovered during paleontological monitoring of nearby construction projects. Fossils recovered at nearby sites include large mammals such as sabertoothed cats and mammoths, as well as small mammals, birds, and reptiles. Regulatory Background Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicableto the proposed project are summarized below. Federal and State National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) authorized the National Register of Historic Places and coordinates public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the nation's historic and archaeo- logical resources. The National Register includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into accountthe effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 106 Review refers to the federal review process designed to ensure that historic properties are considered during federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency, administers the review process with assistance from State Historic Preservation Offices. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -3 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological Resources Protection Act The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on federal and Indian lands. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a Federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. California Health and Safety Code The discovery of human remains is regulated per California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation... until the coroner... has determined... that the remains are not subject to ... provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible.... The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and... has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. California Public Resources Code Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of state policies and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code. In addition, cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as non - renewable resources and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. • California Public Resources Code 5020 - 5029.5 continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee as the State Historical Resources Commission. The Commission oversees the adminis- tration of the California Register of Historical Resources, and is responsible for the designation of State Historical Landmarks and Historical Points of Interest. • California Public Resources Code 5079- 5079.65 defines the functions and duties of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The OHP is responsible for the administration of federally and state mandated historic preservation programs in California and the California Heritage Fund. • California Public Resources Code 5097.9 - 5097.991 provides protection to Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites and identifies the powers and duties of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). It also requires notification of discoveries of Native American human remains, descendants and provides for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods. Page 5.4 -4 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES California Senate Bill 18 Existing law provides limited protection for Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places. These places may include sanctified cemeteries, religious, ceremonial sites, shrines, burial grounds, prehistoric ruins, archaeological or historic sites, Native American rock art inscriptions, or features of Native American historic, cultural, and sacred sites. Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), a bill on Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (TTCP), was signed into law in September 2004 and went into effect on March 1, 2005. Codified as California Government Code 65453, it places new requirements upon local governments for proposed projects involving a General Plan Amendment. The law requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving traditional tribal cultural places. The Final Tribal Guidelines recommends that the NAHC provide written information as soon as possible but no later than 30 days to inform the lead agency if the proposed project is determined to be in proximity to a TTCP and another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if they want to consult with the local government to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides direction on determining significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Generally, a resource is considered "historically significant" if it meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), including the following: • Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 88 0 Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or is not included in a local register of historical resources, does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: C -1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuantto Section 15064.5. C -2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. C -3 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. C -4 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -5 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.4 -1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPACT AN IDENTIFIED HISTORIC RESOURCE. [THRESHOLD C -1] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Phase 1 of the proposed project would include demolition of the Half Dome building at 4311 Jamboree Boulevard. Structures 50 years old or greater are eligible for consideration for listing as a state or national historic resource. The Half Dome building was constructed between 1967 and 1969 (43 to 45 years ago); therefore, it does not meet the minimum age requirement for state or federal historic consideration. Age notwithstanding, structures may also be considered historically significant if they possess unique qualities or features, or are associated with a person or event of historical significance. However, the building is typical of common industrial buildings and does not demonstrate unique qualities, nor are they associated with a person or event of historical significance. Further, while the records search identified multiple historical sites within a one -mile radius of the project area, none of these resources are identified as eligible for listing on national, state, or local registers. Consequently, development of the proposed project would not impact an identified historic resource. Phase 2 The building at 4321 Jamboree Road would be demolished as part of Phase 2 of the proposed project. This building was built between the years 1968 and 1972, making it 40 to 44 years old. This building does not meetthe 50- year -old or greater criteria as a potential historical resource. Additionally, it is not associated with an historic person or event, nor is it eligible for listing on national, state, or local registers. IMPACT 5.4 -2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE, INCLUDING EXCAVATION AS DEEP AS 15 FEET, COULD IMPACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND /OR PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. [THRESHOLDS C -2 AND C -3] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 As concluded in the cultural resources assessment conducted by Cogstone, no archaeological or paleontological resources are known to occur within the project area boundaries. Additionally, the area is generally considered to have low sensitivity for archaeological resources. However, the discoveries of resources at nearby locations indicate that similar resources could potentially exist on the site. The records search and literature review conducted by Cogstone revealed that several prehistoric sites and prehistoric isolates and a significant number of fossils have been discovered within a one -mile radius of the project site. Given this, the presence of natural features such as open lagoons and seasonal freshwater wetlands within the immediate vicinity, and the prehistory of the area, there is a possibility that the project area may contain significant subsurface prehistoric resources. Page 5.4 -6 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES The project area has previously been disturbed by grading and construction activities. The site is currently developed with industrial uses and is bordered by development on all sides. Any resources that may exist on the site have likely been disturbed or damaged. Consequently, it is unlikely that significant archaeological resources would be encountered during implementation of the Uptown Newport project. However, the project would require deeper excavations in order to accommodate the development proposed, particularly the subterranean parking structure, which could include one or two levels. There would be the potential to discover buried resources during the excavation of the project site during Phase 1. Therefore, there remains a possibility that the proposed project could impact archaeological and /or paleontological resources. Phase 2 During Phase 2, the TowerJazz facility would be demolished and the remaining portions of the project site would be graded and excavated. As with Phase 1, there would be a potential for buried resources to be uncovered during site excavation, particularly for subterranean parking. IMPACT 5.4 -4: PROJECT - RELATED GRADING ACTIVITIES COULD POTENTIALLY DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS. [THRESHOLD C -4] Impact Analysis Phase 1 The cultural resources assessment conducted by Cogstone did not identify any human remains or known human burial sites on the project site or in its vicinity. As the project site has been heavily disturbed in the past and is currently developed with industrial uses, it is unlikely that any human remains exist on the site. 8B However, the excavation and grading activities of the proposed project could result on impacts to unknown human remains. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, orto his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human would not occur. Phase 2 The analysis for Phasel also pertains to Phase 2. 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts Future construction projects in the City of Newport Beach, as identified in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, could lead to accelerated degradation of the cultural and paleontological resources. However, each development proposal received by the City is required to undergo environmental review. If there is a Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -7 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES potential for significant impacts on cultural or paleontological resources, an investigation will be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Neither the proposed project nor cumulative development in accordance with the City's General Plan is expected to result in significant impacts to cultural or paleontological resources, provided site - specific surveys and test and evaluation excavations are conducted to determine whether the resources are unique archaeological resources or historical resources, and appropriate mitigation measures are implemented prior to grading. Implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures would reduce cumulative impacts to a level of less than significant. 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Regulations • California Public Resources Code Sections 5020 - 5029.5; 5079 - 5079.65; 5097.9- 5097.991 • California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.4 -1 and 5.4 -3. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.4 -2 Development of the proposed project could impact previously unknown subsurface archeological or paleontological resources. 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.4.2 Phase 1 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 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 Page 5.4 -8 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES 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. 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 throughoutthe 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. • Significant fossils shall be cataloged and identified priorto 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. Phase 2 The mitigation measure outlined above would also be applicable to Phase 2. 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a level that is less than significant for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to cultural resources have been identified. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -9 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.4 -10 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Uptown Newport project to impact geological and soil resources in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report(s): • Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Uptown Newport Village, 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California., Ginter & Associates, Inc., November 2011. A complete copy of this study is included in Appendix G of this DEIR. 5.5.1 Environmental Setting The geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation of the project site completed by Ginter & Associates in November 2011 consisted of: • Review of pertinent literature and maps, and previous geological investigations of the project site. • Subsurface investigation consisting of 16 hollow -stem auger borings to depths of up to 101 feet below ground surface (bgs); and eight cone penetrometer borings to depths of up to 70 feet bgs. • Laboratory testing of subsurface soil samples • Seismic design parameters per 2010 California Building Code (CBC) requirements; and liquefaction analysis 88 ''�� • Geologic hazards evaluation • Report preparation Geologic Setting Regional Geologic Setting The project site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, one of several regions of California classified by the types of landforms most common within each province. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province is a series of northwest - southeast - oriented fault blocks in which some blocks are mountain ranges and others are valleys. The project site is located at the southeastern edge of the Los Angeles Basin. Local Geologic Setting The site is near the northeastern edge of the Newport Mesa, a flat- topped platform at an elevation of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and deeply dissected by stream erosion. San Diego Creek passes approximately 0.6 mile southeast of the site, and is one of the major streams that crosses the Newport Mesa. During development of this site (1967- 1969), the area was cut and filled with local materials. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.5 -1 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Geologic Units The geologic units present within the site can be characterized as generally stiff to very stiff silty to sandy clay fill soils overlying native sands, silts, clays and gravels of marine terrace deposits to the depths explored. The site was graded in 1967 -1969 using conventional cut and fill techniques. Geologic units under the site found in site borings to depths of up to 101 feet included: • Artificial Fill: Various landscape and open space areas have been re- worked to provide soils for vegetation in the form of shrubs, trees and grass. These areas are generally 2 -3 feet thick adjacent to existing structures. • Compacted Artificial Fill: This unit consists of reddish brown to brown sand, silty sand, sandy clay, sandy silt and clayey sands. Thicknesses vary from 2 -24 feet. • Terrace Deposits: Underlying the engineered fills, native terrace deposits consisting of crudely stratified sequences of sand, silts, clays and gravels occur to the depths explored - up to 101 feet below ground surface. The thickness of this unit is considered to be approximately 100 -200 feet. • Bedrock Units: The Lakewood Formation, at depth beneath the marine terrace deposits, consists of well -sorted gray, poorly cemented sands inter - bedded with silty fine - grained sands. Little information is available for this unit in the Upper Newport Bay area. Groundwater The project site is located above the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin ( "Basin "), which extends northwest from the site and underlies most of central and northern Orange County, along the boundary between the Basin and the Irvine Groundwater Subbasin to the northeast. Groundwater zones in sediments under the site include a Shallow Groundwater Zone extending from 15 -30 to 35 -45 feet below ground surface (bgs); an Intermediate Groundwater Zone from 65 to 100feet bgs; and a Lower Groundwater Zone from 140 to 225 feet bgs. Site borings to depths of up to 101 feet conducted as part of the geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed project penetrated the Shallow Groundwater Zone. Faulting and Seismic Hazards Regional Faults The Peninsular Ranges are traversed by dominant northwest trending faults including the San Andreas Fault about 47 miles northeast of the project site; San Jacinto Fault approximately 44 miles northeast of the site; Whittier - Elsinore Fault about 17 miles northeast of the site; and the Newport- Inglewood Fault, which passes approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the site. All four of these faults are classified as active, that is, they have had surface displacement within the last 11,000 years; and earthquakes have been recorded along all four faults in historic time. The Newport- Inglewood and Whittier - Elsinore Faults are shown on Figure 5.5 -1, Fault Map. In addition to these active faults, blind thrust faults are also thought to be present under the Los Angeles Basin. Blind thrust faults do not rupture all the way to the surface, so there is no evidence of them on the ground. The plane of a thrust fault is at an angle to the horizontal, with one block of earth moving up over another block. The 1994 Northridge earthquake occurred on this type of fault. Several major blind thrust systems have been identified; the Compton Thrust System, consisting of three segments (Baldwin Hills, Central and Santa Ana) is closest to the site. Page 5.5 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Fault Map i� " \Laejente ._V"lnut %.%_Ch.no ( 1 /a Hauenda -,Chonotr'; er , Fierq�his Mira Lome 1 South ! Whr La HabF27717�_4 Fweqtone, La M, a Brea "I 7t- Vdrba L nab e Fullerton ' f fsi Pe01ey I Norco r hL ` -i& WOna _ "Home W °ttd RuenaParkA,y,: Placen: "shirt'.., `� Ef Gar4ens t l �v Ls Palma Anaheim ,)� h�'r)I�.. f l+t✓rlst�Or ° C+Y r'i 55 �' 1`ny S� Stanton Garden .fe���,r �N 1. RO541':+�af Orange I� `• s j♦t �; �.£ - ti fi L .- r 4th rf ustin r Westminster 1:Y/ i7 •Y. Taal l3 n � t. 'ys ` Santa Ai 3 + 1 �, ?y kn,K Cte nr 't Jltl 7, Fcu�6idlr�. Cpr y li i 1 ,: lay If vll'�1= Pr s'fr al Fla+ �, � r, �o 0 �i a� I_. %e Forest+ Ranch anra�- _y dGjr tia PAS ;� Fault Crossing Mae 8ar11 L m I UCI Capusi�,! 4 l' �.. tL,.,�tu New P ha r.iaglf)n Cnto Ci 1 J 1l. --�N. 'k \� �� \`� ti• ?tsal';lref0 .l tt11,,aa F�JfMrrs\ ",1. /Smo, 1. ♦ PtZ ♦qa �tfr:,,i iial wart i l Cati ers 6'�' h y / °s°o,1, , Bea. Laguna,i 11� Reg I` RNI PnrA ' jrguel: 40 rPS09�p0 r . Y Sanq�u;�Y1yy 0\ r \ ys ' Dana Point: 4 ~ � x d\`•♦ 5, NG \ Clem#,nle'% n / G � San 4]rto rP. Ii. Bute Beak, O_a_.:•► Fault traces on land are indicated by solid lines where well located, by dashed lines where approximately located or inferred, and by dotted lines where concealed by younger rocks or by lakes or bays. Fault traces are queried where continuation or existence is uncertain. Active Faults Other Faults 0 3 Source: California Geological Survey 2071 — — — - - -7- Scale (Miles) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.5-1 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.5 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Faults Near the Project Site The Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone extends nearly 40 miles northwest - southeast from Culver City to Newport Beach, and passes about 4.5 miles southwest of the project site. No known faults traverse the Newport Mesa, although the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone passes near the southern boundary of the Mesa. The Pelican Hills Fault passes about two miles southwest of the site, and is classified as potentially active.' Afault extending northwest- southeast acrossthe University of California Irvine (UCI) campus was identified in 1991, and is classified as potentially active. That fault passes near University Drive approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site. UCI now requires that structures for full -time human occupancy be set back 50 feet from the fault. An analysis of lineaments, that is, linear changes in topography, structure of rock beds, and vegetation, that can be associated with faults, was conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation using aerial photographs. The lineament analysis covered about 10 square miles area with the project site in the north - central part of the area. Lineaments were classified into moderate lineaments and weak lineaments depending on their lengths and the types of changes seen along the lineaments. One moderate lineament was identified, and interpreted to be the Pelican Hills Fault. Three weak lineaments were identified; none of the weak lineaments were closer to the project site than the Pelican Hills Fault. The southern edge of the Santa Ana segment of the Compton Thrust System is inferred to be located beneath the site, but there is great uncertainty about the location of the Compton Thrust System. Ground Shaking 8B The major cause of damage from earthquakes is the shaking from earthquake waves; damage due to actual fault rupture at or just below the surface beneath a structure is much rarer. The shaking would occur not only immediately adjacent to the earthquake epicenter, but for many miles in all directions. When comparing the sizes of earthquakes, the most meaningful feature is the amount of energy released, most often measured as seismic moment. Magnitude scales, including the scale of seismic moment, are logarithmic. Each one -point increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in amplitude of the waves as measured at a specific location, and a 32 -fold increase in energy. That is, a magnitude 7 earthquake produces 100 times (10 x 10) the ground motion amplitude of a magnitude 5 earthquake. The San Andreas, San Jacinto, Whittier - Elsinore, and Newport- Inglewood Faults are each considered capable of generating an earthquake of magnitude 7.5. The Newport- Inglewood Fault and its offshore extension is considered capable of producing the strongest ground shaking at the project site. Historic earthquakes on the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone include the 1920 Inglewood earthquake (magnitude 4.9) and the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (magnitude 6.3). Other faults which could generate ground shaking nearly as strong on the site include the Whittier - Elsinore Fault and the Palos Verdes Fault (offshore and about 17 miles southwest of the site). The peak ground acceleration with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years, is 0.3458 where g is the acceleration of gravity. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale is a qualitative scale of how ' The California Division of Mines and Geology (now the California Geological Survey) classified potentially active faults as those showing evidence of surface displacement between 1.8 million and 11,000 years ago in earthquake fault zone maps published until 1988; the California Geological Survey no longer uses the classification potentially active. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.5 -5 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS earthquakes are felt by people and earthquakes' effects on buildings. The MMI is a 12 -point scale ranging from Intensity I, which is rarely felt by people, to Intensity XII, in which damage to structures is total and objects are thrown into the air. An acceleration of 0.345g corresponds roughly to an intensity of VIII on the MMI Scale (Wald 1999). In an Intensity VIII earthquake damage is slight in specially designed structures; ordinary substantial buildings are damaged considerably and partially collapse; and damage is great in poorly built structures. Objects such as chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall, and heavy furniture is overturned (USGS 2009). Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure Liquefaction is a process whereby strong earthquake shaking causes sediment layers that are saturated with groundwater to lose strength and behave as a fluid. This subsurface process can lead to near - surface or surface ground failure that can result in property damage and structural failure. If surface ground failure does occur, it is usually expressed as lateral spreading, flow failures, ground oscillation, and /or general loss of bearing strength. Sand boils (injections of fluidized sediment) can commonly accompany these different types of failure. In order to determine a region's susceptibility to liquefaction, three major factors must be analyzed: • The intensity and duration of ground shaking. • The age and texture of the alluvial sediments: Generally, the younger, less well compacted sediments tend to have a higher susceptibility to liquefaction. Sediment texture also plays a dominant role in determining liquefaction susceptibility. Sand and silty sands deposited in river channels and floodplains tend to be more susceptible to liquefaction than coarser or finer grained alluvial materials. • The depth to the groundwater. Groundwater saturation of sediments is required in order for earth- quake induced liquefaction to occur. In general, groundwater depths shallower than 10 feet to the surface can cause the highest liquefaction susceptibility. The liquefaction analysis for the project assumed groundwater depth of 15 feet, an earthquake of magnitude 6.6, and peak ground acceleration onsite of 0.36g. Isolated, thin, discontinuous layers of medium dense granular soil below the groundwater table were found to be susceptible to liquefaction; the shallowest soil found to be susceptible to liquefaction is about 27.4 feet bgs. Up to about 0.5 inch of liquefaction- induced total settlement may occur at isolated locations within the site. Because liquefaction will likely occur in isolated areas, differential settlement may be abrupt; therefore, differential settlements equivalentto the total settlements described above may occur over short distances. Surface failures due to liquefaction, such as ground rupture and sand boils, are unlikely due to the thickness of overlying non - liquefiable soil. Other Geologic Hazards Expansive Soils Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or increases; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. In general, the fine to medium - grained sands with some gravels will exhibit low expansion indices. The silty clays, sandy clays and clays will exhibit medium to high expansion indices. Sandy to silty clays from onsite borings were found to have medium to high expansion indices in three expansion index tests. Page 5.5 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Erosion Erosion is the movement of rock and soil from place to place, and is a natural process. Common agents of erosion in the project region include wind and flowing water. Erosion can be increased greatly by earthmoving activities if erosion - control measures are not used; common means of soil erosion from construction sites include water, wind, and being tracked off site by vehicles. Regulatory Setting State laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. 2010 California Building Code Current law states that every local agency enforcing building regulations, such as cities and counties, must adopt the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) within 180 days of its publication. The publication date of the CBC is established bythe California Building Standards Commission ,and the code is also known as Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations. The most recent building standard adopted by the legislature and used throughout the state is the 2010 version of the CBC, often with local, more restrictive amendments that are based on local geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions. These codes provide minimum standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground shaking with specified probability of occurring at a site. 8B Statewide General Construction Activity Permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued a statewide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for storm water discharges from construction sites (NPDES No. CAS000002) in 2009. Under this Statewide General Construction Activity permit, discharges of storm water from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or to be covered by the General Permit. Coverage by the General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Each applicant under the General Construction Activity Permit must ensure that a SWPPP is prepared prior to grading and is implemented during construction. The SWPPP must list BMPs implemented on the construction site to protect storm water runoff, and must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters. 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: G -1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.5 -7 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides. G -2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. G -3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. G -4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 B of the Uniform building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. G -5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: G -1.i, G -1.iv, and G -5. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts Estimated grading volumes are shown below in Table 5.5 -1. All quantities are raw grading quantities, and do not reflect settlement during compaction. The shrinkage of excavated soils, within five feet from the existing grade, upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to be on the order of five percent. While the fill quantities shown are somewhat largerthan the cut quantities, grading on the sites of each phase is intended to be generally balanced. Estimated export of demolition debris from the site is shown in Table 5.5 -2. If a second level of underground parking is developed, estimated required soil export from the site would be 90,000 cubic yards (cy) for Phase 1 and 100,000 cy from Phase 2. Table 5.5 -1 Estimated Gradina Volume and Net Export Volume in Cubic Yards Phase Cut Fill 1 48,200 48,900 2 98,500 114,100 Total 137,900 163,000 Page 5.5 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Table 5.5 -2 FNim�f. r! Mnf. ri�l 1= n ,f from Cif. r,,hi, v�r`Ic The project would develop up to 1,244 residential units in towers up to 150 feet high, and up to 11,500 square feet of commercial space. At buildout, the project is expected to house up to 2,724 persons at the average household size for the City of Newport Beach of 2.19 persons calculated from the 2010 US Census (Census 2012). The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.5 -1: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WOULD SUBJECT PEOPLE AND STRUCTURES TO STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING. (THRESHOLD G- 1.11]) Impact Analysis: Phase 1 The peak ground acceleration on the project site with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years, 8B is 0.345g where g is the acceleration of gravity. An acceleration of 0.345g corresponds roughly to an intensity of VIII on the MMI Scale. In an Intensity VIII earthquake damage is slight in specially designed structures; ordinary substantial buildings are damaged considerably and partially collapse; and damage is great in poorly built structures. Objects such as chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall, and heavy furniture is overturned (USGS 2009). There is no realistic way that the seismic shaking hazard can be avoided. Seismic performance goals for structures may expect that some property damage will be sustained in a moderate to large earthquake, but damage should be repairable and not life- threatening. For residential development, structures should be able to resist minor earthquakes with no damage; resist moderate earthquakes with some nonstructural damage; and resist major earthquakes with some structural damage, but with a low likelihood of collapse. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motions with specified probability of occurring at the site. Seismic design parameters for the project, pursuant to requirements of the 2010 CBC, are included in the project geotechnical investigation report. Phase 2 Analysis The analysis for Phase 1 above also pertains to Phase 2 of the proposed project. IMPACT 5.5 -2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT COULD SUBJECT PEOPLEAND STRUCTURES TO HAZARDS ARISING FROM LIQUEFACTION. (THRESHOLDS G -2 AND G -31 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.5 -9 Phase Demolition Debris Soil Export (If Second Level of Underground Parking Built) 1 12,800 90,000 2 13,000 100,000 Total 25,800 190,000 The project would develop up to 1,244 residential units in towers up to 150 feet high, and up to 11,500 square feet of commercial space. At buildout, the project is expected to house up to 2,724 persons at the average household size for the City of Newport Beach of 2.19 persons calculated from the 2010 US Census (Census 2012). The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.5 -1: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WOULD SUBJECT PEOPLE AND STRUCTURES TO STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING. (THRESHOLD G- 1.11]) Impact Analysis: Phase 1 The peak ground acceleration on the project site with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years, 8B is 0.345g where g is the acceleration of gravity. An acceleration of 0.345g corresponds roughly to an intensity of VIII on the MMI Scale. In an Intensity VIII earthquake damage is slight in specially designed structures; ordinary substantial buildings are damaged considerably and partially collapse; and damage is great in poorly built structures. Objects such as chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall, and heavy furniture is overturned (USGS 2009). There is no realistic way that the seismic shaking hazard can be avoided. Seismic performance goals for structures may expect that some property damage will be sustained in a moderate to large earthquake, but damage should be repairable and not life- threatening. For residential development, structures should be able to resist minor earthquakes with no damage; resist moderate earthquakes with some nonstructural damage; and resist major earthquakes with some structural damage, but with a low likelihood of collapse. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motions with specified probability of occurring at the site. Seismic design parameters for the project, pursuant to requirements of the 2010 CBC, are included in the project geotechnical investigation report. Phase 2 Analysis The analysis for Phase 1 above also pertains to Phase 2 of the proposed project. IMPACT 5.5 -2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT COULD SUBJECT PEOPLEAND STRUCTURES TO HAZARDS ARISING FROM LIQUEFACTION. (THRESHOLDS G -2 AND G -31 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.5 -9 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Analysis Isolated, thin, discontinuous layers of medium dense granular soil below the groundwater table were found at the project site to be susceptible to liquefaction. The shallowest soil found to be susceptible to liquefaction in the analysis is about 27.4 feet bgs. Up to about 0.5 inch of liquefaction- induced total settlement may occur at isolated locations within the site. Because liquefaction would likely occur in isolated areas, differential settlement may be abrupt; therefore, differential settlements equivalent to the total settlements described above may occur over short distances. Surface failures due to liquefaction, such as ground rupture and sand boils, are unlikely due to the thickness of overlying non - liquefiable soil. Information from two cone penetrometers- CPT -1 and CPT-2- was used in the liquefaction analysis. Of the two locations, the highest estimated liquefaction potential, 0.43 inch of liquefaction- induced settlement, would occur at the location of CPT -1 in the southern part of the site of Phase 1. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree. Lateral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. The risk of lateral spreading onsite is considered very low for the same reason that other types of surface ground failure related to liquefaction are considered unlikely. Site- specific liquefaction analyses would be required by the 2010 CBC for the construction of each building during the design phase considering the locations of each building and configurations such as subterranean construction, etc. Reinforced shallow foundations or deepened foundations are recommended in the project geotechnical report to mitigate potential adverse effects arising from liquefaction. Phase 2 Information from two cone penetrometers - CPT-4 and CPT-8 - was used in the liquefaction analysis. Total liquefaction- induced settlement on the site of Phase 2, based on data from the two cone penetrometers, is 0.18 to 0.19 inch. The analysis above regarding lateral spreading and required further analysis also pertains to Phase 2 of the proposed project. IMPACT 5.5 -3: THE PROJECT COULD CAUSE SOIL EROSION. (THRESHOLD G -21 Impact Analysis: Phase 7 Project site demolition, site preparation, and grading and construction activities would disturb large amounts of soil, thus creating a potential for substantial soil erosion. Site clearance for Phase 1 would involve export of an estimated 12,800 cubic yards of demolition debris. Site grading for Phase 1 is estimated to involve about 48,200 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 48,900 cy of fill. Grading would be balanced or nearly balanced; any needed soil stockpiling would occur onsite. If a second level of underground parking is developed, export of about 90,000 cubic yards of soil would be required. The project would prepare and implement a SWPPP pursuant to the Statewide General Construction Activity permit. The project would implement BMPs - specified in the SWPPP - to avoid or reduce pollution of stormwater, including pollution with sediment. Categories of construction BMPs included in SWPPPs are described below in Table 5.5 -3. Page 5.5 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Table 5.5 -3 Construction BMPs Category Purpose Examples Cover and /or bind soil surface, to prevent soil Mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding, Erosion Controls particles from being detached and transported by earth dikes, swales water or wind Filter out soil particles that have been detached Barriers such as straw bales, sandbags, Sediment Controls and transported in water. fiber rolls, and gravel bag berms; desilting basin; cleaning measures such as street sweeping The aims and methods of wind erosion control See Erosion Controls above. Wind Erosion Controls are similar to those of erosion control described above. Minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles Stabilized construction roadways and Tracking Controls construction entrances /exits; entrance /outlet tire wash. Prohibit discharge of materials otherthan BMPs specifying methods for: stormwater, such as discharges from the paving and grinding operations; cleaning, cleaning, maintenance, and fueling of vehicles fueling, and maintenance of vehicles and NonStorm Water Management and equipment. Conduct various construction equipment; concrete curing; concrete Controls operations, including paving, grinding, and finishing. concrete curing and finishing, in ways that minimize non - stormwater discharges and contamination of any such discharges. Waste Management and Controls Management of materials and wastes to avoid Spill prevention and control, stockpile (i.e., good housekeeping practices) contamination of stormw ater. management, and management of solid wastes and hazardous wastes. Phase 2 Site clearance for Phase 2 would involve export of about 13,000 cy of demolition debris. Estimated grading quantities for Phase 2 are 98,500 cy of cut and 114,100 cy of fill. Cut and fill are intended to be balanced or nearly balanced so that no substantial soil export or import would be needed. If a second level of underground parking is developed, export of about 100,000 cubic yards of soil would be required. The analysis above also pertains to Phase 2 of the proposed project. IMPACT 5.5 -4: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT COULD EXPOSE PEOPLE AND STRUCTURES TO HAZARDS ARISING FROM EXPANSIVE SOILS. (THRESHOLD G -41 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Analysis Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or increases; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. In three expansion index tests, 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 on- site 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.5 -11 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Phase 2 Analysis The analysis above also pertains to Phase 2 of the proposed project. IMPACT 5.5 -5 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT SUBJECT PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO SUBSTANTIAL HAZARDS ARISING FROM SOIL SUBSIDENCE. [THRESHOLD G -3 (PART)] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Analysis The project would remove the undocumented fills under and near proposed development areas and replace the removed materials with engineered fill derived from approved onsite and offsite sources. The removal of the compressible materials and replacement with engineered fill, and the presence of dense underlying alluvial terrace deposits and bedrock materials, would reduce potential for subsidence. Phase 2 Analysis The analysis above also pertains to Phase 2 of the proposed project. 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts Impacts to geology and soils are specific to the geologic and soils conditions on a particular project site. Mitigation of geologic, seismic, and soil impacts of development projects would also be specific to each site area. Compliance with the most recent adopted CBC standards serves to reduce seismic - related risks. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts related to soils and geology are anticipated. 5.5.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Regulations • 2010 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 2) • Statewide General Construction Activity Permit (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWO). City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Phase 1 Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.5 -1, 5.5 -2, 5.5 -3, and 5.5 -6. Page 5.5 -12 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.5 -4 Project development could expose people and structures to substantial hazards stemming from expansive soils. Phase 2 The significance conclusions above also apply to Phase 2. 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Impact 5.5 -4 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. 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. Phase 2 Mitigation Measure 6 -1 also applies to Phase 2. 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Upon implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.5 -13 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.5 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential forthe Uptown Newport project (proposed project) to cumulatively contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. The chapter evaluates consistency of the project with the strategies outlined in the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Scoping Plan in accordance with the GHG reduction goals of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and strategies proposed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the region, in accordance with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). This chapter also considers policies and mitigation suggested by the California Attorney General and the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA) to reduce GHG emissions. GHG modeling is included in Appendix C. 5.6.1 Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat - trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. Climate change is the variation of Earth's climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG —water vapor,' carbon (CO,), methane (CH,), and ozone (03) —that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21 st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur 8B hexafluoride (SF.), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001). Table 5.6 -1 lists the GHG applicable to the proposed project and their relative global warming potentials (GWP) compared to CO2. The majors GHG are briefly described below the table. Carbon dioxide (CO,) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CHJ is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities. Nitrous oxide (NO) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. ' Water vapor (1-1z0) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6 -1 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 5.6 -1 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO, GHG Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential Relative to CO.' Carbon Dioxide CO 50 to 200 1 Methane (CH,)z 12 ( ±3) 21 Nitrous Oxide (N20) 120 310 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC -23 264 11,700 HFC -32 5.6 650 HFC -125 32.6 2,800 HFC -134a 14.6 1,300 HFC -143a 48.3 3,800 HFC -152a 1.5 140 HFC -227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC -236fa 209 6,300 HFC -431 Dal 17.1 1,300 Perfluoromethane: CF, 50,000 6,500 Perfluoroethane: C F 10,000 9,200 Perfluorobutane: C F 2,600 7,000 Perfluoro- 2- methylpentane: C,F„ 3,200 7,400 Sulfur Hexafluoride SF 3,200 23,900 Source: USEPA 2008, IPCC 2001 - Based on 100 -Year Time Horizon of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the air pollutant relative to COi. The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO, is not included. Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone - depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to as High GWP gases. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone - depleting gases and are therefore being replaced by other GHG compounds covered under the Kyoto Protocol. • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human -made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF,] and perfluoroethane [C,F,]) were introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to the ozone - depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by- products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential. • Sulfur Hexafluoride (SFd is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, slightly soluble in water. SF, is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator. Page 5.6 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS • Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms. Although ozone - depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs. • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone - depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by- products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong GHGs (USEPA 2008a). California's GHG Sources and Relative Contribution California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the United States, only surpassed by Texas, and the tenth largest GHG emitter in the world. However, because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in COz emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services) (CEC 2006). CARB's latest update to the statewide GHG emissions inventory was conducted in 2012 for year 2009 emissions 2 In 2009, California produced 457 MMTons of CO,-equivalent (CO e) GHG emissions.' California's transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 37.9 percent of the state's total emissions. Electricity consumption is the second largest source, comprising 22.7 percent. Industrial activities are California's third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising 17.8 percent of the state's total emissions. Other major sources of GHG emissions include commercial and residential, recycling and waste, high global warming potential GHGs, agriculture, and forestry (CARB 2012). Human Influence on Climate Change For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and climate change pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of COz has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2007). These recent changes in climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants (CAT 2006). Climate change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report projects that the global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate - change scenarios, will range from 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.4 0F). In the past, gradual changes in the earth's temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic timeframe but within a human lifetime (CAT 2006). 2 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). 3 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6 -3 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potential Climate Change Impacts for California Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth's temperature are also hard to predict. In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation is falling as snow, 3) a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) an advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the springs, and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team (CAT), even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5.6 -2), and the inertia of the Earth's climate system could produce as much as 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable. Global climate change risks are shown in Table 5.6 -2 and include public health impacts, water resources impacts, agricultural impacts, coastal sea level impacts, forest and biological resource impacts, and electricity impacts. Specific climate change impacts that could affect the project include health impacts from a reduction in air quality, water resources impacts from a reduction in water supply, and increased energy demand. Table 5.6 -2 Summary of Global Climate Change Risks to California Impact Category Potential Risk Public Health Impacts Poor air quality made worse • More severe heat • Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack Water Resources Impacts Challenges in securing adequate water supply • Potential reduction in hydropower Loss of winter recreation Increasing temperature • Increasing threats from pests and pathogens Agricultural Impacts Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds • Declining productivity Irregular blooms and harvests • Accelerated sea level rise Coastal Sea Level Impacts Increasing coastal floods • Shrinking beaches • Worsened impacts on infrastructure Increasing risk and severity of wildfires • Lengthening of the wildfire season • Movement of forest areas • Conversion of forest to grassland Forest and Biological Resource Impacts Increasing threats from pest and pathogens • Declining forest productivity • Shifting vegetation and species distribution • Altered timing of migration and mating habits Loss of sensitive or slow- moving species Electricity Potential reduction in hydropower • Increased energy demand Sources: CEC 2006; GEC 2008. Page 5.6 -4 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Regulatory Setting Regulation of GHG Emissions on a National Level The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on- road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA's final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPAto finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light -duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (EPA 2009). The EPA's endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGsCO2, CH, NZO, hydrofluorocarbons, pertluorocarbons, and S176--that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world (the first three are applicable to the proposed project). In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MTons) or more per year are required to submit an annual report. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a State Level Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, and Executive Order S- 03 -05. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG 8B emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S -3 -05, signed June 1, 2005. Executive Order S -03 -05 set the following GHG reduction targets for the state: • 2000 levels by 2010 • 1990 levels by 2020 • 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 AB 32 directed CARB to adopt discrete early action measures to reduce GHG emissions and outline additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan by CARB, GHG emissions in California by 2020 are anticipated to be approximately 596 million metric tons (MMTons). In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTons (471 million tons) for the state. The 2020 target requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTons, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the business -as -usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596 MMTons) (CARB 2008)." Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the statewide GHG emissions inventory to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and measures not previously considered within the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The updated forecast predicts emissions to be 507 MMTons by 2020. The new inventory identifies that an estimated 80 MMTons of reductions are necessary to achieve the statewide 4 CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission - generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002 -2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB's definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6 -5 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS emissions reduction of AB 32 by 2020, 15.7 percent of the projected emissions compared to BAU in year 2020 (i.e., 15.7 percent of 507 MMTons) (CARB 2012). In orderto effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MTons per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implementthe plan by 2012. The Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool was established through the Climate Action Registry to track GHG emissions. Key elements of CARB's GHG reduction plan include: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; • Achieving a mix of 33 percent for energy generation from renewable sources; • Developing a California cap- and -trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system for large stationary sources; • Establishing targets for transportation- related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS);5 • Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and afee to fund the administrative costs of the state's long -term commitment to AB 32 implementation. Table 5.6 -3 shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan. While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, GARB estimates that land use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs, housing, and services result in a reduction of 5 MMTons, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments plays in successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today's levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community -wide emissions match the State's reduction target. Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize compact, low- impact growth over development in greenfields, resulting in fewer VMT (GARB 2008). 5 On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court's rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Night Circuit Court granted CARB's motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB's appeal of the lower court's decision. Page 5.6 -6 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 5.6 -3 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted Percentage of toward 2020 Target of Statewide 2020 169 MAST COZe Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation - Related GHG Targets' 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goads Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium /Heavy Duty Vehicles High Speed Rail Industrial Measures 1.4 1% 1.0 1% 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20% Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources /Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures far sources not covered under cap and trade program 1.1 1% Recycling and Waste landfill methane capture) 1 1% Total Uncapped Sources /Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100% Other Recommended Measures - Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1% Total Other Recommended Measures - Not Counted Towards 2020 Target 42.8 NA Source: CARE 2008. The percentages in the right -hand column add up to more than 100 percent because the emissions reduction goal is 169 MMTons and the Scoping Plan identifies 174 MMTons of emissions reductions strategies. MMTCO,,: million metric tons of CO3a Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is notthe SB 375 regional target. t According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO,, (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target. Energy Conservation Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2008 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allowfor consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, the CEC adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which go into effect on Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6 -7 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS January 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (non - residential) more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in home and businesses. The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non - federally regulated appliances. While these regulations are now often viewed as "business -as- usual," they exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation's first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The green building standards that became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code established voluntary standards on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011. Renewable Power Requirements A major component of California's Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RIPS), established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. CARB has now approved an even higher goal of 33 percent by 2020. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. Vehicle Emission StandardslImproved Fuel Economy Vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley 1) and the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Pavley I is a clean -car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light - duty auto to medium -duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a Regional Level In 2008, SB 375 was adopted and was intended to represent the implementation mechanism necessary to achieve the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the Scoping Plan forthe transportation sector as it relates to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Implementation is intended to reduce GHG emissions from light -duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long -range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations with local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. SCAG is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Page 5.6 -8 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino County, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG's targets are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035. The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region's existing transportation network. The proposed targets would result in 3 MMTons of GHG reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTons of GHG reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB's Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARE 2010). SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan. Forthe SCAG region, the SCS was adopted April 2012 (SCAG 2012). The SCS sets forth a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. If the SCS is unable to achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets, the MPO is required to prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy that shows how the GHG emissions reduction target could be achieved through other development patterns, infrastructure, and /or transportation measures. Existing GHG Emissions ffi Existing land uses on the project site generate direct and indirect GHG emissions from transportation, energy (e.g., natural gas use and purchased electricity), and area sources (e.g., stationary sources). Transportation sources of GHG emission are based on the traffic impact analysis conducted by Kimley -Horn Associates. GHG emissions from the existing TowerJazz facility are based on electricity, natural gas, and water use provided by the applicant. GHG emissions were modeled using CalEEMOd. The results of the GHG emissions modeling for the existing land uses are included in Table 5.6 -4 for Half Dome building emissions, TowerJazz facility emissions, and total emissions. Table 5.6 -4 Project- Related GHG Emissions, Existing Source GHG Emissions, MTons /Year Half Dome Building TowerJazz Facility Total Site Area/Energy — 49,179 49.179 Transportation 292 789 1,081 Waste 74 181 255 Water — 2,088 2,088 Total 366 52,237 52,603 Source: CalEEmod Version 2011.1.1. Based on electricity, natural gas, and water use provided by TowerJazz. Transportatian emissions based on trip rates provided by Kimley -Horn Associates. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6 -9 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: GHG -1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. GHG -2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD has adopted a significance threshold of 10,000 MTon per year for permitted (stationary) sources of GHG emissions for which SCAQMD is the designated lead agency. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency: Tier 1 If a project is exempt from CEQA, project -level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. Tier 2 If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project's geographic area (i.e., city or county), project -level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a screening -level threshold of 3,000 MTons annually for all land use types or the following land- use - specific thresholds: 1,400 MTons for commercial projects, 3,500 MTons for residential projects, or 3,000 MTons for mixed -use projects. This bright -line threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright -line thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright -line threshold would have a nominal, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions: Tier 3 If GHG emissions are less than the screening -level threshold, project -level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. Tier 4 If emissions exceed the screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project's GHG emissions is warranted. SCAQMD is proposing to adopt an efficiency target for projects that exceed the screening threshold. The current recommended approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percent emissions reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD proposes a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MTons per year per service population (MTons /year /SP) for project -level analyses and 6.6 MTons /year /SP for plan level projects (e.g., program -level projects such as general plans).' For the purpose of this project, SCAQMD's 6 I should be noted that the Working Group also considered efficiency targets for 2035 for the first time in this Working Group meeting. Page 5.6 -10 a The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS project -level thresholds are used. If projects exceed these per capita efficiency targets, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures. 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. These amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines include new requirements to evaluate GHG emissions. Pursuant to the amended CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: 1. The extent to which the project may increase (or reduce) GHG emissions compared to the existing environmental setting; 2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; 3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.' GHG emissions modeling was conducted using SCAQMD's California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMOd). Life cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore life cycle GHG emissions would be speculative.' The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed 88 potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.6.1: THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DURING PHASE 1 OPERATIONS BUT WOULD NOT EXCEED THE PROPOSED SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PER CAPITA SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD. AT BUILDOUT, THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A NET DECREASE IN GHG EMISSIONS. [THRESHOLD GHG -1] ImpactAnalysis: As described previously, a project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, this impact analysis measures the project's contribution to the cumulative environmental impact. Buildout of the Uptown Newport project would result in direct and indirect GHG emissions from transportation, energy (natural gas use), water and wastewater generation, and waste disposal. In addition, project - related construction emissions are amortized over a 30 -year lifetime in accordance with SCAQMD's proposed methodology. Transportation sources of GHG emissions are based on the traffic impact analysis conducted by Kimley -Horn Associates (see Appendix M). Water use is based on indoor and outdoor water demand provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District (see Section 5.15, Utilities ' OPR recommendations include a requirement that such a plan be adopted through a public review process and include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. ' Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6 -11 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS and Service Systems). Waste generation is calculated based on rates from CalRecycle (see Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems). GHG emissions were modeled using CalEEMOd. Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport project is forecast to build out by 2018. The existing 126,675- square -foot Half Dome Building would be demolished. The existing land use generates 270 average daily trips. The proposed project would result in operation of 680 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail land uses, and a 1.03 -acre park. These land uses would generate a total of 5,282 average daily vehicle trips, for a net increase of 5,012 average daily vehicle trips. Table 5.6 -5 shows the GHG emissions generated at buildout of Phase 1 of the proposed project in 2018. As shown, the project would generate a net increase of 6,563 MTons of GHG emissions and would exceed the proposed SCAQMD screening criteria of 3,000 MTons (Tier 3). As described below, this increase would be temporary until the TowerJazz facility is removed and Phase 2 is constructed. Because Phase 1 GHG emissions would temporarily increase atthe site, total GHG emissions for Phase 2 were compared to the proposed per capita thresholds (Tier 4). As shown in this table, operation of Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport would not exceed SCAQMD's proposed per capita significance threshold. Table 5.6 -5 Project- Related GHG Emissions, Phase 1 Source GHG Emissions, Year 2018 (MTons/Year) Existing (Demolished in Phase 1 ) Phase 1 Development Phase 1 Net Increase Area 0 510 510 Energy' 0 1,311 1,311 Transportation 292 4,307 4,015 Waste 74 366 293 Water' 0 1 136 136 Amortized Construction Emissions 0 298 298 Total 365 6,929 6,563 Screening Threshold NA NA 3,000 MTons Service Population (SP )l NA 1,515 NA Emissions Per Service Population NA 4.6 MTons /SP NA SCAQMD Proposed Project -Level Efficiency Metric NA 4.8 MTons /SP NA Exceeds Efficiency Metric NA No NA Source: CalEEmod Version 2011.1.1. Note: Transportation GHG emissions generated by the project in 2020 would be reduced as a result of the Pavley and LCPS (see Table 5.6 -8). ' Existing energy and water use not disaggregated from totals provided by TowerJazz. Therefore, no emissions for these sectors are reported for Phase 1. P Based on a service population of 26 employees and 1,489 residents. Phase 2 Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport project is projected to buildout by 2021. The existing 126,675- square -foot TowerJazz facility would be demolished. This facility generates 747 average daily trips. Energy use, natural gas use, and water use generated by the facility are based on data provided by TowerJazz. Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport project would result in operation of an additional 564 residential units and a 1.02 -acre park. These land uses would generate an additional 3,751 average daily vehicle trips, for a net increase of 3,004 Page 5.6 -12 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS average daily vehicle trips in Phase 2. Table 5.6 -6 shows the GHG emissions generated at buildout of Phase 2 of the proposed project. As shown in this table, the project would generate a net decrease of 47,212 GHG emissions in Phase 2 and would not exceed the proposed SCAQMD screening criteria of 3,000 MTons (Tier 3). At Phase 2, GHG emissions would result in a beneficial impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Table 5.6 -6 Project- Related GHG Emissions - Phase 2 Source GHG Emissions - Year 2021 (MTons /Year) Existing (Demolished in Phase 2) Phase 2 Phase 2 Net Increase Area 0 423 423 Energy' 49,179 942 - 48,237 Transportation 789 2,959 2,170 Waste 181 300 119 Water' 2,088 114 -1,973 Amortized Construction Emissions 0 286 286 Total 52,237 5,025 - 47,212 Screening Threshold NA NA 3,000 MTons Service Population (Sp )2 NA 1,235 NA Emissions Per Service Population NA 4.1 MTons /SP I NA Source: CalEEmod Version 2011.1.1. Note: Transportation GHG emissions generated by the project in 2020 would be reduced as a result of the Pavley and LCFS. ' Existing is based on natural gas, electricity, and water use provided by Towedazz. R Based on a service population of 1,235 residents. GHG Emission: Total A summary of the existing, Phase 1, and Phase 2 GHG emissions is shown in Table 5.6 -7. Operation of Uptown Newport project would generate an increase in transportation emissions, which would be offset by a decrease in area /energy emissions when the TowerJazz facility is closed. The project would result in a net decrease in annual GHG emissions of 40,649 MTons. The project would not generate an increase in GHG emissions at buildout and would not exceed the screening threshold of 3,000 MTons. Therefore, GHG emissions would result in a beneficial impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6 -13 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Table 5.6 -7 Project- Related GHG Emissions, Total Source GHG Emissions (MTons /Year Existing Total Phase 1 + Phase 2 Total Net Increase Area 0 933 933 Energy' 49,179 2,254 - 46,926 Transportation 1,081 7,267 6,185 Waste 255 667 412 Water' 2,088 251 -1,837 Amortized Construction Emissions a 584 584 Total 52,603 11,954 - 40,649 Service Population (Sp )2 I NA 2,724 NA Emissions Per Service Population I NA 4.3 MTons /SP NA Source: CalEEmod Version 2011.1.1. Note: Transportation GHG emissions generated by Phase 1 of the project in 2020 would be reduced as a result of the Pavley and LCFS. ' Existing total is based on natural gas, electricity, and water use provided by TowerJazz. Existing energy and water use not disaggregated from totals provided by Towedazz. Therefore, no emissions for these sectors are reported for Phase 1. 2 Based on service population of 26 employees and 2,724 residents. IMPACT 5.6 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH PLANS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. [THRESHOLD GHG -2] Impact Analysis: In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state's strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 BAU GHG emissions and identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32 (CARB 2008). The City of Newport Beach has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. No other GHG reduction plans are applicable for the proposed project. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Building Standards (e.g., CALGreen and the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards), California RPS, changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley II [Advanced Clean Cars]), and other measures that would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented over the next 8 years would assist the City in reducing the project's GHG emissions. Furthermore, at buildout the project would result in a substantial decrease in GHG emissions as a result of removal of a major industrial source of GHG emissions, The 2012 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS) was adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2012. The 2012 RTP /SCS is based on local land use projections in the cities and county's general plans. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the site and therefore consistent with the RTP /SCS. In addition, the project is consistent with regional strategies to reduce passenger vehicle miles traveled. The project is within a major employment center and is proximate to several major employers within Orange County (e.g., University of California Irvine, Allergen). Orange County is traditionally jobs -rich (see Section 5.11, Population and Housing). A major transit stop along Jamboree Avenue connects the project to major employment within the Irvine Business Complex and the iShuttle. The proposed project would be built to the maximum allowable density per the City of Newport Beach General Plan and zoning. Increasing residential land uses near major employment centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT. Therefore, in addition to generating a net reduction in GHG emissions, the project would be consistent with regional goals to reduce trips and VMT. Page 5.6 -14 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts As described under Impact 5.6 -1, project- related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Consequently, it is speculative to determine how project - related GHG emissions would contribute to global climate change and how global climate change may impact California. Therefore, impacts identified under Impact 5.6 -1 are not project- specific impacts to global warming but the project's contribution to this cumulative impact. As discussed above, at buildout the project would result in a net decrease in GHG emissions. Therefore, project - related GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change are not cumulatively considerable and would result in a beneficial impact. 5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations • AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act • Executive Order S -3 -05: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new cars. • California Building Code. Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction. • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances. 8B • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires the carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent less by 2020. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010, to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions. • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Energy Efficiency Standards City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to GHG emissions 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6 -15 S. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.6 -1 and 5.6 -2. 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are warranted. 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport project would generate an increase in GHG emissions onsite but would not exceed the proposed SCAQMD per capita significance thresholds. Atfull buildout the projectwould result in a net decrease in GHG emissions. Impact 5.6 -1 would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted. Page 5.6 -16 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on human health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions associated with the project site, project construction, and project operations. The hazards addressed in this section include potential threats associated with a release or past release of hazardous substances into the ground, groundwater, or surface water. This section also addresses the potential risk of soil gas and soil vapor intrusion into proposed buildings on the project site. And finally, this section analyzes the potential risk associated for other hazardous materials on the project site (e.g., industrial - related chemical storage, asbestos, lead, etc.). Potential health risks associated with the release of toxic air contaminants are addressed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. Potential project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures or standard conditions are included as necessary. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the following sources: • Report of Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Proposed Uptown Newport Village Development, Jazz Semiconductor Facility, Newport Beach, California, R M Environmental, Inc., June 17, 2010. • Clarification of Environmental Issues, Proposed Phase 1 of Uptown Newport Village Project, letter from Robert C. Manning, RM Environmental, June 20, 2012. • Vapor Intrusion Health Risk Assessment for Uptown Newport Village -Phase One -Newport Beach, California, Skinner Associates, February 13, 2012. /y • Off -Site Consequence Analysis for TowerJazz Semiconductor Facility, The Planning Center) DC &E, !ate/ 8 August 2012. 8 Complete copies of these studies are included in Appendix H of this DEIR. Additionally, information from publicly available remediation and monitoring reports forthe site as submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) are referenced in this section, including the following: • 2011 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report Conexant Systems, Inc., 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California, JHA Environmental, Inc., March 2011. 5.7.1 Environmental Setting Historical Land Use Prior to 1952 the site appeared as undeveloped land and open agricultural fields, with no structures. The property has historically been used for the development and manufacture of radio components, then semiconductors for telecommunication equipment, including facsimiles, modems, and high -speed data transmission equipment. Based on a review of aerial photographs and historical sources, the property and surrounding properties were acquired by Collins Radio in 1961. The construction of the Half Dome building (4311 Jamboree Road) was between 1967 and 1969, and the TowerJazz facility (4321 Jamboree Road) was built in between 1968 and 1972. Rockwell International purchased Collins Radio in 1972 and in 1996 transferred ownership of the property to Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, which became Conexant Systems in 1999. An eastern expansion of the TowerJazz facility was built between 1999 and 2002. The project site is currently used as a semiconductor manufacturing facility. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -1 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS As a result of the historical operations, soil and groundwater are impacted by volatile organize compounds (VOCs) in the north and northwest portions of the project site. Site Geology and Hydrogeological Conditions Soil and groundwater conditions under the site are described in Section 5.6, Geology and Soils. Following is summary of conditions for context of the hazards discussion. The site is northeast of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone and the Pelican Hill fault within the Pleistocene -age Newport Mesa Marine terrace. These terrace deposits are several hundred feet thick and overlie a suite of sedimentary bedrock units. The near surface soils (upper 50 feet) at the site typically consist of stiff to very stiff clays and silty clays with interbedded layers of sand, silty sand, and silts. The site is within the San Diego Creek watershed. The underlying shallow aquifer system consists of perched water - bearing units within the marine terrace deposits. The water - bearing units typically contain brackish, hard water and are not used for domestic or agricultural purposes. The unsaturated zone underlying the site is generally defined as being from the ground surface to 15-30 feet below the ground surface (bgs). A shallow groundwater zone is then encountered at depths of 15 -30 feet bgs to 35-45 feet bgs. Additional groundwater zones are located between the depths of 45 -60 feet bgs and 140 -225 feet bgs. Previous and Ongoing Remediation Activities As a result of the historical operations, soil and groundwater in the northern and northwest areas of the project site are impacted by VOCs from historical releases of chlorinated solvents from underground storage tanks (USTs). Solvents were detected in soil at the site in January 1984 during an investigation of a broken water line northwest of the TowerJazz building. The suspected source was two former solvent tanks located northwest of the TowerJazz building. This area has been the primary focus of historical and ongoing soil and groundwater investigation and remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the RWOCB. These remediation activities have resulted in reductions of chemical concentrations at the site and adjacent properties. Investigations and remediation activities are summarized below, and a timeline of environmental events on the site is presented in Table 5.7 -1. Page 5.7 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.7 -1 Environmental History of Project Site Year Event 1969 Installation of a 300 - gallon carbon steel waste solvent tank UST No. 1) north of the TowerJazz facility. 1973 Removal of UST No. land installation of a 500 - gallon carbon steel waste solvent tank UST No. 2). 1976 Removal of UST No.2 and installation of a 1,500- gallon stainless steel tank UST No. 3 at the same location. Initial discovery and investigation of release from waste solvent USTs. 1984 Installation of an SVE system consisting of 4 SVE wells; operated 1984 -1986. Removal of UST No. 3 and installation of a 2,000 - gallon stainless steel tank (UST No. 6) within a concrete vault immediately behind the TowerJazz facility. Removal of afuel tank UST No. 4 along the northern corner of the site. 1985 Removal of a waste solvent tank UST No. 5 along the northwest corner of the TowerJazz facility. Removal of four underground diesel tanks (USTs 7 through 10) between the Half Dome building and the TowerJazz facility. Two of the tanks were 12,000- gallon capacity and two were 20,000 - gallon capacity. A soil gas investigation was conducted near the TowerJazz facility. Groundwater extraction and treatment began at the site. The system removed groundwater from both the upper and intermediate aquifers between 1986 and 2004. A total of 736 million gallons of groundwater were reportedly 1986 removed and treated. Over 670 million gallons of municipal water was pumped into the upper and intermediate aquifers downgrade from the property to limit the further movement of groundwater contamination offsite, between 1996 and 2007. 1995 Exploratory borings and soil vapor probes were emplaced beneath and next to the TowerJazz facility as part of an investigation on the feasibility of a base isolation retrofit project. Soil sampling was conducted along the northwest property boundary wall. 1998 Soil sampling and excavation were conducted related to the seismic retrofit of the TowerJazz facility. 2001 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the site was conducted by Clayton Group Services, Inc. 2004 Soil sampling was conducted next to the concrete vault containing UST No. 6. 2005 Removal of UST No. 6 and related soil sampling. A human health risk assessment was conducted for a proposed Phase 1 redevelopment of the site by Haley & Aldrich. The findings indicate that the site of Phase 1 of the proposed project may be developed with unrestricted residential development, assuming that onsite structures would be built above ventilated parking levels. 2008 A high vacuum SVE system was installed and began operation. Interim soil confirmation sampling was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the SVE. Implementation of an in situ chemical oxidation pilot study for groundwater remediation by Jacob & Hefner Associates, Inc. Soil and soil gas sampling was conducted as part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (RM 2010 Environmental, see Appendix H). VOCs were not detected in any of the collected soil samples from 10 probes. VOCs were detected in soil gas samples. Benzene in levels above regulatory screening levels was detected in 7 gas probes, and vinyl chloride and trichlorethene in samples from 1 probe each. Samples were taken from 10 soil gas probes, 9 in site of Phase 2 of the project, and 1 in site of Phase 1. Findings are summarized in Section 5.7 -3, Environmental Impacts. 2012 A vapor intrusion health risk assessment was prepared (Skinner Associates, see Appendix H), including 7 additional soil gas probes. Findings summarized in Section 5.7 -3, Environmental Impacts. Note, Removals of 10 historic USTs are mentioned in this table; all 10 USTs were within the Phase 2 area of the project site (see Figure 5.7 -1). Soil and Soil Vapor Based on soil and soil vapor investigations, the highest VOC concentrations were in soil borings adjacent to the solvent tanks, and the highest concentrations of VOCs in soil vapor were identified north of the solvent tanks. The location of these former tanks is shown in Figure 5.7 -1, Location of Former Underground Storage Tanks. A pilot soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was installed in October 1984, operated approximately two years, and removed an estimated 31,900 pounds of VOC. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -3 "301 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Additional soil and soil vapor investigation activities were performed at the site in 2005 and 2006. VOCs were determined to be the primary constituents of concern at the facility. Based on investigations, a high- vacuum SVE and dual phase extraction pilot testing were proposed and completed in 2007. These were determined effective remedial technologies at the site, and a high vacuum SVE system was installed and began operating at the site in July 2008. This system utilizes 28 vapor extraction wells, and system optimization is performed on a weekly basis by opening or closing specific wells to assure maximum efficiency. As of February 2011, a cumulative total of 12,193 pounds of VOCs and total petroleum hydrocarbons have been removed by this system. Groundwater Groundwater monitoring wells were first installed at the site in September 1984, and the monitoring network has been expanded since that time. A hydrogeologic framework was developed consisting of a shallow groundwater zone, intermediate groundwater zone, and lower groundwater zone separated by clay and silty clay aquitards. Both the shallow zone and the intermediate zone have been impacted by VOCs, and groundwater remediation efforts have been ongoing since 1986. The remediation efforts and results are documented in a Comprehensive Groundwater Summary Report (JHA 2008), and annual groundwater and remediation progress reports are submitted to the RWQCB. The program has included groundwater extraction as well as recharge with municipal water in the intermediate zone to create a hydraulic barrier to mitigate the potential of site - related contaminants. Based on 2011 monitoring, VOC Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater are shown in Figure 5.7 -2. In Situ Chemical Oxidation Injection In 2009, a revised corrective action plan for the site proposed the injection of a high -pH activated sodium persulfate as a method of ISCO to treat shallow zone groundwater within the "primary zone of residual impact." Based on the results of sample testing, a revised corrective action plan treatability report was approved that included utilizing the ISCO treatment. This process was initiated at six injection wells in July 2010. Hazardous Building Materials Due to site security, inspection of the building interiors has not been conducted. Following is a description of the likely presence of hazardous building materials at the project site. Asbestos Asbestos is the name of a group of silicate minerals that are heat resistant and thus were commonly used as insulation and fire retardant. Inhaling asbestos fibers can cause lung disease (asbestosis) and lung cancer (mesothelioma; DTSC 2008). Given the age of the buildings onsite (between 1952 and 1965 for the Half Dome building, and between 1968 and 1972 for the TowerJazz facility), there likely are asbestos - containing materials (ACM) in the buildings. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 requires an inspection of the buildings for ACM beforethe start of demolition and specifies procedures for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM for demolition of structures containing 100 square feet or more of ACM. ACM could be present in the site of Phase 1 of the project (the Half Dome building) and the site of Phase 2 of the project (the TowerJazz facility). Page 5.7 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Fe P t o. n Source: JHA Environmental Inc 2011 5. Environmental Analysis Location of Former Underground Storage Tanks 0 SUMMNG6 l LEGEND 5� COO (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.7 -1 . UST NO. 1 - WASTE SOLVENT. 300 GALLON CARBON STEEL, REMOVED IN 1973. • UST NO, 2 - WASTE SOLVENT. WO GALLON CARBON STEEL. REMOVED IN 1976. • UST NO. 3- WASTE SOLVENT. 1,500 GALLON STAINLESS STEEL. REMOVED IN 1985. UST NO.4 - FUEL. REMOVED IN 1985. • UST NO. 5 -WASTE SOLVENT, 2AOO GALLON STAINLESS STEEL. REMOVED IN 1985. . UST NO. 6- WASTE SOLVENT. 2.000 GALLON STAINLESS STEEL. REMOVED IN 2005. ■ LISTS NO, 7 -10 - DIESEL FUEL. TWO 12,000 GALLON AND TWO 20.000 GALLON. \! REMOVED IN 198.5. SITE BOUNDARY I 5� COO (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.7 -1 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 0 J IG K x f rc < U VON KPR/ Source: JHA Environmental Inc 2011 5. Environmental Analysis VOC Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater PHASE 2 I� I I I,� • ND I I I I I I I r u_Ao S SHALLOW ZONE MONITOR WELL SHALLOW ZONE EXTRACTION WELL (NOT IN OPERATION) ■ DPE TEST WELL ND NOT DETECTED ABOVE LABORATORY REPORTING LIMIT 23 TOTAL VOLITILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (uglq CONTOUR OF EQUAL VOC (VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND) CONCENTRATION IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (Ng /1) TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONCENTRATIONS IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER AT OR ABOVE 100 ugll, THE PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER CLEANUP GOAL SET BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SITE BOUNDARY PHASE BOUNDARY 0 300 V� Scab Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.7 -2 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Lead Lead was used as an ingredient in paint before 1978 and as a gasoline additive; both of these uses have been banned. Lead is a reproductive toxin and a cancer - causing substance, and it impairs the development of the nervous system and blood cells in children (DTSC 2008). Lead must be contained during demolition activities (California Health & Safety Code sections 17920.10 and 105255), and anyone demolishing structures that are the age of the buildings onsite may presume they contain lead -based paint (LBP) without an inspection. LBP could be present in the site of Phase 1 of the project (the Half Dome building) and the site of Phase 2 of the project (the TowerJazz facility). SCE Substation An existing Southern California Edison (SCE) substation is located in the southern corner of the project site. According to the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for Conexant Systems, Inc. (EORM, 2009) it is a 66 kiloVolt Amperes (kVA) ground substation that includes both Edison and Conexant (now Jazz) transformers. According to interviews conducted for the ESA, all of the units are believed to have been installed after 1980. Potential Hazardous Materials Electrical substations typically use, store and dispose of three types of hazardous materials: • Dielectric fluid - contained in the transformers and used for insulation and cooling. Currently, the transformer oil is a highly refined hydrocarbon -based oil. Prior to the 1970s, dielectric fluids contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), toxic environmental contaminants. The USEPA banned the manufacture and sale of PCB - containing transformers in 1976. • Lead -acid batteries used to provide backup power. • Industrial gases - sulfur hexafluoride (SF.) used as an insulator and arc suppressor in circuit breakers. Normally, it is contained in the equipment and it is relatively inert and non - toxic. Compressed nitrogen gas is used to maintain slight positive pressure on oil- filled equipment to keep out moisture that can cause damage. It is inert and non - toxic. Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are present wherever electricity flows, including transmission power lines, substations, underground cables, appliances, and home and office computer equipment. EMF diminishes rapidly with distance from the source. While there is ongoing debate over the possibility of a health hazard due to exposure to low -level EMF, the balance of the scientific evidence to date has not shown any adverse health impacts. Regulatory Setting Regulatory Database Listings Onsite Listings Soil and Groundwater Contamination: The project site is listed on the GeoTracker database maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup site, and the case is open. Environmental investigations and cleanup onsite are summarized in Table 5.7 -1 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -9 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS above. The SWRCB has established a preliminary groundwater cleanup goal of 100Ng /L, or 100 parts per billion, for total VOCs for the site. Underground Storage Tanks: The environmental history of the site (Table 5.7 -1) includes removal of 10 historic USTs. All 10 of the removed LISTS were in the Phase 2 area of the project site. No known USTs currently exist on the project site. Hazardous Waste Generation: The TowerJazz Semiconductor manufacturing operation in the Phase 2 portion of the site is listed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a large quantity generator of hazardous wastes, meaning that it generates over 100 kilograms (kg) per month of hazardous wastes, or 220 pounds. Wastes generated include batteries, lamps, ignitable hazardous waste, acidic waste, non - halogenated solvents (acetone, xylene, benzene, cresols, cresylic acid, nitrobenzene, pyridine, ethyl acetate, ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, n -butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, methanol, and spent solvents), and metals (arsenic, barium, lead, mercury, and silver). Offsite Listings For the Phase I investigation, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) performed a database review in accordance with ASTM E1527 -05- Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The EDR environmental database reports are presented in Appendices E and F of the Phase I ESA (DEIR Appendix H). The findings reveal the following with respect to hazardous materials sites surrounding the Uptown Newport project site: • There are no federal or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) listed sites within 1 mile of the site. • There is one federal CERCLIS NFRAP (No Further Action Required) site between 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the site. • There are two federal (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Sites (RCRA) Corrective Action (CORRACTS) reports between 1/4 to 1 mile of the site. • There is one federal RCRA non- CORRACTS site listed between 1/4 and 1/2 mile of the site. • There are no federal RCRA generators or Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) sites listed within 1 mile of the site. • There is 1 State/Tribal equivalent National Priority List (NPL) site within 1/2 to 1 mile of the site. • There are 2 State/Tribal equivalent CERCLIS sites within 1/2 to 1 mile of the site. • There is 1 State/Tribal landfill or solid waste disposal site listed within 1/4 to 1/2 mile ofzthe site. • There are 2 listed State/Tribal leaking storage tanks listed within 1/8 to 1/4 mile and 11 listed within 1/4 to mile of the site. • There is 1 listed State/Tribal storage tank site within 1/8 to 1/4 mile of the site. • There are no State/Tribal voluntary cleanup sites within 1 mile of the site. • There are no US brownfield sites within 1 mile of the site. Page 5.7 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • There are no toxic pit sites within 1 mile of the site. • There were no emergency release reports or environmental lien properties within 1 mile of the site. • There are two registered storage tanks within 1/8 to 1/4 mile of the site. • There are 2 historic CORTESE sites within 118 to 114 mile and 6 historic CORTESE sites within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the site. • There is 1 dry cleaners site within 1/2 to 1 mile of the site. • No known oil or gas wells are on record within 1 mile of the site; Federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the project site are summarized below. Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) is a law developed to protect the water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by past chemical - disposal practices. This law is also referred to as the Supertund Act and regulates sites on the National Priority List (NPL), which are called Supertund sites. Emergency Planning and Community Right -To -Know Act 88 In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title III of this regulation may be cited as the "Emergency Planning and community Right -to -Know Act of 1986" (EPCRA). The Act required the establishment of state commissions, planning districts, and local committees to facilitate the preparation and implementation of emergency plan. Under the requirements, local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) are responsible for developing a plan for preparing for and responding to a chemical emergency, including: • An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present. • The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community -wide evacuation plan). • A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred. • The names of response coordinators at local facilities. • A plan for conducting drills to test the plan. The emergency plan is reviewed bythe State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout the community. The LEPC is required to review, test, and update the plan each year. The Orange County Environmental Health Department (EHD) is responsible for coordinating hazardous material and disaster preparedness planning and appropriate response efforts with city departments and local and state agencies. The goal is to improve public and private sector readiness and to mitigate local impacts resulting from natural or manmade emergencies. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -11 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Another purpose of the EPCRA is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report to state and local agencies the location and quantities of chemicals stored onsite. Under section 313 of EPCRA, manufacturers are required to report chemical releases for more than 600 designated chemicals. In addition to chemical releases, regulated facilities are also required to report offsite transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, pollution prevention measures, and chemical recycling activities. The EPA maintains the Toxic Release Inventory database that documents the information that regulated facilities are required to report annually. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the principal federal lawthat regulates generation, management, and transportation of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1926.62 Title 29, CFR Section 1926.62, sets forth standards for occupational health and environmental controls for lead exposure in construction, regardless of the lead content of paints and other materials. The standard includes requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation and monitoring. State Hazardous Materials Release Notification Many state statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release: • California Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.8, and 25507 • Vehicle Code Section 23112.5 • Public Utilities Code Section 7673, (PUC General Orders #22 -B, 161) • Government Code Sections 51018, 8670.25.5 (a) • Water Codes Sections 13271, 13272, • California Labor Code Section 6409.1 (b)l0 Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. In addition, all releases that result in injuries or harmful exposure to workers must be immediately reported to the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration pursuant to the California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b). Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs The Unified Program administered by the State of California consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and emergency management programs, which include: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (business plans), the California Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program, and the UST Program. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs). Page 5.7 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The CUPA for the Newport Beach area is the Orange County Environmental Health Division (EHD), which is responsible for regulating hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory; hazardous waste and tiered permitting; underground storage tanks; aboveground storage tanks; and risk management plans. Hazardous Materials Business Plans Both the federal government (Code of Federal Regulations) and the State of California (California Health and Safety Code) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount —or `reporting quantity " —of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a hazardous materials business plan to its CUPA. According to the EHD guidelines, the preparation, submittal, and implementation of a business plan is required by any business that handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in specified quantities. Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses must update their business plan at least every three years and the chemical portion every year. Also, business plans must include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures for immediate notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and atraining program for business personnel. The EHD currently reviews submitted business plans and updates. Businesses that handle hazardous materials are required by law to provide an immediate verbal report of any release or threatened release of hazardous materials if there is a reasonable belief that the release or threatened release poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, property, or the environment. The EHD is also charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections of regulated facilities in Orange County. California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalARP became effective on January 1, 1997, in response to Senate Bill 1889. CalARP aims to be proactive and therefore requires businesses to prepare risk management plans, which are detailed engineering analyses of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. This requirement is coupled with the requirements for preparation of hazardous materials business plans under the Unified Program, implemented by the CUPA. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Leaking USTs have been recognized since the early 1980s as the primary cause of groundwater contamina- tion from gasoline compounds and solvents. In California, regulations aimed at protecting against UST leaks have been in place since 1983 (Health and Safety Code). This occurred one year before RCRA was amended to add Subtitle I, requiring UST systems to be installed in accordance with standards that address the prevention of future leaks. SWRCB has been designated the lead California regulatory agency in the development of UST regulations and policy. Older tanks are typically single - walled steel tanks. Many of these have leaked as a result of corrosion, punctures, and detached fittings. As a result, the State of California required the replacement of older tanks with new double - walled fiberglass tanks with flexible connections and monitoring systems. UST owners were given 10 years to comply with the new requirements — deadline was December 22, 1998. However, many UST owners did not act by the deadline, so the state granted an extension for their replacement ending Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -13 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS January 1, 2002. The California RWQCB, in cooperation with the Office of Emergency Services (OES), maintain an inventory of leaking USTs in a statewide database. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 Title 22, Division 4.5, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) sets forth the requirements for hazardous - waste generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations include the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation. California Fire Code The 2010 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9) sets forth requirements including those for building materials and methods pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. California Building Code CCR Title 24, Part 2, 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. California Health and Safety Code, Sections 17920.10 and 105255 Lead must be contained during demolition activities. Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos emissions during building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos - containing material. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and cleanup procedures, and storage and disposal requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials. Local City of Newport Beach Fire Code The 2010 California Fire Code sets forth requirements including those for building materials and methods pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. The City of Newport Beach adopted the 2010 California Fire Code and the 2009 International Fire Code, with certain amendments, additions, and deletions, as Chapter 9.04 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. City Amendments to the Code include: Page 5.7 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 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. City of Newport Beach Fire Department Fire Prevention Guidelines The NBFD Life Safety Division has set forth certain Fire Prevention Guidelines, including guidelines for fire flow, fire access, building construction, flammable and combustible liquids, and fire protection systems (NBFD 2012). 5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: H -1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. H -2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. 88 H -3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. H -4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. H -5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. H -6 For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. H -7 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. H -8 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to the urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with thefollowing thresholds would be less than significant: H -1, H -3, H -5, H -6, H -7, and H -8. With the exception of H -1, these impacts will not be addressed in the environmental impact analysis in the following section. The Initial Study concluded that potential hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -15 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS hazardous materials would be less than significant. The assessment, however, focused on potential hazardous materials associated with construction activities and ongoing operations of the proposed development (primarily residential uses). The analysis below supplements the Initial Study analysis to also address potential hazards related to the routine use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials associated with the TowerJazz manufacturing operation. 5.7.3 Environmental Impacts A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 residential development forthe proposed project (RM Environmental 2010). The purpose was to assess the potential forthe presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of hazardous substances of petroleum products into structures on the property, or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water in connection with the property. Following is a description of the scope and findings of the ESA and the subsequent Vapor Intrusion Health Risk Assessment prepare for Phase 1 of the proposed project (Skinner 2012). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The ESA investigation was conducted between May 17 and June 14, 2010. The scope of work included a field reconnaissance of the site, installation and sampling of soil gas probes, review of available geotechnical and environmental reports, record and document review, and historic map and aerial photo review. The analysis, as further described below, concludes that soil and groundwater are impacted by VOCs in the north and northwest portions of the site. Soil gas probes were installed at 10 locations onsite on May 27, 2010. The locations of the gas probes are shown on Figure 5.7 -3, Soil Gas Probe Locations (locations GP -1 through GP -10). Nine of the locations were within the Phase 2 area of the project site, and the tenth was within the Phase 1 area. Soil samples were collected during installation of the gas probes, and soil vapor samples were collected from the probes on May 28, 2010. Methods of construction of the gas probes and sampling of soil and soil vapors are described in the ESA (Appendix H). Soil and soil vapor samples were both tested for VOCs. Soil VOCs Soil samples were collected during installation of the gas probes on May 10, 2010. VOCs were not detected in the collected soils samples from any of the gas probes (GP -1 through GP -10). Soil Gas VOCs Two screening levels were used to gaugethe concentrations of VOCs in soil gases: residential environmental screening levels (ESLs) set by the SWRCB, and California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. It is expected that ESLs would be used in evaluating hazards to the proposed residential uses from VOCs in soil gases and soil vapors. The only VOC detected above its respective ESL was benzene in nested soil gas probe GP -9 north of the Half Dome building. The detected VOCs above their respective CHHSLs were benzene in soil gas probes GP -2 -S, GP -3- D, GP -6, GP -8 -S, GP -8D, GP -9 -S, and GP -9D; vinyl chloride in GP -9 -D; and trichlorethene in GP -7. Concentrations of contaminants that exceeded the ESLs or CHHSLs are shown in Table 5.7 -2. All soil samples yielding soil gas concentrations of VOCs above ESLs or CHHSLs were from probes in the Phase 2 area of the project site. Page 5.7 -16 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.7 -2 Concentrations of Contaminants in Soil Gases above Regulatory Screening Levels Contaminant ESL CHHSL Concentrations above Screening Levels g /m' Ranged from 37 to 290. Concentrations from 7 samples from 6 probes were above Benzene 84 36.2 CHHSL. (Samples were taken at up to 3 depths from each of 10 probes.) Concentrations of 190 and 290 in 2 samples (9 -S and 9 -0) from 1 probe were above ESL. Probe 9 was one of the probes with concentrations above the CHHSL. Vinyl chloride 31 13.3 23 probe 9-D): above CHHSL Trichloroethene 1 1,200 528 700 probe 7): above CHHSL Source: Table 3, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, RM Environmental, Inc. 2010. Notes: All concentrations listed are in pg/m3. All soil samples yielding soil gas concentrations of VOCs above ESLS or CHHSLS were from probes in the Phase 2 area of the project site. Vapor Intrusion Health Risk Assessment (2012) A Vapor Intrusion Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was completed by Skinner Associates to determine whether VOC contamination in soil and groundwater under the site of Phase 2 of the project could pose substantial health hazards to future residents in Phase 1 of the project. Since no significant subsurface soil contamination has been identified in the Phase 1 portion of the site and because the underlying groundwater in the vicinity of the site is not used for municipal purposes, the risk assessment focused on the potential for future residents to be exposed to VOCs through soil -gas vapor intrusion (e.g., the migration of volatile chemicals from the subsurface soil or groundwater that can enter into buildings). Human inhalation of vapors would be the pathway to exposure to these chemicals. Soil Gas Vapor Intrusion Modeling 8B To evaluate the potential residential exposure of residents in the proposed buildings, soil -gas data from 17 soil probes were used to estimate vapor intrusion of 23 contaminants into buildings (see Figure 5.7 -3, Soil Gas Probe Locations). The Cal /EPA Human and Ecological Risk Division soil -gas screen vapor intrusion model was used for the analysis. Two exposure scenarios were evaluated: exposure of persons to VOC vapors through concrete foundation slabs and exposure inside underground parking garages. The analysis was limited to the Phase 1 portion of the site and the model assumes the vapor intrusion zone of impact is within 100 feet of the source. Risk Assessment and Results For each chemical of concern, the health risk assessment evaluated both the maximum concentration detected and the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the concentrations detected. Carcinogenic Risk Assessment: A chemical is considered to be sufficiently toxic if the vapor concentration of a chemical of concern poses an incremental lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 x 10, that is, greater than one in one million. Health risks were assessed by comparing concentrations detected to carcinogenic unit risks from Cal /EPA. Assessments of cancer risk were conducted for 8 of the 23 chemicals of concern for which Cal /EPA lists carcinogenic unit risks. Noncarcinogenic Hazard Assessment: Noncarcinogenic hazards were assessed by comparing concentrations detected to reference concentrations (RfCs) and chronic reference exposure levels (cRELs) from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and to values from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The detected value divided by the RfC, cREL, or value from IRIS yields a hazard index for that chemical. A concentration of a chemical of concern is considered to be an Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -17 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS acceptable risk if the noncancer hazard index is less than 1. The risk assessment involved adding the hazard indices for all 23 chemicals; noncarcinogenic hazards are considered less than significant if the total of the 23 hazard indices is less than 1. Assessment Results and Conclusions: Carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards identified in the risk assessment are listed in Table 5.7 -3. As shown in the table, all cancer risks and noncarcinogenic hazards identified were below the respective thresholds of acceptable versus unacceptable risks or hazards. Development and occupancy of Phase 1 of the project would not expose future residents of Phase 1 to substantial hazards from soil vapors originating from soil and groundwater contamination underthe Phase 2 portion of the project site. Table 5.7 -3 Risk Assessment Results and Conclusions: Assessment of Vapor Intrusion Risks for Future Residents of Phase 1 Exposure Concentration Scenario Assessed Risk /Hazard: inu Depth Assessed 15 feet 1 10 feet 5 feet Risk /Hazard Conclusion Threshold (Risk) Slab 95% UCL 3.69E -07 5.32E -07 9.56E -07 1.0E -06 Acceptable Slab Maximum 1.42E -06 2.01E -06 3.61E -06 1.0E -06 Acceptable Garage 95% UCL 8.96E -07 2.34E -06 2.34E -06 1.0E -06 Acceptable Garage Maximum 4.24E -06 8.78E -6 8.78E -6 1.0E -06 Acceptable Noncarcinogenic Health Hazard Slab 1 95 °% UCL 2.00E -03 2.89E -03 5.25E -03 1 Acceptable Slab Maximum 7.49E -03 1.73E -02 3.16E -02 1 Acceptable Garage 95% UCL 4.97E -3 1.32E -2 1.31E -2 1 Acceptable Garage Maximum 2.78E -02 7.27E -02 7.27E -02 1 Acceptable Offsite Consequence Analysis An Offsite Consequence Analysis (OCA) was prepared to assess the potential impact of a chemical release from the TowerJazz facility to residents of Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport project. The study in its entirety is included in Appendix H. The objectives of the analysis were as follows: • Identify and characterize the quantities and locations of hazardous chemicals stored at the TowerJazz facility; • Determine the distance from the chemical storage locations to the nearest residences for Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport project; • Conduct computer modeling using the EPA's Risk Management Program (RMP) or ALOHA computer program to determine worst -case accident release scenarios and alternative release scenarios and distances to the toxic endpoints; Determine potential impacts and safety risks at the nearest residential receptor; As appropriate, identify and develop mitigation measures to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Page 5.7 -I8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 ka d I i i 5. Environmental Analysis Soil Gas Probe Locations (GP -1 through GP -10) Birch St GP -2 G41 GPP--5 Existing Jazz, Semiconductor, Inc Facility GP0 -6 GP-7 0 Building Pad - a Park Space - -- Site Boundary Phasing Line 0 GP -1 Approximate Location of Soil Gas Probe Source: Skinner Associates 2012 tr O M E Ca 0 300 Scab Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.7 -3 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS As per discussions with the City of Newport Beach, the methodology used included the following: • Worst -case scenario: Analyzed using the EPA's computer model RMP *Comp, nighttime meteorological conditions (Stability Class F and wind speed of 1.5 m /sec), and instantaneous release from the largest container stored onsite. Passive mitigation measures, such as diked areas or releases within buildings, can be considered as per USEPA guidance. • Alternative release scenario: Analyzed using RMP *Comp assuming daytime meteorological conditions (Stability Class D and wind speed of 3 m /sec) and ALOHA using nighttime meteorological conditions. Alternative release scenarios consider more realistic release scenarios, such as a break in the piping or tubing of the storage vessel, and active mitigation measures, such as automatic shutoff valves and /or water spray mitigation, can be considered as per EPA guidance. • The impacts and risks to Phase 1 residential receptors were determined using the toxic endpoints specified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 68. • Because sulfuric acid is not in the RMP *Comp database of chemicals, the worst -case anc alternative -case scenarios for this chemical were analyzed, using the ALOHA computer program. Regulatory Requirements The City of Newport Beach adopted the 2010 California Fire Code and the 2009 International Fire Code, with certain amendments, additions, and deletions, as Chapter 9.04 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. City amendments to the code include: Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment). No person shall use or store any amount of extremely hazardous substances equal to or greaterthan 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. Chemical Usage, Storage Location and Safety Provisions There are five extremely hazardous substances that are stored in quantities above the reportable quantities (RQ): • Anhydrous ammonia • Boron trichloride • Chlorine • Hydrofluoric acid (49 %) • Sulfuric acid These chemicals and current quantities are listed in Table 5.7 -4, Chemical Usage at TowerJazz. The storage locations of the chemicals are shown in Figure 5.7 -4, Phase 1 Site Layout and Chemical Storage Locations. Table 5.7 -5, Chemical Locations and Maximum ContainerAmounts, provides the maximum container volumes used for the risk analysis as well the distances from each chemical to the nearest proposed project's Phase 1 residence. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -21 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.7 -4 Chemical Usage at TowerJazz Chemical Name Storage Quantity (lbs) Appendix A Reportable Quantity (Ib) Exceeds Newport Beach Municipal Code 2704 -1 -1 Anhydrous ammonia 9,713 100 Yes Boron trichloride 1,540 500 Yes Chlorine 990 10 Yes Hydroflouric acid (49 %) 3,588 100 Yes Sulfuric acid 20,000 1,000 Yes Table 5.7 -5 Chemical Locations and Maximum Container Amounts Numerous safety provisions are currently in place for the chemicals and are detailed in the OCA (Appendix H). Existing mitigation safeguards vary for each chemical, but for example include the measures for anhydrous ammonia: A water spray mitigation system • Alarms, pressure relief valves, excess flow valves, and emergency blockvalvesto preventor limitthe severity of a release Ammonia leak detection system with audible and security center alarms • The outdoor enclosure is protected by closely spaced traffic posts to prevent delivery trucks from accidentally backing into the tank area Emergency shut -off panels Page 5.7 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Maximum Maximum Distance to Container Container Nearest Quantity Density Quantity Proposed Chemical Name (gallons) (Iblgal) (lbs) Storage Location Residence (ft) Anhydrous ammonia 1,890 5.15 9,734 Outside enclosure south of cooling 5 towers Boron trichloride -- -- 110 Several locations on 2nd floor of 110 fabrication building Chlorine 110 Bulk chemical storage building - 190 2nd floor - gas room Hydrofluoric acid 49% 211 9.6 2,026 Bay chemical storage building - 235 Sulfuric acid (93 %) 2,000 15.3 30,600 Central plant 100 Numerous safety provisions are currently in place for the chemicals and are detailed in the OCA (Appendix H). Existing mitigation safeguards vary for each chemical, but for example include the measures for anhydrous ammonia: A water spray mitigation system • Alarms, pressure relief valves, excess flow valves, and emergency blockvalvesto preventor limitthe severity of a release Ammonia leak detection system with audible and security center alarms • The outdoor enclosure is protected by closely spaced traffic posts to prevent delivery trucks from accidentally backing into the tank area Emergency shut -off panels Page 5.7 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Phase 1 Site Layout and Chemical Storage Locations Ammonia Storage Sulfuric Acid Storage (Central Plant) BLIlk Chemical Storage .ow � � ON Ing - ifihitnrr���l Q Tower Jazz Semiconductor Facility 1.03 AC Gas Storage d'.[= WZA6r. .14 JJA Project Site - - - - -- Phase 1 0 Tower Jazz Boundary Source: Shopofi Management Inc. 2011 0 300 Scale (Feet) r - � r r � o I 1 li I I I �I 0 ,N III I I , I , , I I n 0 0 0 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.7-4 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Offsite Consequence Analysis Methodology The US Environmental Protection Agency's RMP and the California Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program require OCAs to have two elements: 1) a worst -case release scenario, and 2) an alternative release scenario. The worst -case scenario is defined as a release from the largest quantity of a regulated substance from a single vessel or process unit that results in the greatest distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint. Alternative release scenarios are scenarios that are more likely to occur than the worst -case scenario. Modeling assumptions and meteorological conditions that must be used in conducting the OCA are specified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 19, Chapter 4.5, Article 2735.1 et seq. As per the CaIARP program and EPA RMP guidance, worst -case scenario assumptions were used in the analyses (see OCA, Appendix H, for detailed assumptions). For estimating release rates from the chemical solutions that are stored at the TowerJazz facility, the procedures described in the EPA's Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (Exhibit B -3) were used. Only the first 10 minutes of the release were considered in the analysis, as per the EPA guidance. The toxic component in the solution evaporates fastest during the first few minutes of a spill when its concentration is highest. Although the toxic substance will continue to evaporate from the pool after 10 minutes, the rate of evaporation is so much slower than it can be safely ignored in estimating the consequence distance. Alternative release scenarios were based on more likely accident occurrences, such as a release from a hole in a vessel or piping. Active mitigation measures, such as automatic shut -off valves orwater spray mitigation, can also be considered in developing the alternative scenario. The assumptions used for the alternative release scenarios are detailed in the OCA (Appendix H). 88 For worst -case scenarios, the EPA computer model RMP *Comp was used, except for the evaluation of sulfuric acid. The RMP *Comp program does not contain sulfuric acid in its database; therefore, the USEPA ALOHA was used for this chemical. For alternative release scenarios, both the computer programs RMP *Comp and ALOHA were used. The toxic endpoints listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR 68 were used to determine safe distances for this analysis. The toxic endpoints are either 1) the Emergency Response Planning Guideline 2 (ERPG -2), which is defined as the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hourwithout experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair an individual's ability to take protective action, or 2) Level of Concern (LOC) derived for extremely hazardous substances. The toxic endpoints established by CaIARP and EPAthat were used in the analysis are as follows: • Anhydrous ammonia - 200 ppm (ERPG -2) • Boron trichloride - 2 ppm (LOC) • Chlorine - 3 ppm (ERPG -2). • Hydrofluoric acid (49 %) - 20 ppm (ERPG -2) • Sulfuric acid -10 mg /m3 (ERPG -2) Offsite Consequence Analysis Results The results of the OCA analyses are summarized in Table 5.7 -6, Offsite Consequence Analysis Results Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -25 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 5.7 -6 Offsite Conse uence Analysis Results The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. The following impacts address the potential release of chemical stored at the TowerJazz facility, hazards associated with previous groundwater and soil contamination, and hazards associated with the demolition of onsite structures that may involve hazardous building materials. Hazards from release of hazardous materials into soil or groundwater are discussed below under Phase 2. Hazards from release of air emissions associated with the operation of the TowerJazz facility are addressed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. IMPACT 5.7 -1: PRIOR TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE TOWERJAZZ MANUFACTURING FACILITYIN 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. (H -2] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 The existing TowerJazz manufacturing facility would remain operational after Phase 1 of the project (including 680 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet retail use) is developed and occupied. Phase 1 is anticipated to be available for occupancy as early as 2014, and although Phase 2 is proposed to be initiated in 2017 at the termination of TowerJazz's existing lease, the lease could be extended to 2027. Phase 1 residents, therefore, could be exposed to potential chemical - related hazards of the TowerJazz operation for up to 13 years. The findings of the OCA analysis (see Table 5.7 -6) indicate that for the worst -case scenario, the toxic endpoints would extend to the residential receptors in Phase 1 for each of the chemicals analyzed. This scenario, however, is very conservative for the following reasons: Page 5.7 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Anhydrous Boron Hydrofluoric Chemical Ammonia Trichloride Chlorine Acid Sulfuric Acid Distance to Nearest Residential 5 110 190 235 100 Receptor (ft) RMP *Comp Worst -case Analysis 6,336 3,696 1,056 6,336 252 - Distance to Toxic Endpoint ft Toxic Endpoint Exceeded at Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Residential Receptor? RMP *Comp Alternative Release Analysis - Distance to Toxic <528 528 <528 528 Endpoint ft Toxic Endpoint Exceeded at Yes Yes Yes Yes Residential Receptor? ALOHA Alternative Release Analysis - Distance to Toxic 192 84 <33 81 57 Endpoint ft Toxic Endpoint Exceeded at Yes No No No No Residential Receptor? The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. The following impacts address the potential release of chemical stored at the TowerJazz facility, hazards associated with previous groundwater and soil contamination, and hazards associated with the demolition of onsite structures that may involve hazardous building materials. Hazards from release of hazardous materials into soil or groundwater are discussed below under Phase 2. Hazards from release of air emissions associated with the operation of the TowerJazz facility are addressed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. IMPACT 5.7 -1: PRIOR TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE TOWERJAZZ MANUFACTURING FACILITYIN 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. (H -2] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 The existing TowerJazz manufacturing facility would remain operational after Phase 1 of the project (including 680 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet retail use) is developed and occupied. Phase 1 is anticipated to be available for occupancy as early as 2014, and although Phase 2 is proposed to be initiated in 2017 at the termination of TowerJazz's existing lease, the lease could be extended to 2027. Phase 1 residents, therefore, could be exposed to potential chemical - related hazards of the TowerJazz operation for up to 13 years. The findings of the OCA analysis (see Table 5.7 -6) indicate that for the worst -case scenario, the toxic endpoints would extend to the residential receptors in Phase 1 for each of the chemicals analyzed. This scenario, however, is very conservative for the following reasons: Page 5.7 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • No credit was taken in the analyses for active mitigation measures or safety features such as automatic sprinkler system, toxic gas monitoring system (TGMS), and automatic control valves • The analyses do not consider the probability of the release occurring • It is assumed that the wind would be blowing directly toward the receptor; wind rose data for the nearest meteorological station (Costa Mesa) indicate that the prevailing wind is from the southwest • Residents typically would be indoors during nighttime hours (Stability Class F conditions) The alternative release scenarios indicate that the toxic endpoints would not extend to the Phase 1 residential receptors, with the exception of anhydrous ammonia. At its current location the anhydrous ammonia tank is five feet from the nearest proposed Phase 2 residence. Phase 2 This impact is not applicable to Phase 2 of the project. Phase 2 would involve the demolition of the TowerJazz facility. Phase 2 residents and visitors, therefore, would not be impacted by potential chemical releases associated with this facility. IMPACT 5.7 -2: 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. [THRESHOLD H -4] 5� Impact Analysis This section addresses the potential for site activities to disturb contaminated soil and /or shallow groundwater, resulting in a release of hazardous materials. Phase I The Phase 1 portion of the project site is not listed in environmental databases searched as part of the ESA for the project. As shown on Figure 3 -7, Conceptual Grading and Earthwork: Phase 1 and Phase 2, grading for Phase 1 would not encroach into the Phase 2 portion of the project site. There would be no disturbance of the TowerJazz facility, the former location of solvent tanks, or contaminated soils (see Figure 5.7 -1, Location of Former Underground Storage Tanks). Based on ESA and vapor intrusion studies, potential sources of contamination in the Phase 1 portion of the site are limited to the migration of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater from the former UST areas in the Phase 2 portion of the site. With respect to groundwater, prior to 1991, the apparent direction of groundwater flow of the upper aquifer beneath the site was to the southeast. Since 1991, the apparent direction of groundwater of the upper aquifer has been toward a residual groundwater depression area between the Half Dome and TowerJazz buildings in the Phase 2 area of the site. In general, the areas of concern (>1 00 ppb total VOCs) of the upper aquifer have remained in the general vicinities of the former source areas (USTS). The detected VOC concentrations in the upper groundwater zone continue to decrease. As part of the conditions for Phase 1 development, the RWQCB would require continued monitoring and sampling of Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -27 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS selected wells in the Phase 1 portion of the site. Additional groundwater remediation is scheduled for the Phase 2 portion of the site within the next one to two years. In the unlikely event that additional VOC migration were to occur from the Phase 2 area to the Phase 1 portion of the site, in situ groundwater mitigation could effectively be conducted. Phase 2 Although soil and groundwater remediation activities are ongoing (SVE and in situ chemical oxidation), contaminated soil and groundwater are still present within the Phase 2 area of the project site. The lead oversight agency for the remediation is the California RWQCB. Phase 2 development could not occur until the RWQCB provides a "No Further Action" (NFA) declaration or a Letter of Allowance for residential construction. Phase 2 development, including ground disturbance that could impact Phase 1 residences, could not occur without the approval and oversight of the RWQCB. IMPACT 5.7 -3: DEMOLITION OF ONSITE BUILDINGS COULD RESULTINA HEALTH RISK DUE TO THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING MATERIALS, INCLUDING ASBESTOS AND LEAD PAINT. [THRESHOLD H -4] Impact Analysis Phase 1 Due to site security, the interiors of the onsite buildings have not been inspected. Given the age of the buildings, there are likely both asbestos - containing materials and lead -based paint in the buildings. The Half Dome building (constructed between 1952 and 1965), would be demolished as part of Phase 1. Demolition of the building could disturb ACM and /or LBP. The building, therefore, would require inspection for these materials prior to demolition, and ACM in amounts over 100 square feet must abated, contained, and disposed in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Lead must also be contained during demolition activities. Phase 2 The TowerJazz building would be demolished prior to development of Phase 2 improvements. This building was constructed between 1968 and 1972 and likely contains ACM and /or LBP. As with Phase 1, prior to demolition, this building would be inspected for these materials, and appropriate abatement and disposal would be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD regulations. IMPACT 5.7 -4: FUTURE RESIDENTSAND VISITORS OFPHASE 1 OF THEPROJECT WOULD NOT BE EXPOSED TO UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF VOCS AS A RESULT OF VAPOR INTRUSION INTO BUILDINGS. THE HEALTH RISKASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL SOIL VAPOR INTRUSION OF VOCS FOR FUTURE PHASE 2 RESIDENTS IS UNDETERMINED. [THRESHOLD H -4] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Based on the analysis and findings in the ESA, the Phase 1 portion of the site has not been significantly impacted by subsurface soil and groundwater contamination. Prior usage of the Phase 1 portion of the site has been limited to open parking space, landscape areas, and an office /administrative building. Manufacturing, chemical handling operations, and storage of hazardous materials have not occurred in this Page 5.7 -28 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS portion of the project site. Potential sources of contamination of the Phase 1 portion have been identified to be limited to the migration of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater from the former UST areas in the Phase 2 portion of the site. For Phase 1, basement parking depths are anticipated to be 5 to 18 feet belowthe existing grade. Proposed residential dwellings and retail commercial development are to be located above the subsurface parking garages or at elevations above the existing grades at the site. Based on the anticipated subgrade elevations for the parking, 5 -, 10 -, and 15 -foot sampling depths were used in the vapor intrusion modeling. Soil -gas samples were collected from both nested and single -well soil gas probes located in the perimeter area of the contaminated soil and groundwater in the Phase 2 portion of the site. Probe locations were selected to represent the highest potential source of contamination from the Phase 2 area. Based on the 95 percent UCL soil -gas concentrations of VOCs, the estimated vapor intrusion risk and hazards in the proposed subsurface parking garages and for proposed structures constructed at or above the existing grades are below the acceptable risk and hazard limits for residential exposure. The vapor intrusion HRA concludes that residents and visitors of the Phase 1 development as proposed would not be exposed to unacceptable levels of VOCs as a result of vapor intrusion into buildings. Phase 2 The vapor intrusion HRA was limited to Phase 1 of the proposed project. As noted above for Impact 5.7 -1, contaminated groundwater and soil are still present under the Phase 2 portion of the project site. The 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. Following ongoing and future remediation activities, Phase 2 development could not occur until the RWQCB provides a "No Further Action" declaration or a Letter of allowance for residential construction. Depending on the risk levels present after SVE and ISCO treatments, it would be determined whether excavation and removal of contaminated soils is necessary. Such excavation would occur after demolition of the TowerJazz building. IMPACT 5.7 -5: THE EXISTING SCE SUBSTATION MAY PRESENT HEALTH HAZARDS RELATED TO ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS (EMF) AND /OR UPON DEMOLITION, RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. [THRESHOLD H -2] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Phase 1 resident could be exposed to EMF. The strongest EMF associated with a substation comes from the transmission power lines entering and leaving the substation. The strength of EMF within the substation, such as transformers, reactors, and capacitor banks, decreases rapidly with increasing distance. Beyond the substation fence or wall, the EMF produced by substation equipment typically is indistinguishable from background levels (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 1995). California does not have specific regulations regarding electrical effects from transmission lines or substations. However, the California Department of Education (CDE) has established setback distances of 100 feet from 50 to 133 kV transmission power lines for new school siting. Conservatively assuming this standard to be applicable to a power substation, which should have much lower EMF levels, the nearest Phase I residence would be approximately 135 feet from the substation, which is beyond the setback distance of 100 feet. Therefore, no adverse health impacts should occur to residents in the Phase I development from EMF associated with the power substation. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -29 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Phase 2 The SCE Substation would be demolished as part of Phase 2 development. Since the substation will cease to operate, EMF will not pose a health risk to surrounding residents during Phase 2. Potential wastes generated during demolition include transformer oil, sulfur hexafluoride (SF,) battery acid, minor maintenance chemicals (paint, lubricants, gases) waste transformer oil, oily debirs, minor trash and metal scrap. Although not believed to be constructed prior to 1980, if any of the transformers were constructed prior to the 1980s, they could potentially contain PCBs and any structures could contain lead - based paint and /or asbestos. In addition, according to the ESA prepared for Conexant, no PCB - containing or potentially PCB- containing light ballast are believed to remain onsite due to maintenance and replacement schedules. 5.7.4 Cumulative Impacts Hazardous Material Sites The foremost "recognized environmental condition" onsite is groundwater contamination; thus, the area considered for cumulative hazardous materials impacts is the area over the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin and the Irvine Subbasin, which is part of the main basin. Numerous other groundwater contamination sites in the basin are known to the SWRCB and other regulatory agencies. As with the proposed project, these projects would be required to conduct Phase I ESAs —and Phase II ESAs and health risk assessments as needed —to determine the risks that grading and construction activities could encounter contaminated soil and groundwater, and what risks such contamination could pose to persons and to the environment on and near those project sites. Other projects would be required to remediate groundwater and soil contamination to cleanup goals set by regulatory agencies before those agencies would approve new developments or redevelopments on contaminated sites. TowerJazz Chemical Storage Hazards The OCA was prepared to analyze the potential impact of TowerJazz facility chemical releases to future residences of Uptown Newport Phase 1. Potential chemical releases could also potentially impact residences of other future residences within the project vicinity. As described in Section 3.2.2 Related Development Proposals, and as shown conceptually on Figure 3 -5, Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, up to 260 residential units are proposed forthe 12.7 -acre Koll property north of the Uptown Newport project site. Based on the most recent site plan submitted to the City (dated August 8, 2011) for the Koll project, the closest residential uses would be located approximately 800 feet from the nearest bulk chemical storage area and approximately 1,000 feet from the anhydrous ammonia tank. As currently proposed, therefore, the residences would be beyond the 192 -foot toxic endpoint for anhydrous ammonia and well beyond the shorter distance toxic endpoints (for the alternative release scenarios) for the other hazardous chemicals stored at the TowerJazz facility. 5.7.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations As described in detail in Section 5.7.1, the following regulations apply to the project Page 5.7 -30 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Federal S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (United States Code Title 42, Sections 6901 et seq.) • Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (United States Code Title 42, Sections 9601 et sec.). • Lead exposure: standards for occupational health and environmental controls (Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations Section 1926.62). State • Underground Storage Tank regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 23 Sections 2610 at seq.) • Hazardous Waste Generators regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5) • Lead containment (California Health and Safety Code Sections 17920.10 and 105255) • California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) • California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) Regional and Local • Orange County Environmental Health Division: Certified Unified Program Agency • Asbestos and Building Demolition: SCAQMD Rule 1403. • City of Newport Beach Fire Code (City Municipal Code Chapter 9.04) • City of Newport Beach Fire Department Guidelines (specified in Section 5.7.1) City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval The project would be subject to compliance with 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 greaterthan 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. 5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.7 -1 (Phase 2), 5.7 -3. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.7 -1 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -31 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Phase 1: Based on the OCA analysis, occupants of the Phase 1 development would be within the 192 -foot distance to the toxic endpoint of a chemical release (alternative scenarios) of anhydrous ammonia at its current storage location. Additionally, at this time the proposed project would not comply with the following City of Newport Beach CFC requirement since anhydrous ammonia, boron trichloride, chlorine, hydrofluoric acid, and sulfuric acid are currently stored at amounts exceeding the reporting thresholds for these chemicals: 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. Cumulative impacts could also be potentially significant depending on the final site plan for residential uses within the proposed Koll property adjacent to the Uptown Newport project site. • Impact 5.7 -2 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. VOC migration impacts are detailed in Impact 5.7 -4. At the time of preparation of this Draft EIR, however, the Phase 1 HRA is pending final review by the RWQCB, the agency with oversight for the remediation of the TowerJazz site contamination. This impact, therefore, is considered potentially significant until a "No Further Action" declaration or a Letter of Allowance for residential construction for Phase 1 is provided by the RWQCB. 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. • Impact 5.7 -3 Phase 1 and Phase 2: Demolition of onsite buildings could result in a health risk due to the release of hazardous building materials, including asbestos and lead paint. • Impact 5.7 -4 Phase 1: Based on the conclusions in the vapor intrusion HRA prepared for Phase 1, future residents of Phase 1 would not be exposed to unacceptable levels of VOCs as a result of vapor intrusion into buildings or parking garages. Phase 1 development, however, could not occur until the RWQCB, as lead oversight for the remediation of the project site, has cleared the site for residential development. This impact, therefore, is considered potentially significant until a "No Further Action" declaration or Letter of Allowance for residential construction for Phase 1 is provided by the RWQCB. Page 5.7 -32 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Phase 2: Contaminated groundwater and soil are still present under the Phase 2 portion of the project site, and soil -gas sampling results indicate VOC levels above acceptable health risk screening levels. The 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. • Impact 5.7 -5 Potential EMF risks due to the SCE substation would be less than significant. Without mitigation, however, potential risks associated with hazardous materials upon demolition of the substation could be significant. 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7 -1 Phase 1 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). 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 ' Per City of Newport Beach Fire Cade Section 104.1 General: The fire code official is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this code and shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code, and to adopt policies, procedures, rules and regulations in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies, procedures, rules and regulations shall be in compliance with the intent and purposed of this code and shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -33 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 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).. 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: o Disclosure to potential Uptown Newport residences that hazardous chemicals are used and stored at the adjacent TowerJazz facility. o Inclusion of property manager or authorized representative of the Uptown Newport residential community to the emergency notification list of the TowerJazz Business Emergency Plan. o 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). o 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. 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. Impact 5.7 -2 Phase 1 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. Phase 2 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. Page 5.7 -34 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 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. Impact 5.7 -3 Phase 1 and Phase 2 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. Impact 5.7 -4 Phase 1 Mitigation Measure 7 -3 also applies to Impact 5.7 -4. Phase 2 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. 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -35 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 5.7 -5 Phase 2 Mitigation Measures 7 -9 and 7 -10 also apply Impact 5.7 -5. 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 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. 5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hazards have been identified. Page 5.7 -36 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality conditions in the City of Newport Beach from implementation of the proposed Uptown Newport project. Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water, both on land and underground. Water quality deals with the quality of surface and groundwater. Surface water is water on the surface of the land and includes lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks. Groundwater is water below the surface of the earth. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the following technical report: • Uptown Newport Preliminary Hydrology Report, Hall & Foreman, Inc., December 2011. • City of Newport Beach Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan: Uptown Newport, Hall & Foreman, Inc., December 2011. Complete copies of these studies are included in Appendix I of this DEIR. 5.8.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Framework Clean Water Act The federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) is the principal statute governing water quality. The CWA establishes the basic structurefor regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards for industry. The statute's goal is to end all discharges entirely and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the nation's waters. The CWA regulates both the direct and indirect discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and storm water discharges, requires states to establish site - specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognized the need for planning to address non -point sources of pollution. Section 402 of the CWA requires a permit for all point source (a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, or channel) discharges of any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the U.S. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program promulgated under Section 402 of the CWA, all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the U.S. are required to obtain an NPDES permit. The term pollutant broadly includes any type of industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. Point sources are discharges from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), discharges from industrial facilities, and discharges associated with urban runoff. While the NPDES program addresses certain specific types of agricultural activities, the majority of agricultural facilities are defined as non -point sources and are exempt from NPDES regulation. Pollutant contributors come from direct and indirect sources. Direct sources discharge directly to receiving waters, whereas indirect sources discharge wastewater to POTWs, which in turn discharge to receiving waters. Under the national program, NPDES permits are issued only to direct point source discharges. The National Pretreatment Program Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -1 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY addresses industrial and commercial indirect dischargers. Municipal sources are POTWs that receive primarily domestic sewage from residential and commercial customers. Specific NPDES program areas applicable to municipal sources are the National Pretreatment Program, the Municipal Sewage Sludge Program, Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), and the Municipal Storm Water Program. Non - municipal sources include industrial and commercial facilities. Specific NPDES program areas applicable to these industrial /commercial sources are: Process Wastewater Discharges, Non - Process Wastewater Discharges, and the Industrial Storm Water Program. NPDES issues two basic permittypes: individual and general. Also, the EPA has recently focused on integrating the NPDES program further into watershed planning and permitting (OWM 2004). The NPDES has a variety of measures designed to minimize and reduce pollutant discharges. All counties with storm drain systems that serve a population of 50,000 or more, as well construction sites one acre or more in size, must file for and obtain an NPDES permit. Another measure for minimizing and reducing pollutant discharges to a publicly owned conveyance or system of conveyances (including roadways, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man -made channels, and storm drains designed or used for collecting and conveying stormwater) is the EPA's Storm Water Phase II Final Rule. The Phase II Final Rule requires an operator (such as a City) of a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to develop, implement, and enforce a program (e.g., best management practices [BMPs], ordinances, or other regulatory mechanisms) to reduce pollutants in post- construction runoff to the City's storm drain system from new development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance greater than or equal to one acre. The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department is the local enforcing agency of the MS4 NPDES permit. Porter - Cologne Water Quality Act The Porter - Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for California. Under this Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has ultimate control over state water rights and water quality policy. In California, the EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the SWRCB. The state is divided into nine regions related to water quality and quantity characteristics. The SWRCB, through its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) carries out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan or Basin Plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. The City of Newport Beach is located in the Santa Ana River Basin, Region 8, in the Newport Bay Watershed. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8) was revised in 2008. This Basin Plan gives direction on the beneficial uses of the state waters within Region 8, describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses, and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards established in the Basin Plan. Applicable Plans and Programs Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans Pursuant to the CWA, in 2009, the SWRCB issued a statewide general NPDES Permit for storm water discharges from construction sites ( NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this Statewide General Construction Activity permit, discharges of storm water from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or to be covered by the General Permit. Coverage by the General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Each applicant under the General Construction Activity Permit must ensure that a SWPPP is prepared prior to Page 5.8 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY grading and is implemented during construction. The SWPPP must list BMPs implemented on the construc- tion site to protect storm water runoff, and must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters. Existing Conditions Regional Drainage The project site is located within the Newport Bay Watershed, which spans 152 square miles in central and southern Orange County and is mapped in Figure 5.8 -1, Newport Bay Watershed. Site Drainage Existing site drainage is via a series of underground storm drain lines; the direction of flow onsite is generally from southeast to northwest. Figure 5.8 -2, Existing Drainage Conditions, shows the existing drainage patterns, onsite drainage subareas, and storm drains. There are four separate storm drain lines that connect with larger storm drain systems in the Koll Center property that bounds the northwest side of the project site. Storm drains in the parking lot in the northern part of the project site discharge into a 66 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain in the Koll Center site; storm drains in the remainder of the site discharge to a 48 -inch RCP storm drain that discharges into detention ponds on the Koll Center site. Drainage released from the detention ponds is conveyed to a 54 -inch RCP in MacArthur Boulevard that discharges into San Diego Creek; San Diego Creek flows into Upper Newport Bay. Newport Bay is contiguous with the Pacific Ocean. Streams are divided into segments called "reaches ". Receiving waters for the project site include: Reach 1 of San Diego Creek, that is, the segment of the Creek below Jeffrey Road in the City of Irvine; Upper Newport Bay; Lower Newport Bay; and the Pacific Ocean. Existing drainage volumes and peakflow rates from the site from 25 -year and 100 -year storms are shown in Table 5.8 -1. The project site is divided into two major drainage areas, designated as P and "B" on Figure 5.8 -2, Existing Drainage Conditions. Drainage area A (18.18 acres) includes the central and southern part of the project site. Drainage area B (6.60 acres) consists of the northern part of the site. Table 5.8 -1 Site Drainage Rates and Volumes, Existing Conditions Drainage Area Acres Peak Flows, cubic feet per second (cls) Volumes, acre -feet (at)' 25 -Year Storm 100 -Year Storm 25 -Year Storm 100 -Year Storm A 18.18 54.44 70.09 6.3370 8.1470 B 6.60 20.94 26.95 2.2965 2.9536 Total 24.78 75.38 97.04 8.6335 11.1006 ' One acre -foot is approximately 325,851 gallons. Surface Water Quality Water quality impairments for Reach 1 of the San Diego Creek, Upper Newport Bay, and Lower Newport Bay, and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for pollutants for which each of those three water bodies are listed, are shown in Table 5.8 -2. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -3 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.8 -2 Water Qualitv Impairments and Total Maximum Dailv Loads for Receiving Waters Water Body Water Quality Impairments Listed on Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Total Maximum Daily Loads' San Diego Creek Reach 1 (segment of Creek downstream of Jeffrey Road in City of Irvine) Selenium Required, expected completion 2007 Toxaphene organochlorine insecticide Required, expected completion 2019 Fecal coliform [bacterial Required, expected completion 2019 Nutrients Approved Pesticides Approved Sedimentation /Siltation Approved Upper Newport Bay Chlordane organochlorine insecticide Required, expected completion 2019 Copper Required, expected completion 2007 DDT organochlorine insecticide Required, expected completion 2019 Indicator Bacteria pathogens Approved Metals Required, expected completion 2019 Nutrients Approved PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls; formerly used as coolants in electrical equipment) Required, expected completion 2019 Pesticides Approved Sediment Toxicity Required, expected completion 2019 Sedimentation /Siltation Approved Lower Newport Bay Chlordane (organochlorine insecticide ) Required, expected completion 2019 Copper Required, expected completion 2007 DDT organochlorine insecticide) Required, expected completion 2019 Indicator Bacteria pathogens Approved Nutrients Approved PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls; formerly used as coolants in electrical equipment Required, expected completion 2019 Pesticides Approved Sediment Toxicity Required, expected completion 2019 Source: SWRCB 2011 ' "Approved" means that a TMDL approved by the EPA is in place for that pollutant. Groundwater The project site is located above the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin along the boundary of the basin, which extends northwest from the site and underlies most of central and northern Orange County; and the Irvine Groundwater Subbasin to the northeast (see Figure 5.8 -3, OC County Main GW Basin and Irvine Subbasin).' Groundwater zones in sediments under the site include a Shallow Groundwater Zone extending from 15-30 to 35-45 feet below ground surface (bgs); an Intermediate Groundwater Zone from 65 to 100 feet bgs; and a Lower Groundwater Zone from 140 to 225 feet bgs. Site borings to depths of up to 101 feet conducted as part of the geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed project penetrated the Shallow Groundwater Zone (Ginter & Associates 2011). ' The Irvine Groundwater Subbasin is a subbasin of the Main Basin. Page 5.8 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Newport Bay Watershed �-- ` 4- Westminster_ - Orange Garde n _ - Grove — - Fountain ' Ana - - Valley, Tustin Irvine Costa _ Mesa - -� Upper La Newport ® W1 Bay 1 La h Lower Newport Newport bay Beach e AI Pacific Oce ' vi Newport Bay Watershed Area Js - na Mission ® Viejo �1 Laguna Hills 0 3 rScale (Miles) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.8 -1 Ov Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Existing Drainage Conditions R.." I' • ( 4K-,- a col ¢ I y� KOLLSI -_ .�s-- ` --=`4� \ � I .. e gym° ") • �b.aw • R° - a a - _ 111.111E +.C� `" �i - ' �"`.�7 � � —_ eLr_ .ice; I'L— n (nl I wo r.— _tom .f'o TdT"_�,i�l'�z �Y3tl °�\ - I • rn���y� i���T}"'�` �� 7'h.(I I I � �I �. )f•.0 -m - � �.. _ I a.1- r'�"'�yr =.``r ime _ �l � � .}r � `� � ?I ` ���- \ �+,�y,l_. � n =L -_ .za� -�_ 3�Ai_ • '1 o e-v� c11�i1�!t _ � r ��.I�� °h-"� n =aY e.aa l tmcl:4; 111111��II II Illlllllllllllllllllll 411DkL _ - :L. • I / -.'�il ..- - - - - - - - - - n•ol lll�m,i 7 I Ill I�tmxa ! -.z.an I "-a' a.s ,aJ'" I" ~ el.l .,�.li{, �1�•�.N,I:�Id`II Y .__,L �_____. 1 IMT.adl 111J �TF c / �_I ��mi /1 �� no• Q v z( imoI�/1 fI �� \ ' - { -� .,,fll\ II IIn171611 I1i1'lu ul�l IIIn1111 -..'�i IPAgCE4Aj"' Z. rI 1 111,j ar n.ax� I x•ai' Mme ', •.f 1411 IIn.B 'I(I�IT111111t1�11 Iat +L PIY1:B:1082 L- -� I -•�.Y[ , -�y �I L l J e1 Y I,-�. - ;nflFan ' •ib +•I�rt'y #r111ASrFi� �l4 -? J A --,4f iezcs �a_ }}\\ � -�:z7s �.�.7-� -' ,aY 4 4 1 \..�'-\ _ \ . ®\ G !Lil rm7T_ C'r7lflat =�I�+ r _� I . j � �p \ �. � �_. :Ery'^ ��\ - �i� r_i ' _•_ � � i_ � ' +��." �� � x ` " (.'ll�a. -1 L ♦ �" tlt}Gll' Ito JY [-i `- � �-��'- =\✓ �L � -.� i - � ly Pa � B2 I � J � 3ARC6L 3 J n \ o i `• I I -11 a �I I 1101 I\ , - L LI1111 I 'mn - �'m'� y Y _ I ^U.li�1J li-F .�1....1,,1__1. ' 1''II_�prprF11�1I I� �1 LI fdJ,_: -- JAMBOREE - ROADS - -- - - -` -- - - -' - -- -> AN },tsslnm I xoa[. pan wtx svxrntt acwnax /Inv. acv +na � — _ � 'mau.ulr ao -um., xanongr A-Us 'ixau.nar ue.. (naiE9) — —. suvin¢ flax xnM y.an w®xnxr n.A lxa�Lg wm sox. oE:iwnnai ... i sal. a.nsmtcA.. O.AMv..If 0 200 1.0.1 .ua. -uan nowmu.x. Q mL m�orsanna a AREA g .n,'pq o0.•lx.rs xa. oe+a.nox Scale (Feet) [� Source: Hall &Foreman Inc. 2011 %A NJ Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.8 -2 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Orange County Main Groundwater Basin and Irvine Subbasin Source: CCWD 2009 0 5 r9Scale (Miles) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E a Figure 5.8 -3 cap La Habra ub$asjl; k. co of Yorba Linda 9. 1 Chu ... i Hills Ch , Sub -Basin Hills , .. outs Main Main .ti f Lw We-4 Basin Basin !l s'�+ °h- °� ,4ie Fora ♦ sa4 da ♦ '1'�..' y.. e Irvine Sub -Basin AJ N. �t C/V San Hnis CO. 0 % NN�• i� � � - - Sub -Basin Boundary •`•�� � "�'v, •�`�v — Forebay /Pressure Line OCWD Boundary \ Aquifer Condition Confined Unconfined • Site Source: CCWD 2009 0 5 r9Scale (Miles) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E a Figure 5.8 -3 cap Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Groundwater Quality Soil and groundwater contamination with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from underground storage tanks containing waste solvents was discovered in 1984. A soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was installed and put into operation in 1984. A high vacuum SVE system was installed and began operation in 2008. An onsite chemical oxidation pilot study for groundwater remediation was initiated in 2010. The groundwater aquifer that sits below the project site is a non - drinking water aquifer. The history of environmental events and investigations onsite is discussed further in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: HYD -1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. HYD -2 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. HYD -3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. HYD -4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site. HYD -5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. HYD -6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. HYD -7 Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. HYD -8 Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. HYD -9 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. HYD -10 Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with thefollowing thresholds would be less than significant: HYD -2, HYD -7, HYD -8, HYD -9, and HYD -10. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.8.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -11 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT 5.8 -1: DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES ON THE SITE AND WOULD REDUCE STORMWATER VOLUMES AND PEAK FLOW RATES INTO DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. [THRESHOLDS HYD -4 AND HYD -51 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Topography in the developed condition would continue to be relatively flat. Because of the nature of the project and of surrounding land uses, a series of "bird- bath" or sump areas are proposed. This strategy would allow for minimum grades to be achieved while maintaining a relatively uniform elevation for the buildings proposed for the site. This would allow for easy access to and from buildings while providing the necessary grades to drain the site. The sump areas would be drained by catch basins and joined through a network of underground storm drain lines. Figure 5.8 -4, Phase 1 Storm Drain, Concept shows the interim storm drainage plan for the project site. Existing storm drainage that capture runoff on the northern portion of the site and collect water for discharge to the western boundary of the project site would remain. New storm drains to serve Phase 1 would connect to the existing drainage along the western boundary. Flows would continue to drain the site from southeast to northwest and onsite storm drains would continue to discharge to the existing 48 -inch RCP that currently serves the site. Development of Phase 1 would include installation of a storm drain system serving Phase 1 and the southernmost part of Phase 2. Proposed storm drains in the eastern and central parts of Phase 1 would discharge into an infiltration basin underthe proposed park near the south end of the site. An ouff low pipe from the infiltration basin would carry stormwater exceeding the design capacity of the basin back to the storm drain system. As with existing conditions, no offsite flows would enter the project site. With the introduction of new landscaped area, development of Phase 1 would result in a slight increase in impervious surfaces, and therefore, surface runoff would be minimally increased in comparison to existing conditions. Under the Phase 1 condition, 12.5 percent of the site would be pervious surfaces in comparison to the existing 13 percent. Page 5.8 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 /iY/ ,�TIITIaI. W of �M a0) If O aZ F Y Z LQ a zCD O? O W _ rmin' 1 VMW/ZI PHASE 2 5. Environmental Analysis Phase 1 Storm Drain Conceit 0 r WIN N 11-r� n,l Or L SITEI �.,,� rrrrr�rrl•P1''rrrrrr �e �'' J1 L 1• 11 1 ..I,Llees .1 IA 1� ql _ (,�Ir r Ir• /'PIr,I�' r� //rr�r r rrPr /r /• /• /� � „ - / N Irlrlr�,r 101 r�r'r•1'rr rrrr•pl'1 L1. /.F IIA I,LI� A.1. /.1.L. • 1.1.1.1 � /,' �1`r r•/, U•1'rrl•1'1'rrrrr•1'1'r• 3-� HH I1 1I z Legend Storm Drain Phase 1 Existing Storm Drain to Remain Existing Storm Drain to be Abandoned 0 11 Scale (Feet) Source: Phasing P/an 1 il` Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.8-4 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Phase 2 Analysis Figure 5.8 -5, Proposed Drainage Plan shows the drainage concept plan for buildout of the proposed project upon completion of Phase 2. Drainage peak flow rates and volumes in post - project conditions are compared to those of existing conditions below in Table 5.8 -3. The site acreage analyzed in Table 5.8 -3 is that which drains into the onsite storm drain system. Approximately 0.76 acre of the project site next to Jamboree Road that would be developed as entrances and landscaped parkway areas, drainage would sheet -flow to Jamboree Road rather than flow into the onsite storm drain system. Thus, the total acreage evaluated in post - project conditions in Table 5.8 -3 is shown as reduced to 24.02 acres from 24.78 acres in existing conditions. In addition to the 0.76 acre that would discharge to Jamboree Road, 1.24 acres along the northern and western edges of the project site would discharge into storm drains on the Koll Center site from inlets on the proposed project site, rather than discharging into the storm drain system that would serve most of the project site. An infiltration basin would be developed under the park proposed in Phase I of the project; drainage from 8.65 acres in the southeastern part of the project site would be conveyed by storm drains to the proposed infiltration basin. Table 5.8 -3 Peak Flows, cubic feet per second (cis) Volumes, acre -feet (at)' Drainage Area Acres 25 -Year Storm 100 -Year Storm 25 -Year Storm 100 -Year Storm Post - Project Conditions A 17.74 45.49 58.42 5.9295 7.8281 B 6.28 15.13 19.54 1.9542 2.6866 Total 24.02 60.62 77.96 1 7.8837 1 10.5147 Existing Conditions A 18.18 54.44 70.09 6.3370 8.1470 B 6.60 20.94 26.95 2.2965 1 2.9536 Total 1 24.78 1 75.38 97.04 8.6335 1 11.1006 Post - Project Conditions Less Existing Conditions A 0.44 6.95 -11.67 - 0.4075 - 0.3189 B 0.32 5.81 7.41 - 0.3423 -0.267 Total 1 -0.76 1 -19.08 - 0.7498 - 0.5859 Percent Change, (Post - Project Conditions - Existing Conditions) /Existing Conditions A - 16.4% - 16.7% -6.4% -3.9% B 48 k - 27.7% -27.5% -14.9% 9.0% Total -3.1% 1 -19.6% -19.7% -8.7% 1 -5.3% ' One acre -foot is approximately 325,851 gallons. As shown in Table 5.8 -3, peak drainage flows from the whole site would be reduced by just less than 20 percent in both 25 -year and 100 -year storms compared to existing conditions. Drainage volumes from the whole site would be reduced by 8.7 percent in a 25 -year storm, and 5.3 percent in a 100 -year storm, compared to existing conditions. Upon completion of Phase 2, pervious areas onsite would be 22 percent of the project site in comparison to the existing 13 percent. Pervious areas in the site of Phase 2 at project completion would include a second park as well as landscaped areas. Construction of Phase 2 would include installation of storm drains serving Phase 2 and connections of those proposed storm drains to two existing storm drains in the Koll Center property. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -15 1 � LiJ Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT 5.8 -2: INCREASES IN SHORT -TERM UNQUANTIFIABLE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS COULD RESULT FROM ONSITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. (THRESHOLDS HYD -1 (PART) AND HYD -6. (PART)] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Project construction would involve use of grading and construction equipment that could result in pollution of stormwater with oil and greases, fuels, and metals. Disturbance of soil during grading and construction could leave soil vulnerable to erosion. Project construction could also generate water pollution from paving and grinding operations, concrete work, and use of paints and other coatings onsite. Installation of landscaping could result in water pollution with fertilizers and pesticides. The project applicant would prepare and implement a SWPPP specifying BMPs to be implemented during project construction to avoid or minimize water pollution. Categories of BMPs that are included in SWPPPs include: • Erosion controls: cover and /or bind soil surface, to prevent soil particles from being detached and transported by water or wind. Erosion control BMPs include mulch, soil binders, and mats. • Sediment controls: Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water. Sediment control BMPs include barriers, and cleaning measures such as street sweeping. • Wind Erosion Control: the aims and methods of wind erosion control are similar to those of erosion control described above. • Tracking controls: Tracking control BMPs minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles; for instance, stabilizing construction roadways and entrances /exits. • Non - stormwater management: Prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater, such as discharges from the cleaning, maintenance, and fueling of vehicles and equipment. Non - stormwater management BMPs also prescribe conducting various construction operations, including paving, grinding, and concrete curing and finishing, in ways that minimize non - stormwater discharges and contamination of any such discharges. • Waste and Materials Management: management of materials and wastes to avoid contamination of stormwater. Waste and materials management BMPs include spill prevention and control, stockpile management, and management of solid wastes and hazardous wastes. Phase 2 Phase 2 of the project would also required preparation and implementation of a SWPPP as detailed under Phase 1. Page 5.8 -16 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Proposed Drainage Plan EWE 11 iJ_1�51�II'�, //rr``'' �f(C.51• Ldp) 1l�1 ':' atl MII '7 �_.IIIIIIIi:C_i11 /1�irli�l 'Jj i_ i i qq'��11„ till' �,\IC` &L ?.a Ni-9'■a !� F...�:Ti7 b i.. =.. ea -w w e w7 ..Tw�.�1s,. o.! � 440 �T c I� ti `� - illy 1 i� — ` ..1/1`11. I l �' /j I I I Ili `! ::�•,' _' �'�I� � � ��_.� _ LEGEND: - - -- ON _ _ SP AREA FE _ 612 AC BMP TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE AREA •- -------- FS BMP DESIGNATION .,. LOW -FLOW BYPASS STRUCTURE BMP - HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR BMP - BIORETENIION SYSTEM (FILTERRA) • BMP - INLET FILTER INSERT (FLOGARO +PLUS) Source: Hall & Foreman Inc 2011 Uptown Newport Draft EIR LWWAK LM °ROML -M11�A9ER BMP - UNDERGROUND INFILTRA110N BASIN _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ LAND USE - LANDSCAPE AREA DESIGNATION _ _- __ _ - _ _�_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _�� _ _ LAND USE - IMPERVIOUS AREA (BUILDING OR PAVEMENT) _ _ >a'�--- +---- - - - - -- ------- 'r������ BMP TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY - - - SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION CONSTRUCTION PHASE BOUNDARY LINE 0 130 PROPOSED STORM DRAINS Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC€iE • Figure 5.8 -5 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -I8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT 5.8 -3: AFTER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, THE QUALITY OF STORM RUNOFF (SEDIMENT, NUTRIENTS, METALS, PESTICIDES, PATHOGENS, AND HYDROCARBONS) MAY BE ALTERED. [THRESHOLD HYD -1 (PART) AND HYD -6 (PART)] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Pollutants of Concern Pollutants of Concern are those that are expected to be generated by the project and that could impact stormwater. Expected pollutants of concern would be the same for each of the two phases of the project, and are described in Table 5.8 -4. Table 5.8 -4 Pollutants of Concern Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -19 Sources in Pollutant Description Proposed Project Sediments are solid materials that are eroded from the land surface. Sediments Attached Residential, Retail, Suspended can increase the turbidity (cloudiness) of water, clog fish gills, reduce spawning Parking, and Street project Solids /Sediment habitat, lower survival rates of young aquatic organisms, smother bottom- components dwelling organisms, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth. Nutrients are inorganic substances such as nitrogen and phosphorous; the primary sources of these substances in urban runoff are fertilizers and eroded Attached Residential, Retail, Nutrients soils. Excessive discharge of nutrients to water bodies and streams causes Parking, and Street project eutrophication, where overgrowth of aquatic plants and algae can lead to components excessive decay of organic matter in the water, loss of oxygen in the water, and eventual death of aquatic organisms. Metals of concern as water contaminants include cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Lead and chromium have been used as corrosion inhibitors; metals are also raw materials used in nonmetal products such as fuels, adhesives, and paints. At low concentrations naturally occurring in soil, Retail, Parking and Street Heavy Metals metals may not be toxic. However, certain metals at higher concentrations can project components be harmful to aquatic life and to humans. Humans can be impacted from groundwater contaminated with metals. Metals can become concentrated in fish and shellfish, and can subsequently harm humans who consume those animals. Environmental concerns have already led to restrictions on some uses of metals. Bacteria and viruses are microorganisms that thrive under certain environmental Pathogens conditions. Water contamination by animal or human fecal wastes and Attached Residential, Retail, (Bacteria/Virus) contamination by excess organic wastes are common causes of proliferation of Parking, and Street project these microorganisms. Water containing excessive bacteria and viruses can components alter the aquatic habitat and harm humans and aquatic life. Relatively low concentrations of the active ingredients in pesticides can be toxic Attached Residential, Retail, Pesticides in water. Excessive or improper use of pesticides can cause toxic contamination Parking, and Street project in runoff. components Oil and grease in water bodies decrease their aesthetic value as well as water Attached Residential, Retail, Oil and Grease quality; one of the most important sources of oil and grease is leakage from Parking, and Street project motor vehicles. components Organic compounds are carbon based. Commercially available or naturally Toxic Organic occurring organic compounds are found in pesticides, solvents, and Retail, Parking and Street Compounds hydrocarbons. Organic compounds at certain concentrations can be hazardous Project components to life or health. Toxic levels of solvents and cleaning compounds can be discharged to storm drains during cleaning and rinsing operations. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -19 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.8 -4 Pollutants of Concern Pollutant I rash and debris, such as paper, plastic, polystyrene foam, aluminum, and biodegradable organic matter such as leaves, grass cuttings, and food waste, Attached Residential, Retail, Trash and Debris may significantly impair aquatic habitat and the recreational value of a water Parking, and Street project body. In addition, trash impacts water quality by increasing biochemical oxygen components demand. A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), completed in December 2011, specifies BMPs that would be included as apart of the project to avoid or minimize stormwater pollution during project operation, including BMPs that would be included in project design, and BMPs that would be carried out during project operation. Site design for stormwater quality protection uses a three -level strategy: 1. Reduce or eliminate post - project runoff; 2. Control sources of pollutants; and, if still needed after (1) and (2), 3. Treat contaminated stormwater before discharging it into the storm drain system or into receiving waters. The project is a Priority Project as defined under the MS4 Permit; and, thus, is required to implement Low - Impact Development (LID) BMPs in addition to the three categories of BMPs mentioned above. There are three categories of BMPs, with each category corresponding to one of the three strategies. • Low - Impact Development BMPs. The design goal for LID BMPS is to maintain or replicate pre - development hydrologic conditions through site preservation techniques and the use of integrated and distributed micro -scale storm water infiltration, retention, detention, evapotranspiration,2 and filtration and treatment systems as close as feasible to the source(s) of runoff. • Source Control BMPs control sources of pollutants. Source control BMPs are divided into two types: o Structural Source Control BMPs, which are included in project design, aim to reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff. Common means include roof runoff controls; protection of slopes and channels; efficient irrigation; and storm drain system signage. Nonstructural Source Control BMPs, which are used during project operation, aim to reduce the potential for pollutants resulting from activities onsite to enter runoff. Common means include education of owners and employees; activity restrictions, such as requiring that trash can lids be closed at all times; and periodic inspections of water quality features such as catch basins and filters. • Treatment Control BMPs treat contaminated stormwater before the water is discharged offsite. Common means include biofiltration through constructed project landscape elements such as bioswales, infiltration trenches, and /or infiltration basins; and filters. (CASQA 2004). 2 Evapotranspiration is the reduction in runoff via evaporation and via transpiration through plants. Page 5.8 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Low - Impact Development BMPs LID BMPs are described briefly below; selection of LID BMPs are described in detail in Section IV of the WQMP included as Appendix I of this DEIR. Infiltration An infiltration basin would be developed under the proposed park in the southern part of Phase I of the proposed project. Approximately 8.65 acres in the southeastern part of the project site— about one -third of the entire site3 —would drain to the infiltration basin via proposed storm drains under driveways. The capacity of the infiltration basin would be 18,015 cubic feet. Water quality treatment volume is that which would result from an 851- percentile, 24 -hour storm; that is, about 0.7 to 0.75 inches of rain in 24 hours. Drainage from the storm drain would pass through a hydrodynamic separator before continuing through the inlet pipe to the infiltration basin; hydrodynamic separators remove trash, debris, other solids, and oil from stormwater. Biotreatment BMPs The project would use Filterra proprietary biotreatment devices or approved equivalents. Filterra devices are two - leveled chambers installed behind storm drain catch basins. The upper chamber contains filter media topped with a layer of mulch and vegetation growing in the mulch; the lower chamber is a detention tank with an outlet pipe connecting to a storm drain. Filterra or equivalent devices would be used for storm drain catch basins in drainage areas in most of the northern and western parts of the site comprising 14.13 acres at project completion; and consisting of the western part of Phase 1 and almost all of Phase 2. Source Control BMPs 88 Structural Source Control BMPs The following structural source control BMPs are included in the project WQMP: • Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage • Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction. Trash and waste storage areas should be paved and protected from stormwater run -on through berming or grading; trash containers should be covered by lids or by a roof or awning; and the areas should be screened or walled to prevent off -site transport of trash (e.g., by wind). • Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control. • Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation. • Incorporate LID BMPs (described above). • Wash water control for food preparation areas. Nonstructural Source Control BMPs • Education for property owners, tenants and occupants; and employee training 3 The part of the site that would drain to the infiltration basin is the eastern and central parts of the site of Phase 1 and a small part of the site of Phase 2. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -21 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY • Activity Restrictions • Common area landscape management • BMP maintenance and Common area catch basin inspections. • Title 22 CCR compliance (How development will comply). California Code of Regulations Title 22 contains regulations governing community care facilities including day care facilities. • Hazardous materials disclosure compliance • Uniform Fire Code implementation • Common area litter control; and street sweeping of private streets and parking lots Treatment Control BMPs • Hydrodynamic Separator: see description under LID BMPs, above. • Catch Basin Inserts: inlets in 1.24 acres of area along the northern and western edges of the project site that would be isolated from the drainage system for most of the site. Catch basins in these areas would be equipped with Kristar Flogard+ Plus filter inserts or approved equivalent devices. • Propietary Roof Drain Stormwater Treatment Device (if applicable). To be used only if final design reveals that roof drains, building drains, or other landscape drains do not have the grade differential required to outlet through curb openings in the adjacent roadway(s). Under this scenario, manufactured roof drain stormwater systems (Filterra or approved equal) shall be provided prior to connecting to the main storm drain system. Phase 2 The analysis above for Phase 1 also pertains to Phase 2 of the proposed project. Implementation of Phase 2 would also remove the existing TowerJazz industrial facility and eliminate potential pollutants associated with this operation. 5.M Cumulative Impacts The area over which cumulative impacts are considered is the Newport Bay Watershed. The Newport Bay Watershed spans most of the cities of Irvine, Tustin, Santa Ana, Lake Forest, and Newport Beach; portions of several other cities; and portions of unincorporated Orange County. Substantial growth is anticipated within the Newport Bay Watershed in the next few decades; as parts of the watershed are already urbanized, growth is expected to be a mix of development and redevelopment. New development and redevelopment projects would result in some increases in impervious areas, and thus some increases in amounts of stormwater; and would add increased sources of urban stormwater pollutants such as oil and grease, trash and debris, and pesticides and fertilizers. Other projects in the Newport Bay Watershed would be required to comply with the Statewide General Construction Permit through preparation and implementation of SWPPPs; and with the MS4 Permit through preparation and implementation of WQMPs. For priority projects, requirements of the MS4 permit include Page 5.8 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY implementation of LID BMPs. Other projects would also be required to limit runoff pursuant to regulations of the Orange County Flood Control District. 5.8.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regulations Statewide General Construction Activity Permit: State Water Resources Control Board MS4 Permit: Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to hydrology and water 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. 5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Phase 1 Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.8 -1, 5.8 -2, and 5.8 -3. Phase 2 The significance conclusions above also apply to Phase 2. 5.8.7 Mitigation Measures Phase 1 and 2 No mitigation measures are required. 5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -23 "301 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential impacts to land use in the City of Newport Beach from implementation of the Uptown Newport project. This section focuses on direct land use impacts. Direct impacts are those that result in land use incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans, including habitat or wildlife conservation plans. Indirect impacts are secondary effects resulting from land use policy implementation, such as an increase in demand for public utilities or services, or increased traffic on roadways. Indirect impacts are addressed in other topical sections of this DER. 5.9.1 Environmental Setting Existing Onsite Land Uses Existing project site uses and conditions are depicted in Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 4 -1, Site Photographs. The project site is currently developed with two industrial buildings. The Half Dome building in the southwestern part of the project site is one story and 126,675 square feet. It is used for office, light industrial, storage, and cafe services. The TowerJazz facility is two and three stories and 311,452 square feet. A Southern California Edison (SCE) substation exists along the southwestern boundary of the site. The balance of the project site is developed with landscaped areas, surface parking lots for employees, and other hardscape improvements; the parking lots are in the eastern and northern part of the site. Existing Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses are depicted in Figures 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, and 4 -2, Surrounding Uses - Photographs. The project site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by commercial /office uses within the Kell Center Newport office park. To the north are clusters of office buildings ranging from 1 to 15 stories in height and 3 fast -food restaurants. To the west are office buildings ranging from 1 to 4 stories high, landscaped areas, and 2 man -made lakes that are part of Kell Center Newport. To the south are two 20 -story office buildings, surface and structured parking, and a fast -food restaurant. Jamboree Road forms the eastern boundary of the project site, and beyond Jamboree Road to the east is undeveloped open space within the North Campus planning area of the University of California, Irvine. The San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve is approximately 875 feet southeast of project site, across Jamboree Road. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -1­12), which provides for horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 designation applies to a majority of the properties located in the Airport Area, which includes the project site. The zoning designation of the project site is Industrial Site 1 of the Kell Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15), which permits light industrial and office- and commercial- related support uses. Applicable Plans and Regulations Regional and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -1 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region's MPO, SCAG cooperates with the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the proposed project are discussed below. The proposed project is considered a project of regionwide significance pursuant to the criteria outlined in SCAG's Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook November 1995 and Section 15206 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as it encompasses more than 500 residential units. Therefore, this section addresses the project's consistency with the applicable regional planning guidelines and policies. Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012 -235 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS): Towards a Sustainable Future. SCAG has placed a greater emphasis than ever before on sustainability and integrated planning in the 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS. The RTP /SCS vision encompasses three principles that collectively work as the key to the region's future: mobility, economy, and sustainability. The 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as set forth by the federal Clean Air Act. The 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for residents by providing more choices for where they will live, work, and play, and how they will move around. The proposed project's consistency with the applicable RTP /SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 5.9 -2. Compass Growth Vision In 2004, SCAG adopted the Compass Growth Vision (CGV), which is a response, supported by a regional consensus, to the land use and transportation challenges facing southern California. SCAG developed the CGV in an effort to maintain the region's prosperity, continue to expand its economy, house its residents affordably, and protect its environmental setting as a whole. In conjunction with the CGV, SCAG also adopted the Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy, which is the part of the 2004 regional growth forecast policy that attempts to reduce emissions and increase mobility through strategic land use changes. The 2% Strategy is a guideline for how and where the CGV for southern California's future can be implemented toward improving measures of mobility, livability, prosperity, and sustainability for local neighborhoods and their residents. Through extensive public participation and land use and transportation modeling and analysis, the program has resulted in a plan that identifies strategic growth opportunity areas (2% Strategy Opportunity Areas). These opportunity areas are roughly 2 percent of the land area in the southern California region. The project site is not within any designated Compass 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas (SCAG 2012c). Therefore, the project's consistency with growth visioning principles of the Compass Strategy is not required to be addressed in this DEIR. Page 5.9 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport In 1975, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County adopted an Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP, amended April 17, 2008) that included John Way Airport (JWA), Fullerton Municipal Airport, and the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. The AELUP is a land use compatibility pan that is intended to protect the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure the people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable space. The AELUP identifies standards for development in the airport's planning area based on noise contours, accident potential zones, and building heights. ALUC is an agency authorized under state law to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. Primary areas of concern for ALUCs are noise, safety hazards, and airport operational integrity. ALUCs are not implementing agencies in the manner of local governments, nor do they issue permits for a project such as those required by local governments. However, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21676, local governments are required to submit all general plan amendments and zone changes that occur in the ALUC planning areas for consistency review by ALUC. If such an amendment or change is deemed inconsistent with the ALUC plan, a local government may override the ALUC decision by a two- thirds vote of its governing body, if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670(a)(2) of the Public Utilities Code: "to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards in areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." The project site is approximately 0.6 mile southeast of JWA and is in the AELUP for JWA. As shown in Figure S5 of the City's General Plan Safety Element, JWA Clear Zone /Runway Protection Zones and Accident Potential Zones, the project site is within Safety Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone of JWA. Additionally, a small portion of the project site along the eastern boundary falls within the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise 88 contours for JWA, as shown in Figure 5.10 -4, John Wayne Airport Future Noise Level Contours. Furthermore, the overall project site is in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces Zone and the FAR Part 77 Notification Area of JWA, as identified in the AELUP for JWA (ALUC 2008). Therefore, the proposed project requires review by ALUC for consistency with the AELUP prior to Newport Beach City Council action on the project. Local University of California, Irvine 2007 Long Range Development Plan The UCI 2007 Long Range Development Plan (2007 LRDP) is a comprehensive policy and land use plan that guides the growth of the campus. It identifies the physical development needed to achieve the academic needs and goals of the campus while demonstrating responsible conservation of limited resources. UCI's 2007 LRDP was last updated in 2007. It is the fourth LRDP for UCI; previous plans were adopted in 1963, 1970, and 1989. The 2007 LRDP provides a framework of policies and guidelines to shape land use and physical development at UCI through a horizon year of 2025 -26. The plan supports key academic and student life goals, identifies development objectives, delineates campus land uses, and estimates the new building space needed to support projected program expansion through the planning horizon year (UCI 2007). The 2007 LRDP is a framework of policies and guidelines to influence future decisions on land use, enrollment, housing, parking, academic facilities, and urban and landscape design. Individual capital projects would be subject to future approval by UCI. The 2007 LRDP is also accompanied by an EIR, prepared in accordance with CEQA and University of California guidelines for implementation of CEQA. The 2007 LRDP encompasses the main campus and its environs. It does not include remote campus sites such as the UCI Medical Center in Orange or the Shellmaker Island boathouse in Newport Beach. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -3 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING As noted earlier, Jamboree Road forms the eastern boundary of the project site, and beyond Jamboree Road is undeveloped open space within the North Campus planning area of UCI, which is covered under the 2007 LRDP and is currently occupied by a few academic and support facilities, an arboretum, and a child development center. As shown in Figure 5.1 -1, UCI Land Use Plan for 2007 Long Range Development Plan, the North Campus area is designated Mixed Use - Commercial. The Mixed Use - Commercial area contains a combination of uses to fashion a vibrant live -work environment supportive of UCI goals. Permitted uses in this land use designation include facilities for office, research and development, and academic activities; commercial and retail space; conference facilities; university- and non - university - related residential facilities; support uses such as child care and recreation facilities; parking; and other related uses. The approved development program for North Campus under the 2007 LRDP includes 950,000 square feet of office and /or research and development space and 435 multi - family dwelling units. The proposed project is not subject to the LRDP. City of Newport Beach General Plan Future development of all land in the City of Newport Beach is guided by the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and its increasing housing, nonresidential building intensity, and traffic were approved by voters in accordance with City Charter Section 423 on November 7, 2006. City Charter Section 423 requires voter approval for amendments that exceed specific development thresholds. The General Plan consists of a series of state - mandated and optional elements to direct the City's physical, social, and economic growth. Elements within the City of Newport Beach General Plan include Land Use, Harbor and Bay, Housing, Historical Resources, Circulation, Recreation, Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise. Following is a discussion of the various elements. The policies contained in each of the elements that are relevant to the proposed project are listed in Table 5.9 -1. The proposed projects consistency with the applicable policies of these elements is also analyzed in this table. Land Use Element. The land use element provides guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development and it provides development allocations for land uses throughout the City. It is based on and correlates the policies from all elements into a set of coherent development policies, which serve as the central organizing element for the City's General Plan as a whole. Cumulatively, the Land Use Element's policies directly affect the establishment and maintenance of the neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and open spaces that distinguish and contribute to Newport Beach's livability, vitality, and image. Policies related to urban form are also contained in the Land Use Element. Harbor and Bay Element. The goals and policies pertaining to harbor issues are intended to guide the content of regulations related to development and activities conducted on the water. Additional goals and policies recognize the important component of land use decisions related to waterfront property around Newport Harbor. The aim of the Harbor and Bay Element goals and policies is to preserve the diversity and charm of existing uses without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Goals and policies within the Harbor and Bay Element have been organized to address both water- and land - related issues, provision of public access, water quality and environmental issues, visual characteristics, and the administration of the harbor and bay. Section 5.8, Hydrologyand Water Quality, contains further information about the water quality and beneficiary biological and recreational uses of the City's surface water bodies. Page 5.9 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Housing Element. Development of housing in the City of Newport Beach is guided by the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element. The 2008 -2014 Housing Element is an update and revision of the 2006 element, and consists of new technical data, revised goals, updated policies, and a series of programs and implementing measures. The Housing Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and to foster the availability of housing affordable to all income levels to the extent possible, given Newport Beach's constraints. The Housing Element includes policies aimed at ensuring that adequate housing is provided in the City of Newport Beach. In November 2011, the California Department of Housing and Community Development found the 2008 -2014 Housing Element consistentwith State Housing Element law. Section 5.11, Population and Housing, contains further information about population and housing. Historical Resources Element. This Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's historical and paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within this element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archeological sites and structures. Preserving and maintaining these resources helps to create an awareness and appreciation of the City's rich history. Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, contains further information about historic and cultural resources. Circulation Element. The Circulation Element of the General Plan governs the long -term mobility system of the City of Newport Beach. The goals and policies in this element are closely correlated with the Land Use Element and are intended to provide the best possible balance between the City's future growth and land use development, roadway size, traffic service levels, and community character. The Circulation Element of the General Plan also contains policies related to water transportation services and waterfront walkways. Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, contains further information aboutthe existing circulation system and transportation facilities. Recreation Element. The primary purpose of the Recreation Element is to ensure that the provision of parks and recreation facilities are appropriate for the residential and business population of Newport Beach. Specific recreational issues and policies in the Recreation Element include: parks and recreation facilities, recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access. The Recreation Element also contains policies that encourage the provision and maintenance of marine- recreation - related facilities that enhance the enjoyment of the City's natural resources and the provision and maintenance of public access for recreational purposes to the City's coastal resources. Section 5.13, Recreation, contains further information about parks and recreation facilities. Arts and Cultural Element. The goals and policies of the Arts and Cultural Element are intended to be a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. Future challenges in Newport Beach require maximizing the community's cultural arts potential by coordinating with various community groups, businesses, agencies, citizens, and the City to create active and cohesive cultural and arts programs. The goals and policies in this element are intended to serve as a mechanism for integrating these resources to provide improved and expanded arts and cultural facilities and programs to the community. None of the policies outlined in the Arts and Cultural Element are applicable to the proposed project and are therefore not listed or analyzed in Table 5.9 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. Natural Resources Element. The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies Newport Beach's natural resources and policies for their preservation, development, and wise use. This element addresses: water supply (as a resource) and water quality (includes bay and ocean quality, and potable drinking water), Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -5 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING air quality, terrestrial and marine biological resources, open space, archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy. The various resource management issues listed in this element are analyzed in detail in their respective sections of this DEIR: Section 5.1, Aesthetics; Section 5.2, Air Quality; Section 5.3, Biological Resources; Section 5.4, Cultural Resources; Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section 5.12, Recreation; and Section 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Safety Element. The primary goal of the Safety Element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human - induced hazards. The Safety Element recognizes and responds to public health and safety risks. The element specifically addresses coastal hazards, geologic hazards, seismic hazards, flood hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, hazardous materials, aviation hazards, and disaster planning. The element also includes policies and programs that minimize potential impacts from hazards. Sections 5.5, Geology and Soils, 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, contain further information about the various hazards noted above. Noise Element. The Noise Element of the General Plan is a tool for including noise control in the planning process to maintain compatible land use with environmental noise levels. This Noise Element identifies noise - sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing policies to ensure that Newport Beach residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. The major noise sources in the project area include traffic from Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, and takeoffs and landings at John Wayne Airport. The operation of equipment at the TowerJazz semiconductor facility also contributes to the ambient noise environment, especially at the western portions of the project site. The Noise Element includes goals and policies aimed at ensuring that adequate measures for regulating noise - generating activities and land uses are provided in the City of Newport Beach. Section 5.10, Noise, contains further information about the existing and future noise environment in the project area. Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council in September 28 of 2010, is intended to implement Newport Beach General Plan land use policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area). This policy requires a single conceptual development plan for any residential development in that portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street prior to residential development in this area. The ICDP is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the City's General Plan, and it provides a framework for residential development on the Uptown Newport site and adjacent Koll Center Newport (see Figure 3 -5, Integrated Conceptual Development Plan). The regulatory plans are required to describe more fully the proposed design of buildings, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open spaces, and how infrastructure required to support the proposed development will be provided. The Uptown Newport project site is part of the ICDP and therefore requires the preparation and adoption of a regulatory plan. 5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: Page 5.9 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING LU -1 Physically divide an established community. LU -2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LU -3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: LU -1 and LU -3. Threshold LU -3 will not be addressed further in the following analysis. However, impacts related to threshold LU -1 have been included in the following analysis due to subsequent concerns of the proposed project's potential to directly or indirectly result in the division of an established office business park /community. 5.9.3 Environmental Impacts The proposed project would result in the development of a new master - planned community that would redevelop an existing office and industrial site located at the easterly edge of Koll Center Newport with residential and neighborhood - serving retail uses and park and open space. More specifically, the proposed Uptown Newport project would consist of mixed uses with up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving retail space, and 2.05 acres of park space (see Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan). Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet in height, with residential towers up to 150 feet high (13 stories potentially). Residential product types would include a mix of townhomes and row houses, mid- and high -rise condominiums and apartments, and affordable housing. Parks and landscaped areas 88 would be accessible to the public but privately maintained. Access to the site would be from Jamboree Road, Birch Street, and Von Karman Avenue (as emergency access only). The proposed project would be developed in two primary phases, as shown in Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, and summarized in Table 3 -2, Uptown Newport Land Use Summary. Phase 1 would involve demolition of the existing single -story Half Dome building to accommodate the initial residential units and commercial development. The TowerJazz facility would continue operating during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. Development of Phase 1 is projected to start in 2014 and be completed in 2018. Timing for Phase 2 would be contingent on the existing lease of the TowerJazz facility, which is currently set to expire in March 2017, but could be extended to as late as March 2027. This DEIR conservatively assumes that Phase 2 could commence as early as spring 2017 with buildout through 2021. A detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Chapter 3, Project Description. Project implementation would require approval of a Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP, which is a regulatory plan similar to a zoning document), a Phasing Plan, Design Guidelines, a Development Agreement, atraffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), Tentative Tract Maps, and an affordable housing implementation plan. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts and additional issues expressed at the public scoping meeting held on December 15, 2011. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -7 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING IMPACT 5.9 -1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT DIVIDEAN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS COMMUNITY. (THRESHOLD LU -11 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Potential Physical Barriers The proposed project would result in the development of a new master - planned community that would redevelop an industrial site located at the easterly edge of Koll Center Newport with residential and neighborhood - serving retail uses and park and open space. The project site shares borders with office and commercial uses within Koll Center Newport. Given the existing industrial use of the project site and nearby office and commercial uses, the transition of the project site to residential land uses would alterthe character of the existing business community by reducing the number of employees within the Airport Area, introducing residential population, and providing recreational open space amenities. The proposed project would not, however, divide the existing business community. As noted earlier, the ICDP is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the City's General Plan, and it provides a framework for residential development on the project site. The proposed project would carry out the intent of the ICDP and City's General Plan, as the project site would be developed with the mix of uses envisioned in and approved under the ICDP and in accordance with the provisions of the project- specific regulatory plan (i.e., PCDP). This regulatory zoning document and its implementation plans (Phasing Plan and Design Guidelines) would ensure the orderly development of the proposed project and would ensure that the project is developed in a manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding commercial and office business uses. Implementation of the proposed project is therefore consistent with the goals and objectives of the ICDP and City's General Plan for the project area (e.g., Land Use Element Policies LU 3.3, 6.15.5, 6.15.10, 6.15.11). The proposed project would not introduce any roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect the adjacent business park uses. As shown in Figure 3 -9, Phase 2 Circulation Plan, the design of the Uptown Newport project provides for primary and secondary project ingress and egress from Jamboree Road. A third access drive to and from Birch Street is also proposed via an existing non - exclusive access easement. This easement is within property owned by Courthouse Plaza ( "Plaza Property "), and Uptown Newport has an access easement over the property. Courthouse Plaza is an owner's association which manages an existing office condominium property located on Birch Street, immediately adjacent to the Uptown Newport project site. The non - exclusive easement was established and recorded in 1978 and traverses 33 feet of the northwesterly Plaza Property. The 1978 easement replaces an earlier 1973 easement agreement between the property owners in which use by Uptown Newport's predecessors -in- interest had primary use and the fee owner's shared use was residual in nature. The access easement area has been historically shared by both the Uptown Newport property and the Plaza Property for vehicular ingress and egress to Birch Street (including rights of pedestrian passages). The access easement is not used by other properties in the Koll Center and is not used by fast -food restaurants located adjacent to and east of the project site. Courthouse Plaza placed a gate on the southside of their parking area which restrict access to and from the Courthouse Plaza property on the southside, although Courthouse Plaza has easement rights to exit out of the existing drive on the south side of the Courthouse Plaza property. Page 5.9 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING The massing and heights of the proposed residential buildings would also not create a significant visual barrier or separation within the Koll Center Newport office park, as the massing and heights would be similar to those of the uses found throughout the project area. Building masses, elevations, and rooflines would be modulated to promote visual interest and to complement the existing architecture of the surrounding area. As demonstrated in more detail in Section 5. 1, Aesthetics, the proposed project would be characterized by high - quality architectural and landscape design, which would be driven by the project's design guidelines. The design guidelines, which are described in more detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, would ensure the orderly design and development of the project's buildings and other site improvements. Potential Community Barriers Concerns were expressed in the scoping process (See Tables 2 -1, NOP Comment Summary, and 2 -2, Scoping Meeting Comment Summary) that project - generated student attendance at schools within the Santa Ana Unified School District ( SAUSD) may disrupt community cohesiveness and that it would be more logical for project students to attend Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) schools. As detailed in Section 5.12, Public Services, the project site is located within the SAUSD service area (see Figure 5.12 -2, School Attendance Area Boundaries). Schools within the SAUSD that would serve the project include: James Monroe Elementary, McFadden Intermediate, and Century High School. The project site, however, is closer to NMUSD schools (East Bluff Elementary and Corona Del Mar High School). SAUSD attendance by project - generated student would not result in the division of an existing community. As shown on Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph, there are no existing residences proximate to the project site. The nearest residences are those within 3000 The Plaza residential development located approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the project site at the northeast corner of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. SAUSD is the school district servicing students of 3000 The Plaza. Additionally, as described in Section 5.12, SAUSD is 8B considering an option to develop an alternate school facility that would be closer to the project site and potentially serve Uptown Newport and other future residential projects as envisioned by the City's General Plan. The project applicant has an option to propose to modify the school district boundaries so that the entire project site would be within the boundaries of the neighboring NMUSD. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community Phase 2 The analysis above pertains to Phase 2 of the proposed project. IMPACT 5.9 -2: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD POTENTIALLY CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE PLANS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR MITIGATING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT. (THRESHOLD LU -21 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 General Plan Consistency The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -1­12), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area, which includes the project site. The Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -9 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING General Plan's policies for the Airport Area 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. The proposed project is consistent with the MU- H2 land use designation for the project site and would implement the City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area, since it would integrate a mix of residential and neighborhood- serving uses and park and open space into an existing office business park. A detailed analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the various elements of the City's General Plan is provided in Table 5.9 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. The analysis in Table 5.9 -1 concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant Newport Beach General Plan goals and policies. Zoning Code Consistency The current zoning designation of the project site is Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15), which permits light industrial and office- and commercial- related uses. In order to accommodate the proposed project, an amendment to the PC -15 zoning designation would be required to remove the subject property from the current Planned Community designation and a new PCDP would be adopted as the Regulatory Plan for the project site. The project's PCDP would implement the Newport Beach General Plan and would serve as the controlling zoning designation for the project site. As such, the PCDP would act as the regulatory document that the City of Newport Beach would use to implement the proposed project and help maintain consistency with and carry out the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and ICDP. Development of the proposed project would be implemented in accordance with the ICDP and City's General Plan, which allows for up to 1,244 dwelling units, 11,500 square feet of retail and two acres of park area. The PCDP outlines the allowed density, list of permitted uses, development standards (e.g., parking requirements, setbacks, building heights, lighting, etc.), infrastructure requirements, and implementation programs. Since the proposed project would be built overtime, existing land uses on the site would continue to be allowed as nonconforming uses and not be required to conform to the regulations outlined in the PCDP. The regulations outlined in the PCDP are also intended to provide a range of permitted development options and maintain flexibility to accommodate changes in the economy, land value, and demand. Development of the proposed project would also be required to adhere to the project's design guidelines and phasing plan, which are described in more detail in Chapter 3, Project Description. The guidelines would ensure the orderly design and development of the project's buildings and other site improvements. Page 5.9 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis Table 5.9 -1 Goal LU 2 —A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. LU 2.1 Residential- Serving Land Uses (page 3.6). Accommodate Consistent. The proposed project would support the needs of Newport Beach since it would develop a uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including mixed -use project of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving retail space, housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, and 2.05 acres of park space, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. entertainment, civic engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with community natural resources and open spaces. LU 2.2 Sustainable and Complete Community (page 3 -6). Consistent., The proposed project would develop a new master - planned community that would introduce Emphasize the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to residential and neighborhood- serving retail uses and park and open space into an existing office business continue as a self- sustaining community and minimize the need for park known as Koll Center Newport. By integrating residential uses within an and adjacent to commercial residents to travel outside of the community for retail, goods and and office uses, this would provide residents of the project with an opportunity to seek employment in the services, and employment. many businesses in and around Koll Center Newport and other nearby business and employment centers in Newport Beach. Additionally, the inclusion of up to 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving retail space would not only serve the project residents, but also the many businesses adjacent to and near the project site. LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices (page 3 -6). Provide Consistent: The proposed project would develop up to 1,244 residential units, with proposed buildings opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to ranging from 30 feet to 150 feet in height and units offering a range of floor plans and amenities. Residential community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and product types would include a mix of townhomes and row houses, mid- and high -rise condominiums and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified apartments, and affordable housing. within the City's Housing Element. LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure (page 3 -8). Accommodate the types, Consistent., As concluded in Sections 5.12, Public Services, and 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by proposed project would be adequately served by the necessary public services and utilities and service transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, systems. Additionally, to ensure that adequate utility infrastructure is provided by phase, the project's PCDP energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, and Phasing Plan (which are discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description), would ensure that the seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). infrastructure needed for each phase of the project be implemented in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Phasing Plan. The project's PCDP and Phasing Plan also outline a framework for the orderly development of site improvements and infrastructure such as new pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks, paseos), driveways, and roadways. Refer to Sections 5.12, Public Services, and 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, for further information and analysis regarding public services and utility infrastructure, respectively. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -11 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Policies LU 3.3 Opportunities for Change (page 3 -9). Provide opportunities Consistent: In accordance with this policy and the ICDP for the Airport Business Area, the proposed project for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in would develop a new master - planned community that would introduce 1,244 residential units and the following districts and corridors: neighborhood- serving retail uses and park and open space into an existing office business park known as • John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming industrial and Koll Center Newport. As shown in Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, the project site would be office properties and development of cohesive residential configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services. connectivity to adjacent commercial and office areas. The proposed pattern of development would offer a strong sense of community, connectivity, and livability and would be in close proximity to job-rich areas. LU 3.8 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Consistent., The proposed project would require a determination of consistency by ALUC with the AELUP Commission (page 3 -10). Refer the adoption or amendment of the for JWA in accordance with this policy and the requirements outlined in the AELUP, as the proposed project General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community requires an amendment to the Koll Center Newport PCDP adoption of its own zoning (PCDP) and includes development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning residential towers within the project site that exceed 200 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The ALUC area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan hearing for the proposed project must occur prior to the Newport Beach City Council taking action on this (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange project. If ALUC determines that the project is not consistent with the AELUP, the Newport Beach City County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Council may override this finding by a two- thirds vote. If an override is made, a significant unavoidable Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that adverse impact would result and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to be made by include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level the City Council at the time action on the project is taken. LU 5.6.1 Compatible Development (page 3 -61). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. Consistent., As shown in Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, the project site would be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial and office areas. For example, as outlined in the project's design guidelines, a network of paseos, open space, and pedestrian walkways would be introduced into the community to serve as connections between project neighborhoods and also provide linkages to the areas surrounding Uptown Newport. The proposed pattern of development would offer a strong sense of community, connectivity, and livability. Additionally, the project- specific regulatory plan (i.e., PCDP) and its implementation plans (Phasing Plan and Design Guidelines) would ensure the orderly development of the proposed project and would ensure that the project is developed in a manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding commercial and office business uses. During Phase 1, which would involve demolition of the Half Dome building to accommodate the initial residential units (up to 680) and commercial development, the TowerJazz facility would continue operating during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. The project's PCDP, Phasing Plan, and design guidelines outline development standards and design guidelines (e.g., setbacks, landscaped edges, and Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -12 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency buffers) that would ensure that an adequate amount of separation and buffers are provided between the Phase 1 residential buildings and the TowerJazz facility that would continue operating during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. Additionally, a number or improvements and mitigation are included in Sections 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 5.10, Noise, to ensure that operation of TowerJazz facility would not result in significant impacts to Phase 1 residents. Furthermore, the parking area for TowerJazz would be separate from the residential areas of Phase 1 and would be gated to ensure that vehicle conflicts would not occur between the Phase 1 residences and TowerJazz. LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment (page 3.61). Require that new and Consistent. The proposed architectural and landscape design would be driven by the project's design renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and guidelines. The design and construction of all project - related buildings and improvements would be required materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their to adhere to the design guidelines. Among other things, the design guidelines would regulate building form, location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural massing, architectural style, and the use of surface materials. Therefore, implementation of the design style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, guidelines would ensure the orderly design and development of the project's buildings and other site result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and improvements. Additionally, the massing and heights of the proposed residential buildings would not create open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. a significant visual barrier or separation within the office park, as the massing and heights would be similar to those of the uses found throughout the project area. Building masses, elevations, and rooflines would be modulated to promote visual interest and to complement the existing architecture of the surrounding area. LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting (page 3 -62). Require that outdoor lighting Consistent: The lighting associated with the proposed project would be directed toward the interior of the be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties site so as not to create offsite impacts. All exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or or sight cantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their shielded to contain direct illumination on -site, thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto location. adjoining land uses and /or roadways. Development of the proposed project would also be required to adhere to all applicable City lighting standards. Additionally, project lighting would be required to adhere to the provisions outlined in Section 20.30.070, Outdoor Lighting, of the City's Municipal Code and Section 3.5 (Lighting) of the project's PCDP. Furthermore, development of the proposed project would be required to comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaries. Refer to Section 5.1, Aesthetics, for a detailed analysis of the proposed project's potential impacts related to lighting. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -13 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport- serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. LU 6.15.3 Airport Compatibility (page 3 -102). Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. responses to consistent., uasea on rAA s aeronauncai study Tor me proposed project tpursuant to rrw cart u regulations), three of 11 selected latitude /longitude building points onsite, were identified as obstacles under the obstruction standards of Section 77.199(a) of Title 14 CRF Part 77 by approximately one to three feet. These three points would penetrate the JWA horizontal airspace surface and therefore be an obstruction to JWA operations. In response to the FAA's aeronautical study the project's PCDP was amended to require that buildings and any appurtenances can be no greater than the 203.68 feet amsl established for JWA. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in an inconsistency with the building height limitations set forth under the current civilian airport standards in the AELUP and would not adversely affect JWA's aeronautical operations or navigational -aid siting criteria, including interference with navigational aids or published flight paths and procedures. Additionally, a very small portion of the project site along the western boundary fronting Jamboree Road falls within the future 65 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours for JWA, as shown in Figure 5.10 -4, John Wayne Airport Future Noise Level Contours. This portion of the proposed project would not include residential units, as it would be developed with a landscaped parkway and meandering sidewalk. In addition, the City's General Plan Noise Element requires that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Policy N 3.2). The proposed would be developed in accordance Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -14 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Policies Accommodate the development of a maximum of 2,200 multi - family residential units, including workforce housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. Residential units may be developed only as the replacement of underlying permitted nonresidential uses. When a development phase includes a mix of residential and nonresidential uses or replaces existing industrial uses, the number of peak hour taps generated by cumulative development of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would result from development of the underlying permitted nonresidential uses. However, a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill on surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area depicted on Figure LU22 provided that the parking is replaced on site. S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING would develop a new master - planned community that would introduce residential and neighborhood - serving retail uses and park and open space into an existing office business park known as Koll Center Newport. The proposed project would include redevelopment of the project site into a high - density mixed -use residential project adjacent and in close proximity to existing office and commercial land uses that provide jobs and supporting services within the Airport Area. More specifically, the proposed project would consist of mixed uses with up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving retail space, and 2.05 acres of park space. 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 allocated pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the City's Municipal Code. The proposed project would therefore develop a portion of the residential units envisioned and approved for the Airport Business Area. Additionally, the number of peak hour trips generated by development of the project site would not exceed the number of trips attributable to existing permitted nonresidential uses. A maximum of 2,200 multifamily residential units could be built in the Airport Area with a cap of 1,650 residential units that can be developed on a conversion basis (replacement units) in addition to 550 units allowed as infill development (additive units). The City's General Plan provides for the conversion of existing land uses in the Airport Area to residential uses on atraffic neutral basis. The City applies conversion factors for determining consistency with the trip neutral requirement of this policy. The application of the conversion factors to the Airport Area properties is documented in a report titled "Airport Area Residential & Mixed -Use Adjustment Factors for Traffic Analyses in Newport Beach," prepared by Richard M. Edmonston, P.E., and dated March 10, 2009. The Uptown Newport project includes the conversion of existing light industrial and commercial office uses at the project site. Existing development at the site includes approximately 436,000 square feet of industrial and office square footage. When applying the City's conversion methodology to the existing site square footages, a total of 694 residential units would be allocated to the site as replacement units. However, a total of 442,775 square feet of industrial and commercial building are allowed under the General Plan. Therefore, an additional 8 replacement units would be allocated to the site based on the allowed land uses and square foot allocations in the General Plan. However, these additional 8 units are not proposed nor included in this analysis. An additional 290 units were allocated to the site as additive units under the Koll- Conexant Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -15 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Policies development of mixed -use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). Donceptual Development Flan, Tor a total of 984 replacement and additive units. Retail uses planned as part of the Uptown Newport project were factored in by subtracting out the equivalent units for 11,500 square feet of retail planned within the Uptown Newport project. The retail uses reduce the number of units by 62, for a total of 922 additive and replacement units. In addition to the replacement and additive units, the Uptown Newport project qualifies for a density bonus under California law. Density bonuses reward a developer who agrees to build a certain percentage of affordable- income housing by allowing the developer to build more residential units than would otherwise be allowed under the local agency's regulations. The Uptown Newport project is eligible for a density bonus of up to 35 percent, or 322 bonus units, with 20 percent of the base units designated as affordable units. The total number of units planned for the Uptown Newport project are summarized below: Replacement Units: 694 • Additive Units: 290 Less Units Converted to Retail: - 62 • Base Units Before Affordable Bonus: 922 Affordable Density Bonus Units: 322 • Total Units: 1,244 Based on the conversion of the existing land uses to residential using the Airport Area conversion factors, the Uptown Newport project is consistent with the traffic neutral component of this policy. The proposed project's impacts to intersections and roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site are provided in Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic. 10 -acre requirement) into a high- density mixed -use residential project that would include up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail, and 2.05 acres of park space. As shown in Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, each phase of the proposed would be served by a centrally - located neighborhood park, which could include amenities such as activity lawns, fire place and barbecue courtyards, and sport courts including but not limited to sand volleyball, bocce ball, crotchet, or horse shoes. In addition to the neighborhood parks, the proposed project would incorporate common open space areas, private open space areas, greenbelts, and ancillary amenities to serve residents and visitors in accordance with the provisions outlined in the project's PCDP. Additionally, as a part of the proposed project, a pedestrian and bicycle easement would be provided along Jamboree Road. Within this easement, a 12 -foot wide sidewalk Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -16 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency LU 6.15.8 first Phase Development Density (page 3 -106). Require a Consistent: The ICDP area is exempt from this specific numerical requirement by establishing a minimum residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the density of 30 dwelling units per net acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. The first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100 proposed project has an overall density of 49 dwelling units per acre exclusive of density bonus units and percent of properties in the first phase development area whether 67 dwelling units per acre inclusive of density bonus units. The proposed project is consistent with the developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial intent of demonstrating a critical mass of development within the first phase by providing up to 680 horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed -use building. On residential units in the first phase (58 dwelling units per net acre exclusive of density bonus units and 74 individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this dwelling units per net acre inclusive of density bonus units) density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved. LU 6.15.9 Subsequent Phase Development and Location (page Consistent: The second phase of the proposed project consists of up to 564 dwelling units and is adjacent 3 -106). Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the to and abuts the first phase of the project. Phase 2 would have an overall density of 42 dwelling units per first phase or shall face the first phase across a street. The minimum net acre exclusive of density bonus units and 56 dwelling units per acre inclusive of density bonus units. density of residential development (including residential mixed -use development) shall be 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the development phase. LU 6.15. 10 Regulatory Plans (page 3 -106). Require the development Consistent., Development of the 25 -acre project site (which exceeds the 10 -acre requirement) would be of a regulatory plan for each residential village, which shall contain a implemented in accordance with the regulatory plans called for in the ICDP and City's General Plan. More minimum of 10 acres, to coordinate the location of new parks, specifically, under the proposed project, the project site would be developed with the mix of uses envisioned streets, and pedestrian ways; set forth a strategy to accommodate in and approved under the ICDP and in accordance with the proposed PCDP, Development Agreement, neighborhood- serving commercial uses and other amenities; establish phasing plan, and design guidelines. pedestrian and vehicular connections with adjoining land uses; and ensure compatibility with office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses. LU 6.15.12 Development Agreements (page 3 -109). A Development Consistent: The proposed project includes a Development Agreement, which defines the improvements and Agreement shall be required for all projects that include infill residential public benefits to be provided by the project applicant in exchange for the City's commitment for the units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and number, density, and location of the housing units proposed. public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -17 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency LU 6.15.13 Standards (page 3 -109). To provide a focus and identity Consistent: The proposed project would provide the dedication and improvement of at least of 8 percent of for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way), or 2.05 acres of neighborhood parks. Phase 1 commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of would include the dedication (the general public would have access to the park during daytime hours) and homes, require dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the improvement of a 1.03 acre neighborhood park with a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Phase 2 would gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) of the first phase include the dedication and improvement of a 1.02 acre neighborhood park with a minimum dimension of development in each neighborhood, or Yz acre, whichever is greater, 150 feet. as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. LU 6.15.14 Location (page 3.110). Require that each neighborhood Consistent., The proposed project would provide 2.05 acres of parkland within two neighborhood parks, park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of which would serve as principal focal points for the proposed residential community and provide connectivity the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on between neighborhoods. Neighborhood parks within Uptown Newport would be publicly accessible, but at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the park), would be privately maintained. The parks would be bounded on at least two sides by new streets and would and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by be linked to residential uses in their respective neighborhood by streets and pedestrian ways (some streets or pedestrian ways. pedestrian ways would be publically accessible). On- street parking adjacent to the parks would also be available. LU 6.15.15 Aircraft Notification (page 3 -110). Require that all Consistent: In accordance with this policy and as outlined in the project's PCDP, the proposed project's neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding neighborhood parks would be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to Jahn Wayne Airport proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. I and aircraft overflight and noise. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -18 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Policies family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication reouirements. LU 6.15.17 Street and Pedestrian Grid (page 3.111). Create a pattern of streets and pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, improves connections between neighborhoods and community amenities, and is scaled to the predominantly residential character of the neighborhoods. S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING t:onststent: See responses to t oucies Ki -t and 111.2 or Lioai K I. in addition to the neighborhood parks, the proposed project would provide a minimum of 44 square feet of onsite recreational amenities for each dwelling unit. Onsite recreational amenities may be public or private and may consist of public urban plazas, swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, basketball courts, and other amenities as approved by the Community Development Director. Private open space and recreational amenities developed as part of the proposed project may also include private courtyards, roof deck recreation areas, seating areas, BBQ facilities, swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, basketball courts, clubhouse rooms, and other amenities. GOnSIStent.7 As shown in rigure a -ti, 5118 roan and t-nasing man, the project sine wood be conngureo with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial and office areas. Pedestrian - scaled streets and paseos would break up large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and the surrounding community. Project roadways and pedestrian ways would be arranged to break up large parcels and to establish clear way - finding and to provide convenient access to on- street parking, individual development parcels, and parking entrances within project site. The project site is also divided into smaller neighborhoods with a diversity of housing types in order to provide identity and reduce the overall perceived scale of the project. Additionally, as outlined in the project's design guidelines, sidewalks and greenbelts would be introduced into the community to serve as connections between project neighborhoods and also provide linkages to the areas surrounding Uptown Newport. The proposed pattern of development would offer a strong sense of Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -19 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency LU 6.15.18 Walkable Streets (page 3 -111). Retain the curb -to -curb Consistent., Sidewalks would be provided on both sides of all internal streets and have a minimum width of dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park five to eight feet. The proposed project would create streetscapes that promote both safe and convenient strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. driving practices, as well as encourage street -level pedestrian activity. Streets would be designed with Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking to sidewalks to engage pedestrians in a meaningful urban environment that establishes the visual and social calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term parking for identity of the overall place and its various neighborhoods. The streets would be purposefully landscaped visitors and shop customers. and framed by architecturally - enhance buildings, and would be activated with such elements as small plazas, building lobbies, street -level common amenities, and front stoops to private residences. Additionally, as a part of the proposed project, a 23 -foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement would be provided along Jamboree Road. Within this easement, a 12 -foot wide sidewalk would be constructed as a part of the project to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. On- street parking would be provided throughout the project site to serve visitors. Parallel and diagonal parking would be permitted throughout the project site and encouraged in such locations that are likely to attract significant visitor concentrations to areas such as the mixed -use retail facilities, residential leasing offices, and park amenities. LU 6.15.19 Connected Streets (page 3 -111). Require dedication and Consistent. Project roadways would be designed to establish clear way- finding and to provide convenient improvement of new streets as shown on Figure LU23. The illustrated access to on- street parking, individual development parcels, and parking garage entrances within the alignments are tentative and may change as long as the routes provide proposed project. Clear connections would be provided to link the interior of the project roadways to the intended connectivity. If traffic conditions allow, connect new and Jamboree Road, Fairchild Road and Birch Street, including a signalized entry to the project site at Jamboree existing streets across Macarthur Boulevard with signalized Road and Fairchild Road, in accordance with those shown in Figure LU23, Airport Area Residential Villages intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in the median. Illustrative Concept Plan, of the City's General Plan. The onsite roadway system would be privately owned and maintained, but open to the public LU 6.15.21 Required Spaces for Primary Use (page 3 -112). Consistent., The proposed project would incorporate the use of she- spec'dic parking requirements through Consider revised parking requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the POOP that have been derived through parking studies of comparable developments in the Newport the neighborhoods and overall Airport Area, as well as the availability Beach area. Parking requirements are based on gross floor area for office /commercial uses and unit counts of on- street parking. for residential units. Adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors would be provided onsite in accordance with the standards outlined in the project's PCDP and the City's Zoning Code. LU 6.15.22 Building Massing (page 3 -112). Require that high -rise Consistent., The design and construction of high -rise buildings would be required to adhere to the structures be surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures fronting provisions outlined in the proposed project's POCP, which implement this policy. For example, as outlined in public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more the project's PCDP, tower portions of buildings are required to be at least partially surrounded with low- and pedestrian scale. mid -rise structures (up to 75 feet) fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale. Additionally, the distance between the tower portions of buildings above 75 feet in height would be required to be a minimum of 75 feet. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -20 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Policies S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Require that development achieves a high level of environmental address air quality, energy, global climate, and water supply impacts that would occur as a result of sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, implementation of the proposed project, and apply mitigation measures and regulatory requirements to and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible. For example, as outlined in Section 5.5, the proposed density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, project is required to comply with the provisions of the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered the 2010 Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 3, Project are the integration of residential with jobs - generating uses, use of Description, the proposed project would implement a number of environmental sustainable practices, alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of including but not limited to satellite - linked irrigation controllers; water - efficient landscaping; water quality recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water best management practices to treat surface runoff from the project site; and low impact development conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that practices. The project site is also close to employment uses in the Airport Area and would provide housing reduce heat gain and loss. near these jobs and promote the use of alternative transportation modes and a pedestrian- oriented village. Furthermore, the proposed project includes a mix and intensity of residential and neighborhood - serving retail uses within an existing business office park, thereby encouraging walking /biking. As a part of proposed project, a comprehensive pedestrian linkage system consisting of sidewalks and paseos would be created that would not only provide an important and convenient linkage system throughout the project site, but also to adjacent and surrounding uses and to surrounding and nearby open space and recreation areas, thereby providing an alternative mode of transportation for residents and visitors. The proposed project's location close to existing OCTA bus routes provided along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard would also provide alternative forms of transportation for residents of the proposed project. Housing Element Goal H 2 — A balanced residential communitv comprised of a variety of housino Woes. designs, and opportunities for all social and economic seoments. HR 2.1 (page 5 -68). Encourage preservation of existing and provision Consistent., The proposed project would develop up to 1,244 residential units. Residential product Types of new housing affordable to very low, low- and moderate income would include a mix of townhomes and row houses, and mid- and high -rise condominiums and apartments. households. Of the total 1,244 residential units, up to 184 units would be set aside for affordable housing. HR 2.3 (page 5 -70). Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, Consistent., The proposed project would consist of mixed uses with up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 mixed residential and commercial use developments that improve the square feet of neighborhood- serving retail space, and 2.05 acres of park space. The introduction of new balance between housing and jobs. residences and commercial uses into a primarily office business area of the City would not only help locate new residents close to a wide array of jobs, but would also help improve the local and regional jobs- housing balance. As substantiated in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the proposed project would add residential units to the existing jobs -rich Citv and improve the iobs /housing ratio. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -21 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 Goal HR 2 — Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City. HR 2.1 New Development Activities (page 6 -12). Require that, in Consistent., As detailed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, given the potential to unearth archeological or accordance with CEGA, new development protect and preserve paleontological resources in the project area during ground - disturbing activities, mitigation measures (4 -1 paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and and 4 -2) require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist who would avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning monitor all ground - disturbing activities, assess any finds, and develop a course of action to preserve the policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant finds, including donation of artifacts to an appropriate repository. As outlined in Mitigation Measure 4 -1, the archeological and paleontological resources and require that the assessment of cultural resource finds also includes consultation with the City of Newport Beach and a impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with representative of the affected Native American tribe (Gabrielino and /or Juaneno), if necessary. Refer to CEGA. Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, for a detailed analysis of the proposed project's potential impacts to archeological and paleontological resources and applicable mitigation measures. HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities (page 6 -13). Require a Consistent., See response to Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. qualified paleontologistarcheologist to monitor all grading and /or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. HR 2.3 Cultural Organizations (page 6 -13). Notify cultural Consistent: See response to Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and /or excavation of development sites. HR 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials (page 6.13). Consistent., See response to Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -22 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 Goal CE 2.2 -A safe and efficient CE 2.23 Traffic Control (page 7 -14). Design traffic control measures Consistent: As part of the proposed project, the necessary traffic control measures would also be installed to ensure City streets and roads function with safety and efficiency. to ensure that the City's roadways function as intended. Additionally, the proposed project's traffic study (see Appendix M) was prepared in accordance with the City's traffic study guidelines. Refer to Section 5.14, CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations (page 7.14). Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement access controls during redevelopment of CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access (page 7 -14). Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. Consistent., The proposed project would maintain the existing signalized and unsignalized access drives that provided access from Jamboree Road into the project site. All driveway improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's engineering standards to ensure safety and a desired quality of traffic flow. consistent: io aaaress emergency access needs, the prolecis internal traffic ana cucuianon components would be designed in accordance with all City of Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) design standards for emergency access. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the City and NBFD. Furthermore, during the building plan check and development review process, the City would coordinate with the Newport Beach Public Works Department, NBFD, and Newport Beach Police Department to ensure that adequate circulation and access Goal CE 4.1 - A public transportation system that provides mobility for residents and encourages use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile travel. CE 4.1.4 Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit (page 7 -20). Consistent: The proposed project's introduction of up to 1,244 high - density residential units and its location Accommodate residential densities sufficient to support transit close to existing OCTA bus routes along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard would help support patronage, especially in mixed use areas such as the Airport Area. transit patronage. The project's residents would also have access to and be served by JWA, which is approximately 0.6 mile northwest of the site. Goal CE 5.1 - Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs. CE 5. 1.1 Trail System (page 7 -21). Promote construction of a Consistent: As a part of the proposed project, a 23 -foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement would be comprehensive trail system as shown on Figure CE4. provided along Jamboree Road. Within this easement, a 12 -foot wide sidewalk would be constructed as a part of the project to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. Therefore, the proposed project would implement a portion of the Class I bike trail along Jamboree Road, as called for in Figure CE4, Bikeways Master Plan, of the City's General Plan. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -23 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency CE 5.1.2 Pedestrian Connectivity (page 7 -21). Link residential areas, Consistent., As a part of proposed project, a comprehensive pedestrian linkage system consisting of schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel sidewalks and paseos would be created to provide an important and convenient linkage system not only within the community without driving. throughout the project site, but also to adjacent and surrounding uses and to surrounding and nearby open space and recreation areas. Additionally, as outlined in the project's Design Guidelines, paseos would be introduced into the community connect project neighborhoods and provide linkages to the areas surrounding Uptown Newport. furthermore, as noted above, a 12 -foot wide sidewalk would be constructed along Jamboree Road as a part of the project to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. The project's pedestrian circulation components would be designed and installed with all safety and accessibility requirements in mind, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and in a manner that would minimize conflicts with vehicles. CE 5.1.3 Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects Consistent., See response to Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goad CE 5.1. (page 7 -22). Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails. CE 5.1.7 Bicycle Safety (page 7.22). Provide for safety of bicyclists, Consistent., See response to Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goad CE 5.1. equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices. CE 5.1.8 Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians (page 7- Consistent., See response to Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goad CE 5.1. 22). Minimize conflict points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. CE 5.1.16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety (page 7 -25). Provide for Consistent., See response to Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goad CE 5.1. the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians through provision of adequate facilities, including maintenance of extra sidewalk width where feasible. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -24 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Policies CE 6.2.1 Alternative Transportation Modes (page 7.29). Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes. GE 1.1.1 Hegdlred Parking (page 7 -Z9). Hequlre that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, Recreation Element of new residential subdivisions to provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or to contribute in -lieu fees for the development of public recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the development's resident population, as required in the City's Park Dedications Fees Ordinance. S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Consistent: The proposed project includes a mix and intensity of residential and neighborhood- serving retail uses within an existing business office park, thereby encouraging walking /biking. As a part of proposed project, a comprehensive pedestrian linkage system consisting of sidewalks and paseos would also be created that would not only provide an important and convenient linkage system within the project site, but also to adjacent and surrounding uses and to surrounding and nearby open space and recreation areas, thereby providing an alternative mode of transportation for residents and visitors. The proposed project's location close to existing OCTA bus routes along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard would also provide alternative forms of transportation for residents of the proposed project. Additionally, as a part of the proposed project, a 23 -foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement would be provided along Jamboree Road. Within this easement, a 12 -foot wide sidewalk would be constructed as a part of the project to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. Furthermore, as outlined in the project's PCDP, bicycle racks response Consistent. In accordance with the Uty's parKland dedication requirements of b acres per 1,000 residents, the proposed project would require 13.63 acres of park space. As permitted by Section 19.52.050 (Determination of Land or Fee) of the City's Municipal Code, the parkland requirement can be met through the dedication of parkland, payment of in lieu fees, or a combination of both. As shown in Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, the proposed project would provide 2.05 acres of parkland within two neighborhood parks, which would serve as principal focal points for the proposed residential community and provide connectivity between neighborhoods. The neighborhood parks could include amenities such as activity lawns, fire place and barbecue courtyards, and sport courts, including but not limited to sand volleyball, bocce ball, crotchet, or horse shoes. Neighborhood parks within Uptown Newport would be publicly accessible, but privately owned and maintained. The remainder of the project's parkland requirements would be met through the payment of in -lieu fees and /or provision of additional open space and private recreational facilities for parkland credits. Additionally, see responses to Policy LU 6.15.16 of Goal LU 6.15. Refer to Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -25 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Policies developers of new high- density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements underthe City's Park Dedications and Fees Ordinance. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedications and Fees Ordinance. The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is, for example, accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and of sufficient size consistent: gee response to Noucy 111.1 of Uoai tt L in addition to the neignoornood parK acreage and amenities noted above, the proposed project would incorporate common open space areas, private open space areas, greenbelts, and ancillary amenities within the project to serve residents and visitors in accordance with the provisions outlined in the project's PCDP. As also outlined in the project's PCDP, 44 square feet of onsite recreational amenities would be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedications and Fees Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Additionally, as a part of the proposed project, a 23 -foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement would be provided along Jamboree Road. Within this easement, a 12 -foot wide sidewalk would be constructed as a part of the project to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. Furthermore, the project's residents would have access to nearby regional open space and recreation areas, including Upper Newport Bay, Mason Regional Park in Irvine, and the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh. Goal R 1: Accessibility of Facilities - Accessible parks and recreation facilities to persons with disabilities. R3.1 Adequate Access (page 8 -42). Ensure that parks and recreation facilities include provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities and that existing facilities are appropriately retrofitted to Consistent: All park and recreation facilities would be designed and constructed to include provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities in accordance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -26 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 Goal NR 1 — Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques. NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development (page 10 -17). Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water — efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. Consistent., Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, addresses water supply impacts that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project, and applies regulatory requirements to reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the water - efficient landscape requirements outlined in Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) of the City's Municipal Code. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the 2010 Green Building Standards Code, which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation. Finally, as discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project would implement a number of environmental sustainable practices, including but not limited to satellite - linked irrigation controllers; water - efficient landscaping; water quality best management Goal NR 3 — Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. NR 3.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit (page 10 -19). Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant NR 3.9 Water U9altly Management Plan (page Ig -1g). NegWre new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction. Consistent., As discussed in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City's NPDES permit requirements, including the submittal and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and best management practices (BMPs). preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)(see Appendix 1), which outlined a number of site - design, and source- and treatment - control BMPs. The low- impact development, source - control, and treatment - control BMP features would include but not be limited to an infiltration basin; fifterra proprietary biotreatment devices or approved equivalents; a hydrodynamic separator; catch basin inserts; and proprietary roof drain stormwater treatment device. Implementation of these hydraulic and drainage design features would assist in the retention of stormwater and the recharge of groundwater. Refer to Section 5.8 for a detailed list of the proposed BMPs. Collectively, the BMPs outlined in the WQMP and the required preparation of a SWPPP would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operational and construction phases of the proposed project. Additionally, through the development- review process, the City of Newport Beach complies with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality rules and regulations in order to effectively minimize the project's impact on water quality. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -27 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency NR 3.10 Best Management Practices (page 10 -20). Implement and Consistent., See response to Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3. improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control (page 10 -20). Include site Consistent., See response to Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3. design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property (page 10 -20). Retain Consistent., See responses to Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.19 of Goal NR 3. runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems (page 10 -20). Require all street Consistent., See responses to Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.19 of Goal NR 3. drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights- ol•Way (page 10 -21). Require that Consistent., The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and parking lots and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and regulations regarding the maintenance and keeping of public and private rights -of -way, including Sections cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. 6.04.220, Persons Required to Clean Sidewalks, and 10.50.020, Nuisance, of the city's Municipal Code. Section 6.04.220 states that the occupant or tenant, or in the absence of an occupant or tenant, the owner, lessee, or proprietor of any real estate in the City in front of which there is a paved sidewalk shall cause said sidewalk to be swept or otherwise cleaned as frequently as necessary to maintain said sidewalks reasonably free of leaves, dirt, paper, litter, or rubbish of any kind. Sweepings from said sidewalk shall not be swept, or otherwise made or allowed to go into the street or gutter, but shall be disposed of by being placed in a refuse container by the person responsible for the cleanliness of said sidewalk. Additionally, Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, outlines a number of nonstructural source control BMPs that are included in the project's preliminary WQMP and would be required to be implemented as a part of the propose project, including street sweeping of private streets and parking lots. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -28 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistei Policies S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING NR 3.79 Natural Oramage Systems (page ID -11). Keguire Consistent'. See response to Policies NH 3.4 and 3.9 of Goal NK 3. Additionally, runott from the site Is incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention currently conveyed by underground storm drains to the existing drainage ponds along Von Karmen Avenue facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to located northwest of the project site within the Koll site. Drainage for the entire project site would continue to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. discharge into the drainage ponds. NR 3.20 Impervious Surfaces (page 10 -21). Require new Consistent: See response to Policy NR 3.19 of Goal NR 3. Collectively, implementation of these hydraulic development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and and drainage design features would assist in the retention of stormwater and the recharge of groundwater. increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected Under the Phase 1 condition, 12.5 percent of the project site would be pervious surfaces in comparison to impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require the existing 13 percent. Upon completion of Phase 2, pervious areas onsite would be 22 percent of the redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Proiect site in comparison to the existing 13 percent. NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization (page ID -ZZ). Kequlre gradinglerosion Consistent'. See response to Policies NH 3.4 and 3.9 of Goal NK 3.Uollectively, implementation of the UMPs control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion outlined in the SWPPP and the project's proposed water quality design features would address the during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, anticipated and expected erosion impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed or disturbed areas. project. Goal NR 6 — Reduced mobile source emissions. response neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as response development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to iobs. services, and entertainment. NR 8.1 Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Consistent., As outlined in Section 5.2, AirQuallty, development of the proposed project would be requin Pollution (page 10 -25). Require developers to use and operate to adhere to a number of existing SCAQMD regulations that help reduce air pollutants from construction - construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control related activities. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the construction- dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants. related mitigation measures outlined Section 5.2. Refer to Section 5.2 for additional information and NR 78.1 NeW Development (page 70 -34). Keguire new development Consistent. See response to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -29 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources (page Consistent: See response to Policies HR 2.1 and HR 2.3 of Goal HR 2. 10 -34). Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and /or excavation of development sites. NR 18.4 Donation of Materials (page 10 -34). Require new Consistent., See response to Policies HR 2.1 and HR 2.3 of Goal HR 2. development, where on site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. Goal S 7 — Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators is minimized. proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). determine soil and groundwater contamination were prepared as a part of the proposed project and are included as Appendix H of this DER. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of these assessments are discussed in detail in Sections 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. As stated in Section 5.7, Based on ESA and Vapor Intrusion studies, potential sources of contamination in the Phase 1 portion of the site are limited to the migration of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater from the former LIST areas in the Phase 2 portion of the site. The detected VOC concentrations in the upper groundwater zone continue to decrease. As part of the conditions for Phase 1 development, the RWQCB would require continued monitoring and sampling of selected wells in the Phase 1 portion of the site. Additional groundwater remediation is scheduled for the Phase 2 portion of the site within the next 1 to 2 years. In the unlikely event that additional VOC migration were to occur from the Phase 2 area to the Phase 1 portion of the site, in situ groundwater mitigation could effectively be conducted. Additionally, although soil and groundwater remediation activities are ongoing, contaminated soil and groundwater is still present within the Phase 2 area of the project site. The lead oversight agency for the remediation is the California RWQCB. Phase 2 development could not occur until the RWQCB provides Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -30 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 Policies S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan 'No Further Action" declaration or Letter of Allowance Tor residential construction. Phase 2 development, including ground disturbance that could impact Phase 1 residences, could not occur without the approval S 7.5 Siting of Sensitive Uses (page 11 -29). Develop and implement Consistent., Phase 1 of the proposed project would involve demolition of the Half Dome building to strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design accommodate the initial residential units (up to 680) and commercial development. The TowerJazz facility standards including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as would continue operating during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. The project's PCDP, Phasing schools, hospitals, day care facilities, elder care facilities, residential Plan, and design guidelines outline development standards and design guidelines (e.g., setbacks, uses, and other sensitive uses that generate or use hazardous landscaped edges, and buffers) that would ensure that an adequate amount of separation and buffers are materials. provided between the Phase 1 residential buildings and the TowerJazz facility that would continue operating review and are, located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. Potential safety hazards relating to the proximity of 60 dBA and higher, as shown on Figure N4, Figure N5, and Figure N6 Phase 1 residential development and the TowerJazz operation are addressed in Section 5.7, Hazards and may conduct a field survey, noise measurements or other modeling in Hazardous Materials. N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development (page 12.25). Consistent: As discussed in detail in Section 5.10, Noise, the noise analysis demonstrates that the Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise proposed project would comply with the requirements as outlined in the City of Newport Beach's noise environment through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and standards. Refer to Section 5.10 for a detailed analysis on compatibility and compliance with noise exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. standards. N 1.2 Noise Exposure Verification for New Development (page Consistent., A site - specific noise analysis was completed for the proposed project (see Appendix J), which 12 -25). Applicants for proposed projects that require environmental includes a comprehensive assessment of the existing noise environment (including John Wayne Airport, review and are, located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of Jamboree Road, and TowerJazz facility operations). Section 5.10, Noise, includes the findings and related 60 dBA and higher, as shown on Figure N4, Figure N5, and Figure N6 mitigation to attain acceptable noise exposure levels. may conduct a field survey, noise measurements or other modeling in a manner acceptable to the City to provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors as, topography, variation in traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions. These findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into account. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -31 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Policies applicants of residential portions of mixed -use projects and high - density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor /ceilings) in accordance with the California Building N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts (page 12 -26). Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below. CNEL dBA dBA increase 55 3 60 2 65 1 75 1 Over 75 Any increase considered significant response consistent. Section 5.iu, Noise, discusses these potennai long -term noise impacts. As concluded in Section 5.10, the proposed project would not generate transportation, or stationary long- term noise sources that would exceed the stated requirements under this policy. No mitigation measures would be required. N 2.1 Now Development (page 1Z -26). Heguire that proposed nose- I consistent. uperatlons of the I oweriazz facility and traffic noise on Jamboree Hoad and other roads In to sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the vicinity of the site would expose the proposed noise - sensitive uses to noise levels above 60 dBA CNEL. analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior Mitigation measures were included in Section 5.10, Noise, to reduce noise at the proposed private and and exterior noise levels. common outdoor living areas (i.e., patios, balconies, pools, playgrounds) below the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard; these measures would include walls, site design, and patio enclosures. Mitigation measures such as upgraded windows and wall assemblies were also included to reduce noise levels at Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -32 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 General Plan Consistei Policies Project Consistency N 2.2 Design of Sensitive Land uses (page 12 -26). Require the use Consistent: See response above to Policy N2.1 of Goal N2. of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N3 shall oovern this requirement. as N 3.2 Residential Development (page 12.27). Require that residential Consistent., A small portion of the project site (eastern boundary fronting Jamboree Road) is located within development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours for JWA. However, no residential uses would be noise contour no larger than shown in the 1985 JWA Master Plan and developed in this portion of the project site. This area would be developed with a landscaped parkway and require residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or sidewalk. tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that would Goal N 4 Minimization of Nontransoortation- Related Noise — Minimized nontransoortation- related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources (page 12 -29). Enforce interior and Consistent. As outlined in Section 5.9, Noise, equipment sound ratings of new heating, ventilation, and air exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City's conditioning (HVAC) equipment installed in the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not tested in the field after installation. According to Section 10.26.045 of the City's Municipal Code, new exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that would deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM. Also see response to Policies N 1.8 and 2.1. N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities (page 12 -30). Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work related activities. Consistent., As noted in Section 5.9, Noise, the City realizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and therefore provides exemption for this type of noise. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, Exemptions, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise level limits shown in the Table 5.9 -4 of Section 5.9. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity— Noise Regulations. According to this chapter, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when the maintenance, repair, or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. All construction activities proposed within the project site would be required to adhere to these standards. Additionally, any project - related maintenance activities would be required to adhere to the standard outlined in Section 10.28.045, Real Property Maintenance -Noise Regulations, of the City's Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -33 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -1 N 5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity (page 12 -30). Enforce the limits on I Consistent: See response to Policy N 4.6 of Goal N 4. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E Page 5.9 -34 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Consistency The ICDP, which was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council September 28, 2010, is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the City's General Plan, and it provides a framework for residential development in the Airport Area, which includes the project site. More specifically, the ICDP calls for the redevelopment of the project site (which encompasses 25 acres) and a portion (12.7 acres) of the 75- acre Koll property with new residential development and open space, integrated within the existing office park. The ICDP allows the development of up to 1,504 residential units, with 1,244 units on the project site and 260 on the Koll property. The preparation and adoption of certain regulatory plans for the development of residential uses on the project site are required. The project's regulatory plan (i.e., PCDP) and its implementing action plans (Phasing Plan and Design Guidelines) describe fullythe proposed development density, design of buildings, housing mix, building height, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open spaces, and how infrastructure required to support the proposed development will be provided. As proposed, the project's PCDP is aimed at fulfilling the overarching goals and policies of the City's General Plan, as the PCDP was prepared based upon the goals, guidelines, and principles of the ICDP, and was designed to implement in greater detail and specificity those goals, guidelines and principles. Consistentwith the ICDP and the project's plans and guidelines, the proposed project would consist of a mix of uses including up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving retail space, and 2.05 acres of park space. As shown in Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, development of the project site would be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial and office areas. The proposed project would be consistent with the ICDP since it would develop a residential community with pedestrian - scaled streets and paseos that break up the large blocks and provide connectivity between the project site and its community amenities and with surrounding commercial and office uses. The proposed pattern of development, as more fully described and regulated by the PCDP, Phasing Plan, and Design Guidelines would offer a strong sense of community, connectivity, and livability. UCI LRDP Consistency As noted earlier, Jamboree Road forms the eastern boundary of the project site, and beyond Jamboree Road is undeveloped open space within the North Campus planning area of UCI, which is covered under the 2007 LRDP and is currently occupied by a few academic and support facilities, an arboretum, and a child development center. As shown in Figure 5.1 -1, UCI Land Use Plan for 2007 Long Range Development Plan, the North Campus area is designated Mixed Use - Commercial. Permitted uses in this land use designation include facilities for office, research and development, and academic activities; commercial and retail space; conference facilities; university- and non - university - related residential facilities; support uses such as child care and recreation facilities; parking; and other related uses. The approved development program for North Campus under the 2007 LRDP includes 950,000 square feet of office and /or research and development space and 435 multi - family dwelling units. The proposed project would consist of mixed uses with up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving retail space, and 2.05 acres of park space. The uses associated with the proposed project would be compatible and complementary to the uses envisioned for North Campus. John Wayne AELUP Consistency The project site is 0.6 mile southeast of JWA and is in the AELUP for JWA. Since the residential towers of the proposed project would exceed 200 feet amsl and the project requires a zoning code amendment (PC -15 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -35 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING amendment and adoption of a new PCDP), a determination of consistency with the AELUP by ALUC is required. This determination must be made prior to approval of the proposed project. As shown in Figure S5 of the City's General Plan Safety Element, JWA Clear Zone /Runway Protection Zones and Accident Potential Zones, the project site is within Safety Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone of JWA. Additionally, a very small portion of the project site along the eastern boundary fronting Jamboree Road falls within the future 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours for JWA, with the remainder falling with the 55 dBA CNEL, as shown in Figure 5.10 -4, John Wayne Airport Future Noise Level Contours, of this DEIR. Furthermore, the overall project site is in the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces Zone and the FAR Part 77 Notification Area of JWA, as identified in the AELUP for JWA (ALUC 2008). Potential Aircraft Noise Impacts As shown in Figure 5.10 -4, the project site falls within the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours for JWA. The AELUP identifies land uses that are "normally acceptable" and "conditionally acceptable" in each noise impact zone delineated by the respective CNEL noise contour derived from studies of aircraft flight operations into and out of JWA. AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact" in the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, Noise Impact Zone 2. Per the AELUP for JWA, noise impact in this area is sufficient to require sound attenuation. Single -noise events in this area cause serious disturbances for many inhabitants. The AELUP notes that residents occupying residential units in Noise Impact Zone 2 may experience "inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort arising from noise of aircraft atthe airport." As outlined in the AELUP, the residential use interior sound attenuation requirement in this noise impact zone is required to be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dBA. The very small portion of the eastern project boundary fronting Jamboree Road that falls within the 60 dBA CNEL would not include residential units. This area would be developed with a landscaped parkway and sidewalk. In addition, the City's General Plan Noise Element requires that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Policies LU 6.15.3 and N 3.2), and requires residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise (Policy N 3.2). The proposed project would be developed in accordance with these policies. Additionally, future project - related residential units that would fall within Noise Impact Zone 2 would be conditioned to achieve compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard outlined in the AELUP for JWA. Therefore, residential land uses under the proposed project are not expected to result in an inconsistency with the noise standards of the AELUP for JWA. Potential Hazards to People and Structures on the Ground The project site is within Safety Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone of JWA. Risk factors associated with Safety Zone 6 generally include a low likelihood of accident occurrence. The main concern is primarily related to uses for which potential consequences are severe. Allowed uses in this safety zone include residential and most nonresidential uses, with the exception of outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities. Uses that should be avoided include children's schools, large day -care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. The residential land uses of the proposed project would be consistent with those outlined in Safety Zone 6 and its applicable land use restrictions. Therefore, residential land uses under the proposed project are not expected to result in an inconsistency with or impact to the standards and operations of Safety Zone 6. Page 5.9 -36 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Potential Hazards to Aircraft in Flight The project site is in the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces and the FAR Part 77 Notification Area of JWA, as identified in the AELUP for JWA (ALUC 2008). Building height limits in these restricted zones are determined in accordance with the standards outlined in FAR Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace) of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. ALUC has incorporated these standards and FAR Part 77 definitions into the AELUP as guidelines for determining building height limits. As outlined in the AELUP, projects that fall within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area are required to file Form 7460 -1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) with FAA, which directs FAA to conduct an aeronautical study. Upon completion of the aeronautical study, ALUC makes its determination of a project's consistency with the AELUP. It should be noted that the current aviation easement for JWA as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors restricts the construction of buildings to a maximum height of 203.68 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The FAA uses the Orange County Board of Supervisors established building height limit of 203.68 feet amsl to asses impacts to avigation activities of JWA. Additionally, because the proposed project falls within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area of JWA, the project applicant is required to file Form 7460 -1 with FAA. Based on calculations prepared by the project applicant and submitted for review to FAA in conjunction with Form 7460 -1, FAA conducted an aeronautical study for the proposed project consistent with FAA Part 77 regulations. As determined by the aeronautical study performed by FAA for 11 selected latitude /longitude building points onsite, three of the proposed building points were identified as obstacles under the obstruction standards of Section 77.199(a) of Title 14 CRF Part 77 by approximately one to three feet, as the tallest buildings that would be permitted by the proposed project (150- foot -tall residential towers) would reach a maximum height of 207 feet amsl. The additional one to three feet in building heightwould penetrate the JWA horizontal airspace surface and therefore be an obstruction to JWA operations. In response to the FAA's aeronautical study and determination and to ensure that the proposed project's building heights would be within the limits established by the Orange County Board of Supervisors forJWA, the project's PCDP was amended to limit building heights and any appurtenances to no greater than the 203.68 feet amsl established for JWA. Therefore, the heights of the residential towers of the proposed project would not exceed the maximum permitted and adopted building height. The proposed project is would be consistent with the building height limitations set forth under the current civilian airport standards in the AELUP and would not adversely affect JWA's aeronautical operations or navigational -aid siting criteria, including interference with navigational aids or published flight paths and procedures. Conclusion Based on this review and the analysis provided in Sections 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 5.10, Noise, of this DEIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the AELUP noise standards, standards and operations, and building height restrictions. However, since the proposed project requires an amendment to the Koll Center Newport PCDP and adoption of its own zoning (PDCP), a consistency determination by ALUC is required prior to the Newport Beach City Council taking action on the project. The proposed project has not yet been before ALUC for a determination of consistency. If ALUC determines that the project is not consistent with the AELUP, the Newport Beach City Council may override this finding by a two - thirds vote. If an override is made, a significant unavoidable adverse impact would result and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to be made by the City Council at thetime action on the project is taken. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -37 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING SCAG 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS Consistency Table 5.9 -2 provides an assessment of the proposed project's relationship to pertinent 2012 -2035 SCAG RTP /SCS goals. The analysis in Table 5.9 -2 concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable RTP /SCS goals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant RTP /SCS goals. Table 5.9 -2 SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals Consistency Analysis RTP Goals and goods in the region RTP /SCS G3: Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. RTP /SCS G4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. RTP /SCS G5: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. Consistent. uevelopment of the proposed project would ensure that mobility and accessibility for people and goods would be maximized. As a part of proposed project, a comprehensive pedestrian linkage system consisting of sidewalks and paseos would be created that would provide an important and convenient linkage system not only throughoutthe project site, but also to adjacent and surrounding uses and to surrounding and nearby open space and recreation areas. The project's pedestrian circulation components would be designed and installed in a manner that would avoid conflicts with vehicles. Additionally, as a part of the proposed project, a 23 -foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement would be provided along Jamboree Road. Within this easement, a 12 -foot wide sidewalk would be constructed as a part of the project to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. The proposed project's location close to Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and SR -73, and the existing OCTA bus routes provided along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard would maximize mobility and accessibility for residents of the proposed project. The project site is also served by JWA, which is 0.6 mile northwest of the site. Additionally, the project site is close to employment uses in the Airport Area and would provide housing near these jobs and promote the use of alternative transportation modes and a pedestrian- oriented village. A part of the proposed project, the necessary traffic control measures would also be installed to ensure that the City's roadways function as intended. Additionally, the proposed project's traffic study (see Appendix M) was prepared in accordance with the City's traffic study guidelines. Refer to Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, for a discussion of the traffic study's conclusions. Page 5.9 -38 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.9 -2 SCAG's 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals RTP Goals HTP /sus uu: Protect the environment ano health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non- motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking). RTP /SCS G7: Actively encourage and create incentives for Consistent: I he CtUA process ensures that plans at all levels of government consider all environmental impacts. Various sections of this DER appropriately address the potential environmental impacts related to development of the proposed project and outline mitigation measures and regulatory requirements to reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible. For example, Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, address air quality, energy, and global climate impacts that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project, and apply mitigation measures and regulatory requirements to reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible. For example, the proposed project is required to comply with the provisions of the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2010 Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Additionally, as noted above under RTP Goals G2 through G5, the proposed project would encourage active transportation through the inclusion of a comprehensive pedestrian linkage system consisting of internal sidewalks and paseos. As a part of the proposed project, a 23 -foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easement would be provided along Jamboree Road. Within this easement, a 12 -foot wide sidewalk would be constructed as a part of the project to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. Not Applicable: This is not a project- specific policy and is HTPLSCS G9: tncourage land use and growth patterns that Consistent' See response to H I P (ioal 136. facilitate transit and non - motorized transportation. system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. RTP /SCS G10: Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments and improves the cost - effectiveness of expenditures. not a therefore not applicable. Consistent: The project's proposed land uses would complement and improve the existing and proposed circulation and transportation facilities in and around the project area. For example, the project's proposed land uses would be located and designed in a manner that would ensure usage of and access to the existing and future vehicular and nonvehicular transportation systems in the vicinity of the project area. Additionally, as a part of the development phase of the proposed project, all necessary traffic and circulation improvements would be installed and/or funded to ensure that the City's roadways function as intended. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement the City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area as it would call for the development of a mixed -use master planned residential community. The proposed project would also introduce residential uses within an existing office business park and close to other commercial and ancillary uses, thereby reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -39 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Phase 2 Project consistency with applicable plans has been addressed above under Phase 1. Where applicable, specific information has been provided and is appropriate, quantified to detail land use consistency for the interim Phase 1 condition vs. the buildout of the entire project. 5.9.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative projects that would potentially combine with the proposed project to result in land use impacts are shown in Figures 4.3, Approved Traffic Phasing Ordinance Projects, and 4.4, Cumulative Projects Location Map. The cumulative projects shown in these figures are in different stages, with some approved and partially completed, and others approved or in the early planning stages and not yet completed. Upon approval of the proposed project's development plans (e.g., PCDP, phasing plan, design guidelines), the project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and the ICDP,, as provided in detail above. The project site would also be designed to enable the proposed project to be constructed in phases while still achieving a unified, comprehensive development plan. Furthermore, each project phase would be subjectto all applicable design and development standards outlined in the proposed projects PCDP, phasing plan, and design guidelines. As with the proposed project, cumulative projects would be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans and programs reviewed in this section, including the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. Implementation of these projects, therefore, would not combine with the proposed project to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. 5.9.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.9 -1. The following impact is considered potentially significant without mitigation. • Impact 5.9 -2: The possibility of an ALUC determination of inconsistency with the AELUP is considered potentially significant. Page 5.9 -40 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.9.7 Mitigation Measures There are no applicable mitigation measures. 5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation As described above, the proposed project has been reviewed by the City and it cannot make a determination of consistency at this time with the AELUP for JWA. Additionally, since the residential towers within the project site would exceed 200 feet amsl and 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 priorto the Newport Beach City Council taking action on the project. The proposed project has not yet been before ALUC for a determination of consistency. If ALUC determines that the project is not consistent with the AELUP, the Newport Beach City Council may override this finding by atwo- thirds vote. If an override is made, a significant unavoidable adverse impact would result and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to be made by the City Council at the time action on the project is taken. "301 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -41 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.9 -42 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.10 NOISE This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal, state, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; and evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the Uptown Newport (proposed project). The noise calculations and modeling on which this analysis is based are included in Appendix J of this DEIR. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report, also included in Appendix J of this DEIR: • Uptown Newport Project Noise and Vibration Impact Mitigation Memorandum, Wilson Ihrig and Associates, June, 2012 5.10.1 Environmental Setting Noise Descriptors Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as "noisiness" or `loudness." The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter: • Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. 8B • Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. • Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. • A- Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency- weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. • Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (L•q). The mean of the noise level, energy- averaged over the measurement period. • Day -Night Level (Ld„ ). The energy- average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24- hour period, with 10 d6 added to sound levels from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy- average of the A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period with 5 dB added to the levels from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and 10 dB added to the sound levels from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate the human, frequency- dependent response, the A- weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. The Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -1 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA (the threshold of detection) to 140 dBA (the threshold of pain). Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 5.10 -1 presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Table 5.10 -1 Chan a in Apparent Loudness 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level 10 dB Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen 1988. Sound is generated from a source and the decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as spreading loss or distance attenuation. When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level during that period can be obtained. For example, Lsp is the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time: half the time the noise exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This is also the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L,,, L-0e, and Lz5 values are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. The energy - equivalent sound level (LeQ) is the most common parameter associated with community noise measurements. The Laq metric is a single- number noise descriptor of the energy- average sound level over a given period of time. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lm;, and Lm�. These values are the minimum and maximum root - mean - square (RMS) noise levels obtained over the stated measurement period. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and nighttime hours, state law requires that, for planning purposes and to account for this increased receptiveness of noise, an artificial decibel increment is to be added to quiet -time noise levels to calculate the 24 -hour CNEL noise metric. Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. For community environments, the ambient or background noise problem is widespread, through generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less- developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption /masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance. Since most people do not routinely work with decibels or A- weighted sound levels, it is often difficult to appreciate what a given sound pressure level (SPL) number means. To help relate noise level values to common experience, Table 5.10 -2 shows typical noise levels from noise sources. Page 5.10 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -2 r scar rvorse Levets Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 60 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room background Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall background 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans 2009. Regulatory Framework To limit population exposure to physically and /or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. California State Regulations Noise standards have been incorporated as part of the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25, California Code of Regulations) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California. Title 21, Subchapter 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Airport Noise Standards) establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports. Title 21 applies to airports that have been designated as "noise problem airports," which includes John Wayne Airport. Noise - sensitive land uses in locations where the aircraft exterior noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL are generally incompatible, unless (1) an aviation easementfor aircraft noise has been acquired bythe airport proprietor or (2) the residence is a high -rise apartment or condominium that has an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less in all habitable rooms despite aircraft noise and an air circulation or air conditioning system, as appropriate. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -3 �Xy1 S. Environmental Analysis NorsE Assembly Bill (AB) 2776 requires any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties within an airport influence area to disclose that fact to the person buying the property. City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Noise Compatibility The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element discusses the effects of noise exposure on the population and sets goals designed to protect residents and businesses from excessive and persistent noise intrusions. The General Plan Noise Element contains noise thresholds for developments located adjacent to mobile or transportation noise sources and thresholds for stationary noise sources. The City applies the state's Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility standards, summarized in Table N2 of the Noise Element (presented here as Figure 5.10 -1), to assess the compatibility of new development with ambient noise. Table N2, Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix, of the Noise Element is reproduced in Figure 5.10 -1 and identifies clearly compatible, normally compatible, normally incompatible, and clearly incompatible noise levels for various land uses. A normally compatible designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. A clearly compatible designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. In no case would it be desirable for any land use to have noise exceeding the highest "normally compatible" noise level shown in Figure 5.10 -1. For the purpose of residential uses, the highest exterior noise level is 65 dBA CNEL. It should be noted that California requires that interior noise levels in multifamily residential uses not exceed 45 Ld,,; this is commonly used as an interior standard for all residential uses, but is not required under the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2. In addition to the noise /land use compatibility guidelines in the General Plan Noise Element, the City of Newport Beach has adopted Community Noise Control policies and standards as part of its Municipal Code in order to limit unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise in the City. These noise standards are discussed below and displayed in Table 5.10 -3. Page 5.10 -4 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -3 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards (Le,) Noise Zone Time Interval Maximum Daytime Noise Levels (dBA) Le L.. Zone I - Single -, two -, or multiple - family residential 7 AM to 10 PM 55 75 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone II - Commercial 7 AM to 10 PM 65 85 10 PM to 7 AM 60 80 Zone III - Residential portions of mixed use properties 7 AM to 10 PM 60 80 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone IV - Industrial or manufacturing 7 AM to 10 PM 79 90 10 PM to 7 AM 70 90 Institutional 7 AM to 10 PM 55 75 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Source: Section 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards, of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Table N3, Noise Standards, of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element. Notes: These noise standards do not apply to heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems or construction pursuant to Section 10.26.035 of the Municipal Cade. In the eventthe ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. The following discussion provides a summary of the City of Newport Beach Noise Element goals and policies 88 as they apply to regulatory guidance and significance criteria for the proposed project: Goal N1, Noise Compatibility, Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities. Policy N 1.1, Noise Compatibility of New Development: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2 (presented here as Figure 5.10 -1), and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3 (see Table 5.10 -3). Policy N 1.2, Noise Exposure Verification for New Development: Applicants for proposed projects that require environmental review and are, located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher, as shown on Figure N4, Figure N5, and Figure N6 of the Noise Element may conduct a field survey, noise measurements or other modeling in a manner acceptable to the City to provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors as, topography, variation in traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions. These findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into account. • Policy N 1.4, New Developments in Urban Areas: Require that applicants of residential portions of mixed -use projects and high density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor /ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -5 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE • Policy N 1.5, Infill Projects: Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible mechanisms to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any new residential project. • Policy N 1.6, Mixed Use Developments: Encourage new mixed -use developments to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away from the residential portion of the development. • Policy N 1.7, Commercial /Entertainment Uses: Limit hours and /or requires attenuation of commercial /entertainment operations adjacent to residential and other noise sensitive uses in order to minimize excessive noise to these receptors. • Policy N 1.8, Significant Noise Impacts: Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified for new development impacting existing sensitive uses, as presented in Table 5.10 -4. Table 5.10 -4 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise- Sensitive Uses (dBA CNEL) Existing Noise Exposure Allowable Combined Noise Exposure Allowable Noise Exposure Increment 55 58 3 60 62 2 65 66 1 70 71 1 75 75 0 Oum Le. buy ul new Nml Btd dI aviin GI ridll Guu LIMIM dl nau LIM. HuuNmu IVUVGI IIurl cuuo. Goal N2, Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. • Policy N 2.1, New Development: Require that proposed noise- sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels. Policy N 2.2, Design of Sensitive Land Uses: Require the use of walls, berms, and interior noise insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N3 (Table 5.10 -3) shall govern this requirement. • Policy N 2.3, Limiting Truck Deliveries: Limit the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and other noise sensitive land uses to minimize excessive noise unless there is no feasible alternative. Any exemption shall require compliance with nighttime (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) noise standards. Goal N3, Protection of Newport Beach residents from the adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council Airport Policy. Page 5.10 -6 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix (General Plan Table N2) Lana use _aare ones 1�omtrriuniry Noise t umvarenrLever. r_rvrc ,Categories Uses Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family A A B C C D D Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A. A B C C D D Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient. Lodging A A B B C C D Regional, District Commercial Regional, Village Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C District, Special Commercial Industrial Office Building, Research and Development, A O A A B B C D Institutional Professional Offices, City Office Building Commercial Recreational Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall B FB C C D D D -institutional Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, A A A B B D D Recreation Go -cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Commercial General, Special Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, A A A A B B B Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities Industrial, Institutional Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' Classroom A A B C C D D Open Space Parks I A B A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers Wildlife A A A A B C C Reserves, Wildlife Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A SOURCE: Newport Beach, 2005 Zone A: Clearly Compatible­Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compafible'=New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise'insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction ordevelopmentshould generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise, insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: Newport Beach, 2006 Uptoarm Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.10 -1 �� S. Environmental Analysis NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -8 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Policy N3.2, Residential Development: Require that residential development in the Airport Area be located 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. Goal N4, Minimization of Nontransportation - Related Noise, Minimized nontransportation - related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. • Policy N 4.1, Stationary Noise Sources: Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3 (Table 4.10 -3), and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. • Policy N 4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities: Require the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work related activities. Goal N5, Minimized excessive construction - related noise. • Policy N 5.1, Limiting Hours of Activity: Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. Stationary ( Nontransportation) Noise The City applies the Noise Ordinance standards (Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards) to nontransportation, stationary noise sources. These standards are summarized in Table 5.10 -3, and are included as the exterior noise standards in Table N3, Noise Standards, of the General Plan 88 Noise Element. These standards are not applicable to mobile noise sources (such as heavy trucks) that are traveling on public roadways. Control of the mobile noise sources on public roads is preempted by federal and state laws. The City's Noise Ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. Equipment sound ratings of new heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) equipment installed in the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. According to Section 10.26.045 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA, and it is installed with atiming device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM. Sound - Amplifying Equipment The City of Newport Beach requires that any sound - amplifying equipment used in the City apply for and obtain a permit from the Finance Director (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, Sound - Amplifying Equipment). According to the City's Municipal Code, the volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be audible for a distance in excess of 100 feet from the sound - amplifying device, and so that the volume is not unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing, or a nuisance to persons within the range of allowed audibility. Furthermore, use of sound - amplifying equipment is prohibited outdoors between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -9 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Construction Noise The City realizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and therefore provides exemption for this type of noise. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, Exemptions, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise level limits shown in Table 5.10 -3, above. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity— Noise Regulations. According to this chapter, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when the maintenance, repair, or improvement cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. Vibration Fundamentals Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or vibration - intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During project construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. These types of vibration are best measured and described in terms of velocity and acceleration. Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, whereas RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in /sec). Often, vibration is presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. In this study, all PPV and RMS velocity levels are in in /sec and all vibration levels are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly as they move away from the source of the vibration. Man -made vibration problems are, therefore, usually confined to short distances (500 to 600 feet or less) from the source (FTA, 2006). Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at up to 200 feet. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which can vary, depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, etc., all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration from normal traffic flows on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, heavy loads, and wheel -rail interactions. Page 5.10 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Vibration Standards The City of Newport Beach does not have specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration. Vibration Annoyance Table 5.10 -5 shows the FTA's vibration criteria to evaluate vibration - related annoyance due to resonances of the structural components of a building. These criteria are based on extensive research that suggests humans are sensitive to vibration velocities in the range of 8 to 80 Hertz (Hz). Table 5.10 -5 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Human Annoyance Land Use Category MaxL, VdB' Description Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and nonsensitive areas Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and nonsensitive areas. Residential - Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment. Residential - Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Source: FTA 2006. Lv is the velocity level in decibels, as measured in 1/3- octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. The FTA also sets a threshold of 65 VdB for vibration - sensitive research and manufacturing equipment. According to the FTA, this criterion is based on levels that area generally acceptable for the operation of microscopes and equipment that is used in the manufacturing of computer chips. This threshold is applicable to the TowerJazz semiconductor facility during the construction of the project's Phase 1. Vibration - Related Architectural Damage Structures amplify groundborne vibration, and wood -frame buildings such as typical residential structures are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards, shown in Table 5.10 -6. Table 5.10 -6 r_rou-ndbo ne Wbra!fnn cr terfe. errhitert..v�l n�m�ire Building Category PPV (in /sec) L VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non- engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FTA 2006. ' L, is the velocity level in decibels, as measured in 1/3- octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -11 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Proposed Project and Nearby Sensitive Receptors Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residences, schools, hospital facilities, religious facilities, and open spacelrecreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for the enjoyment, public health, and safety of the community. Commercial and industrial uses are not considered noise- and vibration - sensitive uses. The proposed project would include multifamily residential units, neighborhood - serving retail uses, and neighborhood parks and ancillary amenities to serve residents and visitors. The project site is surrounded to the northeast, northwest, and southwest by commercial and office uses. To the southeast, across Jamboree Road, is undeveloped open space in the North Campus planning area of the University of California, Irvine (see Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph). The nearest existing noise- and vibration - sensitive areas are the Child Care Development Center at UCI, approximately 260 feet to the east, and the Watermarke residential development, approximately 1,300 feet north of the site. Existing Noise Environment The dominant source of noise within the vicinity of the Uptown Newport site is traffic on Jamboree Road and general aviation aircraft overflights from the John Wayne Airport. The operation of equipment at the TowerJazz semiconductor facility also contributes to the ambient noise environment, especially at the western portions of the site. To characterize the existing noise environment, both short- and long -term noise measurements were taken within and near the project site. Figure 5.10 -2 shows the noise monitoring locations. Page 5.10 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Noise Monitoring Locations — — — — Project Site Q Noise Monitoring Locations Source: Google Earth Pro 2011 o aoo r Scale Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.10 -2 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Short-Term Noise Monitoring Short-term noise monitoring was conducted on Tuesday, March 20, and Thursday, March 22, 2012, to measure the ambient noise environment at various locations within and near the project site. The monitoring periods were in duration of 10 to 20 minutes each at a total of five monitoring sites. Table 5.10 -7 presents the minimum (Lm;,,), average (Leq), and maximum (LmJ noise levels that were monitored. Table 5.10 -7 Short -Term Noise Measurements Monitoring Site L,, L Lm Monitoring Site 1' 51.7 58.2 65.0 Monitoring Site 2' 55.6 59.1 64.7 Monitoring Site 3' 57.2 59.7 65.3 Monitoring Site 42 53.5 59.0 75.1 Monitoring Site 52 52.4 60.4 71.7 Notes: Noise monitorina conducted for 10 -20 minutes at each site with a Larson Davis 820 sound level meter. ' Conducted on March 22, 2012. P Conducted on March 20, 2012. Monitoring Site 1. The sound level meter (SLM) was placed approximately 90 feet west /southwest from the gated entrance to the courtyard /recreation area on the southwest boundary of the project site. The primary 8B noise source for this area was the hum from the nearby mechanical equipment near the gate and aviation overflights from helicopters, commercial airliners, and smaller single- engine airplanes. There were 11 overflights during the monitoring period. Secondary noise consisted of traffic from Jamboree Road and birds chirping in nearby trees. Monitoring Site 2. The SLM was placed in the northeastern parking lot of the project site, approximately 280 feet from the centerline of Jamboree Road. The primary noise sources were the stationary source noise from the TowerJazz facility and aviation overflights (e.g., helicopters, smaller single- engine airplanes, and commercial airliners). There were eight overflights during the monitoring period. Secondary noise included traffic noise from Jamboree Road, which was only perceptible at certain times. Monitoring Site 3. The SLM was placed in the parking lot of the "Manly and Stewart" office building at 4220 Von Karman Avenue. It was placed approximately east of the building and 65 feet from the nearest project site boundary. The primary noise source was the stationary source noise emanating from the TowerJazz facility. The other noise source included overflights from helicopters, single- engine airplanes, and commercial airliners. Traffic noise from Von Karman Avenue was not readily perceptible. Monitoring Site 4. The SLM was placed approximately 10 feet from the existing SCE substation in the southern corner of the project, about 280 feet from the centerline of Jamboree Road. The dominant source of noise during the measurement was traffic on Jamboree Road, and a constant background "hum" from the operation of the transformers. The transformers from the substation generate the "hum" due to the alternating flux in the core that causes vibration. Monitoring Site 5. The SLM was placed in the center portion of the main parking lot of the project site, approximately 215 feet from the centerline of Jamboree Road. The dominant source of noise was traffic on Jamboree Road and aircraft overflights. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -15 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Long -Term Noise Monitoring Long -term noise monitoring was also conducted at two separate locations (TowerJazz rooftop and Jamboree Road) at the project site, as shown in Table 5.10 -8. Monitoring at the TowerJazz rooftop site was conducted for a 48 -hour period from Tuesday, March 20, to Thursday, March 22, 2012. Monitoring at the Jamboree Road site was conducted for a 24 -hour period from Tuesday, March 22, to Wednesday, March 23, 2012. These locations were selected to capture the ambient noise levels at the site from the operation of the TowerJazz facility and from traffic noise on Jamboree Road. The results of the noise monitoring are presented in Table 5.10 -8. Table 5.10 -8 Measurements Noise Level Monitoring Site 6 (TowerJazz Rooftoo )' 1 73.8 ' Conducted from March 20 to 22, 2012. Highest level on day 2 was reported; day 1 =73.6 dBA CNEL. Conducted from March 22, 2012 to March 23, 2012. TowerJazz Rooftop Monitoring Site. The SLM was placed on the roof top near the northern corner of the one -story Half Dome building, approximately 100 feet southwest of main cooling towers for TowerJazz facility. These cooling towers were the primary noise source for the area and were in use during the entire monitoring period. The other source of noise included overflights from aviation aircrafts. Traffic noise from Jamboree Road was not readily perceptible. Jamboree Road Monitoring Site. The SLM was placed approximately 95 feet from the centerline of Jamboree Road to the north of a nearby transformer. The major noise source at this location was traffic on Jamboree Road. Background noise sources include the operation of the TowerJazz facility and aircraft overflights. On -Road Vehicles To assess the potential for mobile- source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated byvehicles traveling through the project area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided by Kimley -Horn and Associates (KHA 2012). Noise level contours were calculated for all roadway segments evaluated in the traffic study with noise - sensitive land uses exist along the roadway. The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along arterial segments currently range from approximately 56 dBA to 73 dBA CNEL, as calculated at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road. Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 5.10 -9. Page 5.10 -16 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -9 Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes Noise Level at 100 Feet (dBA CNEL) Distance to Noise Contour (feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL Main Street Jamboree to Harvard 19,620 68.2 75 163 350 Michelson Drive East of Jamboree 19,920 68.0 73 158 340 Michelson Drive East of Harvard 16;370 67.1 64 138 298 Campus Drive Jamboree to Carlson 14,970 67.8 71 154 331 Jamboree Road Michelson to Dupont 45,560 72.9 156 336 724 Jamboree Road Dupont to Campus 42,710 73.0 159 342 738 Jamboree Road South of Bayview 34,990 72.2 139 300 646 Carlson Avenue Michelson to Campus 7,450 63.7 38 82 176 Harvard Avenue Michelson to University 17,310 67.4 67 144 310 Mesa Drive West of Irvine Avenue 5,660 62.5 32 68 147 Irvine Avenue South of Mesa Drive 25,100 69.0 85 184 397 Irvine Avenue North of Mesa Drive 19,340 67.8 72 155 333 Bayview Place South of Bristol 3,510 59.3 19 41 89 Bayview Way West of Jamboree 1,870 56.5 13 27 59 University Drive East of Jamboree 9,580 64.8 45 97 209 University Drive California to Mesa 28,830 69.6 94 202 435 University Drive Mesa to Campus 29,600 69.7 95 205 443 University Drive East of Campus 29,300 69.9 99 212 457 Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Calculations included in Appendix J Aircraft Noise John Wayne Airport (JWA) is approximately 3,000 feet northwest of the project site. Owned and operated by Orange County, JWA serves both general aviation and scheduled commercial passenger airline and cargo operations. JWA experienced a total of 349,936 aircraft operations (arrivals and departures) in 2005 and of those, 246,920 were general aviation operations, 87,130 were air carrier operations, 15,729, were air taxi (commuter) operations, and 157 were military operations. (Newport Beach Noise Element 2006). The California Public Resources Code, Section 21096, requires that when preparing an Environmental Impact Report for any project located within an airport influence area as defined by an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC), the lead agency shall utilize the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as a technical resource with respect to airport noise and safety compatibility issues. The basis for compatibility zone delineation for airports is the CNEL contours created with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Integrated Noise Model for private and public airports. Noise from aircrafts at the John Wayne Airport is produced from takeoffs, flyovers /overflights, approaches, and landings. Each of these events results in noise exposure to noise - sensitive receptors within close proximity to the airport. Based on the most recent, publicly available, annual noise contour map (2010) prepared by John Wayne Airport, the Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -17 S. Environmental Analysis NossE project site is in an area exposed to noise levels due to airport operations between 55 and 60 dBA CNEL (see airport noise contours in Figure 5.10 -3). Noise - sensitive land uses in locations where the aircraft exterior noise level does not exceed 65 dBA CNEL are compatible as long as interior habitable rooms remain below 45 dBA CNEL. Stationary Source Noise Noise from office, commercial, and light industrial uses in the vicinity of the project site are primarily from the operation of heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems, truck deliveries, and machinery utilized in production at the TowerJazz facility. In addition, the existing SCE substation generates noise from electrical equipment such as transformers and noise from corona effect. During the site visit, the dominant source of noise in the vicinity of the project site was vehicular traffic on Jamboree Road. 5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in: N -1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Based on local noise criteria established in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Municipal Code, the following would be considered significant: Exterior Noise impacting the Uptown Newport project would exceed 65 dBA CNEL to outdoor living areas, according to maximum level considered normally compatible for residential uses as shown in Table N2, Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix, of the General Plan Noise Element (see Figure 5.10 -1). Based on Policy N 1.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element, project - related traffic increases the CNEL at any noise - sensitive receptor by an audible amount of: (1) 3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 55 dBA or less, (2) 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 55 and 60 dBA, (3) 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 75, or (4) any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors (see Table 5.10 -4). Noise generated by buildout of the Uptown Newport project would result in stationary (non - transportation) noise that exceeds the standards of Table N3 of the Noise Element, and the City's Municipal Code (see Table 5.10 -3) on noise - sensitive receptors. N -2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Based on the vibration criteria as established bythe FTA, the following would be considered significant: Page 5.10 -18 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis John Wayne Airport Existing Noise Level Contours •• —••- Integrated Concept Development Plan — — — — Project Site Noise Contour Lines o 1,500 r Source: Newport Beach 2006 Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.10 -3 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE During Phase 1 and Phase 2 of construction, construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed the FTA's criterion for architectural damage of 0.3 PPV (in /sec) for buildings in the vicinity of the project site and Phase 1 buildings. During Phase 1 and Phase 2 of construction, construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed the FTA's criterion for human annoyance for infrequent events (84 VdB) at offsite offices in the vicinity of the project site. • During Phase 2 of construction, construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed the FTA's criterion for human annoyance for infrequent events (78 VdB) at the project's residential buildings constructed in Phase 1. The following would be considered a significant impact to the TowerJazz Semiconductor manufacturing facility (defined as substantial vibration to sensitive equipment per WIA, 2012): • During Phase 1 of construction, construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed 1,000 micro - inches per second at the TowerJazz semiconductor manufacturing facility (defined as a substantial vibration to sensitive equipment, per WIA 2012). N -3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Based on local noise criteria as established in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Municipal Code the following would be considered significant: Based on Policy N 1.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan, project - related traffic increases the CNEL at any noise - sensitive receptor by an audible amount of: (1) 3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 55 dBA or less, (2) 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 55 and 60 dBA, (3) 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 75, or (4) any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors (see Table 5.10 -4) Noise generated by buildout of the Uptown Newport project would result in stationary (nontransportation) noise that exceeds the standards of the City's Municipal Code (see Table 5.10 -4) on noise - sensitive receptors. N -4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N -5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Based on noise criteria as established by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program, the following would be considered significant: If the project is within the Noise Impacted Area of John Wayne Airport and thus exposed to noise levels that exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -21 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE N -6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with Threshold N -6 would be less than significant. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.10.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.10 -1: THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC FROM OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN BARELY PERCEPTIBLE NOISE INCREASES LESS THAN 0.2 DBA CNEL TO AREA NOISE LEVELS. [THRESHOLDS N -1 AND N -3] Impact Analysis: Long -term operation of the project would generate noise from project - related vehicular trips along roadways. According to the traffic analysis prepared forthe project (Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012), the proposed project would generate a net increase of 8,286 ADT when compared to existing conditions. The following analysis describes the anticipated noise levels from traffic generated by the Uptown Newport project. Traffic noise modeling was compiled for the following scenarios according to the traffic study prepared for this project: • Existing: Existing conditions without the proposed project. • Existing with Project Buildout: Existing volumes plus the new traffic generated by Phase 2, which corresponds to buildout of the proposed project. • Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project: Existing volumes plus ambient growth plus traffic from pending and approved —but not yet constructed — developments in the area, without the proposed project. • Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Project: Volumes and transportation system from the 2018 Cumulative Conditions described above, plus the new traffic generated by Phase 1 of the proposed project. • Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project: Existing volumes plus ambient growth plus traffic from pending and approved —but not yet constructed — developments in the area, withoutthe proposed project. • Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project: Volumes and transportation system from the 2018 Cumulative Conditions described above, plus the new traffic generated by Phase 2 (buildout) of the proposed project. The traffic noise levels for this project were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD -77 -108). The FHWA model predicts noise levels through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for distances from the roadway, traffic flows, vehicle speeds, car /truck mix, length of exposed roadway, and road width. The distances to the 70, 65, and 60 CNEL contours for selected roadway segments in the vicinity of proposed project site are included in Appendix J. Tables 5.10 -10 through 5.10 -12 compare the noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of each roadway segment without and with the project for existing, 2018, and 2021 conditions. Page 5.10 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Existing Conditions Plus Project Table 5.10 -10 shows the traffic noise increase that would result from full buildout of the project (Phase 1 and Phase 2) in comparison to existing traffic conditions. This is the "existing plus project scenario" required by CEQA. Traffic noise increases due to the project's buildout range from 0 to 0.2 dBA. No roadway segments would exceed the thresholds for transportation noise impacts presented previously in Table 5.10 -4; therefore, this increase would be less than significant. Table 5.10 -10 Project- Related Traffic Noise Increases, Existing Conditions Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 feet (dBA) Increase from Existing (dBA) Existing Conditions With Project' Main Street Jamboree to Harvard 68.2 68.2 0.0 Michelson Drive East of Jamboree 68.0 68.0 0.0 Michelson Drive East of Harvard 67.1 67.1 0.0 Campus Drive Jamboree to Carlson 67.8 67.8 0.0 Jamboree Road Michelson to Dupont 72.9 73.1 0.2 Jamboree Road Dupont to Campus 73.0 73.2 0.2 Jamboree Road South of Bayview 72.2 72.2 0.0 Carlson Avenue Michelson to Campus 63.7 63.7 0.0 Harvard Avenue Michelson to University 67.4 67.4 0.0 Mesa Drive West of Irvine Avenue 62.5 62.5 0.0 Irvine Avenue South of Mesa Drive 69.0 69.0 0.0 Irvine Avenue North of Mesa Drive 67.8 67.9 0.1 Bayview Place South of Bristol 59.3 59.3 0.0 Bayview Way West of Jamboree 56.5 56.5 0.0 University East of Jamboree 64.8 64.8 0.0 University California to Mesa 69.6 69.6 0.0 University Mesa to Campus 69.7 69.7 0.0 University East of Campus 69.9 69.9 0.0 Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Calculations included in Appendix J. Corresponds to project buildout (Phase 1 plus Phase 2). Phase 1 The traffic - related noise increase due to development of Phase 1 of the project in comparison to noise levels without the project are shown in Table 5.10 -11. As shown in this table, traffic noise increases due to Phase 1 development would range from 0 to 0.1 dBA. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -23 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -11 Project- Related Traffic Noise, Phasel Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 feet d8A increase due to Project (d8A) Without Project 2018 With Phase 1 Project Main Street Jamboree to Harvard 70.5 70.5 0.0 Michelson Drive East of Jamboree 70.4 70.4 0.0 Michelson Drive East of Harvard 68.3 68.3 0.0 Campus Drive Jamboree to Carlson 69.5 69.6 0.1 Jamboree Road Michelson to Dupont 73.8 73.8 0.0 Jamboree Road Dupont to Campus 73.8 73.9 0.1 Jamboree Road South of Bayview 73.1 73.2 0.1 Carlson Avenue Michelson to Campus 66.3 66.3 0.0 Harvard Avenue Michelson to University 67.8 67.8 0.0 Mesa Drive West of Irvine Avenue 62.6 62.6 0.0 Irvine Avenue South of Mesa Drive 69.7 69.7 0.0 Irvine Avenue North of Mesa Drive 68.6 68.7 0.1 Bayview Place South of Bristol 59.5 59.5 0.0 Bayview Way West of Jamboree 57.1 57.1 0.0 University East of Jamboree 65.5 65.5 0.0 University California to Mesa 70.4 70.4 0.0 University Mesa to Campus 70.5 70.5 0.0 University East of Campus 70.3 70.4 0.1 Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Calculations included in Appendix J. Noise increases of up to 1 dBA are not perceptible to the average human ear. No roadway segments would exceed the thresholds for transportation noise impacts presented previously in Table 5.10 -4; therefore, implementation of Phase 1 the proposed project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of noise - sensitive receptors. Thus, project- related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Phase 2 Table 5.10 -12 shows the project's traffic - generated noise impacts over completion of Phase 2 (project buildout) for 2021 conditions. As shown in this table, traffic noise increases due to Phase 2 development range from -0.1 to 0.2 dBA. Page 5.10 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -12 Project - Related Traffic Noise, Phase 2 Roadway Segment CNEL at 50 feet (dBA) Increase Due to Project (dBA) Without Project (2021) Project With Phase 2 Project Main Street Jamboree to Harvard 70.7 707 0.0 Michelson Drive East of Jamboree 70.6 70.5 -0.1 Michelson Drive East of Harvard 68.5 68.5 0.0 Campus Drive Jamboree to Carlson 69.7 69.7 0.0 Jamboree Road Michelson to Dupont 73.9 74.1 0.2 Jamboree Road Dupont to Campus 74.0 74.2 0.2 Jamboree Road South of Bayview 73.2 73.3 0.1 Carlson Avenue Michelson to Campus 66.5 66.5 0.0 Harvard Avenue Michelson to University 68.0 68.0 0.0 Mesa Drive West of Irvine Avenue 62.7 62.7 0.0 Irvine Avenue South of Mesa Drive 69.8 69.8 0.0 Irvine Avenue North of Mesa Drive 68.7 68.8 0.1 Bayview Place South of Bristol 59.5 59.5 0.0 Bayview Way West of Jamboree 57.2 57.2 0.0 University East of Jamboree 65.6 65.6 0.0 University California to Mesa 70.6 70.6 0.0 University Mesa to Campus 70.7 70.7 0.0 University East of Campus 70.5 70.5 0.0 Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Calculations included in Appendix J. As shown in Table 5.10 -12, Phase 2 of the project would increase the noise levels along roadways by less than 0.2 dBA. Noise increases of up to 1 dBA are not perceptible to the average human ear. No roadway segments would exceed the thresholds for transportation noise impacts presented previously in Table 5.10 -4; therefore, implementation of Phase 2 the proposed project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of noise- sensitive receptors. Thus, project - related traff ic noise impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT 5.10 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INTRODUCE NEW STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES THAT WOULD RESULT IN SMALL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES IN THE VICINITY OF NOISE - SENSITIVE LAND USES. (THRESHOLDS N -1 AND N -31 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 The proposed project would include multifamily residential units, neighborhood- serving retail uses such as specialty retail and restaurant, and recreational areas to serve residents and visitors. Operation of the project would include stationary sources such as outdoor activities at the proposed recreational areas, truck deliveries, and the operation of HVAC units. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -25 S. Environmental Analysis NoisE Since the land uses adjacent to the project site are commercial and office, the project is required to abide by the City of Newport Beach maximum noise limits for Zone II, which requires noise levels from stationary equipment not to exceed a daytime maximum of 65 dBA L,, for a period of 15 minutes during an hour (or 85 dBA LmJ and a nighttime maximum of 60 dBA L, for a period of 15 minutes in an hour (or 80 dBA LR,.). In addition, Phase 1 would also have to comply with the City of Newport Beach maximum noise limits for Zone IV forthe TowerJazz Semiconductor industrial facility, which requires noise levels from stationary equipment not to exceed a maximum of 70 dBA Leq for a period of 15 minutes during an hour (or 90 dBA L..) at any time of the day. Forthe future proposed mixed -uses, the project is required to abide by the City of Newport Beach maximum noise limits for Zone III (residential portions of mixed -use properties), which requires that noise levels from stationary equipment to not exceed a daytime maximum of 60 dBA L.q for a period of 15 minutes during an hour (or 80 dBA Lm.) and a nighttime maximum of 50 dBA Leq for a period of 15 minutes in an hour (or 70 dBA Lma,). Truck Deliveries The retail uses would be neighborhood commercial such as restaurants and specialty retail, mostly to serve the future project's residents. The total commercial component would be 11,500 square feet and located in the southeastern corner of the site adjacent to Jamboree Road. The primary noise associated with truck deliveries is the arrival and departure of trucks. Normal deliveries are mostly by two -axle medium trucks and typically occur during daytime hours. Permitted retail uses would include, but not be limited to, small 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. No loading docks are proposed due to the small size of commercial retailers that would be developed under Phase 1. It is anticipated thattruck deliveries would be sporadic and limited to small two -axle trucks. While there would be temporary noise increases during truck maneuvering and engine idling, these impacts would be sporadic and short term to nearby uses, specifically to the residential towers. Traffic noise on Jamboree Road would generally overshadow noise from truck deliveries during the daytime, and these activities would not be annoying or cause disruptions at any existing nearby office and commercial uses in the vicinity of the project site. Truck maneuvers and engine idling from truck deliveries during the nighttime could cause annoyance and sleep disturbance to the project residents. This would be a significant impact. Restaurant Outdoor Patios /Seating There would be limited outdoor patios /seating available at the restaurants. Noise associated with these uses would include patrons' voices. Due to distance and the project site layout, there would be no impacts to offsite office, retail uses, and the existing TowerJazz facility. Any future proposed establishment within the project site that would include outdoor patio /seating areas would be subject to the standards outlined in the proposed project's Planned Community Development Plan and Section 20.48.090, Eating and Drinking Establishments, of the City's Municipal Code. With adherence to these standards, noise from restaurant outdoor patios /seating areas would be less than significant. Recreational Areas and Special Events Private open space and recreational amenities developed as part of the proposed project may include private courtyards, roof deck recreation areas, seating areas, barbecue facilities, swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, basketball courts, clubhouse rooms, and other amenities. The recreational areas would be ideally located in the center of the site, surrounded by the project's residential areas. The Page 5.10 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE recreational areas would be privately owned and maintained and available to all project residents, but would also be open to the public. Specific locations and improvement plans for open space and recreational amenities will be reviewed and approved as a part of the City's Site Development Review process. Typical noise from the use of recreational areas includes people's voices, children's activities, portable music equipment, and the use of lawnmowers and blowers for landscaping. The project may also host a variety of special events and temporary uses throughout the year, including farmer's markets, parades, trade shows, car shows, pageants, community concerts, outdoor displays, and recreation /entertainment events. These events and temporary uses may be subject to Special Event permits and all applicable conditions of approval as set forth by the City. In addition, all activities would be required to comply with the Noise Ordinance standards listed in Table 5.10 -3, and the use of the recreational areas would be restricted to the daytime hours from 7 AM to 10 PM. Compliance with the regulations included in the City's Municipal Code would ensure that noise from the use of the project's recreational areas and special events would generally not be offensive and annoying at the proposed residential areas and offsite office and retail areas. These impacts would be less than significant. HVAC Units Noise from the operation of HVAC units is regulated by Section 10.26.045 of the Municipal Code. The nearest offsite residential areas are located approximately 1,200 feet away, and the UCI day care center is approximately 260 feet away across Jamboree Road. Due to distance, and because noise from Jamboree Road would overshadow noisefrom HVAC units from the project site, noise from the operation of HVAC units to nearby noise - sensitive receptors would be negligible. According to Section 10.26.045, Heating, Venting and Air Conditioning—Special Provisions, of the City of 88 Newport Beach Municipal Code, noise from the operation of HVAC atthe nearest residential areas proposed by the project would be reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. New permits for HVAC equipment in residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA. Compliance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code would ensure that noise from HVAC units would be less than significant at the proposed residential areas. Parking Lot Activities The majority of parking areas would be internal to the buildings, mostly subterranean. Typical noise generated within a parking lot include noise from ventilation equipment (cooling towers), car idling, alarms, beeps, doors slamming, tire squeal, and conversation. Maximum noise levels from these activities range from 55 to 70 dBA L,,,. at 50 feet from the source. Because of shielding from the buildings, and because most parking lots would be below ground, noise from parking would be limited. Occasional noise from incidental activation of car alarms could be disturbing at the nearest residences. Noise from tire squeal and the operation of ventilation equipment could be frequent and would have the potential to cause potential noise impacts to the project's residential areas. Phase 2 The analysis for new stationary sources that would be introduced to the project site in Phase 1 also applies to Phase 2. In Phase 2, the existing TowerJazz facility would be demolished, and this relatively major stationary source of noise (24 hours /day) would be eliminated. This would result in a net reduction in stationary- source noise to the existing office uses adjacent in comparison existing conditions. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -27 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE IMPACT 5.10 -3: 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. ]THRESHOLDS N -1 AND N -3] Impact Analysis: The proposed project's residential and outdoor recreational areas would be noise - sensitive uses and therefore are subjectto applicable noise standards. Noise would be a significant impact if the project constructs a noise - sensitive land use in an area that is incompatible due to excessive noise. The City of Newport Beach's noise standard for exterior living areas, including patios, balconies, and parks, is 65 dBA CNEL. The ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site are dominated by traffic on Jamboree Road, aircraft noise from John Wayne Airport, and noise from the operation of the TowerJazz facility. The future ambient noise level is a combination of noise from traffic, aircraft overflights, and stationary noise from the existing TowerJazz facility and the SCE substation. The proposed project would construct residential buildings approximately 100 feet from the centerline of Jamboree Road, approximately 250 feet from Birch Street, approximately 300 feet from Von Karmen Avenue, and approximately 400 feet from MacArthur Boulevard. In addition, background traffic noise from aircraft overflights and stationary source noise would affect the project site. To evaluate the future overall ambient noise levels at the interim year 2018 conditions (completion of Phase 1), and the 2021 long -range noise levels (completion of Phase 2), traffic noise was combined with aircraft noise from John Wayne Airport, and combined with noise from the operation of the TowerJazz facility (for Phase 1 only). Phase 1 The operation of the TowerJazz facility is expected to continue as an interim use after development of Phase 1. This analysis addresses the potential impacts of this interim Phase 1 condition with 680 residential units to be constructed adjacentto the manufacturing facility. Similarly, the existing SCE substation at the northwest corner of Fairchild Road and Jamboree Road would remain after Phase 1 development and be eliminated during Phase 2. Table 5.10 -13 shows the overall ambient noise level at locations shown in Figure 5.10 -4, Combined Ambient Noise Levels, Phase 1. These represent the noise levels that would occur at completion of Phase 1 (2018) at the fagade of buildings closest to the major arterials surrounding the project site. The highest noise levels would occur along the sides of buildings adjacent to Jamboree Road (from traffic noise) and the TowerJazz facility (from industrial noise). Residential buildings constructed along the southeastern project site boundary facing Jamboree Road would be exposed to the highest transportation - related noise levels. Page 5.10 -28 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -13 Phase 1 (2018) Combined Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Project Boundary Roadway Segment Distance to Road Traffic Noise Aircraft Noise Stationary Noise Total Noise 1. Northeast Birch Street 800 50.5 60.0 0 70.6 Jamboree Road 100 70.2 2. Southeast Jamboree Road 100 73.2 60.0 0 73.4 3. Southwest MacArthur Boulevard 400 61.6 60.0 60.9' 65.7 4. Northwest Von Karman Avenue 1 400 1 56.0 1 60.0 1 73.82 74.0 Note: Noise levels calculated at project site boundaries, assumed to be at buildings' minimum setback location. From the SCE Substation, according to noise measurement 1 converted to CNEL. From the operation of the TowerJazz Semiconductor facility, according to noise measurement 6. The exterior noise levels would range from 65.7 to 74.0 dBA CNEL, the City's Noise Element establishes exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNELfor residential outdoor living areas. The proposed project's outdoor living areas could include common exterior use areas such as the proposed park and amenities such as pool areas, barbecue, and playgrounds. In addition, the project is anticipated to include private patios and balconies. The conceptual plans, shown in Figure 3.6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, show that the proposed park/common exterior use areas would be surrounded by the project buildings, which would buffer these uses from ambient noise. Based on the conceptual plans, the buildings surrounding the outdoor areas (even 8B if only three stories high) would provide a noise reduction in excess of 15 dBA for the outdoor use areas, reducing the traffic and stationary- source noise levels at these areas to below 60 dBA CNEL. Aircraft noise at the common exterior use areas would be within 55 to 60 dBA CNEL due to aircraft overflights from John Wayne Airport. In summary, the development of the proposed park /common exterior areas would be below 65 dBA CNEL and would comply with the applicable noise standards. No mitigation would be required for the proposed park /common areas. Patios and balconies constructed for Phase 1 buildings that are oriented toward the major arterials ( Jamboree Road, Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, and Von Karman Avenue) orface the TowerJazz facility would potentially be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding the 65 dBA CNEL criteria for exterior noise levels at outdoor living areas (see Table 5.10 -13). Without mitigation there is the potential for a significant impact for the exterior outdoor living areas constructed during Phase 1. Phase 2 The TowerJazz facility and the SCE substation would be eliminated during Phase 2. Table 5.10 -14 shows the overall ambient noise levels in Figure 5.10 -5, Combined Ambient Noise Levels, Phase 2, at year 2021, which corresponds to the completion of project Phase 2. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -29 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -14 Phase 2 (2021) Combined Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Project Boundary Roadway Segment Distance to Road Traffic Noise Aircraft Noise Stationary Noise Total Noise 1. Northeast Birch Street 250 58.1 60.0 0 67.2 Jamboree Road 300 65.6 2. Southeast Jamboree Road 100 73.2 60.0 0 73.4 3. Southwest MacArthur Boulevard 400 61.6 60.0 0 63.9 4. Northwest Von Kerman Avenue 300 57.8 60.0 0 62.0 Note: Noise levels calculated at project site boundaries assumed to be at buildings' minimum setback location. As shown in Table 5.10 -14 above, buildings facing Jamboree Road would experience the highest noise levels. The exterior noise levels would range from 62.0 to 73.4 dBA CNEL and would exceed the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise criteria for residential uses. Similar to Phase 1, the Phase 2 conceptual plan park /common exterior use areas would be surrounded by the project buildings, which would buffer these uses from ambient noise. The development of the proposed park /common exterior areas, and Phase 2 patios and balconies that orient toward Jamboree Road, Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, and Von Karman Avenue would have the potential to be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the 65 dBA CNEL criteria for exterior noise levels for outdoor living areas (see Table 5.10 -14). Without mitigation there is the potential for a significant impact for the exterior outdoor living areas constructed during Phase 2. IMPACT 5.10 -4: PROPOSED NOISE- SENSITIVE USES WOULD BE EXPOSED TO INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS EXCEEDING THE 45 DBA CNEL STANDARD. (THRESHOLDS N -1 AND N -31 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 The City of Newport Beach requires that new construction achieve an interior noise environment of 45 dBA CNEL. As discussed previously, the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site are dominated by traffic on Jamboree Road, aircraft noise from John Wayne Airport, and noise from the operation of the TowerJazz facility. Interior noise is the difference between the noise level at the fagade of the building and the noise reduction provided by the building. As shown on Table 5.10 -13, the exterior noise levels at building facades during Phase 1 would range from 65.7 to 74.0 dBA CNEL; consequently, an exterior -to- interior noise reduction ranging from 20.7 to 29.0 dBA would be required to meetthe 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Standard windows and doors in a warm - weather climate typically provide an exterior -to- interior noise reduction of 12 dBA with windows open and a minimum of 25 dBA reduction with windows closed. Without mitigation, there is the potential for a significant impact for the residential interior areas constructed during Phase 1. Page 5.10 -30 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Combined Ambient Noise Levels, Phase 1 — — — — Project Site Phasing Boundary 4 0 � 00 Scale (Feet) Coo Source: Shopolf Management, Inc. 2011 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.10 -4 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -32 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Combined Ambient Noise Levels, Phase 2 — — — — Project Site �° _ Scale (Feet) Source: Shopolf Management, Inc. 2011 COO Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.10 -5 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -34 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Phase 2 As shown on Table 5.10 -14, the exterior noise levels at building facades during Phase 2 would range from 62.0 to 73.4 dBA CNEL; consequently, an exterior -to- interior noise reduction ranging from 17.0 to 28.4 dBA would be required to meet the interior noise standard. Standard windows and doors in a warm- weather climate typically provide an exterior -to- interior noise reduction of 12 dBAwith windows open and a minimum of 25 dBA reduction with windows closed. Without mitigation there is the potential for a significant impactfor the residential areas constructed during Phase 2. IMPACT 5.10 -5: 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. (THRESHOLD N -21 Impact Analysis: Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the construction equipment. Construction equipment used during project development would produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as grading and building activities. Construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The office and retail uses adjacent to the site, as well as the TowerJazz facility, could be affected by vibration generated by construction equipment at the project site. Vibration is typically sensed at nearby structures when objects inside generate noise, such as rattling windows or picture frames. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrationsfrom construction activities rarely reach levels that 88 can damage structures, but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. The majority of heavy construction equipment would be used during the demolition and grading operations. The highest levels of vibration would be experienced when a heavy piece of construction equipment is operating or passes close to vibration - sensitive structures. Table 5.10 -15 shows the potential vibration levels that can be generated by heavy construction equipment at receptors 25 feet away. Table 5.10 -15 Construction E ui ment Vibration Levels Equipment Approximate RMS' Velocity at 25 Feet (Vd8) Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in /sec) Vibratory Roller 94 0.210 Large Bulldozer 87 0.089 Jackhammer 79 0.035 Small Bulldozer 58 0.003 Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 FTA Criteria - Sensitive Equipment 65 — FTA Criteria - Human Annoyance Daytime 78 — FTA Criteria - Architectural Damage — 0.300 Source: FTA 2006. 1 RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 microinch/second and a crest factor of 4. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -35 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Phase 1 Vibration - Induced Annoyance Table 5.10 -15 lists vibration levels for different types of construction equipment at 25 feet away. During Phase 1 construction, the nearest sensitive receptors that could be affected by vibration are from 25 to 100 feet from the boundary of the project site. Table 5.10 -16 shows the maximum levels of vibration produced by Phase 1 construction equipment at the nearest receptors. The nearest offsite receptors are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6, Nearest Offsite Noise- and Vibration - Sensitive Receptors. Table 5.10 -16 also compares the anticipated maximum vibration level with the applicable threshold based on the FTA's significance threshold for vibration annoyance of 78 VdB for residential uses and 84 VdB for office uses, and a threshold of 60VdB for sensitive research and manufacturing equipment, provided by Wilson Ihrig and Associates. The values shown correspond to the maximum vibration levels when construction equipment is operating at the boundary of Phase 1, nearest to the affected receptor. Table 5.10 -16 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment during Phase 1 (VdB) Equipment Office Buildings to the Southwest Office Buildings to the Northwest Office Buildings to the South UCI Child Development Office Buildings to the Northeast TowerJazz Facility Vibratory Roller 77 76 76 73 64 88 Large bulldozer 70 69 69 66 57 81 Small bulldozer 41 40 40 37 28 52 Jackhammer 62 61 61 58 49 73 Loaded trucks 69 68 68 65 56 80 Threshold 84 84 84 84 84 60 Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No Yes Source: Based on methodology from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibraton Impact Assessment, 2006. The Threshold for TowerJazz was derived from the Technical Memorandum provided by Wilson In rig and Associates, 2012. Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch /second. Bold indicates values exceeding applicable thresholds. Page 5.10 -36 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Nearest Offsite Noise- and Vibration- Sensitive Receptors — — — — Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2011 a soo Scale YJ Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.10 -6 �� S. Environmental Analysis NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -38 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Vibration during construction would have the potential to affect TowerJazz facility operations. Because some TowerJazz manufacturing equipment has low tolerance to vibration, the operation of construction equipment during Phase 1 construction would potentially interfere with the operation of sensitive equipment. Recommended thresholds for vibration monitoring have been developed based on past vibration monitoring (during the seismic retrofit of the TowerJazz facility) and the vibration characteristics of construction equipment. For vibration - sensitive equipment, the vibration threshold would be 1,000 microinches per second, which corresponds to 60 VdB. As shown on Table 5.10 -16 above, the operation of construction equipment would have the potential to adversely affect the operation of vibration-sensitive equipment at the TowerJazz facility, and this would be a significant impact. Vibration - Induced Architectural Damage Project - related construction vibration was evaluated for its potential to cause structural damage based on FTA's architectural damage criteria. The FTAthreshold of 0.3 inch per second PPV is the point at which there is a risk of architectural damage to engineered concrete and masonry buildings, such as the existing office and commercial buildings surrounding the project site and residential buildings newly constructed in Phase 1. The nearest buildings would be farther than 25 feet from the construction site boundaries. As shown on Table 5.10 -15, heavy construction equipment would not result in vibration that exceeds the 0.3 in /sec PPV criteria for vibration - induced structural damage at nearby sensitive structures. Therefore, the operation of heavy construction equipment vibration - induced architectural damage would be less than significant. Phase 2 Table 5.10 -17 shows the maximum levels of vibration that would be produced by construction equipment during Phase 2 construction atthe nearest receptors. The operation of construction equipment during Phase 2 would exceed thresholds at the adjacent office buildings to the northeast (facing Birch Street) and the 88 Phase 1 buildings adjacentto Phase 2 construction. Although these levels would have the potential to cause annoyance at the occupants of these buildings, vibration dissipates rapidly with distance. As vibration equipment moves around the site, annoyance caused by vibration generated by construction equipment would be sporadic and short term. Therefore, these impacts would be less than significant during Phase 2 construction. Table 5.10 -17 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment during Phase 2 Equipment Office Buildings to the Southwest Office Buildings to the Northwest Office Buildings to the South UCI Child Development Office Buildings to the Northeast Phase 1 Buildings Vibratory Roller 75 82 65 70 86 94 Large bulldozer 68 75 58 63 79 87 Small bulldozer 39 46 29 34 50 58 Jackhammer 60 67 50 55 71 79 Loaded trucks 1 67 1 74 1 57 1 62 1 78 1 86 Threshold 84 84 84 84 84 78 Exceed Thresholds? No No No No Yes Yes :Based on methodology from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6. RIMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch /second. Bald indicates values exceeding applicable thresholds. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -39 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Vibration - Induced Architectural Damage Project - related construction vibration was evaluated for its potential to cause structural damage based on ETA's architectural damage criteria. The FTA threshold of 0.3 inch per second PPV is the point at which there is a risk of architectural damage to engineered concrete and masonry buildings, such as the buildings surrounding the project site and future buildings constructed in Phase 1. The nearest buildings would be farther than 25 feet from the construction site boundaries. As shown on Table 5.10 -15, heavy construction equipment would not result in vibration levels that exceed the 0.3 in /sec PPV criteria for vibration - induced structural damage at nearby sensitive structures. Therefore, vibration - induced architectural damagefrom the operation of heavy construction equipment would be less than significant. IMPACT 5.10 -6: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AT UPTOWN NEWPORT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ELEVATE THE DAYTIME NOISE ENVIRONMENT IN THE VICINITY OF NEARBY USES. (THRESHOLD N -31 Impact Analysis: A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile- source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary- source noise from use of construction equipment. Existing uses surrounding the project site and future uses proposed by the project would be exposed to construction noise. Phase 1 of the project is projected to begin in 2014 and be completed by 2018. Phase 2 could begin as early spring 2017 with buildout through 2021. This Draft EIR, therefore, addresses the potential noise impacts during Phase 1 construction to nearby office /retail developments, and the TowerJazz facility, and during Phase 2 construction to nearby retail and office uses and to the occupants of Phase 1 buildings. Phase 1 Construction Mobile- Source Noise The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site and truck haul associated with demolition debris and soil haul would incrementally increase noise levels along roadways in the vicinity of the project site. Construction - related traffic would be limited to the haul routes, which would be accessed from Jamboree Road. Major regional access to the site is provided by MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Phase 1 would start with demolition of the existing Half Dome building and its parking lot. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, demolition would take place over an approximately three -month period and require approximately 46 truck trips for removal of materials. Grading activities could involve up to 90,000 cubic yards of soil export to accommodate up to two stories of subterranean parking, resulting in up to 288 truck trips per day. Building construction would occur over an approximately four -year period and would overlap with some site improvements (e.g., paving /concrete pour, utilities). Paving and concrete activities over an approximately 20 -day period would require up to 445 truck deliveries per day for materials. The existing average daily traffic volume on Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard in the project area ranges from approximately 30,000 to 48,000. Although there would be a relatively high, single -event noise exposure potential with passing trucks, the expected number of workers and haul trucks is minimal compared to the existing daily traffic volumes on these designated haul roads. Also, construction traffic would be spread throughout the workday. Typically, a doubling of vehicle trips would increase noise levels by 3 dB, which is the increment that could cause a perceived increase in noise adjacent to truck haul routes. It is anticipated that construction - related trips generated by the project would not double the volumes of traffic currently on the local roadways. Therefore, noise impacts from construction- related trips during Phase 1 would be less than significant. Page 5.10 -40 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Onsite Construction Equipment Noise The other type of short -term noise impact is related to demolition, grading, and building construction. Construction equipment is either stationary or mobile. Stationary equipment operates in one location for one or more days; mobile equipment moves around a site and varies in power settings and loads. To determine the energy - average LeQ sound level from the equipment's operation under varying power settings, the equipment's noise rating at a reference distance while operating at full power is adjusted by considering the duty cycle of the activity. Table 5.10 -18 lists maximum construction equipment noise levels from a reference distance of 50 feet away and the industry standard duty cycles for typical development activities. Table 5.10 -18 Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Noise Level (d8A) at 50 ft Typical Duty Cycle Auger Drill Rig 85 20% Backhce 80 40% Blasting 94 1 % Chain Saw 85 20% Clam Shovel 93 20% Compactor (ground) 80 20% Compressor (air) 80 40% Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40% Concrete Pump 82 20% Concrete Saw 90 20% Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 20% Dozer 85 40% Dump Truck 84 40% Excavator 85 40% Front End Loader 80 40% Generator (25 KVA or less) 70 50% Generator (more than 25 KVA) 82 50% Grader 85 40% Hydra Break Ram 90 10% In situ Soil Sampling Rig 84 20% Jackhammer 85 20% Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 20% Paver 85 50% Impact Pile Driver 95 20% Pneumatic Tools 85 50% Pumps 77 50% Rock Drill 85 20% Scraper 85 40% Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -¢1 "301 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -18 Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Noise Level (dBA) at 50 It Typical Duty Cycle Tractor 84 40% Vacuum Excavator (vac- truck) 85 40% Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 20% Source: Thalheimer 2000. KVA = kilovoft amps Each stage of construction has a different equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished. The noise produced at each stage is determined by combining the L,, contributions from each piece of equipment used at a given time. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not require blasting, and pile driving would not be allowed during project construction. In the construction of residential and mixed -use projects, demolition and grading typically generate the highest noise levels because they require the largest equipment. Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase, construction activities would result in different noise levels at a given sensitive receptor. Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short- duration noise levels in excess of 80 dBA at 50 feet. Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of 6 dB per doubling distance, the average noise levels at noise- sensitive receptors would be much lower, because mobile construction equipment would move around the site with different loads and power requirements. Short-term noise can be associated with site preparation, grading, and building construction of the proposed land uses. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads; the second type of short-term noise impacts is during demolition, site preparation, grading, and /or physical construction. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. However, despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction - related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. The average and maximum noise levels for each stage of construction for Phase 1 was estimated with the Roadway Construction Noise Model using the list of construction equipment provided by the applicant. Noise levels were estimated for the different stages of construction at the closest offsite uses. These values are generally conservative because they do not take into account attenuation provided by the existing TowerJazz building and structures erected during this phase. Grading and demolition require the largest equipment and demand the most power loads; these stages typically result in the highest noise levels. During later construction stages— trenching for utilities, building construction and paving —noise levels are typically less, and the physical structures provide some attenuation. Maximum noise levels for each stage were calculated as if the loudest piece of construction equipment was operating adjacent to the Phase 1 property line. Table 5.10 -19 shows that the maximum noise levels from each construction stage atthe nearest affected receptors would range from 65 to 90 dBA Lm�. The maximum levels from construction equipment would range from 6 to 30 dBA above existing noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors, Noise increases over 5 dBA are generally considered readily perceptible. Assuming a typical interior noise reduction due to exterior noise of 25 dBA, the maximum noise levels at the office areas facing the construction site would range from 40 dBA at the UCI child development center to 65 dBA Lmex at the TowerJazz facility In summary, the maximum noise levels at the office areas facing the Page 5.10 -42 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE construction site would be audible above the existing noise levels. These levels represent the maximum levels that could occur during Phase 1 construction when the loudest piece of equipment is operating at maximum power at the location nearest to each receptor. Table 5.10 -19 Maximum Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites during Phase 1 Construction (dBA Lmaf) Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 8. The average noise levels for each stage of construction during Phase 1 shown on Table 5.10 -20 assume all equipment operating simultaneously during each construction stage at the center of Phase 1. The average noise levels from each construction stage to the nearest affected receptors would range from 46 to 71 dBA L.q. Demolition and grading of the project would involve the heaviest pieces of construction equipment and would last approximately four months. Consequently, these activities would result in the loudest noise levels at the receptors in the project vicinity. Due to proximity to the Phase 1 construction site, the highest noise levels would generally occur at the TowerJazz facility areas facing the construction site. The average noise levels from construction equipment would cause temporary increases of up to 11 dBA above existing noise levels at the nearest noise - sensitive receptors. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -¢3 88 Affected Receptors Office Office Office Buildings to Building to Office Buildings to TowerJazz Construction the the Buildings to UCI Child the Semiconductor Phase Southwest Northwest the South Development Northeast Building Demolition 78 77 78 75 65 90 Grading 71 69 70 67 57 82 Utilities 70 68 69 66 56 81 Paving 66 65 65 62 53 77 Building 70 68 69 66 56 81 Construction Existing Ambient Noise Levels' 58 60 67 67 59 60 dBA Leq Maximum Projected dBA 20 17 11 8 6 30 over Ambient Level Notes: Recentor locations are deoicted in Fioure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Aooendix J. Calculations based on the Roadwav Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 8. The average noise levels for each stage of construction during Phase 1 shown on Table 5.10 -20 assume all equipment operating simultaneously during each construction stage at the center of Phase 1. The average noise levels from each construction stage to the nearest affected receptors would range from 46 to 71 dBA L.q. Demolition and grading of the project would involve the heaviest pieces of construction equipment and would last approximately four months. Consequently, these activities would result in the loudest noise levels at the receptors in the project vicinity. Due to proximity to the Phase 1 construction site, the highest noise levels would generally occur at the TowerJazz facility areas facing the construction site. The average noise levels from construction equipment would cause temporary increases of up to 11 dBA above existing noise levels at the nearest noise - sensitive receptors. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -¢3 88 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -20 Average Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites during Phase 1 Construction (dBA L-d Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 8. Phase 2 Construction Mobile- Source Noise Construction of Phase 2 would start with demolition of the TowerJazz facility, SCE substation, and TowerJazz parking lot. Demolition would take approximately four months and require approximately 58 truck trips for removal of materials. Paving and concrete activities over an approximately 20 -day period would require up to 445 truck deliveries per day for materials. There would be a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential with passing trucks, but the expected number of workers and haul trucks is minimal compared to the existing daily traffic volumes on these designated haul roads. Noise impacts from construction - related trips during this phase would be less than significant. Onsite Construction Equipment Noise Noise levels during Phase 2 construction were estimated for the different stages of construction at the closest offsite uses. These values are generally conservative because they do not take into account attenuation provided by the Phase 1 buildings and structures erected during this phase. As in Phase 1, grading and demolition require the largest equipment, demand the most power loads, and typically result in Page 5.10 -44 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Affected Receptors Office Office Office Buildings to Building to Office Buildings to TowerJazz Construction the the Buildings to UCI Child the Semiconductor Stage Southwest Northwest the South Development Northeast Building Demolition 60 61 61 57 54 71 66 days) Grading 55 56 56 52 49 66 39 days Utilities 54 55 55 51 48 65 83 days Paving 52 53 52 48 46 62 18 days Building Construction 54 55 55 51 48 55 992 days) Existing Ambient Noise Levels' 58 60 67 67 59 60 (dBA Led) Highest Projected less than less than Average dBA 2 1 existing less than existing existing 11 over Ambient Level dBA Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 8. Phase 2 Construction Mobile- Source Noise Construction of Phase 2 would start with demolition of the TowerJazz facility, SCE substation, and TowerJazz parking lot. Demolition would take approximately four months and require approximately 58 truck trips for removal of materials. Paving and concrete activities over an approximately 20 -day period would require up to 445 truck deliveries per day for materials. There would be a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential with passing trucks, but the expected number of workers and haul trucks is minimal compared to the existing daily traffic volumes on these designated haul roads. Noise impacts from construction - related trips during this phase would be less than significant. Onsite Construction Equipment Noise Noise levels during Phase 2 construction were estimated for the different stages of construction at the closest offsite uses. These values are generally conservative because they do not take into account attenuation provided by the Phase 1 buildings and structures erected during this phase. As in Phase 1, grading and demolition require the largest equipment, demand the most power loads, and typically result in Page 5.10 -44 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE the highest noise levels. Maximum noise levels for each stage were calculated as if the loudest piece of construction equipment was operating adjacent to the property line. Table 5.10 -21 shows thatthe maximum noise levels from each construction stage at the nearest affected receptors would range from 67 to 96 dBA L... These levels would be up to 36 dBA higher than existing noise levels. Noise increases over 5 dBA are generally considered readily perceptible. Assuming a typical interior noise reduction due to exterior noise of 25 dBA, the maximum noise levels at the office areas facing the construction site would range from 47 dBA at the UCI child development center to 71 dBA L,. at the nearest Phase 1 building. In summary, the maximum noise levels at the office areas facing the construction site would be audible above the existing noise levels. These levels represent the maximum levels that could occur during Phase 2 construction when the loudest piece of equipment is operating at maximum power at the location nearest each receptor. Table 5.10 -21 Maximum Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites During Phase 2 Construction (dBA Lmad Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10 -8. The average noise levels for each stage of construction during Phase 2, shown on Table 5.10 -22, assume all equipment during each construction stage operates simultaneously at the center of Phase 2. The average noise levels from each construction stage to the nearest affected receptors would range from 48 to 70 dBA Laq. Demolition and grading of the project would involve the heaviest pieces of construction equipment and last approximately four months. Consequently, these activities would result in the loudest noise levels at the receptors in the project vicinity. Due to proximity to the Phase 2 construction site, the higher noise levels would occur at the Phase 1 buildings adjacent to the construction site. At the nearest existing noise - sensitive receptors, the average noise levels from construction equipment would cause temporary increases of up to 7 dBA above existing noise levels. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -¢5 Affected Receptors Office Office Office Buildings to Building to Office Buildings to Nearest Construction the the Buildings to UCI Child the Phase 1 Phase Southwest Northwest the South Development Northeast buildings Demolition 77 84 67 72 87 96 Grading 69 76 59 64 79 88 Utilities 68 75 58 63 78 87 Paving 64 71 54 59 75 83 Building 68 75 58 63 78 87 Construction Existing Ambient Noise Levels' 58 60 67 67 59 60 dBA Leq Maximum Projected dBA 19 24 equal to less than existing 28 36 over Ambient existing Level Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10 -8. The average noise levels for each stage of construction during Phase 2, shown on Table 5.10 -22, assume all equipment during each construction stage operates simultaneously at the center of Phase 2. The average noise levels from each construction stage to the nearest affected receptors would range from 48 to 70 dBA Laq. Demolition and grading of the project would involve the heaviest pieces of construction equipment and last approximately four months. Consequently, these activities would result in the loudest noise levels at the receptors in the project vicinity. Due to proximity to the Phase 2 construction site, the higher noise levels would occur at the Phase 1 buildings adjacent to the construction site. At the nearest existing noise - sensitive receptors, the average noise levels from construction equipment would cause temporary increases of up to 7 dBA above existing noise levels. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -¢5 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.10 -22 Average Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites During Phase 2 Construction (dBA Leq) Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 8. Summary of Construction Activities Project - related construction activities would be limited to daytime hours and would comply with the construction hours specified in Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity— Noise Regulations, of the City's Municipal Code. The maximum noise levels and increases over existing conditions would be temporary and sporadic. As construction equipment moves around the site, the levels are reduced at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling distance from the source. The adjacent office and retail uses that would be mostly impacted during Phase 1 construction are not designated noise - sensitive uses, but construction activity would potentially cause annoyance and interfere with office activities in areas facing the Phase 1 construction area. Noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time. In addition, construction of Phase 2 would result in high noise levels at the residential uses built during project Phase 1. Due to the length of construction activities and the level of noise from the combination of construction activities, project - related construction noise at the nearby office and retail receivers and future Phase 1 uses would be significant. Page 5.10 -46 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Affected Receptors Office Office Office Buildings to Building to Office Buildings to Nearest Construction the the Buildings to UC/ Child the Phase 1 Phase Southwest Northwest the South Development Northeast buildings Demolition 54 67 54 59 61 70 88 days) Grading 49 62 49 54 56 65 47 days) Utilities 48 61 48 53 55 64 85 days) Paving 46 59 45 50 53 61 18 days) Building Construction 48 61 48 53 55 64 992 days Existing Ambient Noise Levels' 58 60 67 67 59 N/A (dBA Led) Highest Projected Average dBA over less than 7 less than less than existing 2 N/A Ambient Level existing existing dBA Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 8. Summary of Construction Activities Project - related construction activities would be limited to daytime hours and would comply with the construction hours specified in Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity— Noise Regulations, of the City's Municipal Code. The maximum noise levels and increases over existing conditions would be temporary and sporadic. As construction equipment moves around the site, the levels are reduced at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling distance from the source. The adjacent office and retail uses that would be mostly impacted during Phase 1 construction are not designated noise - sensitive uses, but construction activity would potentially cause annoyance and interfere with office activities in areas facing the Phase 1 construction area. Noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time. In addition, construction of Phase 2 would result in high noise levels at the residential uses built during project Phase 1. Due to the length of construction activities and the level of noise from the combination of construction activities, project - related construction noise at the nearby office and retail receivers and future Phase 1 uses would be significant. Page 5.10 -46 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE IMPACT 5.10 -7: THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE 65 DBA CNEL NOISE CONTOUR OF JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AND WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE TO FUTURE OCCUPANTS AND WORKERS. [THRESHOLDS N -5] Impact Analysis: John Wayne Airport is approximately 0.6 mile west of the project site. The site is in the airport environs land use plan (AELUP) for the airport, but is located outside the primary departure corridors and flight paths. Noise from takeoffs and occasionally landings contribute to the ambient noise environment at the project site. The AELUP identifies land uses that are "normally acceptable" and "conditionally acceptable" in each noise impact zone delineated by the respective CNEL noise contour derived from studies of aircraft flight operations into and out of JWA. AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "moderate noise impact" in the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, Noise Impact Zone 2. The noise contours for operations at John Wayne Airport were obtained from the AELUP. The contours in Figure 5.10 -7 depictthe 65 and 60 dB CNEL noise contours, reflecting expected future flight levels and a reasonable mix of aircraft types. Figure 5.10 -7 shows that the southern and easternmost parts of the site are between the 55 dB and 60 dB CNEL contours for John Wayne Airport. With respect to noise and land use compatibility guidelines for residential land uses, portions of the site are in Noise Impact Zone 2. The AELUP notes that residents occupying residential units in Noise Impact Zone 2 may experience "inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort arising from noise of aircraft at the airport." As outlined in the AELUP, the residential use interior sound attenuation in this noise impact zone is required to achieve a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dBA. Future project - related residential units that would fall within Noise Impact Zone 2 would be required to 8B adhere to the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard outlined in the AELUP for JWA. As the project site is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours, an exterior -to- interior noise reduction of 20 dBA would be required to meet the 45 dBA CNEL criteria. Standard windows and doors typically achieve a minimum of 25 dBA reduction with windows closed. Because the proposed residential units would be provided with air conditioning units, allowing for a windows closed condition, and because typical construction would provide sufficient exterior -to- interior noise reduction to adhere to the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard due to aircraft noise, the proposed land uses would be compatible with noise exposure from aircraft noise and would be less than significant. In addition, the City's General Plan Noise Element requires that residential development in the airport area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and requires residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. This is consistent with AB 2776, which requires any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties within an airport influence area to disclose that fact to the person buying the property. Compliance with these regulations shall be implemented during project design review. 5.10.4 Cumulative Impacts Mobile Source Noise Traffic noise increases on local roadways in the vicinity of the project site were shown previously in Tables 5.10 -9 to 5.10 -11. The difference in traffic noise between the existing environment and 2021 conditions represents cumulative noise impacts, whereas the difference between the 2021 Without Project and With Project conditions represents the project's contribution to cumulative noise increases. Project - related cumulative noise impacts may occur if the project's contribution to cumulative noise increases results in a substantial noise increase in comparison to existing conditions (3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -¢7 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE between 65 and 75, or any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors). Thus, where individual project - related impacts are identified, the project would also contribute to cumulative traffic noise increases on local roadways. However, as shown in Table 5.9 -11, the project would result in a maximum traffic noise increase of 0.2 dBA CNEL along study area roadways. At these locations, the future noise environment at the residences would be less than 75 dBA CNEL. Consequently, project - related traffic noise increases would not be cumulatively considerable and no significant cumulative noise impacts would occur. Stationary Source Noise Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise generated by the project is limited to impacts to noise - sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site. As no noise - sensitive uses are located adjacent to the project site, and no significant stationary noise impacts from project implementation were identified and the City of Newport Beach restricts stationary noise generated on a property from creating a nuisance to other noise - sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary source noise generation would also be less than significant. Construction Noise and Vibration Like stationary source noise, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts are confined to a localized area. Consequently, cumulative impacts would only occur if other projects are being constructed in the local vicinity of the project at the same time as the project. Although adjacent properties are developed, there is project application for development of the adjacent Koll property (12.7 acres) site in accordance with the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (see Figure 3 -5, Integrated Conceptual Development Plan). Depending on the timing of this project, it is possible that some construction activities may occur simultaneously with development activities for Uptown Newport. Since such activities may combine with project -site activities, this cumulative impact is potentially significant. 5.10.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Existing Regulations • Section 10.26.025, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code: Exterior Noise Standards. • Section 10.26.045, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code: Equipment sound ratings of new heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) equipment. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, Sound - Amplifying Equipment • Section 10.28.040, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code: Construction Noise: Construction Activity — Noise Regulations. • State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are incorporated into the California Building Code (Title 24 and Title 25, California Code of Regulations) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California. • Community noise standards adopted by the City of Newport Beach in the General Plan Noise Element. • Assembly Bill 2776, which requires any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties within an airport influence area to disclose that fact to the person buying the property. Page 5.10 -48 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis John Wayne Airport Future Noise Level Contours •• —••- Integrated Concept Development Plan — — — — Project Site Noise Contour Lines o 1,500 r Source: Newport Beach 2006 Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.10 -7 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -50 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 8B 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 largerthan shown in the 1985 JWA Master Plan and require residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.10 -1 and 5.10 -7. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.10 -2 Phase 1 and Phase 2: Proposed noise- sensitive uses would be exposed to noise levels from stationary noise generated from subterranean parking garage activity and truck deliveries exceeding thresholds stated in the City's Municipal Code for residential uses. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -51 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Impact 5.10 -3 Phase 1: Residential patios and balconies constructed during Phase 1 facing Jamboree Road and the TowerJazz facility would be exposed to noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL. Phase 2: Residential Patios and balconies constructed during Phase 2 facing Jamboree Road would be exposed to noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL. • Impact 5.10 -4 Phase 1 and Phase 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. • Impact 5.10 -5 Phase 1: The operation of construction equipment during Phase 1 construction would exceed thresholds for vibration annoyance and architectural damage at the TowerJazz facility, having the potential to adversely interfere with the operation of vibration- sensitive equipment at the TowerJazz facility. Phase 2: The operation of construction equipment during Phase 2 construction would exceed thresholds for vibration annoyance and architectural damage at the adjacent office buildings and the residential buildings constructed during Phase 1 that would be located near the boundaries of the Phase 2 construction. • Impact 5.10 -6 Phase 1 and Phase 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 on existing office buildings adjacent to the project site. 5.10.6 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.10 -2 Phase 1 and Phase 2: 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 Page 5.10 -52 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE noise limits for Zone III, not exceed a daytime maximum of 60 dBA L. (or 80 dBA Lm.) and a nighttime maximum of 50 dBA LeQ (or 70 dBA L,.). This can be accomplished by selecting quieter equipment or by enclosing ventilation equipment. 10 -2 Truck deliveries shall be restricted to the daytime hours between 7 AM and 10 PM. Impact S. 10-3 Phase 1: 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: • 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 88 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 eightfeet 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -53 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE 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 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. Phase 2: 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. Impact 5.10 -4 Phase 1: 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 meetthe 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 Page 5.10 -54 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE measures described in the report shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the buildings and implemented with building construction. Phase 2: 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 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. Impact 5.10 -5 Phase 1: 10 -7 During Phase 1 construction, the construction contractor shall implement a vibration control `/ program to reduce vibration levels at the TowerJazz facility. The Technical Memorandum 8B prepared by Wilson Ihrig and Associates includes several measures to control vibration at the TowerJazz facility, outlined below: 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. 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 Semiconductor facility. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -55 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE • 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 facility during development and construction of Phase 1. Vibration monitors shall be located in select locations 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 TowerJazz 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 Avibration level of 0.125 in /sec will trigger a warning that will notify the construction operator and TowerJazz; o Avibration 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. Impact 5.10.6 Phase 1 and Phase 2: 10 -9 The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment onsite is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. 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. 10 -11 The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as farfrom residential and recreational receptor locations as is feasible. 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. Page 5.10 -56 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE 5.10.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.10.2 Mitigation Measure 10 -1 would reduce noise levels from operation of the parking garage, eliminating tire squeal and controlling noise from the ventilation equipment. Mitigation Measure 10 -2 would limit truck deliveries to the least noise - sensitive daytime hours, from 7 AM to 10 PM. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 10 -1 and 10 -2, this impact would be less than significant. Impact 5.10 -3 Mitigation Measures 10 -3 and 10 -4 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 and 10 -4, this impact would be less than significant. Impact 5.10 -4 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. Impact 5.10 -5 8/ /�%~�/ Mitigation Measures 10 -7 and 10 -8 would incorporate vibration control measures during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 10 -7 and 10 -8, vibration levels would be occasionally perceptible, but sporadic and limited during the construction period. With Mitigation Measure 10 -7, feasible vibration control provisions can be incorporated to reduce Phase 1 construction vibration to acceptable levels at the TowerJazz facility. With implementation of vibration control measures, project construction would not cause vibration levels that would substantially affect the use of vibration - sensitive equipment or interfere with operations at the TowerJazz facility. In summary, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 10 -7 and 10 -8, vibration impacts would be less than significant. Impact 5.10 -6 Mitigation Measures 10 -9 to 10 -12 would reduce noise levels from construction activities at the nearby uses during Phase 1 and Phase 2. 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. However, despite the application of mitigation measures, nearby noise - sensitive uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction activities. Impact 5.10 -6 would remain Significant and Unavoidable. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -57 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -58 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) examines the potential for socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Uptown Newport project on the City of Newport Beach, including changes in population, employment, and demand for housing, with a particular emphasis on jobs /housing relationships in the general vicinity of the proposed project and on affordable housing. 5.11.1 Environmental Setting Population, Employment, and Housing The City of Newport Beach has a current population of approximately 84,200, with about 38,400 households, and 82,500 employees (SCAG 2012b). Table 5.11 -1 shows the current and projected housing, employment, and population numbers for the City, as determined in the 2012 Adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Table 5.11 -1 2012 Adopted RTP Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Newport Beach, 2008 -2035 Source: SCAG 2012b. Between 2008 and 2035, the population of the City of Newport Beach is forecasted to increase from 84,200 to 90,300, an increase of 8,893 or 7.2 percent (SCAG 2012b). In comparison, the Southern California six - county region, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties, would experience an increase in population growth of 23.5 percent, from 17,894,000 in 2008 to 22,091,000 in 2035 (SCAG 2012b). Orange County would have an increase in population growth of 14.5 percent. Table 5.11 -2 offers regional population, employment, and housing projections for comparison. Table 5.11 -2 2012 Adopted RTP Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Southern California Region and Orange County, 2008 -2035 2008 2020 1 2035 Population 2008 2020 2035 Population 84,200 88,700 90,300 Housing 38,400 39,500 40,700 Employment 82,500 77,000 77,700 Jobs -to- Housing Ratio 1 2.15 1 1.95 1.91 Source: SCAG 2012b. Between 2008 and 2035, the population of the City of Newport Beach is forecasted to increase from 84,200 to 90,300, an increase of 8,893 or 7.2 percent (SCAG 2012b). In comparison, the Southern California six - county region, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties, would experience an increase in population growth of 23.5 percent, from 17,894,000 in 2008 to 22,091,000 in 2035 (SCAG 2012b). Orange County would have an increase in population growth of 14.5 percent. Table 5.11 -2 offers regional population, employment, and housing projections for comparison. Table 5.11 -2 2012 Adopted RTP Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Southern California Region and Orange County, 2008 -2035 2008 2020 1 2035 Population 17,894,000 19,663,000 22,091,000 Housing 5,814,000 6,458,000 7,325,000 Employment 7,738,000 8,414,000 1 9,441,000 Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 1.33 1.30 1 1.29 Orange County Population 2,989,000 3,266,000 3,421,000 Housing 987,000 1,049,000 1,125,000 Employment 1,624,000 1 1,626,000 1 1,779,000 Jobs -to- Housing Ratio 1.65 1 1.55 1 1.58 Source: SCAG 2012b. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -1 S. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Jobs -to- Housing Ratios The jobs -to- housing ratio is a general measure of the balance between the number of jobs and number of housing units in a geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The jobs -to- housing ratio is one indicator of a project's effect on growth and quality of life near a project. Jobs -to- housing goals and ratios are advisory only. No ideal jobs /housing ratio is adopted in state, regional, or city policies. However, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs -to- housing balance is 1.36 communities with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs rich and those with fewer than 1.36 are housing rich (SCAG 2004). Additionally, the American Planning Association published a Planning Advisory Service report in 2003 that states a target jobs -to- housing balance is one home for every 1.5 jobs (APA 2003). A job -to- housing imbalance is an indication of potential air quality and traffic problems associated with commuting. As shown in Table 5.11 -1, the City of Newport Beach had a jobs -to- housing ratio of 2.15 in 2008, and it is expected to decrease to 1.91 by 2035. In both projections, the City's jobs -to- housing ratio is considered jobs rich because of the high number of jobs per household unit (see Table 5.11 -2). Project Site The project site does not currently have any housing or permanent population. Existing land uses include a 126,675- square 400t, single -story building at 4311 Jamboree Road (Half Dome building) and the 311,452 - square- foot, two and three -story building at 4321 Jamboree Road (TowerJazz facility). The Half Dome building is currently used for office, light industrial, storage, and cafe services and employs approximately 161 people.' The TowerJazz facility is a semiconductor manufacturing facility and employs approximately 3,000 people (TowerJazz 2012). Therefore, approximately 3,161 people currently work on the project site. Applicable Plans Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element requirement (Policy LU 6.15.11), the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) was approved by the Newport Beach City Council on September 28, 2010. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, it provides for the redevelopment of the approximately 25 -acre Uptown Newport site and 12.7 acres between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue (Koll property), with new residential development and open space. According to the ICDP, the Uptown Newport project site is planned for up to 632 units to replace existing industrial and office uses —which would be demolished —as well as 290 additive units and potentially up to 322 density bonus units (per City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Section 20.32). Together, the Koll and Uptown Newport properties would use all 550 additive units allocated to the ICDP area by the City's General Plan. Since the applicant is proposing to provide affordable housing units on the project site, they may be eligible for a density bonus per Zoning Code Section 20.32, depending on the percentage of affordable housing units that are provided and their affordability levels. Per the code, a maximum density bonus of 35 percent is allowed when 11 percent of the units are affordable to very low- income households, 20 percent are affordable to low- income households, or 40 percent are affordable to moderate - income households (as for -sale units only). ' Based on SCAG's Employee Density Study Summary Report (2001), light manufacturing land uses in Orange County have an employee density of one employee per 786 square feet of gross building space. The other prominent onsite land use, low -rise office space, has a slightly higher density of one employee per 352 square feet. Since the existing employment numbers would be subtracted from the proposed project's employment generation, the light manufacturing factor is used to provide a more conservative analysis. Page 5.11 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING The Uptown Newport project would result in the complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial /office complex to a master - planned residential village. In addition to the 1,244 residential units, the ICDP allows up to 11,500 square feet of ground -level retail and commercial uses and neighborhood park areas. A summary of the residential unit allocation for the ICDP is shown in Table 3 -1, in Chapter 3, Project Description. City of Newport Beach 2011 Housing Element The Housing Element is a General Plan element required by the state and must be reviewed and updated periodically in accordance with state law. The 2008 -2014 Housing Element for the City of Newport Beach was adopted in November 2011. It reflects the City's housing stock and need for new housing, including affordable housing. Table 5.11 -3 provides the number of housing units in the City between years 2000 and 2007. Table 5.11 -3 Newport Beach Housing Trends, 2000 -2007 Year Total Housing Units Net Increase from Previous Year 2000 37,567 523 2001 37,779 212 2002 38,009 230 2003 41,590 3,581 2004 41,851 261 2005 42,143 292 2006 42,352 209 2007 42,580 228 Source: Newport Beach 2011. Table 5.11 -4 provides the housing mix in the City of Newport Beach in 2007. The majority (45.1 percent) of housing is single - family detached housing, followed by multi - family housing (23.1 percent), single - family attached housing (16.6 percent), duplexto fourplex housing (12.9 percent), and mobile homes (2.1 percent). Table 5.11 -4 Housing Unit Mix, 2007 Housing Unit Type Number of Units Percent of Total Single- family detached 19,186 45.1% Single- family attached 7,166 16.6% Duplex to fourplex 5,520 12.9% Multi- family (5+ units) 9,845 23.1% Mobile home 863 2.1% Total 42,580 100.0% Source: Newport Beach 2011. Regional Housing Needs Assessment One of the roles of the Housing Element is to plan for the state - mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations in order to address existing and future housing needs, including affordable housing. Regional councils of governments are responsible for establishing housing growth policies. In Orange County, these are contained in the SCAG RHNA. The draft RHNA allocations forthe 2014 -2021 cycle Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -3 S. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING were released in February 2012, and the final RHNA allocations are scheduled to be approved and adopted by December 2012 (SCAG 2012a). Between the 2000 -2005 and the 2006 -2014 RHNA cycles, the City of Newport Beach had to accommodate a total combined housing need of 1,914 units, including 1,212 very-low -, low -, and moderate - income units (Newport Beach 2011). With the release of the recent 2014 -2021 draft RHNA allocations, the City only needs to accommodate a total identified housing need of 5 units, including 3 affordable to very low -, low -, and moderate- income households (SCAG 2012a). To help the City meet its RNHA goals, the City of Newport Beach requires new residential subdivision projects to provide affordable housing pursuant to the City's Housing Element Program 2.2.1 and the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 19.54 (Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus). Project developers may meet affordable housing requirements through implementation of either Chapter 19.54 or Chapter 20.32. Under Chapter 19.54, developers are required to prepare an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) and provide 15 percent of a project's units as either for -sale units affordable to moderate income households or rental units affordable to very-low or low- income households. Alternative forms of compliance are available, including off -site construction, conversion of market -rate units, land donation, and in -lieu housing fees. As an incentive for providing affordable units onsite, the City also offers density bonuses, up to a maximum of 35 percent, pursuant to Chapter 20.32 and State law. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan provides policies for dealing with anticipated growth including population, housing, and employment expected throughout southern California. The RCP incorporates data in the RTP, which is discussed under "Population, Employment, and Housing" in this section. The RTP has growth projections based on a compilation of county and local projections, as well as regional economic and population growth models. RTP forecasts are then used in the formulation of regional plans dealing with regional air quality, housing, transportation /circulation, and other infrastructure issues. 5.11.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: P -1 Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). P -2 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. P -3 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Initial Study, included as AppendixA, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: thresholds P -2 and P -3. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. Page 5.11 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.11.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.11 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD DIRECTLY RESULT IN A PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH OF 2,724 RESIDENTS IN THE PROJECT AREA. )THRESHOLD P -1] Impact Analysis: The proposed project would replace the existing industrial land uses on the project site with a total of 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail, and 2.05 acres of park space. Upon project buildout, this is projected to result in an increase in housing and a decrease in employment in the City of Newport Beach, as shown on Table 5.11 -2. Phase 1 Phase 1 would include development of the southwestern portion of the property, which includes removal of the existing single -story Half Dome office building and development of 680 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial use, a 1.03 -acre park, and roadways for access and internal circulation. The TowerJazz facility fabrication facility on the site of Phase 2 of the project would continue operating during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. The first phase of the proposed project would bring approximately 1,489 people and 26 jobs to the project site. Compared to the existing land uses, this results in an increase of approximately 1,489 people and a decrease of approximately 135 jobs (see Table 5.11 -5). Phase 2 Phase 2 would include demolition of the remaining TowerJazz facility and development of approximately 564 residential units, a 1.02 -acre park, and internal roadways. Overall, the project would bring 2,724 people and 26 jobs to the City of Newport Beach, an increase in population but a decrease in employment ( -3,135 jobs). As shown in Table 5.11 -5, adding housing units to SCAG projections for the City of Newport Beach in 2035 reduces the forecast jobs -to- housing balance in 2035 from 1.91 to 1.78, a favorable impact to a jobs -to- housing balance. Table 5.11 -5 2012 Adopted RTP Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for Newport Beach, 2008 -2035 (with project) ' Assumes 2.19 persons per household as determined in 2010 Census for Newpod Beach (Census 2012). Assumes 450 square feet per employee, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -5 2008 2035 Proposed Project 2035 with Project Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Population 84,200 90,300 1,489 1,235 2,724' 93,024 Housing 38,400 40,700 680 564 1,244 41,944 Employment 82,500 77,700 -135 .3,000 -3,135 74,565 Job Gain 262 0 262 Job Loss -161 -3,000 -3,161 Jobs -to- housing Balance 1 2.15 1 1.91 0.02 0.02 0.01 1.78 ' Assumes 2.19 persons per household as determined in 2010 Census for Newpod Beach (Census 2012). Assumes 450 square feet per employee, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -5 S. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Although the proposed project would increase the population in the City, it is consistent with the City's General Plan and ICDP and does not exceed the housing units or resultant population growth as anticipated for this site. Additionally, since the project would be constructed on an infill site, it does not induce population growth because it would not create a need to extend the existing infrastructure. 5.11.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative projects are listed for both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine in Table 4 -2, in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. These projects include residential, hotel, office, commercial, recreational, and open space /park developments. They are atvarious stages of development — some projects are complete, some are being constructed, and some have not started construction. Overall, the cumulative project list includes approximately 10,563 residential units, 463,600 square feet of retail space, 4,820,943 square feet of office space, 702 hotel rooms, 557,370 square feet of public /recreational space, and 52.12 acres of parks and open space. Environmental review is required for all of these projects so the potential impacts of each may be assessed. Project- specific mitigation measures for each cumulative project are implemented to reduce any significant impacts. Population -to- Housing Balance In regard to population and housing, this project, in combination with the cumulative projects listed on Table 4 -1, are projected to increase the population and number of jobs in the City of Newport Beach by 14,351 units and 3,488 jobs when all projects are built out (see Table 5.11 -6). This would result in a jobs -to- housing balance of approximately 1.63, which is more favorable than the existing balance of 2.15 and currently projected balance of 1.91 in 2035 because it would be less jobs rich. Cumulative impacts to population and housing would be less than significant. Table 5.11 -6 Projected Cumulative Housing, Employment, and Population Growth Sources: SCAG 2012b; SCAG 2001; Census 2012; Newport Beach 2012 ' See Table 5.11 -1 (RTP Projections) Cumulative project numbers are a summary of the information provided in Tables 4 -1 and 4 -2 in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. ' Employment and population assumptions for the proposed project and the cumulative projects is based on the following: Population -2.19 persons per household as determined in 2010 Census for Newport Beach (Census 2012), and; Employment— SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001) density factors for commercial, office, industrial, and public land uses. Page 5.11 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Non - Residential Square Footage Jobs - Housing Employ- Housing Units Commercial Office Industrial Public menf3 Population' Ratio Existing (City)' 38,400 82,500 84,200 2.15 Existing (Project 0 0 0 438,127 0 3,161 0 0 Site Proposed Project 1,244 11,500 0 0 0 26 2,724 0.02 Cumulative PrajectsZ 13,107 510,172 1,872,818 67,698 271,013 6,623 28,704 0.51 Subtotal 14,351 521,672 1,872,818 370,429 271,013 3,488 31,428 0.24 Existing + Project + 52,751 85,988 115,628 1.63 Cumulative Total Sources: SCAG 2012b; SCAG 2001; Census 2012; Newport Beach 2012 ' See Table 5.11 -1 (RTP Projections) Cumulative project numbers are a summary of the information provided in Tables 4 -1 and 4 -2 in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. ' Employment and population assumptions for the proposed project and the cumulative projects is based on the following: Population -2.19 persons per household as determined in 2010 Census for Newport Beach (Census 2012), and; Employment— SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001) density factors for commercial, office, industrial, and public land uses. Page 5.11 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING Affordable Housing The City's anticipated housing needs for the 2014 -2021 RHNA cycle is five units, including one very -low -, one low -, one moderate -, and two above - moderate - income units (SCAG 2012a). The City's 2011 Housing Element, based on the two previous RHNA cycles, identified the ability to accommodate up to 4,612 housing units, including the City's identified need for 1,212 very low -, low -, and moderate income units. The Airport Area was identified as having the greatest potential to accommodate the development of housing for lower - income households (Newport Beach 2011). The proposed project would provide 184 affordable housing units and would bring the City closer to reaching its RHNA goals. The project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on affordable housing. Population Growth Upon buildout of the proposed project, in combination with the cumulative projects listed in Tables 4 -1 and 4- 2, the City's housing is projected to increase by approximately 14,351 units and employment opportunities by approximately 3,488 jobs, creating a more balanced jobs -to- housing ratio for the City. The cumulative projects would provide more housing than jobs for the City, meeting existing and future demands and balancing the jobs -to- housing ratio. Since Uptown Newport is an infill project, the project would not extend infrastructure that would induce population growth, and therefore, would not combine with other related projects to contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to population growth. Cumulative impacts to population growth are less than significant. 5.11.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations State • California Government Code, Article 10.6, Housing Elements (Sections 65580 -65589.8.) City of Newport Beach • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 19, Subdivisions, Chapter 19.54, Inclusionary Housing • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 20.32, Density Bonus City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to population and housing 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. 5.11.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval and adoption of the AHIP, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.11 -1. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -7 S. Environmental Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.11.7 Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are identified and no mitigation measures are required. 5.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed project's impacts to population and housing are less than significant. Page 5.11 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) addresses the potential for development of the Uptown Newport project to impact public services including: fire protection and emergency services, police protection, school services, and library services. The analysis in this section is based in part on the service provider correspondence contained in Appendix K of this DEIR. Park services are addressed in Section 5.13, Recreation. Public and private utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, and solid waste, are addressed in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. 5.12.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services 5.12.1.1 Environmental Setting The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. In addition to fire suppression, NBFD also provides fire prevention and hazard reduction services. The Fire Prevention Division works in conjunction with the City's Community Development and Public Works departments to ensure that all new construction and remodels are built in compliance with local and state building and fire codes, including the provision of adequate emergency access and onsite fire protection measures. The NBFD currently employs 148 full -time employees, including 117 fire fighters. The fire department operates five divisions: fire operations, emergency medical services (EMS), fire prevention, training and community education, and fire administration. The department divides its staff into three shifts, with approximately 39 personnel each shift, for an overall total of 117 fire suppression and EMS personnel working at the eight fire stations. Each station has one engine company. Three stations have paramedic 88 ambulances, and two have ladder trucks. Eight paramedics serve per shift (Gamble 2011). The NBFD's eight fire stations are strategically located throughout the City to provide prompt assistance to area residents. Station No. 7 at 20401 Acacia Street is the closest to the proposed project and would be the first station to respond to an emergency at the project site. This is a state of the art 11,350 square - foot facility and provides fire prevention and protection, hazardous materials removal and disposal, rescue and medics services. The station houses an engine. It was also designed as a training facility and includes a 48- person training room and related improvements. Station Nos. 3 and 6 would also respond to any first alarm fire. For larger fires, Station Nos. 2, 4, and 8 would be added to the response. Fire station locations are shown on Figure 5.12 -1, Fire and Police Facilities Locations. Average response times to the project site are 4 minutes and 52 seconds for EMS and 6 minutes 16 seconds for a structure fire. Table 5.12 -1, Local Fire Stations- Equipment and Staffing, summarizes the equipment and staffing at the three fire stations nearest to the project site. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -1 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Table 5.12 -1 Local Fire Stations — Equipment and Staffing Station Location Equipment Daily Staffing Station 7 20401 Acacia Street Fire Engine 3 firefighters Station 3 868 Santa Barbara Avenue One Tractor Drawn Aerial Ladder Truck 10 firefighters 60 seconds Travel Time' One Engine 480 seconds 8 minutes 240 seconds (4 minutes ) 480 seconds (8 minutes )2 One Paramedic Van 320 seconds (5 minutes 20 seconds) 560 seconds (9 minutes 20 seconds ) 300 seconds (5 minutes) One Battalion Command Vehicle Station 6 1348 Irvine Avenue one fire engine 3 firefighters NBFD's response time goals, adopted from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710, are summarized in Table 5.12 -2. Table 5.12 -2 NBFD Response Time Goals 'All travel time goals are maximums, i.e., 240 seconds means 240 seconds or less. 2 Provided a first responder with basic life support capability arrives within 240 seconds. The NBFD also regulates hazardous materials. The NBFD's goal is to protect the public health and the environment throughout the City from accidental releases and improper handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials through coordinated regulation, management, emergency response, enforcement, and site mitigation oversight. Hazardous materials personnel are responsible for in -house training and education and do not respond to emergencies. In case of a hazardous materials emergency, the Huntington Beach Fire Department or Orange County Fire Authority is called. Regulatory Setting State and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are discussed in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. California Fire Code The California Fire Code (CFC) is California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9. The CFC is adopted once every three years by the California Building Standards Commission; the current (2010) CFC took effect January 1, 2011. As summarized below, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the CFC Code with amendments, as Title 9 of the City Municipal Code. Page 5.12 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Fire Suppression Incident Emergency Medical Incident First Arriving Engine Company Initial Full Alarm Assignment Basic Life Support Advanced Life Support Turnout Time 80 seconds 80 seconds 60 seconds 60 seconds Travel Time' 240 seconds 4 minutes 480 seconds 8 minutes 240 seconds (4 minutes ) 480 seconds (8 minutes )2 Total Response Time 320 seconds (5 minutes 20 seconds) 560 seconds (9 minutes 20 seconds ) 300 seconds (5 minutes) 540 seconds (9 minutes) 'All travel time goals are maximums, i.e., 240 seconds means 240 seconds or less. 2 Provided a first responder with basic life support capability arrives within 240 seconds. The NBFD also regulates hazardous materials. The NBFD's goal is to protect the public health and the environment throughout the City from accidental releases and improper handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials through coordinated regulation, management, emergency response, enforcement, and site mitigation oversight. Hazardous materials personnel are responsible for in -house training and education and do not respond to emergencies. In case of a hazardous materials emergency, the Huntington Beach Fire Department or Orange County Fire Authority is called. Regulatory Setting State and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are discussed in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. California Fire Code The California Fire Code (CFC) is California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 9. The CFC is adopted once every three years by the California Building Standards Commission; the current (2010) CFC took effect January 1, 2011. As summarized below, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the CFC Code with amendments, as Title 9 of the City Municipal Code. Page 5.12 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Costa Mesa Victoria St 5. Environmental Analysis Fire and Police Facilities Map Bay 07 J�jZiill ' 13yn@ l AI¢JOIi OT la �m Irvine J `o 0 02 05 4o S° Newport o 1 Beach 0 z x0 Pacific Ocean O Fire Station C Police Station I o z rScale (Miles) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.12 -1 Ov S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.12 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES City of Newport Beach Municipal Code The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code addresses the development impacts to fire services, as follows: Municipal Code Section 3.12.010 states that: "...the rapid development of land in the City of Newport Beach has created a need for public improvements and facilities consisting of fire stations and fire- fighting equipment, public City libraries and public City parks, which cannot be met by the ordinary revenues of the City.... The most practical and equitable method of collecting the funds necessary to provide such public improvements is to impose an excise tax upon the construction and occupancy of residential, commercial and industrial units or buildings in the City." Municipal Code Title 9 (Fire Code) The City of Newport Beach has adopted the 2010 California Fire Code, with amendments, as Title 9 of the City Municipal Code. Title 9 contains provisions that deal with a range of issues, including articulating fire flow requirements, the provision of automatic sprinkler systems in public buildings, emergency access, requiring an accurate occupant count in public places, and the provision of emergency power in public assembly places. Newport Beach Fire Code Section 9.04.080 contains the following amendment to CFC Section 2704: Hazardous Materials Chapter 2704.1.1 Maximum quantity on site 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 Regulations in a residential zone or adjacent to property developed with residential uses. This requirement is addressed in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR. 5.12.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: FP -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services. 5.12.1.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.12 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INTRODUCE NEW STRUCTURES, RESIDENTS, AND WORKERS INTO THE NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE BOUNDARIES, THEREBY ALTERING THE REQUIREMENT FOR FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL. (THRESHOLD FP-1] Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -5 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Phase 1 of the proposed Uptown Newport project would develop 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet of retail uses. At completion, Phase 1 is estimated to house 1,489 residents, as shown below in Table 5.12 -3. In addition, service and retail uses are estimated to generate one employee per 450 square feet of retail or service space; thus, operation of the proposed 11,500 square feet of neighborhood retail uses in Phase 1 is estimated to generate 26 employees. This may result in increased demand for service from the NBFD. Table 5.12 -3 Residents Generated by Project Phase Phase Residential Units Persons per Household' Residents 1 680 2.19 1,489 2 564 2.19 1,235 Total 1,244 2.19 2,724 ' Source: US Census Bureau 2012. Development of Phase 1 would also involve the closure and demolition of the existing Half Dome building onsite at 4311 Jamboree Road. Approximately 161 employees currently work in the Half Dome building; the building is used for office, light industrial, storage, and cafe services. Removal of the Half Dome building and the industrial and commercial uses in the building would cause some reduction of demands for fire protection and emergency medical services. However, the reduction in such demands is expected to be smaller than the increase in demands for services resulting from development of 680 residential units in Phase 1 of the project. Therefore, development of Phase 1 would have some net impact on demands for NBFD services. Firefighting Resources and Response Times The fire department's estimated response time for the site is currently 4 minutes and 52 seconds for EMS calls and 6 minutes and 16 seconds for structure fires. The City of Newport Beach has adopted response goals from NFPA 1710, shown in Table 5.12 -1. Response times should be 5 minutes or less for basic life support EMS calls and 5 minutes 20 seconds or less for the first - arriving engine for fire suppression calls. The NBFD indicated that no additional fire equipment or personnel would be needed to maintain the necessary level of service to Phase 1 of the project site. The entire proposed project would be subject to the City of Newport Beach Property Development Tax, which funds municipal facilities required to serve new developments, including fire stations, libraries, and parks. Emergency Access As shown in the Phase 1 Circulation Plan (see Figure 3 -8), the project site would be accessed by two intersections on Jamboree Road: the existing signalized entry opposite Fairchild Road and an unsignalized intersection north of the Fairchild Road intersection. Employee access to the TowerJazz parking area would be from the northernmost Jamboree Road intersection and the existing access Page 5.12 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES easement from Birch Street. Emergency vehicle access would also be provided via the Koll property to the west. Roadway widths, turning radii, and turn - around dimensions would be designed to accommodate truck movements and fire equipment. The proposed road, driveway, and emergency access driveway would provide emergency access to all proposed buildings onsite, conforming to CFC Section 503, as incorporated into the City's Municipal Code Section 9.04.050, and in accordance with NBFD Guidelines C.01, including the following: • Fire apparatus road shall extend to within 150 feet of all the facility 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 street. • Parking on two sides permitted on 36 -foot wide street. • No parking is permitted on streets narrower than 28 feet in width. • Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 1 foot 6 inches. Fire Flow Fire hydrant spacing for a project is based on required fire flow, which in turn is based on maximum building size and construction type. Two scenarios for maximum building size are being considered for the project: a Type I high -rise of 300,000 square feet; or a Type V high -rise of 75,000 square feet in which the building is constructed on a concrete podium parking structure. The required fire flow is for the larger building size, and is 6,000 gallons per minute (gpm). The City would allow a reduction of 50 percent in required fire flow because all buildings in the project would be equipped with automatic sprinklers; thus, the required fire flow for the project would be 3,000 gpm. Fire hydrant spacing of 400 feet is needed to achieve that fire flow (CFC, 2010). Phase 2 Phase 2 of the project would develop 564 residential units for a project total of 1,244 units; Phase 2 is forecast to house 1,235 persons at buildout. Before Phase 2 of the project could be built, the existing TowerJazz facility would be closed and demolished. The TowerJazz facility is a semiconductor manufacturing facility of 311,452 square feet building area and employs approximately 3,000 people. Potential hazardous conditions associated with this industrial use and related hazardous material use and storage would be eliminated upon development of Phase 2 (see also Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Firefighting Resources and Response Times Development of Phase 2 of the project would not adversely affect NBFD response times to the project site. Development would not result in the need to build new or expanded fire stations, or obtain additional staff or equipment (Gamble 2011). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -7 r2l� S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Emergency Access As shown in Figure 3 -9, Phase 2 Circulation Plan, at project buildout, the internal roadway system would include a connection to Birch Street via the existing access easement to Von Karmen Avenue. The two intersections at Jamboree Road would be maintained, as well as the emergency vehicle access via the Koll property. The proposed road and driveway would provide emergency access to all proposed buildings onsite, and conform to the CFC Section 503 requirements and NPFD Guideline C.01 as described under Phase 1. Fire Flow Fire flow requirements for Phase 2 are the same as detailed above for Phase 1. 5.12.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The NBFD service area, that is, the City of Newport Beach, is the area over which cumulative impacts are considered. Substantial additional development is anticipated in the City. Growth estimates for the City from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are shown below in Table 5.12 -4. Between 2008 and 2035, the City's population is forecast to increase about 7 percent, and the number of households in the City is forecast to increase six percent. Table 5.12 -4 Growth Estimates for City of Newport Beach Source: SCAG 2012b. Additional development in the City would generate increased demand for fire suppression, EMS, and other NBFD services, including fire prevention and community education. The NBFD does not use population projects to determine projected needs. The Department's service goals are based on accepted service levels such as the response times previous detailed. As part of the operating budget, the NBFD has an equipment replacement program which guarantees replacement of all its apparatus needs, such as vehicles. The NBFD staffing levels have historically been driven not by population as much as by location. The General Plan EIR noted that an increase in density by both infill and conversion of low rise properties to mid and high rise would necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company to the Santa Ana Height fire station. This station, Station No. 7, has been completed and includes the ladder company. As with the proposed project, other developments in the City would be required to pay City tax to finance public facilities including fire stations and firefighting equipment. Page 5.12 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 2008 2035 Increase, 2008 -2035 Percent Increase, 2010 -2035 Population 84,200 90,300 6,100 7.2% Households 38,400 40,700 2,300 6.0% Employment 82,500 77,700 -4800 -5.8% Source: SCAG 2012b. Additional development in the City would generate increased demand for fire suppression, EMS, and other NBFD services, including fire prevention and community education. The NBFD does not use population projects to determine projected needs. The Department's service goals are based on accepted service levels such as the response times previous detailed. As part of the operating budget, the NBFD has an equipment replacement program which guarantees replacement of all its apparatus needs, such as vehicles. The NBFD staffing levels have historically been driven not by population as much as by location. The General Plan EIR noted that an increase in density by both infill and conversion of low rise properties to mid and high rise would necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company to the Santa Ana Height fire station. This station, Station No. 7, has been completed and includes the ladder company. As with the proposed project, other developments in the City would be required to pay City tax to finance public facilities including fire stations and firefighting equipment. Page 5.12 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.12.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations • National Fire Protection Association 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments • California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) • California Fire Code (CFC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9). Several City conditions of approval for the proposed project - listed above in Section 5.12.1 - are based on CFC requirements. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code: Title 9, Fire Code City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: Standards of conditions would be prepared for the proposed project at subsequent approval phases, starting with the subsequent tentative tract map and the review and approval of Site Development Review for the construction of any building structure, prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 8B • The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5.12.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impact would be less than significant: 5.12 -1. 5.12.1.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary 5.12.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to fire protection and services remain. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -9 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.12.2 Police Protection 5.12.2.1 Environmental Setting The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) provides police service to the proposed project site, including crime prevention and investigation, community awareness programs, and traffic control. Police headquarters are at 870 Santa Barbara Drive (see Figure 5.12 -1). According to the EIR prepared for the City's General Plan and the service questionnaire returned by NBPD, the NBPD employs 280 personnel, including a chief, 3 captains, 7 lieutenants, 22 sergeants, 137 sworn officers, 85 civilian personnel, and 53 seasonal and part-time personnel. NBPD has four divisions — patrol /traffic, support services, detectives, and chief of police (Hartford 2012). With a population of 85,186 residents (US Census 2012), the ratio of officers to residents is currently 1.61 officers per 1,000 residents. On average, 2,000 emergency calls are received each month, with an average answer time of five seconds. Approximately 60,000 calls are dispatched every year, and the average police response time to emergency calls is just under four minutes (Newport Beach 2006; Hartford 2012). 5.12.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: PP -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services. 5.12.2.3 Environmental Impacts IMPACT 5.12 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INTRODUCE NEW STRUCTURES, RESIDENTS, AND WORKERS INTO THE NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICE BOUNDARIES, THEREBY INCREASING THE REQUIREMENT FOR POLICE PROTECTION FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL. (THRESHOLD PP -11 Impact Analysis Phase 1 Phase 1 of the proposed Uptown Newport project would develop 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet of retail uses. At completion, Phase 1 is estimated to house 1,489 residents, as shown in Table 5.12- 2. In addition, service and retail uses are estimated to generate one employee per 450 square feet of retail or service space. Thus, operation of the proposed 11,500 square feet of neighborhood retail uses in Phase 1 is estimated to generate 26 employees. About 161 employees currently work in the existing Half Dome building at 4311 Jamboree. The Half Dome building would be closed and demolished before development of Phase 1 of the proposed project; thus, the project would cause a net decrease in employment onsite of 135 jobs. Page 5.12 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES The average response to emergency calls in the City is under four minutes. The City currently has a ratio of 1.61 officers to 1,000 residents. Although there is no current law enforcement staffing standards, the General Plan EIR notes that the ratio of 1.7 officer per 1,000 residents allows the NBPD to meet the needs of the City's permanent and transient population. The existing land uses on the project site are currently served by the NBPD, and the replacement of the existing land uses by residential land uses would not adversely affect the current deployment of police services (Hartford 2012). NBPD has suggested the following onsite improvements that have been incorporated as conditions of approval for this proposed project. • Emergency vehicle access and parking shall be provided in front of the main entrance of each building. All public areas shall have postings that identify them as being enforced by the Newport Beach Police Department to discourage animal and alcohol violations (per City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Sections 7.16, Animals at Large, and 20.48.030, Alcohol Sales). • Emergency personnel shall be given access to secured tenant - occupied buildings during times of emergency. Phase 2 Phase 2 of the proposed project includes the development of the remaining 564 residential units, resulting in a total of 1,244 units and a population of 2,724. Development of Phase 2 of the project would involve closure and demolition of the existing TowerJazz semiconductor manufacturing facility of 311,452 square feet building area and employs approximately 3,000 people. Removal of the TowerJazz facility would eliminate the need for police services for this industrial use which operates 24 hours /day 7 days per week. The addition of 1,235 residents onsite by development of Phase 2 would create a need for an estimated additional two police officers based on the existing ratio of 1.61 officers to 1,000 residents; however, this estimate does not account for reduction in demand for police services due to removal of the TowerJazz facility. 5.12.2.4 Cumulative Impacts As shown in Table 5.12 -3, the City's population is forecast to increase nearly 7.2 percent, and the number of households in the City is forecast to increase 6 percent between 2008 and 2035. This increases the demand for police protection services within the NBPD service area. Future projects, however, would be subject to project- specific environmental review. 5.12.2.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations There are no regulations that apply to police services in the City of Newport Beach. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval City of Newport Beach conditions of approval for the proposed project respecting police services are listed above under Impact 5.12.2. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -11 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.12.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impact would be less than significant: 5.12 -2. 5.12.2.7 Mitigation Measures Upon the implementation of regulations and standard conditions of approval, no significant impacts to police services have been identified. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. 5.12.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures were identified. Impacts to police services are less than significant. 5.12.3 School Services This section provides an assessment of the existing school services and how the proposed project would affect these services. It is based, in part, on the following technical study included as Appendix L to this DEIR: School Impacts and Mitigation Report, Jeanette C. Justus Associates, January 2012. 5.12.3.1 Environmental Setting The project site is within the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) and close to the boundaries and schools of the Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) (see Figure 5.12 -2, School Attendance Area Boundaries). Santa Ana Unified School District SAUSD covers nearly 24 square miles and currently has 55,497 students in grades K-12 (2011 -2012 academic year), with a total capacity of 55,844 students. Table 5.12 -5 indicates that SAUSD is near capacity for all grade levels and is over capacity for K-6 grade levels. Table 5.12 -5 Santa Ana Unified School District Overall Capacity (2011 -2012) School Grade Levels Total Capacity Enrollment Available Capacity Elementary (K -6 ) 29,360 31,876 -2,516 Intermediate 7 -8 8,663 8,353 310 High 9 -12 17,844 15,268 2,576 District Total 55,844 55,497 347 Source: Jeannette C Justus Associates 2012 The SAUSD schools serving the project area are listed in Table 5.12 -6 and shown in Figure 5.12 -2. As indicated in Table 5.12 -6, James Monroe Elementary and Century High Schools are close to capacity and McFadden Intermediate School is over capacity by 455 students. Page 5.12 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis School Attendance Area Boundaries Santa Ana Unified School District Newport-Mesa Unified School District Eastbluff Elementary School _ James Monroe Elementary Attendance Boundary Attendance Boundary ® McFadden Intermediate Attendance Boundary Corona Del Mar High School Attendance Boundary Century High School Attendance Boundary 0 2 Scale (Miles) MINE Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E • Figure 5.12 -2 �� S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.12 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Table 5.12 -6 Santa Ana Unified School District Schools near Project Site (2011 -2012) Source: Jeannette C. Justus Associates 2012 Newport Mesa Unified School District NMUSD has a current enrollment of 21,803 students (2011 -2012 academic year), with a total capacity of 23,839 students. Table 5.12 -7 provides the districtwide capacities and enrollments for the 2010 -2011 academic year. Overall, NMUSD has available capacity in both elementary and secondary grade levels. Table 5.12 -7 Newport Mesa Unified School District Overall Capacity (2011 -2012) School Grade Levels Distance to Project Current Permanent Available Capacity Elementary K -6 School Name Site (miles) Capacity Enrollment Available Capacity James Monroe 5.0 500 472 28 Elementary School Ac7, ., 979 McFadden Intermediate 5.7 960 1,415 -455 Century High School 6.1 2,030 1,999 31 Source: Jeannette C. Justus Associates 2012 Newport Mesa Unified School District NMUSD has a current enrollment of 21,803 students (2011 -2012 academic year), with a total capacity of 23,839 students. Table 5.12 -7 provides the districtwide capacities and enrollments for the 2010 -2011 academic year. Overall, NMUSD has available capacity in both elementary and secondary grade levels. Table 5.12 -7 Newport Mesa Unified School District Overall Capacity (2011 -2012) School Grade Levels Total Capacity Enrollment Available Capacity Elementary K -6 12,478 11,528 950 Secondary 7 -12 11,361 10,275 1,086 District Total 23,839 21,803 2,036 Source: Jeannette c. Justus Associates 2012 The two schools in NMUSD nearest to the project site are Eastbluff Elementary School, with no available capacity, and Corona Del Mar High School, with an available capacity of 388. The current enrollment and net capacities of these schools are given in Table 5.12 -8. Table 5.12 -8 Newport Mesa Unified School District Schools near Project Site (2011 -2012) School Name Distance to Project Site miles Net School Capacity Enrollment Available Capacity Easthluff Elementary 1.9 361 372 -11 Corona Del Mar High 2.0 2,828 2,440 388 Cm vrn .mvnnetter JuMUe Ac7, ., 979 Regulatory Setting State regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -15 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES State SAUSD and NMUSD are under the state government's jurisdiction, subject to California Education Code regulations, and under the governance of the State Board of Education. School capital facility funds come from state funding, state bonds, local general obligation bonds, developer fees, surplus property sale proceeds, and School Facility Improvement and Community Facilities Districts (CFDs). Limited or no funding is available for school facilities from the federal government. Assembly Bill 2926 and Senate Bill 50 To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the State passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986. This bill allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial /industrial building space. Development impact fees are also referenced in the 1987 Leroy Greene Lease - Purchase Act, which requires school districts to contribute a matching share of costs for construction, modernization, and reconstruction projects. Senate Bill (SB) 50, which passed in 1998, provides a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program, and enables a statewide bond issue to be placed on the ballot. The provisions of SB 50 allow the state to offer funding to school districts to acquire school sites, construct new school facilities, and modernize existing school facilities. SB 50 also establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers may be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities resulting from increased enrollment. Under this legislation, a school district could charge fees above the statutory cap only under specified conditions, and then only up to the amount of funds that the district would be eligible to receive from the state. According to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation." SB 50 establishes three levels of developer fees that may be imposed upon new development by the governing board of a school district depending upon certain conditions within a district. • Level 1: Level 1 fees are the base statutory fees. These amounts are the maximum that can be legally imposed upon new construction projects by a school district unless the district qualifies for a higher level of funding. Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, as of January 2008, the statutory maximum Level 1 school fees that may be levied by a school district on new development is a maximum of $2.97 per assessable square foot of residential construction and a maximum of $0.47 per square foot of enclosed and covered space for commercial /industrial development. These rates are established by the State Allocation Board, and may be increased to adjust for inflation based upon a statewide cost index for Class B construction. To implement Level 1 fees, the governing board of a school district must adopt a nexus study linking development impacts and the need for construction of new facilities. Although not standard, such studies are frequently referred to as Developer Fee Justification Study. NMUSD currently implements a Level 1 fee of $1.84 per square foot of new residential development. Starting on August 24, 2012, SAUSD began implementing a Level 1 fee of $3.20 per square foot of new residential development and $0.51 per square foot of commercial development. • Level 2: Level 2 fees allow the school district to impose developer fees above the statutory level, up to 50 percent of new school construction costs. To implement Level 2 fees, the governing board of the school district must adopt a School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA) and meet other prerequisites in accordance with Section 65995.6 of the California Government Code. Page 5.12 -16 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES The purpose of an SFNA is to determine the need for new school facilities attributable to growth from new residential development (California Government Code § 65995.6). An SFNA documents that the district has met prerequisite eligibility tests and calculates the fee per square foot of new development. If the school district is eligible for state new construction funding, the state will match the Level 2 fees if funds are available. According to the Office of Public School Construction, although they are currently not being released for funding school facilities, state funds for new school construction are available from existing bond measures. Level 3: Level 3 fees apply if the state runs out of bond funds, allowing the school district to impose 100 percent of the cost of the school facility or mitigation minus any local dedicated school monies. SB 1016 suspended the ability of school districts to levy Level III fees, effective June 25, 2012. Local Santa Ana Unified School District In accordance with SB 50, the construction of new schools requires a school district to match state funds. The local match is typically provided by such funds as developer fees, local general obligation bonds, and /or Mello -Roos CFO (special taxes that can be levied on property owners of newly constructed homes within a CFD). SAUSD participates in the state funding program actively and also received School Facility Program funding under the modernization, overcrowding relief, and critically overcrowded grant categories since 2003. At the time of writing, SAUSD has no eligibility for funding in the state new construction program at the K-8 level. It should be noted that state funding eligibility varies with projected enrollment growth compared to the number of existing seats in the district. In 2008, residents within the boundaries of the SAUSD passed local Measure G authorizing the sale of $200 million in general obligation bonds. Measure G funds are used by SAUSD to repair and construct classrooms and facilities. It is the second successful general obligation bond in SAUSD. Measure C was passed by the SAUSD voters in November 1999 and authorized the sale of $145 million in general obligation bonds. Measure C funds were used by the SAUSD for modernization and new construction projects district -wide. Newport Mesa Unified School District NMUSD pursues the opportunity for facilities funding whenever it is eligible in the state funding program. In June 2010, NMUSD was awarded $1,431,274 for modernization and new construction at Costa Mesa High School. However, due to the current state budget crisis, funding for the Costa Mesa High School projects has not been released. At the time of writing, NMUSD has no eligibility for funding in the state new construction program at the K -6 level. In November 2005, residents within the boundaries of the NMUSD passed local Measure F authorizing the sale of $282 million in general obligation bonds. Measure F is the second successful general obligation bond in the district. Measure A was passed by the NMUSD voters in June 2000 and authorized the sale of $110 million in general obligation bonds. Measure A funds are used by the district to modernize every school campus throughout the district and to expand school capacity district -wide. 5.12.3.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -17 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES SS -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for school services. 5.12.3.3 Environmental Impacts IMPACT 5.12 -3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE 341 NEW STUDENTS WHO WOULD IMPACT THE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CAPACITIES OF MONROE ELEMENTARY, MCFADDEN INTERMEDIATE, AND CENTURY HIGH SCHOOLS IN THE SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. (THRESHOLD SS -11 Impact Analysis: Student Generation Rates SAUSD has not experienced a significant amount of new development in the last five years. The available published student generation rate as provided in the 2011 SAUSD School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA) is based on the student generation rate (SGR) from Irvine Unified School District's 2011 SFNA. This option of using SGR from a neighboring district is allowed by California Government Code Section 65995. Unlike SAUSD, IUSD experienced a significant amount of growth in the category of attached housing throughout the City of Irvine. The density of the typical attached housing constructed in the City of Irvine and the IUSD is significantly lower than the density of the proposed project. The vast majority of attached housing in IUSD is under 20 dwelling units per acre. For the purposes of analyzing school impacts, Jeanette C. Justus Associates obtained from IUSD the number of students residing in projects with high density (45-55 dwelling units per acre) and in similar locations. The specialized student generation rates for the proposed project are described below. Based on the data collected from IUSD, Jeanette C. Justus Associates developed the student generation rate for the proposed project. The sample of 2,422 dwelling units included existing residential projects in the John Wayne Airport Area and the Irvine Spectrum area that are similar to those anticipated for the proposed project. The projects in the sample were considered similar due to the high density and amenities geared toward young professionals rather than families with children. It was found that 166 K-12 students residing in the sample areas attend IUSD schools. The resulting rates are provided in Table 5.12 -9. Table 5.12 -9 Student Generation Rates for Proposed Project School Level Rate Per Dwelling Unit Elementary School K-6 0.040 Middle School (7 -8) 0.012 High School 9-12 0.017 Total K -12 0.069 Page 5.12 -18 a The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Project Student Generation At project buildout, the proposed project may develop up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail space, and 2.05 acres of park space. Based on the student generation rates in Table 5.12 -9, the proposed project is anticipated to yield approximately 87 K-12 students-50 elementary, 12 middle, and 22 high school students (see Table 5.12 -10). Table 5.12 -10 Estimated Student Population Source: Jeannette C. Justus and Associates 2012 Phase 1 As shown in Table 5.12 -10, Phase 1 of the proposed project would generate 47 students in grades K -12 that would need to be accommodated either at existing or new schools. The need for additional facility space would be different for each type of school. 88 Elementary School For Phase 1, the proposed project would generate 27 elementary students (see Table 5.12 -10). The project site is within the school boundaries of James Monroe Elementary School. Based on current enrollment figures and available capacity (see Table 5.12 -6), the elementary school would be able to accommodate the additional 27 students. Middle School As shown in Table 5.12 -10, the proposed project would generate 8 middle school students under Phase 1. Students from the project would attend McFadden Intermediate School, which currently has no capacity to accommodate new students (see Table 5.12 -6). One additional classroom could be provided at McFadden Intermediate School. Payment of mandated school fees as required by Government Code Section 65995 serves to fully mitigate project impacts on schools. High School For Phase 1, the proposed project would generate 12 high school students (see Table 5.12 -10). Students from the proposed project would attend Century High School, which currently has 31 available seats and is able to serve the proposed project (see Table 5.12 -6). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -19 Proposed Residential Units Student Generation Grades K -6 Grades 7 -8 Grades 9 -12 Total Generation Rate 0.040 0.012 0.017 0.069 Development Phase 1 680 27 8 12 47 Development Phase 2 564 23 7 10 40 Totals 1,244 50 15 22 87 Source: Jeannette C. Justus and Associates 2012 Phase 1 As shown in Table 5.12 -10, Phase 1 of the proposed project would generate 47 students in grades K -12 that would need to be accommodated either at existing or new schools. The need for additional facility space would be different for each type of school. 88 Elementary School For Phase 1, the proposed project would generate 27 elementary students (see Table 5.12 -10). The project site is within the school boundaries of James Monroe Elementary School. Based on current enrollment figures and available capacity (see Table 5.12 -6), the elementary school would be able to accommodate the additional 27 students. Middle School As shown in Table 5.12 -10, the proposed project would generate 8 middle school students under Phase 1. Students from the project would attend McFadden Intermediate School, which currently has no capacity to accommodate new students (see Table 5.12 -6). One additional classroom could be provided at McFadden Intermediate School. Payment of mandated school fees as required by Government Code Section 65995 serves to fully mitigate project impacts on schools. High School For Phase 1, the proposed project would generate 12 high school students (see Table 5.12 -10). Students from the proposed project would attend Century High School, which currently has 31 available seats and is able to serve the proposed project (see Table 5.12 -6). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -19 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Phase 2 As shown in Table 5.12 -10, Phase 2 of the project would generate approximately 40 students: 23 elementary, 7 middle school, and 10 high school students. Elementary School At buildout, the proposed project would generate 50 elementary students (including 27 Phase 1 students), as shown in Table 5.12 -10. James Monroe Elementary school would not have capacity to accommodate these additional students (see Table 5.12 -6). One or two additional classroom facilities would be required and could be provided at James Monroe Elementary School to accommodate students associated with the proposed project. Payment of mandated school fees as required by Government Code Section 65995 serves to fully mitigate project impacts on schools. Middle School Phase 2 of the proposed project would generate an additional 7 middle school students, resulting in a total of 15 at full buildout (see Table 5.12 -10). As with Phase 1, an additional classroom would be needed at McFadden Intermediate School, which is currently over capacity by 455 students (see Table 5.12 -6). The classroom proposed for the Phase 1 students would be used to serve the total student population of 15 generated by the proposed project. Payment of mandated school fees as required by Government Code Section 65995 serves to fully mitigate project impacts on schools. High School During Phase 2, the proposed project would generate an additional 10 high school students, resulting in a buildout population of 22 (see Table 5.12 -10). Students from the proposed project would attend Century High School, which currently has 31 available seats and is able to serve the proposed project (see Table 5.12 -6). School Financing and Alternative Options Financing of Expanded Facilities through SB 50 Based on data about available capacity, the SAUSD would not require funds to construct additional capacity to serve the project- generated students at the high school level. At the elementary school level, based on the current enrollment data, one or two additional portable or permanent classrooms may be required to accommodate project students. At the middle school level, one additional classroom would be required. However, SAUSD recently instituted a Level 1 fee program, which became effective on August 24, 2012.,The proposed project would be subject to payment of the applicable Level 1 developer fees. Payment of the adopted developer fees by the applicant would fully and completely mitigate all school impacts, in accordance with Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code. Additionally, new development on the project site would be subject to taxes from both general obligation bond measures approved by the SAUSD. The project would also be required to comply with Conditions 1 and 2, as outlined in Section 5.12.3.5, Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval. Condition 1 requires the payment of state - mandated school fees. Condition 2 identifies that the proposed project would be subject to Measure G and Measure C general obligation taxes as applied to other properties within the SAUSD. Page 5.12 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Alternative School Facility Options Neighborhood School in John Wayne Airport Area Along with other John Wayne Airport Area developers, SAUSD has informed the project applicant that they are considering the possibility of alternate facility and finance programs and potentially a mitigation agreement that is mutually agreeable for all affected parties. The SAUSD seeks to construct a neighborhood school in the John Wayne Airport Area. If a new school were constructed, then developer fees would contribute to the construction of the school. At the time of this writing, it is unknown whether a school site could be secured and a mitigation and financing agreement with all area developers be reached. Expansion of NMUSD Boundaries The project applicant may choose to propose to modify the school district boundaries so that the entire project site would be within the boundaries of the neighboring NMUSD. This would ensure that project - generated students attend school facilities nearest to their homes and busing or other transportation costs and impacts are minimized. In the absence of a neighborhood school within SAUSD, such territory transfer would enable project students to maximize their quality of life by being better able to take advantage of school - related activities such as after - school programs and athletic clubs. Living near the families of their children's classmates would allow project residents with children to build stronger communal ties. The transfer of school district boundaries would be subject to concurrence of the Orange County Committee on School District Organization and the State Board of Education. The impacts and reorganization would differ between elementary and middle school students. Elementary School 8B At buildout, the proposed project would generate approximately 50 elementary school students (see Table 5.12 -10). The proposed project site is near Eastbluff Elementary School (see Table 5.12 -8). Based on current enrollment figures, up to four additional classroom facilities would be required and could be provided to accommodate students associated with the proposed project. The project applicant would mitigate school impacts by payment of statutory school fees to fully mitigate project impacts on schools. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to Measure F and Measure A general obligation taxes as applied to other properties within the NMUSD. Secondary School At buildout, the proposed project would generate 37 secondary school students (grades 7 -12), as shown in Table 5.12 -10. Students from the project would attend Corona Del Mar High School, which currently has 317 available seats (see Table 5.12 -7) and would be able to serve the proposed project. 5.12.3.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to school services would occur when the proposed project, in combination with other recent, current, and proposed residential projects in the area, causes a substantial increase in the student population. The cumulative projects in the project area are listed on Table 4 -3, in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. Student generation for cumulative projects is estimated below in Table 5.12 -11. No cumulative projects including residential uses, which would therefore generate students, were identified within SAUSD boundaries. Eight cumulative projects were identified within NMUSD boundaries; five of those projects contain residential uses and would thus generate students. Student generation within the NMUSD is calculated from estimated student generation for the proposed Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -21 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES project in a service letter response by Ara Zareczny, NMUSD facilities analyst, dated February 13, 2012. NMUSD student generation rates per residential unit are 0.045 for elementary schools (K6), 0.016 for middle schools (7 -8), and 0.019 for high schools (9 -12). As shown below in Table 5.12 -11, cumulative projects would generate about 537 students in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. As listed above in Table 5.12 -7, overall remaining capacity in NMUSD schools as of the 2011 -2012 school year was 950 for elementary schools (K6) and 1,086 at secondary schools (7 -12), for a total of 2,036 seats. The majority of the related projects would not generate students within the Eastbluff Elementary School boundary for which remaining capacity is limited. As of 2012, there was adequate remaining capacity within NMUSD schools to accommodate students generated by cumulative projects in addition to the project - related student generation projects. Each project would be required to pay school impact fees pursuant to SIB 50; payment of such fees is considered full mitigation for impacts to public school facilities. The increase in school service demand due to the proposed Uptown Newport project would not combine with future demand to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Table 5.12 -11 Student Generation by Cumulative Projects Page 5.12 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Student Generation, students per DU Schools: Elementary Middle High Total: Elementary/ Project Name Proposed Residential (K -6): (7 -8): (9 -12): 0.080 Middlel No. Project Location Land Use(s) 0.045 0.016 0.019 High City of Newport Beach / Newport -Mesa Unified School District Al Newport Beach Lincoln ES/ 1 County Club 5 Residential DUs 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 Corona Del Mar HS/ 1600 & 1602 E. Carona Del Mar HS Coast Highway' Mariner's Medical 2 None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not applicable 1901 W. Westcliff Drive Banning Ranch 1,375 Residential DUs Newport Heights ES/ 3 4520 W. Coast 61.9 22.0 26.1 110.0 Ensign MS/ Highway I Newport Harbor HS Sunset Ridge Park 4 4850 W. Coast None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not applicable Highway Marina Park 5 1700 Balboa None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not applicable Boulevard Koll Center 260 Residential DUs Eastbluff ES/ 6 4343 Von Karman 11.7 4.2 4.9 20.8 Corona Del Mar HS/ Avenue Corona Del Mar HS AERIE 6 -Unit Condominium with Harbor View ES/ 7 201 Carnation Subterranean Parking 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 Corona Del Mar HS/ Avenue' Carona Del Mar HS Newport Coast 3,180 Single - family DUs Planned ini 1298Condomini 8Co ums/ Newport Coast ES 8 Community , nho 227.7 81.0 96.1 404.8 Corona Del Mar HS/ Newport Coast 582 Multifamily DUs Carona Del Mar HS Drive Page 5.12 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Table 5.12 -11 Student Generation by Cumulative Projects City of Irvine / Santa Ana Unified School District Element Hotel Student Generation, students per DU Schools: Elementary/ Elementary Middle High Total: 17662 Armstrong Project Name Proposed Residential (K -6): (7 -8): (9 -12): 0.080 Middlel No. Project Location Land Use(s) 0.- 0.016 0.019 High Subtotal, Newport -Mesa Unified School District 301.6 107.3 127.4 536.5 City of Irvine / Santa Ana Unified School District Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine. Notes: UUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet i Project does not have a net increase in traffic. 5.12.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations State • Senate Bill 50 � J• Santa Ana Unified School District Conditions Condition 1: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the applicant shall pay developer fees to the Santa Ana Unified School District at the time building permits are issued; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. • Condition 2: New development within the project site shall be subject to the same General Obligation bond tax rate already applied to other properties within the Santa Ana Unified School District for Measure G (approved in 2008) and Measure C (approved in 1999) based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. Newport Mesa Unified School District Conditions (applies only if district is expanded) • Condition 1: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the Applicant shall pay developer fees to the Newport Mesa Unified School District at the time building permits are issued; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. • Condition 2: New development within the project site shall be subject to the same general obligation bond tax rate as already applied to other properties within the Newport Mesa Unified School District for Measure F (approved in 2005) and Measure A (approved in 2000) based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -23 Element Hotel 9 17662 Armstrong None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not applicable Avenue Total 301.6 107.3 127.4 1 536.5 Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine. Notes: UUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet i Project does not have a net increase in traffic. 5.12.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations State • Senate Bill 50 � J• Santa Ana Unified School District Conditions Condition 1: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the applicant shall pay developer fees to the Santa Ana Unified School District at the time building permits are issued; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. • Condition 2: New development within the project site shall be subject to the same General Obligation bond tax rate already applied to other properties within the Santa Ana Unified School District for Measure G (approved in 2008) and Measure C (approved in 1999) based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. Newport Mesa Unified School District Conditions (applies only if district is expanded) • Condition 1: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, the Applicant shall pay developer fees to the Newport Mesa Unified School District at the time building permits are issued; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. • Condition 2: New development within the project site shall be subject to the same general obligation bond tax rate as already applied to other properties within the Newport Mesa Unified School District for Measure F (approved in 2005) and Measure A (approved in 2000) based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -23 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to schools 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. 5.12.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.12 -3. 5.12.3.7 Mitigation Measures No potentially significant impacts to school services have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. 5.12.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to school services would occur. 5.12.4 Library Services 5.12.4.1 Environmental Setting The Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) provides library services to the proposed project site with four branches and a concierge service building where patrons can drop off and pick up books on hold and search the library catalog. Services at branches include Wifi, printing, interlibrary loans, home -bound service, computer training classes, and book clubs for children, teens, and adults. Branch locations are provided in Table 5.12 -12. Table 5.12 -12 Newport Beach Public Libraries Branch Address Central Library 1000 Avocado Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mariners Branch 1300 Irvine Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Branch 100 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Corona Del Mar Branch 420 Marigold Ave. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Coast Community Center 6401 San Joaquin Hills Rd. concierge service Newport Coast, CA 92657 Page 5.12 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES The Central Library and Mariners Branch are closest to the project site and are most likely to serve future residents of Uptown Newport. The Mariner's Branch is currently at maximum capacity. A 2,000- square- foot expansion of the Central Library is under construction as part of the Civic Center Project; the Central Library will have facilities adequate for its service area upon completion of the expansion (Kelly 2011). Regulatory Setting Local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code addresses library facilities and services, as follows: Municipal Code Title 3 (Revenue and Finance), Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax), Section 3.12.010 (Policy) 3.12.010 states that: "...the rapid development of land in the City of Newport Beach has created a need for public improvements and facilities consisting of fire stations and fire - fighting equipment, public City libraries and public City parks, which cannot be met by the ordinary revenues of the City. The need for such improvements results directly from the increase in density in the City by the development of land that has heretofore been vacant and by construction of additional residential, commercial and industrial units on land heretofore developed. The most practical and equitable method of collecting the funds necessary to provide such public improvements is to impose an excise tax upon the construction and occupancy of residential, commercial and industrial units or buildings in the City." 5.12.4.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: LS -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library services. 5.12.4.3 Environmental Impacts IMPACT 5.12.4: AT BUILDOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD POTENTIALLY HOUSE 2,724 RESIDENTS WHO WOULD CONSTITUTE A POPULATION INCREASE IN THE SERVICE AREA OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MARINERS BRANCH AND CENTRAL LIBRARIES. THIS POPULATION INCREASE WOULD CREATE AN INCREASED DEMAND FOR SERVICE FROM THE NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM. [THRESHOLD LS -1] Impact Analysis: Buildout of the proposed project would result in the development of 1,244 residential units that would potentially house about 2,724 residents, based on an average of 2.19 persons per household in the City of Newport Beach (USCB 2012) -1,489 residents in Phasel and 1,235 residents in Phase 2 (see Table 5.12 -2 above). This population increase would occur within the service area of the Newport Beach Public Library system. The two closest locations to the proposed project site are the Mariners Branch and Central Library; these locations would be the most likely to serve residents generated by the project. In responding to inquiry regarding impacts to library facilities and services, Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -25 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES Newport Beach Public Library staff indicated that while the Mariners Branch is currently at maximum capacity, an expansion of the Central Library is under construction and it will have sufficient space and book volumes to serve the existing population in its service area upon completion of the expansion. Staff also indicated that the proposed Uptown Newport project would create a need for an additional 2,000 square feet of library facility space at the Mariners Branch. Adding a kiosk style, self- contained library station for checkouts and returns in the Uptown Newport area was also recommended to reduce impacts to library facilities. The proposed Uptown Newport Project would be subject to the City of Newport Beach property development tax to fund facilities and equipment for City libraries, pursuant to City Municipal Code Chapter 3.12. 5.12.4.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to library services would occur when the proposed project, in combination with other recent, current, and proposed residential projects in the area, cause a substantial increase in the demand for library services, creating a need to construct new facilities resulting in substantial environmental impacts. The cumulative projects in the project area are listed on Table 4 -3, in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. Cumulative projects including the proposed project would add 7,109 residential units in the City of Newport Beach. At the average household size of 2.19 persons in the City, cumulative projects are estimated to add about 15,569 persons to the City. The NBPL estimated that the 2,724 future residents of the proposed project would create a demand for an additional 2,000 square feet of library space, or about 0.73 square foot per person. Thus, the 15,569 future residents of cumulative projects in Newport Beach are estimated to create demand for about 11,431 square feet of additional library space. Each cumulative project in Newport Beach would pay an excise tax to the City upon the construction and occupancy of new projects, in part to finance construction of new and /or expanded library facilities. Payment of such fees would reduce cumulative impacts to library facilities and services. 5.12.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations City of Newport Beach Municipal Code • Title 3 (Revenue and Finance), Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax), Section 3.12.010 (Policy) City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to library services 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. 5.12.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impact would be less than significant: 5.12 -4. Page 5.12 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.12.4.7 Mitigation Measures No potentially significant impacts have been identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 5.12.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts to library services would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.12 -27 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.12 -28 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.13 RECREATION This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Uptown Newport project to impact recreational amenities and /or facilities in the City of Newport Beach. The potential for adverse impacts on recreational facilities as well as impacts created due to the construction of additional recreational facilities is evaluated based on current facilities and their usage. 5.13.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Background State and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. State Quimby Act The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) allows a city or county to require as a condition of approval of a subdivision — dedication of land for park or recreational purposes, payment of afee in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both. This legislation established a maximum parkland dedication (or in -lieu fees) standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents for a new subdivision development unless the amount of existing local and community parkland exceeds that limit, in which case local jurisdictions may adopt a standard of up to 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The Quimby Act does not provide dedication or fees for the City's trail system. Local City of Newport Beach Park Dedication Ordinance (Quimby Ordinance) Consistent with and as permitted by the Quimby Act, the City has adopted a Park Dedication and Fees Ordinance (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 19.52). The ordinance requires that the project applicant for a residential subdivision "provide for the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of residential development." The City's park dedication requirement is 5 acres per 1,000 persons (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 19.52.040). In -lieu fees are placed in a fund for the provision or rehabilitation of park and recreational facilities that can serve the subdivision. The Park Dedication and Fees Ordinance also provides for credit to be given, at the discretion of the City Council, for private recreational facilities within a new residential development or for the provision of park and recreational improvements to land dedicated for a public park. The amount of credit granted for private recreational facilities shall not exceed 20% of the required land dedication of in -lieu fee imposed (Municipal Code, Section 19.52.080). City of Newport Beach General Plan The City's General Plan includes the following Land Use Policies related to park and recreation open space provision: R 1.1 New Residential Subdivisions (General Plan page 8 -39). New Residential Subdivisions Require developers of new residential subdivisions to provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or to contribute in -lieu fees for the Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.13 -1 S. Environmental Analysis RECREATION development of public recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the development's resident population, as required in the City's Park Dedications Fees Ordinance. • R 1.2 High - Density Residential Developments (General Plan page 8 -39). Require developers of new high - density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedications and Fees Ordinance. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedications and Fees Ordinance. The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is, for example, accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. LU 6.15.13 Standards (General Plan page 3 -109). To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or 1/2 acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. LU 6.15.14 Location (General Plan page 3 -110). Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. LU 6.15.16 Standards (General Plan page 3 -110). Require developers of multi - family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be Page 5.13 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis RECREATION credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements. Existing Conditions Recreation is a major feature of Newport Beach, whose parks and beaches serve residents and visitors year - round. In addition to providing recreation resources, parks and other recreational facilities provide a multitude of benefits to the community, including open space, conservation of natural and significant resources, buffers between land uses, and preservation of scenic views. The City of Newport Beach has an adopted standard of 5 acres per 1,000 persons for provision of parkland. The 2010 US Census estimates the population of Newport Beach to be 85,186 residents. Using the City's parkland standard, this population requires 425.9 acres of parkland. Presently, there are approximately 286 acres of park and recreation space in the City, which includes traditional park facilities as well as active beach recreation (Newport Beach 2006). Therefore, the City is experiencing a deficit of 139.9 acres of parkland. The parkland deficit in Newport Beach is not distributed equally throughout all areas of the City; some areas remain park rich, while others are in need of additional facilities. In order to facilitate the distribution of new parklands, the City has been divided into 12 service areas. The needs of each service area and its potential to accommodate new parks are discussed in the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. Particular issues and needs identified in this element include a general shortage of sportfields in the City as well as the community's desire for a gymnasium and pool facilities. Parks The proposed Uptown Newport project is in Service Area 4 (Santa Ana Heights), which is bounded by Campus Drive on the north and west, the Upper Newport Ecological Reserve on the south, and Jamboree Road and the City of Irvine on the east (see Figure 5.13 -1, Service Area 4 Recreation and Open Space Plan). Recreation amenities within and adjacent to Service Area 4 are shown in Figure 5.13 -1 and described in Table 5.13 -1. Uptown Newport EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.13 -3 S. Environmental Analysis RECREATION Table 5.13 -1 Service Area 4 Recreational Amenities Within Service Area 4 Mesa Birch Park Mini Park' 2081 Mesa Drive are Benches, picnic table, fountains Bayview Park Community Parl<2 Mesa Drive and Bay View Avenue 2 acres Barbecues, basketball court, playground Adjacent to Service Area 4, outside City of Newport Beach Upper Newport Bay Open Space,' North side of Upper 1,000 Regional Park (Orange View Park' Newport Bay, south of Walking /running /biking trails, views of bay, County Park Mesa Drive acres UCI Arboretum Open Space Campus Drive and 12.5 The UCI Arboretum is a botanic garden and research Jamboree Road, Irvine acres facility, which is open to the public. San Joaquin Freshwater Greenbelts Campus Drive Between 220 Access to the public is limited to guided tours. Marsh (Managed by Open Space Jamboree and acres Functions primarily as a wildlife preserve and to UCI University, Irvine su ort bi Ju " research. Sources: Newport Beach 2006a; Newport Beach 2006b; OC Parks 2008. ' Typically less than one acre in size and within a neighborhood, separate from major or collector roads. However, some mini -parks are urban trailheads along major trails or streets. ' Community parks serve the entire City and include improvements such as community buildings, parking, facilities for picnicking, active sports, and other facilities that serve a larger population. Community parks may have a particular theme or orientation such as active sports or aquatic facilities. ' Open space includes passive and active open space areas. These spaces may or may not be accessible to the general public, but do provide open space relief. 4 Smaller parks used for passive recreation and designed to take advantage of a significant view. Typically located an coastal bluffs that offer ocean or bay vistas. Generally improved with landscaping, walkways, and benches. ' The primary function of a greenbelt is passive open space. However, some areas with recreational facilities are included in this category. Greenbelts include land under both public and private ownership. In addition to the recreation areas outlined in Table 5.13 -1, there are two existing regional bike trails near Service Area 4: one running north -south along the San Diego Creek and another east -west along Campus Drive. According to the City's General Plan, Service Area 4 has considerable recreation opportunities due to the presence of multiple parks, including Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. With the exception of a shortfall in active playfields, Service Area 4 is considered to have a surplus of parkland. 5.13.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project: R -1 Would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. R -2 Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with thefollowing thresholds would be less than significant: R -2. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. Page 5.13 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis Service Area 4 Recreation and Open Space Plan r. 1�1 Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Al Upper Newport Bay John Wayne Airport i 6 4 Santa Ana Heights 1 Legend r 1 Service Area Upper Newport Ecological Reserve City Boundary County Site Boundary San Diego Creek Channel O Scale (Miles) , V� Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 5.13 -1 Existing Recreation Facility O Bayvlea Park ® Upper Newport Bay Regional Park Proposed Pork ASanta Ana Heights Community Park \ .6 Santa, Ana HHeights Pocket Park' r. 1�1 Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Al Upper Newport Bay John Wayne Airport i 6 4 Santa Ana Heights 1 Legend r 1 Service Area Upper Newport Ecological Reserve City Boundary County Site Boundary San Diego Creek Channel O Scale (Miles) , V� Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 5.13 -1 S. Environmental Analysis RECREATION This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.13 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis RECREATION 5.13.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.13 -1: AT PROJECT BUILDOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INTRODUCE AN ESTIMATED 2,724 RESIDENTS TO SERVICE AREA 4 (SANTA ANA HEIGHTS /AIRPORT COMMERCIAL). BASED ON THE CITY'S PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, THE PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE 13.62ACRES OF PARK SPACE. ]THRESHOLD R -1] Impact Analysis: Phase 1 The proposed Uptown Newport project would develop up to 1,244 residential units on an existing industrial site in two phases. Phase 1 consists of 8.65 acres and 680 units, and Phase 2 consists of 10.02 acres and 564 units. The City of Newport Beach has an average of 2.19 persons per household (US Census Bureau 2012). Based on this household size, the proposed project is estimated to house 2,724 residents at buildout: 1,489 in Phase 1 and 1,235 in Phase 2 .This population increase would result in an increase in use of existing City parks and recreational facilities. In accordance with the City's parkland dedication requirements of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, the proposed project would require 13.63 acres of park space, as shown in Table 5.13 -2 -7.45 acres would be required to accommodate Phase 1 and 6.18 acres would be required to accommodate Phase 2. Table 5.13 -2 Required Parkland Compared to Parkland Provided Phase Housing Units Residents Parkland Required Parkland Provided Deficit One 680 1,489 7.45 1.03 6.42 Two 564 1,235 6.18 1.02 5.16 Total 1,244 2,724 1 13.52 2.05 1 11.58 As shown in the table, the proposed project would provide 2.05 acres of parkland within two neighborhood parks-1 .03 acres to be developed under Phase 1 and 1.02 acres under Phase 2. These parks would be principal focal points for the proposed residential community and provide connectivity between neighborhoods. As shown in Figure 3 -6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, each phase of the proposed would be served by a neighborhood park, which could include amenities such as activity lawns, fire place and barbecue courtyards, and sport courts, including but not limited to sand volleyball, bocce ball, crotchet, or horse shoes. Neighborhood parks within Uptown Newport would be publicly accessible but privately owned and maintained. As shown in Table 5.13 -2, the remaining parkland requirements for the project after development of the two onsite parks would be 11.58 acres. As permitted by Section 19.52.050 (Determination of Land or Fee) of the City's Municipal Code, the remaining parkland requirement could be met through the dedication of parkland, payment of in lieu fees, or a combination of both. Based on the estimated value of $2.5 million per acre (City Uptown Newport EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.13 -7 S. Environmental Analysis RECREATION of Newport Beach, February 2012), the in -lieu fees to meet the remaining park obligation would be $28,950,000 or an equivalent of $23,271 per unit (for 1,244 units). Pursuant to General Plan Policy 6.15.13, at least 8 percent of the gross area of the first phase of residential development shall be provided as dedicated park space. As shown in Table 5.13 -3, Dedicated Park Minimum Acreage, the project complies with this requirement. Table 5.13 -3 Dedicated Park Minimum Acreage Phase Acres Parkland Provided Percent of Gross Acres One 12.29 1.03 8.4 Two 12.76 1.02 8.0 Total 25.05 2.05 8.2 In addition to the neighborhood parks, Uptown Newport would incorporate common open space areas, private open space areas, and ancillary amenities within the project to serve residents and visitors in accordance with the provisions outlined in the project's PC Development Plan. Per General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.16, the project applicant shall provide 44 square feet (sf) of onsite recreation amenities per each dwelling units (in addition to the park dedication requirement). These amenities may include public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity, and may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Phase 1 of the project (680 units) would require a minimum of 29,920 sf of onsite amenities, and Phase 2 (564 units) would require 24,816 sf of onsite amenities for a total of 54,736 sf of recreational amenities. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the right -of -way for a future Class 1 bike trail' would be provided along the Jamboree Road project frontage. The project applicant would be required to design and construct a 12 -foot wide sidewalk along this trail easement to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. The project's residents would also have access to existing bicycle trails along Campus Drive and the San Diego creek, as well as to recreation opportunities at nearby regional open space and recreation areas, including Upper Newport Bay, the UCI Arboretum, and the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh. Recreation Service Area 4 is considered to have a surplus of parkland relative to demands of its existing population, except for a shortfall of active playfields. While development of the proposed project would increase the population of Newport Beach and consequently increase the demand for park and recreation amenities, the particular service area where the proposed project is located currently has a surplus of parkland. Therefore, in consideration of the proposed project's location near existing recreation amenities, the surplus of parkland in Service Area 4, the provision of onsite park space and recreational amenities, and the payment of in -lieu fees, impacts to recreation are not anticipated. Phase 2 The analysis of Phase 2 is integrated in the discussion of Phase 1, above. ' A Class I bicycle trail is off -road; its surface can be paved or earthen. Page 5.13 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis RECREATION 5.13.4 Cumulative Impacts Future construction projects in the City of Newport Beach, as identified in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, could lead to increased demand for parks and recreational space. The only related project within Service Area 4 is the Koll Center project consisting of 260 dwelling units. Based on the parkland dedication requirements detailed in this section, this project would be required to dedicate 2.85 acres of parkland. As currently planned, the project includes a one -acre park, and therefore, would be required to dedicate offsite parkland or in -lieu fees for a remaining 1.85 acre obligation. As with the Uptown Newport project, the Koll Center project obligation would be mandatory per City's Municipal Code. The proposed project, therefore, would not combine with cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively significant impact to parks and recreational spaces. 5.13.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions of Approval Regulations • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Park Dedication and Fees Ordinance, Chapter 19.52 City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to recreation 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.. 5.13.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.13 -1. 5.13.7 Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to recreation would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. 5.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to recreation would occur. Uptown Newport EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.13 -9 S. Environmental Analysis RECREATION This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.13 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 5.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Uptown Newport (proposed project) to result in transportation and traffic impacts in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report: • Uptown Newport Traffic Impact Analysis, Kim ley -Horn and Associates, May, 2012 This Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic impact study requirements, County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements, and in support of the environmental documentation for the project, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis examines weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions at 43 existing intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project in the City of Newport Beach and the adjoining City of Irvine. A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix M of this DEIR. 5.14.1 Environmental Setting Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided by the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73), located less than one mile to the south of the project area, and by the San Diego Freeway (1 -405) located less than 1.5 miles north of the project area. The proposed development would take access to the surrounding street system via connections to Jamboree Road for Phase 1 and connections to Jamboree Road and to Birch Street for Phase 2. The locations of study intersections are shown on Figure 5.14 -1, Study Intersections. The existing roadway network contained in the study area is described in this section and shown in Figure 5 -14 -2, Existing 8B Lane Configuration and Traffic Control. • Birch Street is a four -lane undivided roadway, designated a Secondary Arterial on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. • Bristol Street North is a four -lane one -way arterial that extends from Jamboree Road in a northwest direction north of and parallel to SR -73. Bristol Street is classified a Primary Arterial in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. • Bristol Street South is a four -lane one -way arterial that extends from Santa Ana Avenue /Red Hill Avenue to Jamboree Road in a southeast direction south of and parallel to SR -73. • Campus Drive is a four -lane divided arterial that extends north -south between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard then turns and extends as a four -lane undivided arterial in an east -west orientation between MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive. Campus Drive is designated on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element as a Major Arterial between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard, and as a Secondary Arterial between MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive. • The Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73) is a seven- to eight -lane divided freeway providing regional access to and through the project area. SR -73 has fourtravel lanes in the northbound direction, and transitions from four to three travel lanes in the southbound direction east of Bristol Street. • Dupont Drive is a four -lane divided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14 -1 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • Fairchild Road is a four -lane collector in the City of Irvine that extends from Jamboree Road to McArthur Boulevard. • Jamboree Road is a six -lane to eight -lane divided arterial classified a Major Arterial in the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach Circulation Elements. • Main Street is a six -lane divided east -west arterial designated a Major Arterial on the City of Irvine Circulation Element. • MacArthur Boulevard is a six- to eight -lane divided arterial that extends through the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. MacArthur Boulevard is classified a Major Arterial in both cities' Circulation Elements. • Michelson Drive is a four -lane divided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine • The San Diego Freeway (1 -4051 is a twelve -lane freeway through the study area, providing regional access to the vicinity via interchanges at McArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. • University Drive is afour -lane to six -lane divided arterial classified a Primary on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element and a Major Arterial on the City of Irvine Circulation Element. • Von Karman Avenue is a four -lane Primary on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. On the City of Irvine Circulation Element, Von Karmen Avenue is classified a Secondary Highway. Existing Transit Service Public transit bus service in the study area is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Figure 5.14 -3 illustrates the bus routes currently operated by OCTA through the study area in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The following OCTA routes serve the project site and vicinity: OCTA Route 59: Operates between the City of Anaheim and the City of Irvine via Kraemer Boulevard /Glassell Street /Grand Avenue and Von Karman Avenue. Route 59 starts at Kraemer and La Palma in Anaheim and proceeds through the cities of Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin, then through the City of Irvine to the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The Route 59 stop closest to the project site is at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 59 operates in full route mode on weekdays from 4:30 AM to 11:30 PM with 20- to 35- minute headways. On Saturdays, Route 59 does not offer service to UCI; it only operates to Pullman Street and Dyer Road from 6:50 AM to 11:30 PM, with 65- minute headways. Route 59 does not currently operate on Sundays. Page 5.14 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Study Intersections NOT TO SCALE Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates Inc 2012 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.14 -1 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14 -4 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 1, MacArthur 5101 Main St 2..MacArthur Blvd/ (405 NB NB Ramps 3. MacArthur BNdl 1.405 SB Ramps 4. acArthur Blvdl Michelson Or S. MacArthur Blvd/ Campus Or 6',.MacArthur Blvd/ Birch St 7. MacArthur Blvdl Von Karmen Ave JNN11 �F 1111" flft�r �F = J111111 - ° ° °w °y tftfr �F '111111 - 1fllfr �F J11111 J 1fHfr LF a Ilk f- 111f� L < AK P 111 lfflr __ 11f1ftrr OVL� F OVL El T F� IAnn I<es No Wosse Ao✓,mrm Camr ft. Van K. 8. MacArthur Jamboree Blvdl Rd 9, MacArthur Fairchild Blvd/ Rd 10. MacArthur Blvd NBI University Or 11. MacArthur Blvd SBI University Or 12.. Von Karmen Ave/ Main St 13. Von Harman Ave/ Michelson or 14. Von Kerman AVel Dupont Dr J11111 5 1111 z lft Fir D lr- = 1r J111 J 1lflr F 'Ill � r lilt J111 _ 1ff- 11r VL Tvmm Foucw Umrrviry unr+ermb F .1a,v. tl puemi n ° ^g � a, 15. Von. Karmen Campus Ave/ Dr 16. Von Birch BlrckSt Stn Ave! 17. Campus A r Campus Or iB:.Birch Ave/ Birch St 19. Jamboree Rdl Main St 10. Jamboree p I -0OS NB Ramp 21: Jamboree p I -005'$8 Ramp 111 nn g JN� r 'I� ° �' -� T �T OVL `F 9 JIIII�� ° C F JJ III �F I JJ11I `� lfl� lffr F 11 Jill r -Or -Ramp f1fr Gmp¢ a tl Gmpn B G F IaSNB a' 22. Jamboree Rdl 23.. Jamboree Rd/ 24. Jamboree Rd/ 25. Jamboree Rd/ 26. Jamboree Rd! 27. Jamboree Rd/ 28. Jamboree Rd/ Michelson Or Dupont Dr Campus Dr Birch St Fairchild Rd Bristol St N Bristol StS ySd F �F & D �, F I D $ All�L AK 1111� ilk J1111�� ' All Onitamp+ Ill Dno;WaY± fin pri r .� lfiffr lff}fr Vill- r 11f1 -� av 11fF( � }fftl- . "`�a F F� M10n. a.p GM.. S,M F.1R 8.0 BOrlp 29..Jamboree Rd/ Beyview,WY_ 30. Jamtloree. Rd Unbarsity. DnEastblu0 or 31. Carlson Avel- Michelson Or 32. Carlson A'vel Campus Dr 33. Harvard Ave/ Michelson Or 34. Bristol St NI Campus Or 3S. Bristol SIN/, BlrchSt Jlllll Fri f- ` JIIICI F JILL, �F J1 �o . 2 J111 =L- = JAII =1 MI 1flf� Air 11ftr �' lid 1fl- - ° ° °W °Y 11111 hi - Dne:Way 111} F-\ .HWVv EaaOM dnr-e%vy MwA� Gmglr MI h11 D1.0 OWN 36: Bristol St S1 Irvine Ave /Campus Dr 37. Bristol St SI Birch St 38. Bdslol SCSI Bayview PI 39. Irvine Ave/ Mesa Or 60. University Or/ Campus r 41. University Oft 'Mass Rd 42. University Drl California v0 43. Dri4ewaylBimh St $ t �D 11.11 Ono -Woy+ yll Ono -Way+ m Ono -Woy+ J11I1 JRL 6 lflff -= ffl r 'rr 11ffr 1 01- 1r 11 r �- D= aivFw amry ensw umvamU I Source: Kinley -Horn and Associates Inc 2012: 5. Environmental Analysis Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls LEGEND: Q Newport Beach Intersection Irvine Intersection - - -- City Boundary F Free Right-Turn Lane CIVIL Right -Turn Overlap D Defacto Right -Turn Lane Signal y Stop Sign � I D Upto on Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DCEE • Figure 5.14 -2 �� S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14 -6 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Bus Routes Currently Operated in the Project Study Area Source: 6mley -Horn and Associates Inc 2072 NOT TO SCALE 500 Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.14 -3 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14 -8 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC OCTA Route 76: Operates between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Newport Beach via Talbert Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard. Route 76 starts at Talbert and Beach in Huntington Beach and travels through the cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and Irvine to Newport Beach, where it turns around at the Newport Transportation Center. The Route 76 stop closest to the project site is at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Route 76 operates on weekdays only, from 4:55 AM to 11:10 PM with 45- minute to 1 -hour headways. OCTA Route 178: Operates between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Irvine via Adams Avenue, Birch Street, and Campus Drive. Route 178 starts at Goldenwest Street and Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach and heads east through the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to UCI in the City of Irvine. The Route 178 stop closest the site is located at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 178 operates in full -route mode on weekdays from 5:50 AM to 10:50 PM with 45- minute to 1 -hour headways. On Saturdays, Route 178 does not offer service to UCI; it operates only to the Orange County Fairgrounds from 8:20 AM to 4:20 PM with 45- minute headways. Route 178 does not operate on Sundays. OCTA Route 212: Provides express route service between John Wayne Airport and San Juan Capistrano via the San Diego Freeway (1 -405). Route 212 starts at John Wayne Airport and continues south on 1 -405 to San Juan Capistrano, where it turns around at the Junipero Serra Park- and -Ride. The Route 178 stop closest the site is located at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 212 operates on weekdays only, and in the northbound direction only in the morning from 5:50 to 7:30 AM; and in the southbound direction only in the evening from 4:00 to 6:30 PM. OCTA Route 213: Operates between the Park- and -Ride in Brea and UCI via Brea Boulevard, Chapman Avenue, SR -55, Alton Parkway, Jamboree Road, Main Street, Von Karman Avenue, Michelson Drive, and Harvard Avenue. Major destinations along the route include Brea Mall, Fullerton Transportation Center, the Village at Orange, and UCI. Route 213 operates on weekdays only, and in the southbound direction only in the morning from 5:22 to 7:58 AM; and in the northbound direction only in the evening from 4:03 to 6:58 PM. OCTA Route 472: Provides Metrolink feeder route service for the Tustin Metrolink Station on Jamboree Road. Route 472 starts at the Tustin Metrolink Station and travels through the City of Irvine where it turns around at the Food and Drug Administration building on Fairchild Road, across Jamboree Road from the project site. The Route 472 stop closest to the site is located at the corner of Fairchild Road and Jamboree Road. Route 472 operates on weekdays only, and in the southbound direction only in the morning from 6:10 to 9:00 AM; and in the northbound direction only in the evening from 3:30 to 5:20 PM. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths For its entire length through the City of Newport Beach, Jamboree Road is currently designated on the City of Newport Beach Bike Map as "Okay to Ride on Sidewalk." On the City's Bikeways Master Plan, Jamboree Road is shown as a Class 1 (off -road paved) bikeway. Other bicycle facilities in the project vicinity include Class 2 bicycle lanes (an on -road striped lane) on Campus Drive, and the "Okay to Ride on Sidewalk" designation on Von Karman from MacArthur Boulevard to Campus Drive, and on MacArthur Boulevard from Campus Drive to Jamboree Road. The City's Bikeways Master Plan shows that the Class 2 bike lanes on Campus Drive are to remain, and the bike facilities on MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue are planned to be Class 1 bikeways. A copy of the City of Newport Beach Bike Map and Bikeways Master Plan is provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix M). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14 -9 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Along the project frontage, Jamboree Road provides a meandering sidewalk within a landscaped parkway. The sidewalk connections from the project site to Jamboree Road and through the adjacent Kali property provide convenient access for bicyclists to access the nearest existing bicycle facilities. The nearest signalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site (e.g., Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road, Centerpoint Road, Birch Street, and MacArthur Boulevard) have light- controlled pedestrian crossings. Methodology The analysis examines traffic conditions at 43 existing intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project in the City of Newport Beach and the adjoining City of Irvine. Morning and evening peak hour intersection movement counts in this study were collected at the study intersections between March 2010 and November 2011. Existing AM and PM peak -hour traffic counts for all study intersections are detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (DEIR Appendix M, Figure 7). The analysis also evaluates freeway mainline traffic conditions on segments of 1 -405 and SR -73. Existing freeway mainline volumes were obtained from the Caltrans website; the most recent data available was from 2010 conditions. The efficiency of traffic operations is commonly measured by traffic engineers and planners with a grading system called level of service (LOS). LOS ranges from "A ", representing uncongested, free - flowing conditions, to "F ", representing congested, overcapacity conditions. The following described the methodologies utilized to evaluate LOS at local, state highway system intersections, and freeway mainline segments. Intersection Evaluation Level of Service Methodology The most common methodologies to evaluate LOS are the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The ICU calculation returns avolume- to- capacity (V /C) ratio thattranslates into a corresponding level of service. The HCM methodology returns a delayvalue, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle, which also corresponds to a level of service measure. Each intersection has been analyzed using the methodology and parameters employed by the city in which the intersection is located. Of the 43 study intersections, 26 are controlled by the City of Irvine and 17 are controlled by the City of Newport Beach. For "shared" intersections on the city boundary, the intersection analysis is based on the methodology used by the City that maintains and controls the signal. Four intersections are on state highways, and are therefore controlled by Caltrans. A separate analysis of the state highway intersections using the analysis methodology required by Caltrans for state facilities is provided in a separate portion of this section. Intersection analysis for all local signalized intersections has been conducted using the ICU methodology, which is the methodology utilized by both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, as well as the Orange County CMP. (State highway intersections are also analyzed in accordance with Caltrans requirements, using a separate methodology, as discussed later in this section.) Intersection analysis for local unsignalized intersections has been conducted using the HCM methodology, which returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle. Page 5.14 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Intersection LOS grades corresponds to a range of V/C or delay values, as described in Table 5.14 -1. These descriptions apply for local intersections controlled by the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Table 5.14 -2 describes LOS grades for the state highway intersections. Table 5.14 -1 Local Intersection Evaluation Levels of Service Descriptions Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. V /C= Volume per Capacity Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14- 11 Unsignalized Signalized Level of Intersections Intersection Service Description HCM Delay (Seconds) ICU (VIC Ratio) Unsignalized - Little or no delays. A Signalized - Operations with very law delay occurring <_ 10 0.00-0.60 with favorable progression and /or short cycle length. Unsignalized - Little or no delays. B Signalized - Operations with low delay occurring with > 10 and <- 15 0.61 -0.70 good pro ression and /or short cycle lengths. Unsignalized — Short traffic delays. C Signalized — Operations with average delays resulting > 15 and <_ 25 D.71 — 0.80 from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear Unsignalized — Average traffic delays. Signalized — Operations with longer delays due to a D combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle > 25 and <_ 35 0.81 —0.90 lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Unsignalized — Long traffic delays. Signalized — Operations with high delay values indicating E poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C > 35 and <— 50 0.91 —1.00 ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Unsignalized — Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. E Signalized — Operation with delays unacceptable to most > 50 > 1.00 drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. V /C= Volume per Capacity Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14- 11 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -2 State Highway Intersection Evaluation Levels of Service Descriptions Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. The level of service analysis for intersections is performed using TRAFFIX, a network -based interactive computer program that enables calculation of levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections for multiple locations and scenarios. Page 5.14 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Delay (sec) Description LOS A describes operations with a control delay of 10 seconds per vehicle or less and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically A <10 assigned when the volume -to- capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If it is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. LOS B describes operations with control delay between 10 and 20 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is B > 10 and <_ 20 typically assigned when the volume -to- capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. LOS C describes operations with control delay between 20 and 35 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the progression is favorable and the cycle length is C > 20 and <_ 35 moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with control delay between 35 and 55 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is D > 35 and <_ 55 typically assigned when the volume -to- capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective orthe cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with control delay between 55 and 80 seconds per E > 55 and <_ 80 vehicle and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to- capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. LOS E describes operations with control delay exceeding 80 seconds per F > 80 vehicle or a volume -to- capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to- capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Many vehicles fail to clear the queue. Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. The level of service analysis for intersections is performed using TRAFFIX, a network -based interactive computer program that enables calculation of levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections for multiple locations and scenarios. Page 5.14 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Freeway Mainline Evaluation Level of Service Methodology Analysis of freeway mainline segments in the vicinity of the project was conducted in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which specifies application of the HCM methodology for freeway analysis. Freeway analysis results are expressed in terms of density, which measures the number of passenger cars per lane mile (pc /mi /In) on the freeway mainline. Level of Service Criteria The following discusses the criteria to evaluate the level of service at intersections under local jurisdictions and the state highway system, and criteria to evaluate freeway mainline segments under the state highway system. Local Jurisdictions Intersection Level of Service Criteria The City of Newport Beach target LOS for peak hour operation of signalized intersections is LOS "D" or better, except for designated intersections within the airport area shared with the City of Irvine, where LOS "E" is acceptable. In the City of Irvine, the target is LOS "D ", except where the intersection is located in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) or the Irvine Spectrum area. For these intersections, the target Level of Service is "E ". The following study intersections are located in the Irvine Business Complex: • MacArthur Boulevard at Main Street • MacArthur Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound Ramps • MacArthur Boulevard at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps • MacArthur Boulevard at Michelson Drive • MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive • MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road • MacArthur Boulevard at Fairchild Road • Von Karman Avenue at Main Street • Von Karman Avenue at Michelson Drive • Von Karman Avenue at Dupont Drive • Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive • Teller Avenue at Campus Drive • Jamboree Road at Main Street • Jamboree Road a 1 -405 Northbound Ramps • Jamboree Road at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps • Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive • Jamboree Road at Dupont Drive • Jamboree Road at Campus Drive • Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road • Carlson Avenue at Michelson Drive • Carlson Avenue at Campus Drive CMP Intersection Level of Service Criteria The CMP requires that CMP Highway System (CMPHS) intersections maintain a LOS "E" or better, unless the baseline is lower than "E ", in which case, the ICU rating cannot increase by more than 0.1. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 ¢ -13 "30] S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC State Highway Intersection Level of Service Criteria For state - controlled intersections, level of service standards and impact criteria specified by Caltrans will apply. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that "Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target Level of Service at the transition between LOS'C' and LOS'D' on State highway facilities. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained." Freeway Mainline Level of Service Criteria The target LOS for freeway mainline segments is LOS "D ", which is a density of between 35 and 45 pc /mi /In. If the existing density exceeds the target LOS, the existing level of service is to be maintained. Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Levels of Service Table 5.14 -3 shows existing levels of service for the 43 study intersections for AM and PM peak hours. As shown, all study intersections currently operate at satisfactory levels of service (LOS "D" for all intersections, except LOS "E" for intersections in the IBC area and CMP intersections) in both peak hours. Table 5.14 -3 Summary of Intersection Operations Existing Conditions Intersection U/S AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd /Main Sta S 0.49 A 0.65 B 2 MacArthur Blvd /1 -405 NB Ramps' S 0.81 D 0.72 C 3 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 SB Ramps' S 0.59 A 0.65 B 4 MacArthur Blvd /Michelson Dra' S 0.68 B 0.65 B 5 MacArthur Blvd /Campus Dr S 0.48 A 0.60 A 6 MacArthur Blvd /Birch St S 0.34 A 0.46 A 7 MacArthur Blvd/Von Karman Ave S 0.54 A 0.44 A 8 MacArthur Blvd /Jamboree Rd" S 0.59 A 0.67 B 9 MacArthur Blvd /Fairchild Rd S 0.71 C 0.72 C 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramp /University Dr S 0.44 A 0.54 A 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp /University Dr S 0.38 A 0.32 A 12 Von Karman Ave /Main St' S 0.64 B 0.70 B 13 Von Karman Ave /Michelson Dr' S 0.44 A 0.64 B 14 Von Karman Ave /Dupont Dra S 0.34 A 0.41 A 15 Von Karmen Ave /Campus Dra S 0.47 A 0.59 A 16 Von Karman Ave /Birch St S 0.29 A 0.35 A Page 5.14 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -3 Summary of Intersection Operations Existing Conditions Intersection U/S AM Peak our PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 17 Teller Ave /Campus Dra S 0.27 A 0.41 A 18 Teller Ave/Birch St U 12.10 B 11.50 B 19 Jamboree Rd /Main St' S 0.70 B 0.61 B 20 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 NB Ramps'° S 0.64 B 0.62 B 21 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 SB Ramps" S 0.88 D 0.81 D 22 Jamboree Rd /Michelson Dra S 0.61 B 0.68 B 23 Jamboree Rd /Dupont Dra S 0.61 B 0.63 B 24 Jamboree Rd /Campus Dra S 0.67 B 0.63 B 25 Jamboree Rd /Birch St S 0.46 A 0.48 A 26 Jamboree Rd/Fairchild Rde S 0.65 B 0.63 B 27 Jamboree Rd /Bristol St North S 0.29 A 0.46 A 28 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St South S 0.45 A 0.52 A 29 Jamboree Rd /Bayview Way S 0.35 A 0.39 A 30 Jamboree Rd /University Dr S 0.56 A 0.52 A 31 Carlson Ave /Michelson Dra S 0.48 A 0.60 A 32 Carlson Ave /Campus Dra S 0.39 A 0.72 C 33 Harvard Ave /Michelson Dr S 0.65 B 0.77 C 34 Campus Dr /Bristol St North S 0.48 A 0.71 C 35 Birch St/Bristol St North S 0.54 A 0.56 A 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 0.59 A 0.48 A 37 Birch SUBristol St South S 0.39 A 0.41 A 38 Bayview PI /Bristol St South S 0.40 A 0.49 A 39 Irvine Ave /Mesa Dr S 0.32 A 0.49 A 40 University Dr /Campus Dr S 0.70 B 0.73 C 41 Mesa Rd /University Dr S 0.59 A 0.62 B 42 California Ave /University Dr S 0.58 A 0.61 B 43 Birch St/Driveway U 8.80 A 11.30 B Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. = Intersection is located within the Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Area (LOS E Acceptable) ° = Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection (LOS E Acceptable) S = Signalized, U = Unsignalized Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 ¢ -15 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -4 shows that the four state highway study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5.14 -4 Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations Existing Conditions Intersection U/S AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 2 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 NB Ramps S 21.5 C 21.1 C 3 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 SB Ramps S 19.8 B 19.3 B 20 Jamboree Rd/I-405 NB Ramps S 14.9 B 8.8 A 21 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 SB Ramps S 21.9 C 17.8 B Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. S = Signalized, U = Unsignalized Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology. Existing Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Existing peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the morning and evening peak hours, by segment, and by direction for the 1 -405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Table 5.14 -5. This table indicates that the following freeway segments are currently operating below the target level of service: • 1 -405 Northbound • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E: AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 (LOS E: AM peak hour) • 1 -405 Southbound • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOS E: PM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOS E: PM peak hour) • SR -73 Northbound c Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 (LOS E: PM peak hour) All other study freeway segments are currently operating at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Page 5.14 -16 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -5 of Freewav Mainline Opera AM Peak Hour Density Lanes Volume (nc/mi /In) 1.405 Northbound ng Conditions PM Peak Hour Density LOS Volume I (oc/mi/lnl I LOS Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 12,744 33.1 D 9,356 24.3 C Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 13,475 35.0 E 9,893 25.7 C MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 6 13,749 35.7 E 10,094 26.2 D 1 -405 Southbound Jct. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard 6 10,663 27.7 D 13,041 33.9 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 10,450 32.6 D 12,781 39.9 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 9,884 30.8 D 12,088 37.7 E SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,579 1 14.0 B 3,520 19.1 C Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 4 6,892 27.5 D 9,405 37.5 E SR -73 Southbound Jct. SR -55 to Jamboree Road 4 7,737 30.8 D 7,250 28.9 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 3 2,896 15.8 B 2,714 14.8 B Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Applicable Plans and Regulations City of Newport Beach General Plan - Circulation Element The Circulation Element, which was updated in 2006, governs the long -term mobility system in the City of Newport Beach. The Circulation Element includes goals and policies that are closely correlated with the Land Use Element and are intended to provide the best possible balance between the City's future growth and land use development, roadway size, traffic service levels, and community character. Applicable transportation plans and policies relating to transportation and a documentation of project consistency for each of the policies is included in previous Table 5.9 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.62, Temporary Street Closure, of the Municipal Code outlines the permit requirements and process for the temporary closure of public streets within the City. For example, the provisions outlined in Section 12.62.030, Issuance of Permit, state that the City Manager may issue a permit if he /she determines that the granting of the application for the time and location requested will not unreasonably inconvenience the public, create unusual traffic or policing problems, or interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood. Chapter 13.01, Street Construction Permits, outlines the provisions for street construction permits. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14 -17 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, of the Municipal Code has been established by the City Council to establish a fee —based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways —to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The ordinance sets forth procedures for calculating the fair -share amounts for residential projects, hotel /motels, and office /retail /commercial uses, which are adopted by City Council resolution. Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, of the Municipal Code has been established by the City Council to ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Specifically the ordinance was established to: • Provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and /or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; To identify the specific and near -term impacts of project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; • To ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval pursuant to this chapter, make orfund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and • To provide a mechanism for ensuring that project proponents' cost of complying with traffic - related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. The ordinance also clarifies the standards and required findings for project approvals. In accordance with Section 15.40.030 of the Municipal Code, there are provisions for Comprehensive Phase Land Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plans such as the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) (see DEIR Section 5.8, Land Use). Orange County Congestion Management Plan The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that comprise 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMP highway system includes specific roadways, which include state highways and super streets, which are now known as smart streets, and CMP arterial monitoring locations /intersections. Therefore, the CMP traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirements relate only to the designated CMP highway system. The CMP system in Newport Beach consists of the following roadways: • MacArthur Boulevard (Jamboree Road to Coast Highway) • Jamboree Road (between City limit and MacArthur Boulevard) • Coast Highway (throughout) • Newport Boulevard (from north City limit to Coast Highway) 5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project could: Page 5.14 -18 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC T -1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. T -2 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. T -3 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. T -4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). T -5 Result in inadequate emergency access. T -6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: T -3, T -4, and T -5. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. Significance Criteria 8B The following significance criteria has been established to evaluate environmental impacts in this EIR. Local Jurisdiction Intersections City of Newport Beach To determine whether or not the addition of project - generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the following threshold of significance: • A significant impact would occur when the addition of project - generated trips causes the level of service at a study intersection to deteriorate from acceptable (LOS "D ", except for intersections on a CMP facility, and designated intersections in the Airport Area, where LOS "E" is acceptable) to a deficient level of service. • A significant impact would occur when the addition of project- generated trips increases the ICU at a study intersection by 1 percent or more (V /C increases by 0.010 or more), worsening a projected baseline condition of LOS "E" or "F ". For unsignalized intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service, a signal warrant analysis was conducted to determine if a signal is warranted. The signal warrant analysis was conducted according to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Warrant 3 - Peak Hour warrant parameters, using the peak hour intersection volumes. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14- 19 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC City of Irvine To determine whether or not the addition of project - generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Irvine has adopted the following threshold of significance: • A significant impact would occur when the intersection exceeds the acceptable level of service (LOS "D" except if located in the IBC, where LOS "E" is acceptable) in the baseline condition and the impact of the development is greater than or equal to 2 percent (V /C increase by 0.02 or more), or; • The project increases the ICU by 1 percent or more (V /C increases by 0.01 or more) at a study intersection, causing it to become deficient. Should a significant impact occur, project mitigation would be required to bring the intersection back to baseline conditions, at a minimum. There are no unsignalized intersections in the study area in the City of Irvine. CMP Intersections A project impact would occur if the project would cause a CMP intersection to fall below LOS E and cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.10 in V/C ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E. State Highway Intersections For state - controlled intersections, level of service standards and impact criteria specified by Caltrans will apply. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that " Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target Level of Service atthe transition between LOS'C' and LOS'D' on State highway facilities. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained." Freeway Mainline Segments The target level of service for freeway mainline segments is LOS "D ", which is a density of between 35 and 45 pc /mi /In. If the existing density exceeds the target LOS, the existing level of service is to be maintained. 5.14.3 Environmental Impacts Future traffic forecasts have been developed for existing, near term, and long -range scenarios. Traffic for near -term scenarios was evaluated fortwo analysis conditions — Opening Yearwith Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects traffic, representing analysis of the conditions required by the City of Newport Beach TPO, and Opening Year with Committed plus Cumulative Projects, as required by CEQA. The TIA prepared for the proposed project provides a detailed analysis of potential traffic and circulation impacts for each project phase. Each study intersection and roadway segment was analyzed for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions • Existing plus Project Conditions • TPO Analysis: Year 2018 with Committed Projects without Project • TPO Analysis: Year 2018 with Committed Projects with Phase 1 • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects with Phase 1 • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects without Project Page 5.14 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects with Full Project (Phase 1 and Phase 2) TPO requirements differfrom CEQA requirements in that, typically, the TPO's focus is on conditions one year after project occupancy, or five years after project approval for larger projects that are not expected to be completed within five years, which would be Year 2018. In addition, the TPO analysis includes only "committed projects." Committed projects are projects in the City of Newport Beach that have been approved, as opposed to "cumulative projects," which are reasonable and foreseeable projects in Irvine and Newport Beach. A detailed discussion of the provisions of the TPO analysis is included in Impact Statement 5.14 -2 below and in pages 34 to 41 of the TIA (see Appendix M). A detailed discussion of the assumptions utilized in the Cumulative Analysis is included in Impact Statement 5.14 -1 below, and in pages 44 to 55 of the TIA. The impact analysis that follows includes: • Project trip generation for Phases 1 and 2 Project trip distribution • Intersection level of service impacts according to local jurisdictions, CMP, and state highway requirements. • Freeway segment impacts • Circulation and access considerations The following analysis summarizes project impacts associated with Phase 1, and conditions with buildout of the project (Phase 2). For additional detail on conditions during the interim phases, please referto the TIA in Appendix M. Project Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were developed using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (8`" ed.). The proposed project components and trip generation estimates for the Uptown Newport Project are as follows: Phase 1: • Multifamily Residential: 680 dwelling units. The project may include a variety of multifamily residential product types, e.g., condominium, apartment, townhomes, etc. • Commercial (Retail & Restaurant): 11,500 square feet, consisting of 5,500 square feet of specialty retail use and 6,000 square feet of quality restaurant. • A 10 percent reduction in the trips for the commercial development was applied to accountfor pass - by trips, as directed by City of Newport Beach staff. Trip generation estimates for Phase 1, including trip credits forthe existing development to be removed and the new trips for Phase 1 project development, are shown on Table 5.14 -6. As shown, 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. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 ¢ -21 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -6 Summary of Phase 1 Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Unit Trip Generation Rates' 69 eak Hour PM Peak Hour Dail 148 Out Total In Out Total Apartment z 220 DU 6.65 JAM .408 0.510 0.403 0.217 0.620 Specialty Retail Center a 814 KSF 44.32 15 .390 1.000 1.192 1518 2710 Quality Restaurant° 931 KSF 89.95 Retail Adjustment Factor' 10% 1 .146 0.810 5.018 2.472 7.490 Land Use I Quantity I Unit Trip Generation Estimates 76 AMP ak Hour PM Peak Hour I Daily In I Out I Total In I Out I Total Trips for Existing Towedazz Facility to Be Demolished for Phase 1 4311 Jamboree Buildings I 1 1 270 1 33 1 4 1 36 1 6 1 31 1 37 Proposed Uptown Newport Phase 1 Development Apartment 2 680 DU 4,522 69 277 346 274 148 422 Specialty Retail Centers 5.50 KSF 244 3 2 5 7 8 15 Quality Restaurant ° 6.00 KSF 540 4 1 5 30 15 45 Subtotal - Phase 1 5,306 76 280 356 311 171 482 Retail Adjustment Factor' 10% 1 -24 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 Total Phase 1 Trips 5,282 76 280 355 310 170 480 Net New Phase 1 Trips 5,012 43 276 317 304 139 443 Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. KSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Unit ' Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th ed. P The project may consist of a combination of multifamily residential product types, including condominium, apartment, townhome, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment" are used here. a ITE Trip Generation does not provide AM peak hour rates for a Specialty Retail Center. Therefore, the AM peak hour rates for Land Use Category 820 - Shopping Center were used to estimate AM peak hour trips. ' Directional distribution for the AM peak hour is based on the AM peak hour of generator. s Source: Project site driveway counts. c ITE Trip Generation indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 34% in the PM peak hour. A 10% reduction is assumed for each peak hour, as directed by the City of Newport Beach staff. Phase 2: Phase 2 represents buildout of the proposed project (Phase 1 plus Phase 2). • Multi - Family Residential Units: 1,244 units. The project may include a variety of multifamily residential product types, e.g., condominium, apartment, townhomes, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment' are applied to all 1,244 residential units. • Commercial (Retail & Restaurant): 11,500 square feet, consisting of 5,500 square feet of specialty retail use and 6,000 square feet of quality restaurant. • A 10 percent reduction in the trips for the commercial development was applied to account for pass - by trips, as directed by City of Newport Beach staff. Page 5.14 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Trip generation estimates for the entire Uptown Newport project, including trip credits for removing the entire existing development on the site and adding the new trips for the entire Uptown Newport project, are shown on Table 5.14 -7. Table 5.14 -7 Summary of Full Project Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Trips per Trip Generation Rates' 127 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In out Total In out Total Apartment 2 220 DU 6.65 0.102 0.408 0.510 0.403 0.217 0.62 Specialty Retail Center 814 KSF 44.32 0.610 0.390 1.000 1.192 1.518 2.71 Quality Restaurant 4 931 KSF 89.95 0.664 0.146 0.810 5.018 2.472 7.49 Land Use Quantity I Unit Trip Generation Estimates Total Project Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I Daily In I out I tal In I out I Total Trips for Total TowerJazz Facility to Be Demolished for Entire Uptown Newport 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Buildings a 1 747 90 12 102 15 88 102 Proposed Uptown Newport Total Development Apartment 1 1,244 DU 8,273 127 508 635 501 270 771 Specialty Retail Center a 5.50 KSF 244 3 2 5 7 8 15 Quality Restaurant ^ 6.00 KSF 540 4 1 5 30 15 45 Subtotal 9,057 134 511 645 538 293 831 Retail Adjustment Factor fi 10% -24 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 Total Project Trips 9,033 134 511 644 537 292 829 Net New Total Project Trips 1 8,286 1 44 1 499 1 542 1 522 1 204 1 727 KSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Unit 1 Source: Kimley Horn and Associates, 2012. 3 The project may consist of a combination of multifamily residential product types, including condominium, apartment, townhome, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE tip generation rates for "Apartment" are used here. ' ITE Trip Generation does not provide AM peak hour rates for a Specialty Retail Center. Therefore, the AM peak hour rates for Land Use Category 820 - Shopping Center were used to estimate AM peak hour trips. 4 Directional distribution for the AM Peak Hour is based on the AM Peak Hour of Generator. s Source: Project site driveway counts e ITE Trip Generation indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 34% in the PM peak hour. A 10% reduction is assumed for each peak hour, as directed by the City of Newport Beach staff. As shown on Table 5.14 -7, buildout of the proposed project (Phase 2) would generate an additional 8,286 daily trips, 542 during the AM peak hour, and 727 during the PM peak hour. Review of the trip generation estimates forthe existing office and industrial development on the site, compared to the proposed project's, reveals that the proposed development would result in a shift of traffic patterns to and from the site. The traffic patterns for the existing office and industrial development are typical of employment uses, with a heavier traffic flowtoward the employment uses (inbound) in the morning peak hour, and heavier traffic flow away from the site (outbound) in the evening peak hour. The proposed Uptown Newport project would consist of primarily residential uses, which would have the reverse traffic patterns— heavier traffic flow outbound from the residential uses in the morning peak hour, and heaviertraffic flow inbound toward the site in the evening peak hour. As a result, while the proposed project would result in an overall increase in daily Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14 -23 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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. Project Trip Distribution and Assignments Project trip distribution assumptions for the project site were developed individually for the existing industrial and office uses on the site, and for the proposed Uptown Newport project. Trip distribution assumptions for the existing employment uses were based on observed traffic patterns to and from the project site, and on likely origins and destinations of project patrons and employees. Since the existing industrial uses on the site would be removed, trips related to the existing industrial uses were distributed as negative trips. Trip distribution assumptions for the existing industrial uses are shown on Figure 5.14 -4. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed residential development were based on likely local and regional destinations in the project area and the transportation network available for those trips. Distribution assumptions were submitted to City staff for review and concurrence. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed Uptown Newport project are shown on Figure 5.14 -5. Based on these two trip distribution patterns, the net newtrips to be added (or subtracted, if appropriate, due to the shift in traffic patterns from employment to residential) to the street system by the proposed project were combined and calculated. The resulting projecttrips are provided in Figure 10 and Figure 11 in the TIA, included in Appendix M. Existing plus Project Condition This section presents results of the analysis of the impacts associated with adding project- related trips to existing traffic volumes. The Existing Plus Project scenario is a hypothetical scenario which assumes thatthe project would be fully implemented at the present time, assuming full development of the project (Phase 1 and Phase 2) and full absorption of project traffic on the existing circulation system. Intersection Operations The intersection analysis was conducted, and the results are summarized in Table 5.14 -8. With the addition of project traffic to existing conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. The addition of project traffic would not cause a significant impact at any study intersection. Page 5.14 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Trip Distribution (Existing) Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates Inc 2012 NOT TO SCALE CID Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.14 -4 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Trip Distribution (Proposed) NOT TO SCALE Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates Inc 2012 Uptown Neauport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 5.14 -5 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14 -28 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -8 Summary of Intersection Operations Existing plus Project Conditions Intersection U/S Without Project With Project' Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 1 MacArthur Blvd /Main Sf S 0.49 A 0.65 B 0.49 A 0.66 B 0.000 0.004 No No 2 MacArthur BlvdA -405 NB Ramps' S 0.81 D 0.72 C 0.81 D 0.73 C 0.004 0.007 No No 3 MacArthur Blvd /1 -405 SB Ramps' S 0.59 A 0.65 B 0.59 A 0.66 B 0.003 0.019 No No 4 MacArthur Blvd /Michelson Dr' S 0.68 B 0.65 B 0.69 B 0.66 B 0.011 0.005 No No 5 MacArthur Blvd /Campus Dr' S 0.48 A 0.60 A 0.49 A 0.60 A 0.010 0.000 No No 6 MacArthur Blvd /Birch St S 0.34 A 0.46 A 0.35 A 0.46 A 0.005 0.001 No No 7 MacArthur BlvdNon Karman Ave S 0.54 A 0.44 A 0.54 A 0.44 A 0.000 0.004 No No 8 MacArthur Blvd /Jamboree Rd a S 0.59 A 0.67 B 0.62 B 0.72 C 0.026 0.046 No No 9 MacArthur Blvd/Fairchild Rd' S 0.71 C 0.72 C 0.72 C 0.73 C 0.010 0.008 No No 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramp/University ramp/University Dr S 0.44 A 0.54 A 0.44 A 0.54 A 0.000 0.000 No No 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp/University ramp/University Dr S 0.38 A 0.32 A 0.38 A 0.32 A 0.000 0.000 No No 12 Von Karmen Ave /Main St' S 0.64 B 0.70 B 0.64 B 0.71 C 0.001 0.003 No No 13 Von Kerman Ave /Michelson Dr' S 0.44 A 0.64 B 0.45 A 0.64 B 0.008 0.003 No No 14 Van Kerman Ave /Dupont Dr' S 0.34 A 0.41 A 0.34 A 0.41 A 0.008 0.003 No No 15 Van Karman Ave /Campus Dra' S 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.48 A 0.60 A 0.013 0.007 No No 16 Van Karman Ave /Birch St S 0.29 A 0.35 A 0.30 A 0.35 A 0.014 0.004 No No 17 Teller Ave /Campus Dr' S 0.27 A 0.41 A 0.27 A 0.41 A 0.007 0.008 No No 18 Teller Ave/Birch St U 12.10 B 11.50 B 12.70 B 12.10 B 0.600 0.600 No No 19 Jamboree Rd /Main St' S 0.70 B 0.61 B 0.70 B 0.61 B -0.001 0.001 No No 20 Jamboree Rd /1.405 NB Ramps' -' S 0.64 B 0.62 B 0.65 B 0.64 B 0.007 0.016 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -29 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -8 Summary of Intersection Operations Existing plus Project Conditions Intersection U/S Without Project With Project' Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 21 Jamboree Rd/1 -405 SB Rampsa° S 0.88 D 0.81 D 0.88 D 0.81 D 0.002 0.002 No No 22 Jamboree Rd/Michelson Dra S 0.61 B 0.68 B 0.61 B 0.69 B 0.001 0.007 No No 23 Jamboree Rd /Dupont Dr' S 0.61 B 0.63 B 0.61 B 0.64 B 0.000 0.006 No No 24 Jamboree Rd /Campus Dr S 0.67 B 0.63 B 0.68 B 0.66 B 0.008 0.030 No No 25 Jamboree Rd /Birch St S 0.46 A 0.48 A 0.47 A 0.50 A 0.014 0.018 No No 26 Jamboree Rd /Fairchild Rd S 0.65 B 0.63 B 0.70 B 0.69 B 0.046 0.066 No No 27 Jamboree Rd /Bristol St North S 0.29 A 0.46 A 0.32 A 0.48 A 0.028 0.013 No No 28 Jamboree Rd /Bristol St South S 0.45 A 0.52 A 0.46 A 0.54 A 0.010 0.019 No No 29 Jamboree Rd /Bayview Way S 0.35 A 0.39 A 0.35 A 0.39 A 0.001 0.008 No No 30 Jamboree Rd /University Dr S 0.56 A 0.52 A 0.57 A 0.53 A 0.011 0.011 No No 31 Carlson Ave /Michelson Dra S 0.48 A 0.60 A 0.48 A 0.60 A -0.001 -0.001 No No 32 Carlson Ave /Campus Dr, S 0.39 A 0.72 C 0.39 A 0.72 C 0.000 -0.003 No No 33 Harvard Ave /Michelson Dr S 0.65 B 0.77 C 0.64 B 0.77 C -0.002 -0.001 No No 34 Campus Dr /Bristol St North S 0.48 A 0.71 C 0.50 A 0.72 C 0.016 0.007 No No 35 Birch St/Bristol St North S 0.54 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.57 A 0.024 0.012 No No 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 0.59 A 0.48 A 0.58 A 0.49 A -0.002 0.016 No No 37 Birch SUBristol St South S 0.39 A 0.41 A 0.39 A 0.42 A -0.001 0.005 No No 38 Bayview PI /Bristol St South S 0.40 A 0.49 A 0.41 A 0.51 A 0.004 0.020 No No 39 Irvine Ave /Mesa Dr S 0.32 A 0.49 A 0.32 A 0.49 A 0.000 0.002 No No 40 University Dr /Campus Dr S 0.70 B 0.73 C 0.70 B 0.73 C 0.000 0.000 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -30 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -8 Summary of Intersection Operations Existing plus Project Conditions Intersection U/S Without Project With Project' Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM PM 41 Mesa Rd /University Or S 0.59 A 0.62 B 0.59 A 0.62 B 0.000 O.ODO No 42 California Ave /University Or 5 0.58 A 0.61 B 0.58 A 0.61 B 0.000 0.000 !No No 43 Birch SUDriveway U 8.80 A 11.30 B 10.50 B 13.20 B 1.700 1.900 No Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. a = Intersection is located within the Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Area (LOS E Acceptable) b = Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection (LOS E Acceptable) S = Signalized, U= Unsignalized Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume -to- capacity (V /C) for signalized intersections using ICU Methodology. ' Project Buildout at completion of Phase 2. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -31 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -32 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Project Site Access and Circulation Currently, access to the project site is provided at two locations along Jamboree Road and one location along Birch Street. On Jamboree Road, access to the site is via a four -way signalized intersection at Jamboree Road and Fairchild Drive, with the project site entrance forming the fourth leg of the intersection, and a stop - controlled intersection approximately 800 feet north of this signalized intersection. The unsignalized intersection currently allows all turning movements to and from Jamboree Road. On Birch Street, access to the site is provided at a stop - controlled intersection approximately 560 feet west of the signalized intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street. All turning movements are allowed at this driveway. Access to this driveway to and from the property is via an access easement across the adjacent property immediately to the north (between the property and Birch Street.) Phase 1 The proposed vehicular circulation for Phase 1 is shown on Figure 3 -8, Phase 1 Circulation Plan (Chapter 3, Project Description). Vehicular access for the Phase 1 development would only be available on Jamboree Road. The existing signalized intersection at Fairchild Road would remain, and the unsignalized intersection to the north would be relocated approximately 175 feet to the north. The northern intersection would allow right- turn -in- and -out and left- turn -in movements. Left turns out would be prohibited by signage as well as a raised median on Jamboree Road. The main entry would be 46 feet wide with one inbound lane, and two outbound lanes. The main entry provides for approximately 300 feet of queuing before the 90 degree bend. With two outbound lanes, this would provide sufficient queuing distance to accommodate the project's outbound peak hour traffic for Phase 1. The interior streets would be 36 feet wide with sidewalks on both sides and would provide direct access to the parking areas and garage entries associated with each building. The internal street system, as shown, is in compliance with City standards that require a minimum of 36 feet curb to curb for private streets with parking on both sides of the street, and a minimum of 32 feet for streets with no parking or parking on one side of the street. The project's street system would be privately owned and maintained, but would be open to the public. A gated emergency -only access to the adjacent Koll propertywould be provided atthe southwest corner of the site. Connections to the adjacent TowerJazz building and parking lot would also be restricted. Therefore, there would be no vehicular access from Project Phase 1 to the Birch Street driveway. As with existing conditions, TowerJazz employees would continue to utilize the Birch Street easement. TowerJazz employees also have access to and from the northern Jamboree Road driveway. Phase 2 The proposed vehicular circulation for Phase 2 is shown on Figure 3 -9, Phase 2 Circulation Plan (Chapter 3, Project Description). With development of the entire site, the roadway system would be expanded to include access to the rest of the site and reconnection to Birch Street via the existing access easement. The project access at Birch Street intersection is currently operating at LOS A in the morning peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour. The peak hour turning movement volumes reflect the predominance of employment uses on the site, with very light outbound trafficvolumes and heavier traffic flows inbound in the morning peak hour, with a reverse pattern in the evening peak hour. This traffic condition would be removed with the development of the Uptown Newport project and replaced with residential traffic flows. As discussed Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14-33 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC earlier, residential development would have the reverse traffic patterns— heavier traffic flow outbound from the project site in the morning peak hour, and heavier traffic flow inbound toward the project in the evening peak hour. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS B and C in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The driveway would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service as an unsignalized intersection. The intersection would accommodate the changes in traffic patterns resulting from the proposed project, and would not require signalization or widening. The intersections at Jamboree Road would not be modified from the condition for Phase 1 described above. The main signalized entry on Jamboree Road at Fairchild would still provide sufficient queuing distance before the 90- degree bend to accommodate the project's outbound peak hour traffic for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The site plan shows on- street diagonal parking adjacent to the retail portion of the project is being proposed. The location, operation, and configuration of the parking and drive aisles in this area shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works department during the site development review process. Access Easement to Birch Street The design of the project provides for primary and secondary project ingress and egress from Jamboree Road, but also includes a third access drive to and from Birch Street, utilizing an access easement established by an express grant of easement recorded in 1978 (the "Access Easement "). Plaza is an owners association that manages the existing four - building office condominium project on Birch Street, immediately adjacent to the east of the project site (Plaza property). The access easement traverses the northwesterly 33 feet of the Plaza property. The access easement replaces an earlier 1973 easement agreement between the property owners in which use by Uptown Newport's predecessors -in- interest had primary use and the fee owner's shared use was residual in nature. The access easement area has been historically shared by both the current uses occupying the project site and the Plaza property for vehicular ingress and egress to Birch Street (although the grant of easement includes rights of pedestrian passage as well). Freeway Mainline Operations Analysis of freeway mainline segments in the vicinity of the project was conducted in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which specifies application of the HCM methodology for freeway analysis. Freeway analysis results are expressed in terms of density, which measures the number of passenger cars per lane mile (pc /mi /In) on the freeway mainline. The target level of service for freeway mainline segments is LOS "D ", which is a density of between 35 and 45 pc /mi /In. If the existing density exceeds the target LOS, the existing level of service is to be maintained. Freeway mainline analysis was conducted on 1 -405 between Culver Drive and SR -55 and on SR -73 between Bonita Canyon Drive and SR -55. Peak hour freeway volumes were derived from the Caltrans website. The most recent data available was 2010. A conservative growth factor of 1.0 percent per year was applied to 2010 traffic volumes to derive Existing and Future Year cumulative baseline traffic volumes. The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of vehicular density in each peak hour, in each direction, as shown on Table 5.14 -9 below. Page 5.14 -34 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -9 Summary of Freeway Mainline Operations Existina plus Proiect Conditions (Phases 1 and 2) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density I Density 1.405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 12,755 33.2 D 9,435 24.5 C Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 13,504 35.1 E 9,900 25.7 C MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 6 13,824 35.9 E 10,125 26.3 D 1 -405 Southbound Jct. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard 6 10,672 27.7 D 13,119 34.1 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 10,447 32.6 D 12,811 40.0 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 9,959 31.1 D 12,123 37.8 E SR -73 Northbound ////������. Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,579 14.0 B 3,520 19.1 C Q� Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 1 4 16,992 1 27.9 10 1 9,450 1 37.7 E C SR -73 Southbound Jct. SR -55 to Jamboree Road 1 4 17,737 1 30.8 1 D 1 7,357 29.3 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 3 2,896 15.8 B 2,714 14.8 B Source: Kimley -Hom and Associates, 2012. When compared to existing conditions (shown on Table 5.14 -5), no new freeway segments would become deficient with the project. All segments identified as deficient under existing conditions would continue to be deficient with the project. Impact Threshold Analysis The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14 -35 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT 5.14 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT BUILDOUT WOULD GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL 8,286 DAILY TRIPS, 542 DURING THEAM PEAK HOUR, AND 727 DURING THE PM PEAK HOUR. THESE PROJECT - RELATED TRIPS WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE CITY PLANS GOVERNING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE AREA -WIDE CIRCULATION SYSTEM. [THRESHOLD T -11 ImpactAnalysis: The following analysis is consistent with CEQA requirements to evaluate the impacts with the proposed project and reasonable and foreseeable projects in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The impact analysis per TPO requirements is discussed in Impact 5.14 -2. Future Year Cumulative conditions were analyzed for the following scenarios: • Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects with Phase 1 • Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects with Phase 2 Project (Buildout) Future Year Cumulative Conditions peak hour traffic volumes for the City of Newport Beach intersections were developed by adding an ambient growth rate of 1 percent per year to existing volumes on primary roadways and then adding peak hour traffic volumes from the cumulative projects. For the City of Irvine intersections, City of Irvine transportation planning staff provided peak hour traffic forecasts from the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM) which is maintained and operated by the City. The ITAM forecasts include the effects of ambient traffic growth and traffic from cumulative projects. ITAM forecasts represent year 2015 traffic volumes; therefore, Irvine staff recommended applying a growth factor of 1.5 percent per year to develop year 2018 and 2021 forecasts. Cumulative projects consist of the committed projects (approved projects in the City of Newport Beach) as well as other projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process, but have not yet been approved. These projects are considered to be "reasonably foreseeable" projects and must therefore be analyzed for CEQA purposes. The cumulative projects list includes the committed projects, plus pending projects in the City of Newport Beach, as well approved and pending projects in the City of Irvine. A summary of cumulative projects used in this analysis is provided on Table 4 -2, and they are shown on Figure 4 -4 in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting. Additional details for the trip generation and trip distribution assumptions used for the approved and cumulative projects are provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix M). The following discusses the impacts of Phase 1 and Phase 2 for the 2018 and 2021 scenarios presented above. Phase 1 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without and with Phase 1 peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 5.14 -10. Page 5.14 -36 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -10 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I Intersection U/S Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 101 Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 1 MacArthur Blvd/Main St' S 0.60 A 0.78 C 0.60 A 0.79 C 0.001 0.002 No No 2 MacArthur Blvd /1 -405 NB Rampsa S 0.77 C 0.71 C 0.77 C 0.71 C 0.002 0.001 No No 3 MacArthur Blvd /1 -405 SB Ramps' S 0.67 B 0.80 C 0.67 B 0.81 D 0.001 0.009 No No 4 MacArthur Blvd /Michelson Or' S 0.64 B 0.91 E 0.64 B 0.92 E 0.001 0.003 No No 5 MacArthur Blvd /Campus Dra S 0.64 B 0.89 D 0.65 B 0.89 D 0.004 -0.005 No No 6 MacArthur Blvd/Birch St S 0.40 A 0.52 A 0.40 A 0.52 A 0.003 0.004 No No 7 MacArthur Blvd/Von Karman Ave S 0.65 B 0.52 A 0.65 B 0.53 A 0.000 0.007 No No 8 MacArthur Blvd /Jamboree Rda,n S 0.76 C 0.85 D 0.77 C 0.88 D 0.015 0.027 No No 9 MacArthur Blvd /Fairchild Rd' S 0.88 D 0.69 B 0.89 D 0.70 B 0.007 0.006 No No 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramp /University Or S 0.53 A 0.63 B 0.53 A 0.63 B 0.000 0.000 No No 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp /University Or S 0.39 A 0.33 A 0.39 A 0.33 A 0.000 0.000 No No 12 Von Kerman Ave /Main St' S 0.81 D 0.87 D 0.81 D 0.87 D 0.001 0.002 No No 13 Von Karman Ave /Michelson Dra S 0.70 B 0.91 E 0.70 B 0.91 E 0.004 0.004 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -37 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -10 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I Intersection UIS Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? I01 Delay LOS I01 Delay LOS I01 Delay LOS ICUI Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 14 Von Karmen Ave /Dupont Dra S 0.51 A 0.62 B 0.52 A 0.63 B 0.004 0.004 No No 15 Von Karman Ave /Campus Dra S 0.68 B 0.90 D 0.69 B 0.91 E 0.007 0.003 No No 16 Van Kerman Ave /Birch St S 0.33 A 0.40 A 0.33 A 0.40 A 0.000 -0.001 No No 17 Teller Ave /Campus Dra S 0.49 A 0.54 A 0.50 A 0.55 A 0.006 0.006 No No 18 Teller Ave /Birch St J 12.30 B 11.60 B 12.30 B 11.60 B 0.000 0.000 No No 19 Jamboree Rd /Main Ste S 0.91 E 1.00 E 0.91 E 1.00 E 0.000 0.002 No No 20 Jamboree Rd/1 -405 NB Ramps" S 0.72 C 0.93 E 0.72 C 0.94 E 0.005 0.011 No No 21 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 SB Rampsab S 1.03 F 0.95 E 1.03 F 0.96 E 0.002 0.009 No No 22 Jamboree Rd /Michelson Dra S 0.80 C 1.17 F 0.81 D 1.17 F 0.001 0.005 No No 23 Jamboree Rd/Dupont Dra S 0.75 C 0.76 C 0.75 C 0.78 C 0.002 0.016 No No 24 Jamboree Rd /Campus Dra S 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.78 C 0.83 0 0.008 0.006 No No 25 Jamboree Rd/Birch St S 0.60 A 0.70 B 0.60 A 0.72 C 0.003 0.021 No No 26 Jamboree Rd/Fairchild Rd' S 0.71 C 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.79 C 0.051 0.029 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -38 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -10 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I Intersection UIS Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICUI Delay LOS ICUI Delay LOS ICUI Delay LOS ICUI Delay LOS AM I PM AM PM 27 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St North S 0.37 A 0.56 A 0.38 A 0.57 A 0.007 0.007 No No 28 Jamboree Rd /Bristol St South S 0.54 A 0.62 B 0.55 A 0.63 B 0.006 0.004 No No 29 Jamboree Rd/Bayview Way S 0.41 A 0.45 A 0.42 A 0.46 A 0.001 0.004 No No 30 Jamboree Rd/University Dr S 0.66 B 0.65 B 0.66 B 0.66 B 0.006 0.006 No No 31 Carlson Ave /Michelson Dr' S 0.62 B 0.86 D 0.62 B 0.86 D -0.001 0.000 No No 32 Carlson Ave /Campus Dr S 0.63 B 0.81 D 0.63 B 0.82 D 0.001 0.004 No No 33 Harvard Ave /Michelson Dr S 0.72 C 0.91 E 0.72 C 0.91 E 0.000 -0.001 No No 34 Campus Dr /Bristol St North S 0.52 A 0.73 C 0.53 A 0.73 C 0.007 0.002 No No 35 Birch SUBristol St North S 0.54 A 0.57 A 0.56 A 0.58 A 0.013 0.006 No No 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 0.62 B 0.50 A 0.62 B 0.51 A -0.001 0.008 No No 37 Birch St/Bristol St South S 0.40 A 0.42 A 0.40 A 0.43 A -0.001 0.003 No No 38 Bayview PI /Bristol St South S 0.41 A 0.50 A 0.41 A 0.51 A 0.001 0.012 No No 39 Irvine Ave /Mesa Dr S 0.37 A 0.56 A 0.37 A 0.56 A 0.001 0.001 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -39 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -10 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I Intersection UIS Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? I01 Delay LOS I01 Delay LOS ICUI Delay LOS ICUI Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 40 University Dr /Campus Dr S 0.84 D 0.83 D 0.85 D 0.83 D 0.008 0.004 No No 41 Mesa Rd /University Dr S 0.62 B 0.87 D 0.62 B 0.87 D 0.000 0.000 No No 42 California Ave /Universily Dr S 0.63 B 0.69 B 0.63 B 0.69 B 0.000 0.000 No No 43 Birch SVDriveway S 8.80 A 11.5 B 8.60 A 11.20 B -0.200 0.300 No No Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. S = Signalized, U= Unsignalized Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume -to- capacity (V /C) for signalized intersections using ICU Methodology. Intersection is located within the Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Area (LOS E Acceptable). ° Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection (LOS E Acceptable). Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -40 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without and with Phase 1: 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase 1 trips. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project- related impact of the project at some of the study intersections would be negative, reflecting the reduction in existing office trips, which would more than offset the trips that would be added as a result of the proposed residential development in the evening peak hour at some intersections. As a result, some intersections would improve slightly as a result of the project. Phase 2 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without, and with Phase 2 (project buildout) peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 5.14 -11. The following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without, and with Phase 2: • 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street: (PM: LOS F) 0 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) 88 • 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase 2 trips at project buildout. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project - related impact of the project at some of the study intersections would be negative, once again reflecting the reduction in existing office trips, which would more than offset the trips that would be added as a result of the proposed residential development in the evening peak hour at some intersections. As a result, some intersections would improve slightly as a result of the project. Additional details for peak hour turn movement volumes and assumptions used to calculate intersections levels of service are provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix M). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14-41 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14 -42 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -11 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 2 (Project Buildout) Intersection U/S Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 1 MacArthur Blvd /Main Ste S 0.62 B 0.82 D 0.62 B 0.82 D 0.001 0.003 No No 2 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 NB Ramps a S 0.80 C 0.74 C 0.80 C 0.75 C 0.004 0.002 No No 3 MacArthur Blvd /1 -405 SB Ramps a S 0.70 B 0.83 D 0.69 B 0.85 D -0.009 0.019 No No 4 MacArthur Blvd/Michelson Dra S 0.68 B 0.95 E 0.68 B 0.96 E 0.002 0.005 No No 5 MacArthur Blvd /Campus Dr, S 0.67 B 0.93 E 0.68 B 0.92 E 0.009 -0.005 No No 6 MacArthur Blvd /Birch St S 0.40 A 0.52 A 0.41 A 0.53 A 0.005 0.001 No No 7 MacArthur BlvdNon Kerman Ave S 0.67 B 0.53 A 0.67 B 0.53 A 0.000 0.003 No No 8 MacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Rd a b S 0.78 C 0.87 D 0.80 C 0.92 E 0.024 0.046 No No 9 MacArthur Blvd/Fairchild Rd a S 0.92 E 0.72 C 0.93 E 0.73 C 0.011 0.008 No No 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramp /University Dr S 0.55 A 0.66 B 0.55 A 0.66 B 0.000 0.000 No No 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp /University Dr S 0.39 A 0.33 A 0.39 A 0.33 A 0.000 0.000 No No 12 Von Karman Ave /Main St a S 0.84 D 0.90 D 0.84 D 0.91 E 0.000 0.003 No No 13 Von Karmen Ave /Michelson Dra S 0.73 C 0.95 E 0.74 C 0.95 E 0.007 0.007 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -43 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -11 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 2 (Project Buildout) Intersection U/S Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 14 Von Karman Ave /Dupont Dra S 0.53 A 0.65 B 0.54 A 0.66 B 0.007 0.008 No No 15 Von Karman Ave /Campus Or S 0.71 C 0.94 E 0.72 A 0.95 E 0.012 0.007 No No 16 Von Karman Ave /Birch St S 0.33 A 0.40 A 0.34 A 0.40 A 0.014 0.005 No No 17 Teller Ave /Campus Dr, S 0.51 A 0.56 A 0.52 A 0.57 A 0.007 0.008 No No 18 Teller Ave /Birch St U 12.30 B 11.60 B 12.9 B 12.3 B 0.600 0.700 No No 19 Jamboree Rd /Main St, S 0.95 E 1.04 F 0.95 E 1.05 F -0.002 0.004 No No 20 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 NB Ramps,,' S 0.75 C 0.97 E 0.75 C 0.98 E 0.005 0.009 No No 21 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 SB Ramps,,' S 1.07 F 0.99 E 1.07 F 1.00 E -0.001 0.009 No No 22 Jamboree Rd /Michelson Or' S 0.84 D 1.22 F 0.84 D 1.22 F -0.001 0.003 No No 23 Jamboree Rd/Dupont Or S 0.78 C 0.78 C 0.78 C 0.82 D 0.000 0.035 No No 24 Jamboree Rd /Campus Dra S 0.81 D 0.86 D 0.81 D 0.87 D 0.006 0.005 No No 25 Jamboree Rd /Birch St S 0.62 B 0.72 C 0.63 B 0.75 C 0.014 0.025 No No 26 Jamboree Rd /Fairchild Rd a S 0.74 C 0.79 C 0.78 C 0.80 C 0.043 0.015 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -44 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -11 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 2 (Project Buildout) Intersection U/S Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 27 Jamboree Rd /Bristol St North S 0.38 A 0.58 A 0.40 A 0.59 A 0.019 0.011 No No 28 Jamboree Rd /Bristol St South S 0.55 A 0.63 B 0.56 A 0.64 B 0.006 0.006 No No 29 Jamboree Rd /Bayview Way S 0.42 A 0.46 A 0.42 A 0.47 A 0.000 0.008 No No 30 Jamboree Rd /University Dr S 0.67 B 0.66 B 0.68 B 0.67 B 0.010 0.011 No No 31 Carlson Ave /Michelson Dra S 0.64 B 0.90 D 0.65 B 0.91 E 0.001 0.006 No No 32 Carlson Ave /Campus Dr, S 0.66 B 0.85 D 0.66 B 0.85 D -0.001 -0.003 No No 33 Harvard Ave /Michelson Dr S 0.76 C 0.95 E 0.76 C 0.96 E 0.002 0.006 No No 34 Campus Dr /Bristol St North S 0.52 A 0.73 C 0.54 A 0.73 C 0.014 0.005 No No 35 Birch St/Bristol St North S 0.54 A 0.57 A 0.57 A 0.58 A 0.024 0.010 No No 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 0.63 B 0.50 A 0.62 B 0.52 A -0.003 0.016 No No 37 Birch St/Bristol St South S 0.40 A 0.42 A 0.40 A 0.43 A -0.002 0.005 No No 38 Bayview PVBristol St South S 0.41 A 0.50 A 0.41 A 0.52 A 0.002 0.020 No No 39 Irvine Ave /Mesa Dr S 0.38 A 0.56 A 0.38 A 0.57 A 0.000 0.002 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -45 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -11 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 2 (Project Buildout) Intersection UIS Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 40 University Dr /Campus Dr S 0.88 D 0.87 D 0.88 D 0.86 D -0.001 -0.002 No No 41 Mesa Rd /University Dr S 0.65 B 0.90 D 0.65 B 0.90 D 0.000 0.000 No No 42 California Ave /University Dr S 0.65 B 0.72 C 0.65 B 0.72 C 0.000 0.000 No No 43 Birch St/Driveway S 8.80 A 11.50 B 10.40 B 11.80 B 1.600 0.300 No No Notes: a = Intersection is located within the Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Area (LOS E Acceptable). b = Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection (LOS E Acceptable). S = Signalized, U= Unsignalized Bald values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume -to- capacity (V /C) for signalized intersections using ICU Methodology. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -46 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT 5.14 -2: PROJECT - RELATED TRAFFIC WOULD NOT RESULT IN TRAFFIC IMPACTS PER TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCEANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS. [THRESHOLDS T -1 AND T -2] Near -term future traffic forecasts have been developed for two analysis conditions: • Opening Year with Committed plus Cumulative Projects, as required by CEQA (included in Impact Statement 5.14 -1, above) • Opening Year with Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects traffic, representing analysis of the conditions required by the City of Newport Beach TPO. TPO requirements differ from CEQA requirements in that, typically, the TPO's focus is on the conditions one year after project occupancy, or five years after project approval for larger projects that are not expected to be completed within five years, which in this case would be Year 2018. In addition, the TPO analysis includes only "committed projects." Committed projects have been approved in Newport Beach, as opposed to .,cumulative projects," which are reasonable and foreseeable projects in Irvine and Newport Beach. Phase 1 The entire Uptown Newport project is not anticipated to be completed within five years of approval. Therefore, the TPO analysis will address Phase 1 of the project, which is expected to be completed by 2018. TPO Analysis Methodology 8B The City of Newport Beach TPO first requires determination of whether project trips will increase traffic volumes on any leg of a primary intersection by 1 percent or more during either the morning or evening peak hour one year after project completion, or that portion of the project expected to be constructed within five years of project approval, which would be Year 2018. The TPO then requires a level of service analysis of the project impact at any primary intersection that exceeds the 1 percent threshold. For TPO purposes, traffic forecasts are developed by applying an ambient growth rate of 1 percent per year on primary roadways (Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Irvine Avenue) in the project vicinity, plus traffic from committed projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Committed projects are projects in the City of Newport Beach that have been approved but are not fully constructed and occupied. Committed projects information was provided by the City of Newport Beach staff. A summary of committed projects is provided on Table 4 -1, Approved Projects per Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance; Figure 4.3, Approved Traffic Phasing Ordinance Projects, presents the approved TPO projects. Table 4 -1 and Figure 4.3 are included in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting. For the TPO analysis, the project - related morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the Year 2018 without project peak hour volumes on each leg of each study intersection to determine whether or not the project would result in a 1 percent increase. The project traffic would exceed 1 percent on at least one approach in one or both peak hours at each of the Newport Beach study intersections; therefore, a TPO traffic impact analysis was conducted at all of the study intersections. It should be noted that the 1 percent analysis was not conducted for the study intersections in the City of Irvine, since the TPO requirement only applies to the City of Newport Beach intersections. However, all of the study intersections in the City of Irvine were analyzed for all study scenarios. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14-4 7 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Traffic volumes generated by the committed projects in the study area, and trip generation data to develop Year 2018 TPO forecast traffic volumes, and the 1 percent Analysis Worksheets for the TPO Analysis, and ICU worksheets are provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix M). TPO Impact Analysis Intersection peak hour traffic conditions were evaluated for Year 2018 TPO (Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects) without Project, and with Phase 1 project traffic. The results of the intersection analysis are summarized on Table 5.14 -12. The following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 TPO Analysis without, and with Project Phase 1 Conditions: • 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 S8 Ramps (AM: LOS F) 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project - related impact of Phase 1 at the intersection of Harvard Avenue and Michelson Drive would be slightly negative, meaning that the reduction in existing office trips would more than offset the addition of the proposed residential trips. As a result, the intersection operations would improve slightly as a result of the proposed project, but would continue to operate at LOS E. The project would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase 1 project trips at any of the study intersections. Phase 2 Phase 2 of the project is anticipated to commence in 2017 and be completed in 2021, after the five -year timeframe of Phase 1's TPO, and therefore would be required to prepare a separate TPO analysis at a later date to satisfy the requirements of the TPO ordinance. Page 5.14 -48 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -12 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 TPO Analysis Intersection U/S Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ DeLar LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICUIDeLaL LOS AM PM AM PM 1 MacArthur Blvd/Main St' S 0.60 A 0.78 C 0.60 A 0.78 C 0.000 0.002 No No 2 MacArthur Blvd /1 -405 NB Ramps' S 0.76 C 0.71 C 0.76 C 0.71 C 0.002 0.001 No No 3 MacArthur Blvd /1 -405 SB Ramps' S 0.67 B 0.79 C 0.67 B 0.80 C 0.002 0.009 No No 4 MacArthur Blvd /Michelson Dra S 0.64 B 0.91 E 0.64 B 0.91 E 0.001 0.003 No No 5 MacArthur Blvd /Campus Dr' S 0.62 B 0.89 D 0.63 B 0.89 D 0.005 0.000 No No 6 MacArthur Blvd /Birch St S 0.37 A 0.49 A 0.37 A 0.50 A 0.004 0.005 No No 7 MacArthur Blvd/Von Kerman Ave S 0.58 A 0.46 A 0.58 A 0.46 A 0.000 0.007 No No 8 MacArthur Blvd /Jamboree Rd S 0.65 B 0.74 C 0.66 B 0.77 C 0.017 0.027 No No 9 MacArthur Blvd /Fairchild Rd' S 0.87 D 0.67 B 0.87 D 0.68 B 0.007 0.006 No No 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramp /University Or S 0.52 A 0.62 B 0.52 A 0.62 B 0.000 0.000 No No 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp /University Or S 0.38 A 0.32 A 0.38 A 0.32 A 0.000 0.000 No No 12 Von Kerman Ave /Main St' S 0.81 D 0.87 D 0.81 D 0.87 D 0.000 0.002 No No 13 Von Karmen Ave /Michelson Or S 0.70 B 0.90 D 0.70 B 0.91 E 0.004 0.005 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -49 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -12 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 TPO Analysis Intersection UIS Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ DeLar LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ DeLaL LOS AM PM AM PM 14 Von Karmen Ave /Dupont Dra S 0.51 A 0.62 B 0.52 A 0.63 B 0.004 0.004 No No 15 Von Karmen Ave /Campus Dra S 0.68 B 0.90 D 0.69 B 0.90 D 0.007 0.003 No No 16 Von Kerman Ave /Birch St S 0.29 A 0.35 A 0.29 A 0.35 A -0.001 -0.002 No No 17 Teller Ave /Campus Dra S 0.49 A 0.54 A 0.50 A 0.55 A 0.006 0.006 No No 18 Teller Ave /Birch St J 12.10 B 11.50 B 12.10 B 11.50 B 0.000 0.000 No No 19 Jamboree Rd/Main St' S 0.91 E 1.00 E 0.91 E 1.00 E 0.000 0.002 No No 20 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 NB Ramps a° S 0.71 C 0.92 E 0.72 C 0.93 E 0.005 0.010 No No 21 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 SB Rampsd° S 1.02 F 0.95 E 1.03 F 0.95 E 0.002 0.009 No No 22 Jamboree Rd /Michelson Dra S 0.80 C 1.16 F 0.80 C 1.17 F 0.001 0.005 No No 23 Jamboree Rd /Dupont Dra S 0.74 C 0.75 C 0.75 C 0.77 C 0.002 0.016 No No 24 Jamboree Rd/Campus Dra S 0.77 C 0.82 D 0.78 C 0.82 D 0.008 0.006 No No 25 Jamboree Rd/Birch St S 0.59 A 0.67 B 0.59 A 0.70 B 0.003 0.022 No No 26 Jamboree Rd /Fairchild Rd' S 0.69 B 0.74 C 0.74 C 0.77 C 0.053 0.030 No No 27 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St North S 0.34 A 0.51 A 0.35 A 0.52 A 0.015 0.008 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -50 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -12 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 TPO Analysis Intersection U/S Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU / Dela LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ DeLaL LOS AM PM AM PM 28 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St South S 0.52 A 0.60 A 0.52 A 0.60 A 0.002 0.004 No No 29 Jamboree Rd/Bayview Way S 0.37 A 0.42 A 0.37 A 0.43 A 0.000 0.005 No No 30 Jamboree Rd /University Or S 0.62 B 0.59 A 0.62 B 0.59 A 0.006 0.006 No No 31 Carlson Ave /Michelson Ora S 0.62 B 0.86 D 0.62 B 0.86 D -0.001 0.000 No No 32 Carlson Ave /Campus Dra S 0.63 B 0.81 D 0.63 B 0.82 D 0.001 0.004 No No 33 Harvard Ave /Michelson Or S 0.72 C 0.91 E 0.72 C 0.91 E 0.000 -0.001 No No 34 Campus Dr /Bristol St North S 0.49 A 0.72 C 0.50 A 0.72 C 0.008 0.005 No No 35 Birch St/Bristol St North S 0.54 A 0.57 A 0.55 A 0.58 A 0.014 0.008 No No 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 0.60 A 0.49 A 0.60 A 0.50 A 0.000 0.009 No No 37 Birch St/Bristol St South S 0.40 A 0.42 A 0.40 A 0.43 A 0.000 0.003 No No 38 Bayview PI /Bristol St South S 0.41 A 0.50 A 0.41 A 0.51 A 0.002 0.012 No No 39 Irvine Ave /Mesa Or S 0.36 A 0.52 A 0.36 A 0.52 A 0.000 0.002 No No 40 University Dr /Campus Or S 0.84 D 0.82 D 0.84 D 0.83 D 0.008 0.003 No No Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -51 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -12 Summary of Intersection Operations Year 2018 TPO Analysis Intersection UIS Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 41 Mesa Rd /University Or S 0.62 B 0.85 D 0.62 B 0.85 0 0.000 0.000 No No 42 California Ave /University Or S 0.60 A 0.68 B 0.60 A 0.68 B 0.000 0.000 No No 43 Birch SVDriveway S 8.80 A 11.30 B 8.60 A 11.10 B -0.200 -0.200 No No Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012 Notes: a = Intersection is located within the Irvine Business Complex Vision Plan Area (LOS E Acceptable). b = Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection (LOS E Acceptable). S = Signalized, U= Unsignalized Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour far unsignalized intersections using HCM 2000 Methodology and is expressed in volume- to- capachy (V /C) for signalized intersections using ICU Methodology. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -52 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT 5.14 -3: THE PROJECT - RELATED TRAFFIC WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN FACILITIES IN THE STUDY AREA. THE PROJECT, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT RESULT IN A DESIGNATED ROAD OR INTERSECTION EXCEEDING COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY SERVICE STANDARDS. (THRESHOLD T -21 Impact Analysis: The Orange County CMP was established in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for state gas tax funds for local transportation projects. The Orange County CMP states that "aTIAwill be required for CMP purposes for all proposed developments generating 2,400 or more daily trips," and that "for developments which will directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a TIA should be reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day." As such, the project is required to comply with the CMP Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. Phase 1 Phase 1 of the project is estimated to generate a net 5,012 daily trips, and would take access directly onto Jamboree Road, which is a CMP facility. As such, the project is required to comply with the CMP Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. Within the project study area, the CMP Highway System includes two arterials: Jamboree Road north of MacArthur Boulevard, and MacArthur Boulevard south of Jamboree Road. The study area for a CMP analysis is defined by a measure of the project's significant impact on the roadway links. Significant impact is defined as links impacted by 3 percent or more of their LOS "E" capacity. CMP intersections in the vicinity of the project consist of: 1 -405 Northbound Ramps / Jamboree Road 1 -405 Southbound Ramps / Jamboree Road MacArthur Boulevard / Jamboree Road The project impact at intersections was discussed in Impact 5.14 -1. As shown on Table 5.14 -10, the project would not result in a cause a CMP intersection to fall below LOS E, and would not cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.10 in WC ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E for any scenario. The project's contribution to trips at CMP intersections would be less than significant as it would not exceed this impact threshold at development of Phase 1. Phase 2 Phase 2 of the project is estimated to generate a net 8,286 daily trips, and would take access directly onto a CMP facility. The project daily trips would not exceed 3 percent of the Level of Service E capacity of the CMP facilities, which are Jamboree Road north of MacArthur Boulevard, and MacArthur Boulevard south of Jamboree Road. The project is in compliance with CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements. The project impact at intersections was discussed in Impact 5.14 -1. As shown on Table 5.14 -11, the project would not cause any CMP intersections listed above to fall below LOS E, and would not cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.10 in V/C ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E for any scenario. The project's contribution to trips at CUP intersections would be less than significant as it would not exceed this impact threshold at development of Phase 2. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14-53 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT 5.14 -4 THE PROJECT - RELATED TRAFFIC WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA. [THRESHOLD T -1] Intersections on state highway facilities, which are controlled by Caltrans, were also analyzed using the HCM methodology, as required by the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. In the vicinity of the project, I -405 and SR -73 are Caltrans facilities. Therefore, study intersections on or adjoining these roadways were also analyzed using the HCM intersection analysis methodology. Caltrans advocates HCM methodology to analyze signalized intersections. The HCM methodology measures average seconds of delay per vehicle based on a number of technical parameters, such as peak hourly traffic volumes, number of lanes, type of signal operation, signal timing, and signal phasing in the calculations. A description of each level of service, based on delay parameters is provided in Table 5.14 -2. A significant project impact occurs for state - controlled intersections when the addition of project - generated trips causes the peak hour level of service to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F). The following presents the impact analysis at state - controlled intersections for Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions peak hour operation forthe state highway study intersections without and with Project Phase 1 are summarized on Table 5.14 -13. Each of the state highway study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project using the HCM delay analysis methodology. With the addition of project traffic, the state highway study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. The addition of project - generated trips would not cause the peak hour level of service of any state - controlled study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F). Impacts would be less than significant. Page 5.14 -54 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -13 Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations Year 2018 Cumulative with Phase 1 Intersection U/S Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 2 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 NB Ramps S 21.0 C 19.9 B 21.0 C 19.8 B 0.000 -0.100 No No 3 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 SB Ramps S 20.0 C 20.8 C 20.1 C 21.1 C 0.100 0.300 No No 20 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 NB Ramps S 18.4 B 11.1 B 18.4 B 11.8 B 0.000 0.700 No No 21 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 SB Ramps S 48.4 D 26.2 C 48.9 D 26.4 C 0.500 0.200 No No Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -55 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -56 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Phase 2 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour operation for the state highway study intersections are summarized on Table 5.14 -14. All state highway study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project scenario, except one intersection. The intersection of Jamboree Road at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps is forecast to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. With the addition of project traffic, all state highway study intersections, except one, would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. The intersection of Jamboree Road at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps would continue to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. The addition of project - generated trips would not cause the peak hour level of service of any state - controlled study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, 8, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F). Impacts would be less than significant. In some cases, the project - related impact would be slightly negative (i.e., a slight improvement in average delay). This is because the conversion of land use from office to residential results in a shift in traffic patterns, and in some cases, the reduction in existing office trips on some critical movements would more than offset the addition of the proposed residential trips. As a result, some intersection operations would improve slightly with the implementation of the proposed project. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14-5 7 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14 -58 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -14 Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations Year 2021 Cumulative with Phase 2 Intersection U/S Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 2 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 NB Ramps S 21.6 C 20.4 C 21.5 C 20.3 C -0.100 -0.100 No No 3 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 SB Ramps S 20.4 C 21.5 C 20.6 C 22.1 C 0.200 0.600 No No 20 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 NB Ramps S 18.9 B 12.3 B 18.8 B 13.0 B -0.100 0.700 No No 21 Jamboree Rd /1.405 SB Ramps S 1 60.8 1 E 28.5 C 1 60.3 1 E 28.8 1 C -0.500 0.300 No No Source: Kun ey -Horn and Associates, 2012. Notes: S = Signalized Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -59 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC &E Page 5.14 -60 • City of Newport Beach September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT 5.14 -5 PROJECT - RELATED TRIP GENERATION WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADDITIONAL FREEWAY SEGMENTS FALLING TO UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE. [THRESHOLD T -1] Analysis of freeway mainline segments in the vicinity of the project was conducted in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which specifies application of the HCM methodology for freeway analysis. Freeway analysis results are expressed in terms of density, which measures the number of passenger cars per lane mile (pc /mi /In) on the freeway mainline. The target level of service for freeway mainline segments is LOS "D ", which is a density of between 35 and 45 pc /mi /In. If the existing density exceeds the target LOS, the existing level of service is to be maintained. Freeway mainline analysis was conducted on 1 -405 between Culver Drive and the SR -55 Freeway and on SR- 73 between Bonita Canyon Drive and SR -55. Freeway analyses were conducted using the HCS+ software operational methodology. The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of vehicular density in each peak hour, in each direction, as discussed above. The methodology utilized forthe freeway analysis and the calculation worksheets are provided in the TIA included in Appendix M. A summary of the results of the freeway mainline analysis for each study scenario are presented below. Phase 1 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions consists of Existing plus Growth plus Committed and Cumulative Projects traffic. Year 2018 Cumulative without Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the 1 -405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Table 5.14 -15. These tables indicate that the following freeway segments are forecast to operate at below the target level of service: • 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Northbound • Culver Drive to Jamboree Road (LOSE: AM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E: AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 (LOS E: AM peak hour) • 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Southbound • Jct. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard (LOSE: PM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOS E: AM and PM peak hours) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOS E: PM peak hour) • SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) Northbound o Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 (LOS E: PM peak hour) Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 ¢ -61 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -15 Summary of Freeway Mainline Operation 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Proiect AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density I I Density 1 -405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 13,688 35.6 E 10,049 26.1 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,447 37.6 E 10,607 27.6 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 6 14,752 1 38.3 E 1 10,830 28.1 1 D 1.405 Southbound Jct. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,441 29.7 D 13,992 36.4 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,204 34.9 D 13,703 42.7 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 10,616 33.1 D 12,985 40.5 E SR -73 Northbound Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 1 4 1 7.404 1 29.5 1 D 1 10.207 1 40.7 1 E SR -73 Southbound Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 1 3 1 3,105 1 16.9 1 B 1 2,939 1 16.0 1 B Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Year 2018 Cumulative with Project Phase peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the 1-405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Table 5.14 -16. With Phase 1, all previously deficient segments would continue to be deficient, and the proposed project would have little impact on the analyzed freeway segments. The addition of project - related traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to operate at LOS E or worse, and would not cause the level of service to worsen on any segment already operating at LOS E or worse. Page 5.14 -62 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -16 Peak Hour Freeway Mainline Operation 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density Density Freewav Seoment Lanes Volume Ipc/mi/Inl LOS Volume Inc /mi/Inl LOS Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 13,696 35.6 E 10,095 26.2 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,468 37.6 E 10,616 1 27.6 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 6 14,794 38.4 E 10,851 28.2 1 D 1 -405 Southbound Jct. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,448 29.7 D 14,014 36.4 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,206 1 34.9 D 13,726 42.8 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 10,658 33.2 D 13,031 40.6 1 E SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,765 15.0 B 3,811 20.7 C Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 4 1 7.459 1 29.7 1 D 1 10.236 1 40.8 1 E Jct. SR -55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,327 33.2 D 7,929 31.6 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 3 3,105 16.9 B 2,939 16.0 B Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Phase 2 Year 2021 Cumulative without Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the 1 -405 and SR- 73 freeways are summarized on Table 5.14 -17. These tables indicate that the following freeway segments are forecast to operate at below the target level of service: • 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Northbound • Culver Drive to Jamboree Road (LOS E: AM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E: AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 (LOS E: AM peak hour) • 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Southbound • Jct. SR-55-to MacArthur Boulevard (LOSE: PM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOS E: AM and PM peak hours) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOS E: PM peak hour) • SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) Northbound o Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 (LOS E: PM peak hour) Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14 -63 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -17 Peak Hour Freeway Mainline Operation 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Prct o'e AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density I I Density I I Density Lanes I Volume I W /mi/ln) I Volume I (nc/mi /In) I Volume Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 14,103 36.7 E 10,354 26.9 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,885 38.7 E 10,928 28.4 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 6 15,198 39.5 E 11,158 29.0 D 1 -405 Southbound Jct. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,787 30.6 D 14,416 37.5 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,543 36.0 E 14,118 44.0 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 10,938 34.1 D 13,378 41.7 E SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,849 15.5 B 3,927 21.4 C Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 1 4 1 7.629 1 30.4 1 D 1 10.516 1 41.9 1 E Jct. SR -55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,564 34.2 D 8,106 32.3 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 3 3,199 17.4 B 3,028 16.5 B Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the 1 -405 and SR -73 freeway are summarized on Table 5.14 -18. These tables indicate that all previously deficient segments would continue to be deficient, and that the proposed project would have little impact on the analyzed freeway segments. The addition of project - related traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to operate at LOS E or worse and would not cause the level of service to worsen on any segment already operating at LOS E or worse. Page 5.14 -64 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -18 Peak Hour Freeway Mainline Operation Year 2021 with Pro ect Phase 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density I I Density Lanes I Volume I lac /mi /In) I Volume I toc/mi /In) I Volume Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 14,114 36.7 E 10,433 27.1 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,914 38.8 E 10,935 28.4 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 6 15,273 39.7 E 11,189 29.1 D 1 -405 Southbound Jct. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,796 30.7 D 14,494 37.7 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,540 36.0 E 14,148 44.1 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 11,013 34.4 D 13,413 41.8 E SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,849 15.5 B 3,927 21.4 C Jamboree Road to Jct. SR -55 1 4 1 7.729 1 30.8 1 D 1 10.561 1 42.1 1 E Jct. SR -55 to Jamboree Road 1 4 1 8,564 1 34.2 1 D 1 8,213 1 32.7 1 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 1 3 1 3,199 1 17.4 1 B 1 3,028 1 16.5 1 B Source: Kimley -Hom and Associates, 2012. IMPACT 5.14 -6 THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ADOPTED POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION. [THRESHOLD T -6] Applicable transportation plans and policies relating to alternative transportation and a documentation of project consistency for each of the policies is included in previous Table 5.9 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The following discusses the alternative transportation modes available in the vicinity of the project. Phase 1 In orderto encourage alternative modes of travel and to help people to feel comfortable walking and biking, the project would also include traffic-calming measures. The project Design Guidelines encourage the use of street chokers on internal streets to slow traffic, development of pedestrian -scale streets on the internal street system, and the use of enhanced paving at pedestrian connections to draw attention to the presence of pedestrians. Public Transit Existing transit service in the project vicinity was described in Section 5.14.1, Environmental Setting, and bus routes in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 5.14 -3. The transit routes that serve the project area are already serving a significant employment -based area. As such, the transit schedules and frequencies are geared toward commuter needs and would be convenient for residents of the Uptown Newport project. Bus stops for most of the transit routes are within one - quarter to one -half mile of the main entrance to the project site. OCTA routes serving the site provide frequent connections to UCI, the Irvine Business Complex Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14 -65 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC (IBC), John Wayne Airport, the Newport Transportation Center, and multiple other large and small shopping and employment centers. Pedestrian The Uptown Newport project would provide sidewalks throughout the project site, with multiple connections to the public street system and adjacent properties: • Sidewalks would be provided along both sides of the main entry at Jamboree Road, leading directly to the crosswalks through the signalized intersection, which connect to Fairchild Road; • Sidewalks would be provided along both sides of the secondary, unsignalized entry on Jamboree Road; A third sidewalk connection to Jamboree Road would be provided between the two entry drives; • Sidewalks and pedestrian connections would be provided at several different locations between the project site and the adjacent Koll properties, to the west, giving residents who may work or have business "next door' a convenient path to walk there. Conceptual site plans presented on Figure 3- 6, Site Plan and Phasing Plan, show five sidewalks connecting the project site to the Koll properties to the north. Onsite sidewalks would vary from 5 feet to 8 feet wide, separated from the roadway by a 10- foot -wide landscaped parkway. The project's pedestrian circulation components would be designed and installed with all safety and accessibility requirements in mind, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and in a manner that would avoid conflicts with vehicles. These pedestrian connections to the surrounding area and the public street system shorten the walking distance to nearby destinations, including the nearest bus stop; and enhance the opportunity to walk or take transit, rather than drive. Walkways between buildings (paseos) create a pedestrian- oriented environment by breaking up large blocks and providing more convenient connectivity throughout the project site. Development of the project site would provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial and office areas, and would offer a strong sense of community, connectivity, and livability. Bicycles For its entire length through the City of Newport Beach, Jamboree Road is currently designated on the City of Newport Beach Bike Map as "Okay to Ride on Sidewalk." On the City's Bikeways Master Plan, Jamboree Road is shown as a Class 1 (off -road paved) bikeway. A Class 1 bikeway provides for bicycle travel on a paved right -of -way, separated from the street, such as on a sidewalk. A copy of the City of Newport Beach Bike Map and Bikeways Master Plan are provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis included in Appendix M. Along the project frontage, Jamboree Road currently provides a meandering sidewalk within a landscaped parkway. The Uptown Newport plan provides for implementation of a future Class 1 Bike Trail along the project frontage on Jamboree Road, consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan. Other bicycle facilities in the project vicinity include Class 2 bicycle lanes (an on -road striped lane) on Campus Drive, and the "Okay to Ride on Sidewalk" designation on Von Karman from MacArthur Boulevard to Campus Drive, and on MacArthur Boulevard from Campus Drive to Jamboree Road. The City's Bikeways Master Plan shows that the Class 2 bike lanes on Campus Drive are to remain, and the bike facilities on MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue are planned to be Class 1 bikeways. Page 5.14 -66 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The sidewalk connections from the Uptown Newport site to Jamboree Road, and through the adjacent Koll property would provide convenient access for bicyclists to the nearest existing and future bicycle facilities. The project would not conflict with the implementation of the City's Bikeway Master Plan, and would not add features that would compromise safety or increase hazards due to a project design feature. Phase 2 The analysis for Phase 1 also applies to Phase 2. Summary The introduction of residential units in an area that is largely developed with employment and commercial uses would facilitate the use of alternative travel modes, such as walking, biking, and public transit. The close proximity of a residential use to employment and commercial centers can serve as encouragement to the residents of the development to walk or bike to work or shop, rather than drive a vehicle. As previously discussed in Table 5.9 -1, the project is consistentwith goals and policies related to alternative transportation modes: Goal CE 5.1, "Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs," and Goal CE 6.2, "Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies." IMPACT 5.14 -7 PROJECT - RELATED CONSTRUCTION WORKER, DELIVERY, AND CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE TRIPS WOULD NOT RESULT IN A DETRIMENT OF LEVELS OF SERVICE AT INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAYS IN THE STUDY AREA. [THRESHOLD T -1] 88 Impact Analysis: Project construction activities would include the demolition of the existing office /industrial buildings onsite and the construction of the proposed Uptown Newport development. Throughout construction, the size of the work crew at the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase. Parking for workers would be provided onsite during all phases of construction. If needed during the peak construction periods, offsite parking would be provided, and workers would carpool or be shuttled to the worksite. The number of heavy vehicles associated with building construction would vary depending on the construction materials required at any given time. For each construction phase, the construction traffic volumes would be less than the current site traffic that would be eliminated when the project construction begins, and would be less than the future project traffic generated by the proposed project. Heavy vehicles associated with demolition and construction would use the existing regional and local truck route network to approach the site, getting as close to the site as possible before turning off the designated truck route. The applicant would be required to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles and obtain a haul route permit from the City. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles would be via Jamboree Road. Depending on the origin /destination (the nearest landfill, or the deposit site identified for cut material), trucks would either arrive and depart on Jamboree Road via 1 -405 to the north of the site, or Jamboree Road via SR- 73 to the south of the site. Temporary delays in traffic may occasionally occur due to oversized vehicles traveling at lower speeds on local streets. Such delays would be occasional and of short duration. These temporary delays would be considered less than significant. The project would be required to prepare a construction traffic management plan, which could include such items as requiring an encroachment permit for work in the public right -of -way, limiting heavy truck activity during peak hours, using flag men to manage short-term traffic control, requiring aformal traffic control plan for extended street and lane closures, limiting time and duration of closures, or requiring that a minimum Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14-67 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC number of lanes be open for travel during peak hours. However, this temporary traffic impact would only occur during the construction phase of the proposed project and would not impose a long -term traffic impact. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to prepare and submit a traffic - management plan and acquire a street - closure permit prior to the commencement of any construction activities in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapters 12.62, Temporary Street Closure, and 13.01, Street Construction Permits, of the City's Municipal Code. The following evaluates traffic impacts during construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 would include demolition of the 4311 Jamboree Road office and industrial building and support facilities. Demolition activities would include demolishing and removing the building, foundations and footings, and the asphalt parking lot and lightfixtures. It is estimated that approximately 12,800 cubic yards of construction debris and concrete would be removed from the site. Grading of the Phase 1 portion of the site would involve a combination of cut and fill activity, such that there would be a virtual balance of cut and fill on the site. This assumes a single level of underground parking. If a second underground level is needed, an estimated 90,000 cubic yards would need to be exported from the site. Assuming a capacity of 12 to 18 cubic yards per truckload, depending on the size of the truck, demolition and grading activities would require removal of approximately 700 to 1,070 truckloads of demolition debris, and if needed, 5,000 truckloads of cut material. Assuming a three -month period for demolition for Phase 1, this would equate to an average of 10 to 20 demolition debris truckloads per day, and if needed, an average of approximately 40 to 60 truckloads of export cut material per day, as shown on Table 5.14 -19 below. Table 5.14 -19 Phase 1 Construction Traffic Construction Phase Daily Trips Haul Export Vehicles (if needed) 1 40 -60 Construction Workers / Vendors 1 289 Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Phase 2 Construction Phase 2 would include demolition of the TowerJazz building at 4321 Jamboree Road. It is estimated that approximately 13,000 cubic yards of construction debris and concrete would need to be removed from the site. Grading of the Phase 2 portion of the site would involve a combination of cut and fill activity, such that there would be a virtual balance of cut and fill on the site. This assumes a single level of underground parking. If a second underground level is needed, an estimated 100,000 cubic yards would need to be exported from the site. Assuming a four -month period for demolition for Phase 2, this would equate to an average of 10 to 15 demolition debris truckloads per day, and if needed, an average of approximately 45 to 65 truckloads of export cut material per day, as shown on Table 5.14 -20 below. Page 5.14 -68 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.14 -20 Phase 2 Construction Traffic Construction Phase Construction Workers 1 9 -15 Grading and Earthwork Haul Exoort Vehicles (if needed) 45-65 Source: Kimsey -Horn and Associates, 2012. As discussed above, temporary delays in traffic may occasionally occur due to oversized vehicles traveling at lower speeds on local streets. Such delays would be occasional and of short duration. This temporary traffic impact would only occur during the construction of the proposed project and would not impose a long -term traffic impact. These temporary delays would be considered less than significant. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to prepare and submit a traffic - management plan and acquire a street - closure permit prior to the commencement of any construction activities in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapters 12.62, Temporary Street Closure, and 13.01, Street Construction Permits, of the City's Municipal Code. 5.14.4 Cumulative Impacts The impact analysis included in Section 5.14 -1, 5.14 -3, 5.14 -4, and 5.14 -5 includes the analysis of traffic conditions at local jurisdictions, CMP, and state - controlled intersections, and freeway mainline segments for cumulative conditions with and without the project. The list of related projects incorporated in the analysis was provided, as well as the assumptions incorporated for background, ambienttraffic growth for completion of Phase 1 of the project in 2018, and Phase 2, which corresponds to buildout of the project in 2021. The proposed project would not result in both project - specific significant and cumulatively considerable impacts. No mitigation measures would be required. The University of California, Irvine (UCI), 2007 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) was reviewed to verify if there would be any impacts to UCI's vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation plans, and land use compatibility with existing and proposed UCI land uses. The LRDP vehicular network consists of campus roadways, intersections, and entry points to collect and distribute vehicular traffic at UCI. There were no cumulative projects identified within UCI's campus in the horizon year 2021. In addition, the impacts from the project to the intersections included in the 2007 LRDP of University Drive at Mesa Drive, and University Drive at California Avenue would be less than significant. The project would not conflict with UCI's vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation plans. Site access is adequately designed and would not combine with other area traffic impacts to result in significant circulation impacts. Similarly, short-term and long -term parking would be managed onsite and not combine with other area projects to result in cumulative parking impacts. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.14-69 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 5.14.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions City of Newport Beach Municipal Code The following chapters of the City's Municipal Code specifically include traffic, parking, and circulation provisions: • Chapter 20.66, Off Street Parking and Loading • Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance • Chapter 12.62, Temporary Street Closure • Chapter 13.01, Street Construction Permits City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: • The Applicant will be required to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles, and obtain a Haul Route permit from the City. • The project will be required to prepare a construction traffic management plan. 5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon compliance with regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.14 -1 to 5.14 -7. 5.14.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation Transportation and traffic impacts would be mitigated to less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Page 5.14 -70 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis 5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section of the Draft EIR discusses the current conditions for utility providers, including water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas services, and the proposed projects effects on these providers. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following technical studies: • Water Supply Assessment for Uptown Newport Village Specific Plan Project, Irvine Ranch Water District, March 2011 Preliminary Hydrology Report, Hall & Foreman, Inc., December 2011 • Flow Report for Newport Beach (1) Von Karman and (2) Birch Sites, Utility Systems, Science, and Software (US3), April 2012 5.15.1 Environmental Setting Water Supply and Distribution Systems Irvine Ranch Water District The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) is the water service provider for the project site. It is a multiservice jurisdictional agency that provides potable and nonpotable water supply and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services. Its service area includes the City of Irvine and portions of the cities of Orange, Tustin, Santa Ana, Lake Forest, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach, as well as unincorporated Orange County north of Irvine (IRWD 2011 a). For the proposed project, IRWD would only be providing water to the 8B project site. Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal would be provided by Orange County Sanitation District (OCWD). IRWD prepares two planning documents to guide water supply decision making • Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP), a comprehensive document compiling data and analyses that IRWD considers necessary for its planning needs (primary source for IRWD for water planning) (IRWD 2004) • Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a document required by statute (California Water Code Section 10631, et seq.) The 2010 UWMP was updated and approved by IRWD in May 2011. Approximately 50 percent of IRWD's water supply is imported through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and 50 percent is groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin), including the Irvine and Lake Forest subbasins (see Figure 5.8 -3, Orange County Main Groundwater Basin and Irvine Subbasin). Imported Water Supply Infrastructure East Orange County Feeder No. 2: The East Orange County Feeder No. 2 (EOCF #2) is one of two major feeders that bring water to the service area. It connects Orange County with the MWD feeder system. The IRWD owns a capacity of 41.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) of the EOCF #2 down to the Coastal Junction, a flow control and measurement vault structure at 25 Creek Road in Irvine. Allen- McColloch Pipeline: The other majorfeeder that brings water to the service area of IRWD is the Allen McColloch Pipeline (AMP), of which IRWD owns a capacity of 64.7 cfs. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -1 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Orange County Feeder: IRWD receives water from the Orange County Feeder (OCF) via the Weymouth Filtration Plant. IRWD receives 18 cfs from the OCF (IRWD 2011b). Local Groundwater Supply Infrastructure Dyer Road Wellfield /Deep Aquifer Treatment System /Orange Park Acres: The Dyer Road Wellfield (DRWF) consists of 16 wells, which pump water for IRWD from the Basin. Two additional wells pump from the Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS). IRWD is allowed to pump a basin production percentage (BPP) from both systems, which is up to 28,000 acre -feet per year (AFY) from the DRWF and 8,000 from the DATS. On June 1, 2008, IRWD acquired the water system and a well of the former Orange Park Acres (OPA) Mutual Water company through annexation. The well is operated within the Basin. Irvine Desalter: The Irvine Desalter purifies waterfrom the Irvine Subbasin (part of the larger Basin). Starting in 2007, the desalter performs two main operations: (1) it removes trichloroethylene (TCE) and other volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the groundwater from a contaminated plume on the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), and (2) it removes salts and purifies water outside the TCE plume to be used as drinking water. Approximately 3,900 AFY from the desalter are used for landscaping, and an additional 5,100 AFY are used as drinking water (IRWD 2011 c). Current Potable Water Usage in IRWD Service Area By 2030, IRWD projects to have a total water supply of 118,069 AFY and demand of 88,579 AFY (a difference of 29,490 AFY). Table 5.15 -1 breaks down the supply and demand for the next 18 years at five -year intervals. Based on historic annual deliveries, IRWD has assumed water imported through MWD has been reduced 16 percent from the average annual allotment. This provides a more conservative assessment of future conditions. Table 5.15 -1 Current and Projected IRWD Water Supplies and Demands without Project (AFY) So* 1 2010 1 2015 1 2020 1 2025 1 2030 MWD Imported (EOCF #2, AMP, OCF' 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 DRWF /DATS /OPA 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 Irvine Desalter 5,640 1 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 Future Groundwater NA 1 15,600 22,100 32,600 32,600 Total Supply 85,469 101,069 107,569 118,069 118,069 Baseline Demand (No Project) 1 57,286 1 73,571 1 83,696 1 88,086 1 88,579 Difference (Suooly- Demand) 1 28.210 1 27,498 1 23.873 1 29.983 1 29.490 EOCF #2- East Orange County Feeder #2 AMP - Allen- MCColloch Pipeline OCF- Orange County Feeder DRWF /DATS /OPA -Dyer Road Wellfield /Deep Aquifer Treatment Systerr /Orange Park Acres 1 IRWD assumes MWD supolies are reduced by 16 percent. Single and Multiple Dry Year As required by California Water Code Section 10631(c)(1), single -year dry and multiple -year dry scenarios are used to determine the relation between water supply and demand during times of drought. Historic water Page 5.15 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS shortages are used to model the single- and multiple -year dry scenarios. IRWD has used the single -dry year of 1977 and the multiple -dry years of 1990 -1992 to model these scenarios (IRWD 2011 b). Table 5.15 -2 shows the relation between supply and demand during a single -year dry scenario and Table 5.15 -3 shows the same relationship for the multiple -dry year scenario. Table 5.15 -2 Current and Projected IRWD Water Supplies and Demands for Single -Year Dry Scenario without Project (AFY) Supply 1 2010 1 2015 1 2020 1 2025 1 2030 MWD Imported (EOCF #2, AMP, OCF)' 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 DRWF /DATS /OPA 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 Irvine Desalter 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 Future Groundwater NA 15,600 22,100 32,600 32,600 Total Supply 85,469 101,069 107,569 118,069 118,069 Baseline Demand (No Project) 51,296 78,721 89,555 94,252 94,780 Difference Supply - Demand 24,173 22,348 18,014 23,817 23,289 Source: IRWD 2011a EOCF #2- East Orange County Feeder #2 AMP - Allen- McColloch Pipeline OCF- Orange County Feeder DRWF /DATS /OPA - Dyer Road Wellfield /Deep Aquifer Treatment System/Orange Park Acres ' IRWD assumes MWD supplies are reduced by 16 percent. %10%J Table 5.15 -3 Current and Projected IRWD Water Supplies and Demands for Multiple -Year Dry Scenarios without Project (AFY) Current Potable Supplies MWD Imported EOCF #2, AMP, OCF' 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 DRWF /DATS /OPA 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 Irvine Desalter 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 Future Groundwater NA 15,600 22,100 32,600 32,600 Total Supply 85,469 101,069 107,569 118,069 118,069 Baseline Demand (No Project) 61,296 78,721 89,555 94,252 94,780 Difference Supply - Demand 24,173 22,348 18,014 23,817 23,289 Source: IRWD 2011a EOCF #2- East Orange County Feeder #2 AMP - Allen- McCulloch Pipeline OCF - Orange County Feeder DRWF /DATS /OPA - Dyer Road Wellfield/Deep Aquifer Treatment Systern/Orange Park Acres ' IRWD assumes MWD supplies are reduced by 16 percent. Though demand changes, IRWD's supplies remain constant between normal -, single -dry-, and multiple -dry- year scenarios. This is due to the fact that groundwater and MWD imported water account for all of IRWD's potable supply, and reclaimed water, groundwater, and imported water compose most of IRWD's nonpotable supply. Groundwater production typically remains constant or increases in cycles of dry years, even if overdraft of the basin temporarily increases, since groundwater producers reduce their demand on imported Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -3 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS supplies to secure reliability. As to imported water, MWD's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) shows that MWD can maintain reliable supplies under the conditions that have existed in past dry periods through 2035, including a repeat of the 1990 to 1992 multiple -year dry hydrology and the 1977 single -year dry hydrology. Reclaimed water production also remains constant and is considered "drought proof' as a result of the fact that sewage flows remain virtually unaffected by dry years. Only a small portion of IRWD's nonpotable supply, native water captured in Irvine Lake, is reduced in single -dry and multiple -dry years. The foregoing factors also serve to explain why there is no difference in IRWD's supplies between single -dry and multiple -dry years. Current Water Use on the Project Site The existing land uses, the TowerJazz building and Half Dome buildings, use approximately 43 million gallons per month (Rupp 2012). This is equivalent to approximately 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd) and 515.9 million gallons per year (1,583 AFY). Using IRWD's water demand rate of 60 gallon per 1,000 square feet of office space, it can be assumed that the Half Dome building uses approximately 7,601 gallons of water per day (for interior and exterior spaces) (IRWD 2007). This means the TowerJazz building uses 1,392,399 gallons per day. Wastewater Treatment and Collection Newport Beach owns and operates a wastewater collection system that collects residential and commercial wastewater and transports it for treatment to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Two underground sewer pipes are in the vicinity of the project site: an 18 -inch concrete pipe at Von Karman and a 10 -inch concrete pipe at Birch Street. The Von Karman pipe runs through the northwestern portion of the project site and connects to Von Karman Avenue. It collects wastewater from the existing onsite land uses, has an average flow rate of 0.90 mgd, and a maximum flow rate of 2.17 mgd. It has an operational capacity of 5.83 mgd and it is currently operating at 37.24 percent capacity. Existing onsite sewer lines are shown on Figure 3 -12, Proposed Sewer System: Phase 1 and 2. The sewer line at Birch does not currently collect wastewater from the project site but is the closest pipeline to the northeastern portion of the site. It runs north to south in Birch Street, connecting pipelines in Jamboree with pipelines in MacArthur Boulevard. It has an average flow rate of 0.01 mgd and a maximum flow rate of 0.21 mgd. The operational capacity is 0.67 mgd and it is currently operating at 31.87 percent capacity. As detailed in Table 5.15 -4, both pipelines have remaining capacity. Table 5.15 -4 Existing Sewer Capacity Pipeline Average Flow (mgd) Maximum Flow (mild) Capacity mgd Percent Capacity' Remaining Capacity (mad) Von Karman 0.90 2.17 5.83 37.24% 3.21 Birch 0.01 0.21 0.67 31.87% 0.46 Source: US3 2012 Due to the rounding of calculations in the sewer capacity study, the "percent capacity" slightly differs from what is directly calculated from the numbers on this table. Wastewater collected in the pipelines in the City are directed to one of two treatment plants in Orange County, both operated by the OCSD. Page 5.15 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Existing Wastewater Generation The existing land uses, TowerJazz and Half Dome buildings currently account for the existing flows measured near the project site in the Von Karman sewer pipeline (0.90 mgd average and 2.17 mgd maximum) (Hogan 2012). Using the wastewater generation rate for industrial land uses from the Irvine Business Complex 2008 Sub Area Master Plan (SAMP), the Half Dome would generate approximately 6,334 gallons of wastewater per day on average (8,234 gallons at maximum flow), as shown in Table 5.15 -5. The remainder of the existing wastewater generation is attributed to the TowerJazz building. Table 5.15 -5 Existing Onsite Wastewater Generation Land Use Average Flow Rate Factor (gal /ksf /day)' Maximum Flow Rate Factor (gal /ksflday)Z Average Flow (gpd) Maximum Flow (gpd) Half Dome 50 65 6.334 8,234 TowerJazz NA NA 893,666 2,161,766 Total NA NA 900,000 2,170,000 Source: IRWD 2008 Notes: ' The average flow rate factor assumed for the Half Dome land use is 'Commercial —General Office' in the 2008 IRWD SAMP. 2 The 2008 SAMP multiplied the average daily flow rate by a factor of 1.3 to determine the maximum daily flow rate. The Birch pipeline does not currently receive wastewater from the project site since this portion of the site is a parking lot. The existing wastewater flows in the Birch pipeline in Table 5.15 -4 are from neighboring land uses. 8B Orange County Sanitation District OCSD owns and operates Treatment Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley, which treats wastewater at advanced primary and secondary treatment levels. Plant No. 1 has a maximum capacity for advanced primary and secondary treatment of 204 mgd and treats an average of 95 mgd. About 66 mgd of effluent from Plant No. 1 are sent to the groundwater replenishment system (GWRS) facility in Fountain Valley, which has a capacity of 70 mgd. After treatment at the GWRS, this water is used to supplement the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin to control saltwater intrusion and to recharge the basin. An additional 3.3 mgd of effluent from Plant No. 1 are sent to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for tertiary treatment in a separate facility; this water is used by OCWD customers for irrigation (Covarrubias 2012). This water is delivered to customers for irrigation use. The balance of the effluent from Plant No. 1, approximately 25.7 mgd, is sent to Reclamation Plant No. 2 in the City of Huntington Beach and is subsequently discharged through the ocean outfall system. A second water treatment plant owned and operated by OCSD, Plant No. 2, receives wastewater from several major sewers, in addition to Plant No. 1, and has an average treatment flow rate of 112 mgd and a maximum treatment capacity of 168 mgd. Storm Drainage Systems The storm drainage systems in the City of Newport Beach are managed and operated by both the City and the Orange County Flood Control Division of the Orange County Public Works Department. The county is responsible for maintaining and repairing regional systems, and the City is in charge of local improvements (Newport Beach 2006a). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -5 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Currently, drainage on the project site runs from the southeast to the northwest. It is relatively flat with a maximum elevation drop of roughly 10 feet over a distance of approximately 650 feet. See Table 5.8 -1, Site Drainage Rates and Volumes, Existing Conditions, and Section 5.8.1, Environmental Setting, in Chapter 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed description of the project site's existing hydrology. A series of storm drains currently provide drainage for the project site. Four separate storm drain lines ultimately connect with larger storm drain systems adjacent to the project site to the northwest. The northernmost area of the site, which is mostly a parking lot, has three separate storm drain lines. These storm drain lines extend beyond the property limits and join a 66 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the drive aisle /parking lot of the adjacent property (Koll project). The fourth storm drain line is a larger system that collects the storm flows from the remainder of the site. This system directs stormwaterflows to a 48 -inch RCP storm drain before discharging into a series of detention ponds and ultimately discharging into a 54- inch RCP in MacArthur Boulevard. Solid Waste Since the project site borders the City of Irvine, solid waste pickup services are currently provided by franchise waste haulers that work for the City of Irvine. Solid waste is transported to the Frank R. Bowerman landfill in the City of Irvine (11002 Bee Canyon Access Road), which is owned and operated by Orange County Waste and Recycling (OCWR). As shown on Table 5.15 -6, the landfill has a daily capacity of 11,500 tons and a remaining disposal capacity of 198.1 million cubic yards, as of June 30, 2011. In January 2012, the maximum daily intake was 5,385 tons, 6,115 less than the daily capacity (CalRecycle 2012b). Table 5.15 -6 Daily Intake and Remaining Capacity for the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill Daily Intake Capacity Remaining Capacity Closure Date 11,500 tons per day 198.1 million cubic vards 2053 The existing land uses include two buildings, both leased by TowerJazz. The Half Dome is 126,675 square feet and TowerJazz is 311,452 square feet. Using the solid waste generation rates found in the EIR prepared for the 2006 City of Newport Beach General Plan, the Half Dome generates approximately 1,267 pounds per day and the TowerJazz building generates approximately 2,180 pounds per day for a total of 3,447 pounds, as shown in Table 5.15 -7. Table 5.15 -7 Existing Solid Waste Generation on Project Site Building Square Footage Solid Waste Generation Rate Total Half Dome Building (126,675 sf) 1 Ib /100 sf /day 1,267 Ibs /day TowerJazz Building 311,452 sf 0.007 lbs/sf/day 2,180 Ibs /da Total NA 3,447lbs /day Source: Newport Beach 2006a Note: Ibs /sf /day = pounds per square foot per day (for industrial land uses) Page 5.15 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Electricity Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the distribution provider for electricity in Newport Beach. Electrical structures and power lines are owned and operated by SCE. New electrical service within SCE's service area is provided on an as- needed basis. The existing land uses use approximately 31 million kWh electricity per quarter or 339,726 kWh per day (Rupp 2012). Based the California Energy Commission (CEC), office land uses use approximately 16.08 kWh of electricity per square foot per year (CEC 2009a). Therefore, the Half Dome building uses approximately 2,036,934 kWh per year. The remainder of the annual onsite electricity use, 28,963,066 kWh, is used by the TowerJazz building. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) serves the project area and owns most of the natural gas facilities and pipelines in the City (Newport Beach 2006a). The existing land uses use approximately 60,000 million British Thermal Units (MBTUs) of natural gas per quarter, or 657,534,246 kBTUs per day (Rupp 2012). The CEC estimates natural gas use of office land uses to be 17.90 kBTUs per square foot per year. Therefore, the Half Dome building uses approximately 2,267,483 kBTUs per year, or 6,212 kBTUs per day. The remainder of the onsite natural gas use, 657,528,034 kBTUs per day, is used by the TowerJazz building. Regulatory Setting Water The Drought Water Bank The California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) established a 2009 Drought Water Bank to help facilitate the exchange of water throughout the state and assist water suppliers like MWD who are at risk of experiencing drought - related shortages, thus requiring supplemental supplies to meet anticipated demands. During drought conditions, CDWR purchases water from willing sellers upstream of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and transfers it to public and private water suppliers that are at risk of experiencing water shortages. The Drought Water Bank is meantto be used for short periods while a supplier cannot obtain the water it needs. 20x2020 California Water Plan To improve the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta water quality and supply conditions, former Governor Schwarzenegger introduced a seven -part comprehensive plan in 2008 to reduce per capita urban water use. The goal of this plan is for municipalities to reduce urban water use to 20 percent below their 2005 levels by year 2020 (20x2020). Beginning in 2009, opportunities to implement programs, enforcement mechanisms, and regional and statewide goals were made available to state water agencies in the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. Coordinating agencies should prepare annual progress reports to present progress of implementation programs. Principles Governing CEQA Analysis of Water Supply In Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc., v. City of Rancho Cordova (February 1, 2007), the California Supreme Court articulated the following principles for analysis of future water supplies for projects subject to CEQA: • To meet CEQA's informational purposes, the EIR must present sufficient facts to decision makers to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the necessary amount of water to the project. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -7 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS CEQA analysis for large, multiphase projects must assume that all phases of the project will eventually be built and the EIR must analyze, to the extent reasonably possible, the impacts of providing water to the entire project. Tiering cannot be used to defer water supply analysis until future phases of the project are built. • CEQA analysis cannot rely on "paper water." The EIR must discuss why the identified water should reasonably be expected to be available. Future water supplies must be likely, rather than speculative. When there is some uncertainty regarding availability of future water supply, an EIR should acknowledge the degree of uncertainty, include a discussion of possible alternative sources, and identify the environmental impacts of such alternative sources. Where a full discussion still leaves some uncertainly about the long -term water supply's availability, mitigation measures for curtailing future development in the event that intended sources become unavailable may become a part of the EIR's approach. • The EIR does not need to show that water supplies are definitely assured because such a degree of certainty would be "unworkable, as it would require water planning to far outpace land use planning." The requisite degree of certainty of a project's water supply varies with the stage of project approval. CEQA does not require large projects, at the early planning phase, to provide high degree of assurances of certainty regarding long -term future water supplies. • The EIR analysis may rely on existing urban water management plans, as long as the project's new demand was included in the water management plan's future demand accounting. • The ultimate question under CEQA is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project. Electricity and Natural Gas Building Requirements for Energy Conservation The California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential buildings (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations) requires new buildings and reconstruction projects meet California building energy efficiency standards. All projects being constructed on January 1, 2010, and after are required to increase their energy efficiency by 15 percent over the 2005 energy efficiency standards. California Public Utilities Commission Established in 1911, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. The commission is organized into several advisory units, an enforcement division, and a strategic planning group. Both SCE and SCGC are regulated by the CPUC. 5.15.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project: Page 5.15 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS U -1 Would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. U -2 Would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. U -3 Would require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. U -4 Would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and new and /or expanded entitlements would be needed. U -5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that is has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. U -6 Would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. U -7 Would not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: • Threshold U -7 This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.15.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.15 -1: PROJECT - GENERATED WASTEWATER WOULD NOT EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING SEWER PIPELINES AND WOULD BE ADEQUATELY TREATED BY ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT. [THRESHOLDS U -1, U -2 (PART), AND U -51 ImpactAnalysts: The proposed projectwould generate wastewater during both phases of development and would require the construction of new sewer lines. Figure 3 -12, Proposed Sewer System: Phase 1 and 2, shows the existing sewer lines (purple) and the proposed sewer lines (blue and green). Sewer linesto sever the entire project site will be privately owned and maintained. Table 5.15 -8 details wastewater flows for both phases of development. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -9 "30] S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Table 5.15 -8 Projected Sewer Capacity with Project Pipeline Average Flow Maximum Flow' Capacity (MGD) Percent Capacity Remaining Capacity (MGD) GPD MGD GPD MGD Van Karman (Phase 1 & TowerJazz Building 893,666 0.90 2,161,766 2.16 5.83 37.22% 3.66 Proposed Residential 680 units 91,800 0.09 289,170 0.29 5.83 5.15% 5.53 Proposed Retail 7,360 0.01 23,184 0.02 5.83 0.34% 5.81 Total Phase 1 992,826 1.00 2,474,120 2.47 5.83 42.37% 3.36 Existing Land Uses 900,000 0.90 2,170,000 2.17 5.83 37.24% 3.21 Increase from Existing 92,826 0.10 304,120 0.30 5.83 5.13% 0.15 Phase 2 Proposed Residential 303 units 40,905 0.04 128,851 0.13 5.83 2.23% 5.7 Total Phase 1 & 2 140,055 0.14 441,205 0.44 5.83 7.55°% 5.39 Existing Land Uses 900,000 0.90 2,170,000 2.17 5.83 37.24% 3.21 Change from Existing - 759,935 -0.76 - 1,728,795 -1.73 5.83 - 29.69 °% +2.18 Birch (Phase 2) Existing Offsite Flows - 0.01 - 0.21 0.67 31.87°% 0.46 Proposed Residential 35,235 0.04 110,990 0.11 0.67 35.82°% 0.56 261 units Total Phase 2 (with - 0.05 - 0.32 0.67 47.76% 0.35 Existing Offsite Flows) Source: US3 2012; IRWD 2008 Notes: ' Maximum flaw is average flow multiplied by a factor of 3.15 (Hagan 2012) P Values for the TowerJazz building are the same as the values in Table 5.15 -4, Existing Sewer Capacity Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport project would allow forthe development of 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet of retail space. Combined, these uses would generate an estimated 99,160 gallons of wastewater per day (312,354 gallons at peak flow), as shown in Table 5.15 -7. Wastewaters flowing from the site during Phase 1 would only affect the Von Karman pipeline. When combined with the existing TowerJazz building, the flow during the first phase of the project would be 992,826 gallons per day (2,474,120 gallons during peak flow). The maximum flow rate would reach 44.32 percent capacity with a remaining capacity of 3.36 mgd. In order to connect to the existing lines, the project applicant would be required to connect a private sewer easement to the Koll property (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 14.24.060). Phase 2 The second phase of development on the project site would include 564 residential units and the removal of the TowerJazz building. Approximately 303 of these units would generate wastewater that flows to the Von Karman sewer pipeline. The remaining 261 units would generate wastewater that would flow to the Birch pipeline. For the Von Karmen pipeline, even when the existing flows from the TowerJazz facility and other Page 5.15 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS onsite land uses are included, the remaining capacity is sufficient (3.23 mgd). When the existing flows are subtracted from the total flow, to account for the removal of these land uses, wastewater flow is projected to be 0.43 mgd during peak periods, leaving approximately 5.40 mgd of capacity. The Birch pipeline would only receive wastewater afterthe second phase of development is constructed from the northeastern section of the project site (see Figure 3 -12, Proposed Sewer System: Phase 1 and 2). At this location, the project would generate an average of 0.04 mgd and a maximum of 0.11 mgd. When combined with existing offsite flows, the average flow would total 0.05 mgd and the maximum flow would total 0.32 mgd, leaving a remaining capacity of 0.35 mgd during peak flows. Since there are no existing onsite sewer pipelines, the project applicant would be required to obtain a private sewer easement from the adjacent property in order to reach the existing line in Birch Street (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 14.24.060). Wastewater Treatment OCSD operates two plants that treat wastewater from the City of Newport Beach. The capacity of Plant 1 is 204 mgd and the capacity of Plant 2 is 168 mgd. Table 5.15 -9 summarizes the remaining capacities for wastewater treatment with the proposed project. After phase 1, the remaining capacity of the two plants would be 164 mgd and after phase 2, the remaining capacity would be 164.82 mgd. There is sufficient capacity to treat project - generated wastewater. Table 5.15 -9 OCSD Wastewater Treatment Capacity, with Project Plant Average Treatment Capacity Remaining Capacity Existing After Phase 1 After Phase 2 Plant 1 95.00 mgd 204.00 mgd 109.00 mgd 108.5 mgd 108.91 mgd Plant 2 112.00 an d 168.00 mgd 56.00 mg d 55.5 55.91 an d Total 207.00 mgd 372.00 mgd 165.00 mgd 164.00 mgd 164.82 mgd Source: Source: US3 2012; IRWD 2008 Notes: Assumes half of wastewater generated by the project goes to plant 1 and the other half goes to plant 2. However, either plant would have the capacity to treat all of the project's wastewater. IMPACT 5.15 -2: PROJECTED WATER SUPPLYAND DELIVERY SYSTEMS WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO MEET PROJECT REQUIREMENTS; PROJECT SITE WATER DEMAND WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING WATER USE. (THRESHOLDS U -2 (PART) AND U -41 Impact Analysis: Phase 1 Projected water demand for Phase 1 of the proposed project is shown in Table 5.15 -10. Phase 1 includes 680 housing units, 1.03 acres of park space, 11,500 square feet of commercial area, and 2.61 acres of right - of -way. The water supply analysis (WSA) uses water use factors to assign water demands to the various land use types and aggregate demands. The water use factors are based on average water use and incorporate the effect of IRWD's tier -rate conservation pricing and its other water conservation programs. IRWD has calculated the proposed project's water demand for Phase 1 to be 116,409 gpd (130 AFY). The water demands per land use for Phase 1 are shown in Table 5.15 -10. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -11 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS It should be noted that, during the first phase, the existing TowerJazz building would remain operating on the project site and is included with the Phase 1 water demand projection. The water demand of the TowerJazz building is approximately 1,392,399 gpd. The water demand of the Half Dome (approximately 7,601 gpd) is not included. Table 5.15 -10 Project Water Demand. Phase 1 Percent i Proiect Demand Demand Cateaory Demand Factor Irrigated gad AFY High Density Residential (Interior) 145 gal /DU /day 98,600 110.4 High Density Residential (Exterior) 15 gaVDU /day 10,200 11.4 High Density Residential Irrigation Demand 2,800 gal /acre /day 20% 4,844 5.4 Community Commercial (interior) 62 gal /ksf /day 713 0.8 Community Commercial (Exterior) 9 gal /ksf /day 104 0.1 Community Commercial Irrigation Demand 3,500 gal/ac/day 20% 0 0.0 Community Park Irrigation Demand 2,200 gal/ac/day 86% 1,949 2.2 TowerJazz building 1,392,399 1,559.7 Subtotal Phase 1 1,508,809 1,690.1 Existing Land Uses 1,400,000 1,568.2 Existing Water Demand 1,400,000 1,568.2 Increase from Existing +108,809 +121.9 Source: IRWD 2012 Note: This demand includes both potable and nonpotable water demands. Irrigation (nonpotable) demand is discussed below under "Nonpotable Water." Phase 2 The second phase of development would replace the existing TowerJazz building with 564 multifamily residential units, 1.02 acres of park space. As shown in Table 5.15 -11, water demand of the land uses developed in Phase 2 would be 97,781 gpd (109.51 AFY), creating a total project demand of 214,191 gpd (239.9 AFY). Page 5.15 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Table 5.15 -11 Project Water Demand. Phase 2 and Project Buildout Percent Pro%ct Demand Demand CategorV Demand Factor Irrigated OP AFY High Density Residential Interior 145 gal /DU /day 81,780 91.6 High Density Residential Exterior 15 gal /DU /day 8,460 9.5 High Density Residential Irrigation Demand 2,800 gal/acre /day 20% 5,611 6.3 Community Commercial Interior 62 gal /ksf /day 0 0.0 Community Commercial Exterior 9 gal /ksf /day 0 0.0 Community Commercial Irrigation Demand 3,500 gaVac /day 20% 0 0.0 Community Park Irrigation Demand 2,200 gal/ac/day 80% 1,930 2.2 Subtotal Phase 2 97,781 109.5 Total (Phase 1 and 2) 214,191 239.9 Existing Water Demand 1,400,000 1,568.2 Decrease from Existing - 1,185,809 - 1,328.3 Source: IRWD 2012 Note: This demand includes both potable and nonpotable water demands. Irrigation (nonpotable) demand is discussed below under " Nonpotable Water' Upon buildout, the proposed project has a water demand that is approximately 1,328.3 AFY less than the existing light industrial land uses. The proposed land uses would use approximately 239.9 AFY and the removal of the existing land uses eliminates the use of approximately 1,568.2 AFY. Projected Water Demand in IRWD Service Area Potable Water Table 5.15 -12 shows IRWD's current and projected potable water use under normal conditions with and without the proposed project. As can be seen, existing water demand is substantially greater than water demand upon buildout of the proposed project. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -13 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Table 5.15 -12 Current and Proiected IRWD Potable Water Supplies and Demands with Proiect (AFY) and Projected Potable MWD Imported EOCF #2, AMP, OCF' 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 DRWF /DATS /0PA 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 Irvine Desalter 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 Future Groundwater NA 15,600 22,100 32,600 32,600 Total Supply 85,469 101,069 107,569 118.069 118.069 Current and Projected Potable Demands Baseline Demand No Project)' 57,286 73,571 83,696 88,086 88,579 Buildout Demand in existing WRMP 2004 57,286 73,161 83,042 87,432 87,922 Demand with Project' 57,286 73,137 82,784 86,947 87,434 IRWD Surplus (Total Supply minus Demand with Project 28,183 27,933 24,785 31,122 30,636 Source: IRWD 201 la EOCF #2 = East Orange County Feeder #2 AMP = Allen- McColloch Pipeline OCF = Orange County Feeder DRWF /DATS /OPA = Dyer Road Wellfield/Deep Aquifer Treatment System /Orange Park Acres WRMP = Water Resources Management Plan 1 IRWD assumes MWD allocations are reduced by 16 percent. R The Baseline Demand includes existing and committed demands of the IRWD. ' IRWD's calculation for Demand with Project Includes other expected project demands in the service area to determine the need for water in the service area. Project- specific water demand is provided in Tables 5.15 -9 and 5.15 -10. Tables 5.15 -13 and 5.15 -14 shows IRWD's current and projected water use with and without the proposed project under single -year and multiple -year dry conditions, respectively. As with the normal conditions scenario, water demand would decrease with the removal of the TowerJazz facility. In both the single -year and multiple -dry year scenarios, the IRWD would have a surplus of potable water. Page 5.15 -14 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Table 5.15 -13 Current and Projected IRWD Potable Water Supplies and Demands for Single -Year Dry Scenario, with Project, in AFY Supply /Demand 1 2010 1 2015 1 2020 1 2025 1 2030 MWD Imported EOCF #2, AMP, OCF' 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 DRWF /DATS /OPA 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 Irvine Desalter 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 Future Groundwater NA 15,600 22,100 32,600 32,600 Total Supply 85,469 101,069 107,569 118,069 118,069 Current and Projected Potable Demands Baseline Demand No Project' 61,296 78,721 89,555 94,252 94,780 Buildout Demand in existing WRMP 2004 61,296 78,282 88,855 93,552 94,076 Demand with Project' 61,296 78,256 88,579 93,033 93,554 IRWD Surplus (Total Supply minus Demand with Project 24,173 22,813 18,990 25,036 24,515 Source: IRWD 2011a EOCF #2 = East Orange County Feeder #2 AMP = Allen- McColloch Pipeline OCF = Orange County Feeder DRWF /DATS /OPA = Dyer Road Wellfield /Deep Aquifer Treatment System /Orange Park Acres WRMP = Water Resources Management Plan ' IRWD assumes MWD allocations are reduced by 16 percent. 2 The Baseline Demand includes existing and committed demands of the IRWD. ' IRWD's calculation for Demand with Project includes other expected project demands in the service area to determine the need for water in the service area. Project- specific water demand is provided in Tables 5.15 -9 and 5.15 -10. �� Table 5.15 -14 Current and Projected IRWD Potable Water Supplies and Demands for Multiple -Year Dry Scenarios, with Project, in AFY and Projected Potable MWD Imported EOCF #2, AMP, OCF' 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 DRWF /DATS /0PA 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 37,900 Irvine Desalter 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 Future Groundwater NA 15,600 22,100 32,600 32,600 Total Supply 85,469 101.069 107,569 118,069 118,069 Current and Projected Potable Demands Baseline Demand No Project' 61,296 78,721 89,555 94,252 94,780 Buildout Demand in existing WRMP 2004 61,296 78,282 88,855 93,552 94,076 Demand with Project' 61,296 78,256 88,579 93,033 93,554 RWD Surplus (Total Supply minus Demand with Project P4,173 22,813 18,990 25,036 24,515 Source: IRWD 2011a EOCF #2 = East Orange County Feeder #2 AMP = Allen- McColloch Pipeline OCF = Orange County Feeder DRWF /DATS /OPA = Dyer Road Welffield/Deep Aquifer Treatment System/Orange Park Acres WRMP = Water Resources Management Plan ' IRWD assumes MWD allocations are reduced by 16 percent. 2 The Baseline Demand includes existing and committed demands of the IRWD. 3 IRWD's calculation for Demand with Project includes other expected project demands in the service area to determine the need for water in the service area. Project- specific water demand is provided in Tables 5.15 -9 and 5.15 -10. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -15 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Nonpotable Water Nonpotable water does not represent a large portion of the proposed project's water demand. As shown on Table 5.15 -11, irrigation demands are assumed for high density residential (20 percent of area is irrigated) and community park (86 percent of the area is irrigated).' The nonpotable water demand at the buildout of Phase 1 would be 6,793 gpd, including 4,844 gpd for residential land uses and 1,949 gpd for park space. At the buildout of Phase 2, nonpotable water demand would be 7,541 gpd, including 5,611 gpd for residential land uses and 1,930 for park space. The combined total nonpotable water demand for the proposed project would be 14,344 gpd. Table 5.15 -15 provides the nonpotable water demand projects for the IRWD service area, with and without the proposed project. The single -year and multiple -year dry scenarios depict similar results and can be seen in the WSA (Appendix N). Table 5.15 -15 Current and Projected IRWD Normal Year Nonpotable Water Supplies and Demands with Proiect (AFY) Current and Projected Nonpotable Supplies Existing MWRP & LAWRP 18,657 18,657 18,657 18,657 18,657 MWD Imported Water Baker & ILP) 20,380 20,380 20,380 20,380 20,380 Irvine Desalter 3,898 3,898 3,898 3,898 3,898 Native Water 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Future MWRP & LAWRP 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 Total Supply 57,035 57,035 57,035 57,035 57,035 Current and Projected Nonpotable Demands' Baseline Demand No Project)' 39,603 38,591 39,730 41,241 41,418 Buildout Demand in existing WRMP 2004 39,603 38,592 39,731 41,242 41,419 Demand with Project' 39,600 38,591 39,730 41,241 41,419 IRWD Surplus (Total Supply minus Demand with Project 17,435 18,444 17,305 15,794 15,616 Source: IRWD 2011a EOCF #2 = East Orange County Feeder #2 AMP = Allen- McColloch Pipeline OCF = Orange County Feeder DRWF /DATS /OPA = Dyer Road Wellfield /Deep Aquifer Treatment System /Orange Park Acres WRMP = Water Resources Management Plan ' IRWD assumes MWD allocations are reduced by 16 percent. The Baseline Demand includes existing and committed demands of the IRWD. ' IRWD's calculation for Demand with Project includes other expected project demands in the service area to determine the need for water in the service area. Project- specific water demand is provided in Tables 5.15 -9 and 5.15 -10. ' No irrigation demands are assumed for the 11,500- square -foot commercial building because it is a ground -floor land use incorporated into the residential buildings. The irrigation demands for this space are already accounted for as part of the residential building and common open space. Page 5.15 -16 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS IMPACT 5.15 -3: POST - DEVELOPMENT SITE STORMWATER FLOW WOULD BE REDUCED IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND PROPOSED ONSITE AND EXISTING OFFSITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS WOULD HAVEADEQUATE CAPACITY TO CAPTURE AND CONVEY RUNOFF. [THRESHOLD U -3] Phase 1 The first phase of development includes approximately 680 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail space, 1.03 acres of parkland, and 2.61 acres of rights -of -way. The total developed area would be 12.29 acres. The storm drain system under the developed condition would closely mimic that of the existing condition. Locations of proposed storm drains are shown in Figure 5.8 -5, Proposed Drainage Plan. The proportion of pervious area onsite would increase from 13 percent in existing conditions to 22 percent in post project conditions through development of a park and other common open space /landscaped areas. The project would maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site, which generally flows from southeast to northwest. Three separate connections would be provided to the existing storm drain systems at the northwest property boundary. The southernmost connection would join the existing 48 -inch RCP that currently serves the site. The remaining two connections would replace three existing 18 -inch RCP storm drain lines that currently service the site. These 18 -inch storm drain lines ultimately join an existing 66 -inch RCP within the adjacent property to the northwest (Koll project). As with existing conditions, no offsite flows would be received by the project site. Onsite storm drain systems serving Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be constructed during the Phase 1 development, including proposed storm drains in the eastern and central parts of Phase 1 that would discharge into an infiltration basin under the proposed park near the south end of the site. An oufflow pipe from the infiltration basin would carry stormwater exceeding the design capacity of the basin back to the storm drain system. A full description of post - development hydrological flow rates is included in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Phase 2 For the Phase 2 portion of construction, storm drains would be installed to connect the Phase 2 portions of the site with two existing storm drains in the Koll project property. At site buildout, the stormwater flow rates would be less than the existing condition because of the increase in pervious surface. Since the development of the site causes a decrease in the peak flows and storm volumes produced from the site, providing onsite mitigation is not required. Also, since the existing drainage system is being mimicked by the drainage system under the developed condition, upgrade of downstream storm drain lines is not necessary. Both the existing 66 -inch RCP storm drain and the 48 -inch RCP storm drain are sufficiently sized to continue receiving flows from the site after development. IMPACT 5.15 -4: THE FRANK R. BOWERMAN LANDFILL HAS ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE PROJECT - GENERATED SOLID WASTE. [THRESHOLD U -6] Phase 1 Phase 1 of the project would generate 6,597 pounds of solid waste per day (1,204 tons per year), as shown in Table 5.15 -16. (See Table 5.15 -7 for the existing solid waste generation rates.) The TowerJazz building would continue operating on the project site during the first phase of development and would still be expected to generate 2,108 pounds of solid waste per day. The Frank R. Bowerman landfill has a daily Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -17 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS maximum intake load of 11,500 tons per day. In January 2012, the highest daily intake was 5,385 tons (CalRecycle 2012b). The proposed project would not cause the daily intake load to be exceeded. Table 5.15 -16 Proposed Proiect Solid Waste Generation. Phase 1 Phase 1 680 residential units (multifamily) 6.41 Ibs /uniUday 4,359 Ibs /day 796 tons /yr) 11,500 square feet commercial 5 Ibs /1,000 sf /day 58lbs /day 11 tons /yr TowerJazz Building 0.007lbs /sf /day 2,180 Ibs /day 398 tons /yr) Phase 1 Total 6,597 Ibs /day (1,204 tons /yr) Existing Solid Waste Generation 3,447lbs/da 629 tons/ r) Change from Existing + 3,150/bs/da 575 tons/ r) Source: Newport Beach 2006a Landfill Capacity The Frank R. Bowerman landfill has a remaining capacity of 198.1 million cubic yards. Since the proposed project's solid waste generation is calculated in tons per day, these are converted to cubic yards to determine how much solid waste the project would contribute to the landfill. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), typical household waste, which would be the majority generated by the proposed project, has a weight of approximately 800 pounds per cubic yard (CalRecycle 2012a). Therefore, Phase 1 would generate approximately 8.2 cubic yards of solid waste per day, or 2,993 cubic yards per year. The landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the solid waste flow of Phase 1. Phase 2 After the completion of the second phase of development, the proposed project would generate 8,032 pounds of solid waste per day, or 4,585 (2.3 tons per day or 837 tons per year) more compared to existing conditions, as shown in Table 5.15 -17. This increase would be equal to about 5.7 cubic yards of solid waste per day or 2,081 cubic yards per year. The landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the solid waste flow of the proposed project, and the daily maximum intake load would not be exceeded. Table 5.15 -17 Units /Square Feet I Solid Waste Generation Rate I Solid Waste Generation 564 residential units multifamily 6.41 Ibs /unit/day 3,615lbs /day 660 tons /yr Phase 2Total 3,615lbs1da 660tons/r Total (Phase 1 and 2) 8,032 Ihs /day (1,467 tons /yr) Change from Existing +4,585lbs 1day (837 tons /yr) Source: Newport Beach 2006a Page 5.15 -18 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS IMPACT 5.15 -5: IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING USES, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITYAND NATURAL GAS. [NO SPECIFIC THRESHOLD] Phase 1 Phase 1 development would include 680 residential units, 5,500 square feet of retail, and 6,000 square feet of restaurant space. Once constructed, it would use approximately 2,698,080 kWh of electricity and 9,734,015 kBTUs of natural gas per year, as shown on Table 5.15 -18. The TowerJazz building would continue to operate during the first phase of the proposed project, creating atotal electricity consumption of 31,661,146 kWh per year and natural gas consumption of 240,007,466,425 kBTUs per year. This would be an increase of 661,146 kWh of electricity per year and 7,446,425 kBTUs of natural gas per year over existing conditions. Table 5.15 -18 Proposed Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation: Phase 1 Units or Square Feet I Generation Rate I Total Generation 680 residential units multifamily 3,512.03 kWh /unit/year 2,388,180 kWh /year 5,500 square feet retail 13.44 kWh /sf /year 73,920 kWh /year 6,000 square feet restaurant 39.33 kWh/sf /year 235,980 kWh /year TowerJazz building NA 28,963,066 kWh /year Total Electricity 31,661,146 kWh /year Existing Electricity Use 31,000,000 kWh/ ear Increase over Existing 661,146 kWh/ ear Natural Gas 680 residential units multifamily 11,973.28 kBTU / uni/year 8,141,830 kBTU /year 11,500 square feet commercial 2.11 kBTU /sf /year 11,605 kBTU /year 6,000 square feet restaurant 263.43 kBTU /sf /year 1,580,580 kBTU /year TowerJazz NA 239,997,732,410 kBTU /year Total Natural Gas 240,007,466,425 kBTU /year Existing Natural Gas 240,000,000,000kBTUI ear Increase over Existing 7,466,425kBTUlyear Sources: CaIEEMod Version 2011.1.1; CEC 2009a; CEC 2009b. Phase 2 Phase 2 of the proposed project includes the construction of 564 residential units and the removal of the TowerJazz building. After Phase 2 is completed, the proposed project would use approximately 1,980,785 kWh of electricity and 6,752,930 kBTUs of natural gas per year. As shown on Table 5.15 -19, the proposed project's electricity use would be less than the existing land uses, but the natural gas use would be greater. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -19 0 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Table 5.15 -19 Proposed Proiect Electricitv and Natural Gas Generation: Phase 2 564 residential units multi - family 11,973.28 kBTU /uniUyear 6,752,930 kBTU /year Total Natural Gas 6,752,930 kBTU/ ear Total Electricity (Phase 1 and 2) 4,368,965 kWh /year Existing Electricity Use 31,000,000 kWh/ ear Change from Existing -26,631,035 kWh /year Total Natural Gas (Phase 1 and 2) 16,486,945 kBTU /year Existing Natural Gas Use 240, 000, 000, 000 kBTUlyear Change from Existing 1 - 239,983,513,055 kBTU/ ear Sources: CaIEEMod version 2011.1.1; CEC 2009a; CEC 2009b. SCE and SCGC both serve the project site and have utilities in the project area. Since the project would use less electricity upon buildout than the existing land uses, it would not create a new demand to be served by the existing electrical infrastructure. SCGC has indicated that the proposed project would be able to use their existing gas mains given compliance with SCGC policies and the California Public Utility Commission regulations. 5.15.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to utility services would occur when the proposed project, in combination of recent, present, and near future projects, would substantially increase the demand for utilities, resulting in the need to expand or construct new facilities. Table 4 -3 in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, lists the cumulative projects in the City of Newport Beach. As with the proposed project, these projects have been, or will be, required to conduct environmental review under CEQA and are approved by the City on a project -by- project basis. Since the proposed project would substantially reduce utility demand in comparison to existing industrial uses at the site, the project would not combine with other cumulative project to result in significant utility impacts. 5.15.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Regulations Water Supply • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 14.16, Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 14.17, Water- Efficient Landscaping Sewer • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 14.24, Sewer Connection, Permits Page 5.15 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Stormwater Drainage • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 14.36, Water Quality Solid Waste Collection and Disposal State Local California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 12.63, Solid Waste Management Electricity and Natural Gas • California Public Utilities Code Sections 727 -758 • California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Conservation) City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to utilities and service systems 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. 5.15.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.15 -1, 5.15 -2, 5.15 -3, 5.15 -4, and 5.15 -5. 5.15.7 Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are identified and no mitigation measures are required. 5.15.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts to utilities and service systems are less than significant. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.15 -21 S. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.15 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 1, Executive Summary, contains Table 1 -2, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation. While mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact, the following impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures are applied: Air Quality Phase 1 Impact 5.2 -2: Short-term construction emissions generated by the Uptown Newport project would result in oxides of nitrogen (NO,) 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 NO, 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 NO, and would continue to exceed SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. Therefore, Impact 5.2 -2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Phase 2 Same significant and unavoidable impact for Phase 1 applies to Phase 2. Land Use Phase 1 Impact 5.9 -3: The City of Newport Beach has reviewed the proposed project and a determination of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) by the City cannot be made at this time, as the proposed project has not yet been before the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency. The possibility of an ALUC determination of inconsistency with the AELUP is considered potentially significant. No mitigation measures are available that would reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, Impact 5.9 -3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Phase 2 Same significant and unavoidable impact for Phase 1 applies to Phase 2. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 6 -1 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Noise Phase 1 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 Impact 5.10 -6 would remain significant and unavoidable. Phase 2 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 at 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 Impact 5.10 -6 would remain significant and unavoidable. Page 6 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[a] through [f]) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in this DEIR. • "The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly" (15126.6[b]). "The specific alternative of'no project' shall also be evaluated along with its impact" (15126.6[e] [1]). "The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" (15126.6[e][2]). • "The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a'rule of reason'that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project" (15126.6[f]). • Among the factors that may betaken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)" (15126.6[f][1]). • "For alternative locations, "only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR" (15126.6 [f] [2] [A]). • "An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative" (15126.6[f][3]). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project For each development alternative, this analysis: • Describes the alternative, • Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the proposed project, • Identifies the impacts of the project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative, • Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives, and • Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the project. Perthe CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. 7.1.2 Project Objectives Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), alternatives evaluated in an EIR are those that "...would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project." As described in Section 3.3, Statement of Objectives, the following objectives have been established for the proposed project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, and associated environmental impacts: 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 averaged 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. Provide for the phased transition from existing industrial and office uses to a mixed -use residential village. 8. Provide beneficial site improvements including implementing a Water Quality Management Plan. 7.1.3 Significant Impacts of the Project As discussed above, a primary consideration in defining project alternatives is their potential to reduce or eliminate significant impacts compared to the proposed project. The impact analysis in Chapter 5 of this Page 7 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project DER concludes that the following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation for the proposed project: Air Quality Phase 1 Impact 5.2 -2: Short-term construction emissions generated by the Uptown Newport project would result in oxides of nitrogen (NOJ 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 NO, 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 NO, and would continue to exceed SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. Therefore, Impact 5.2 -2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Phase 2 Same significant and unavoidable impact for Phase 1 applies to Phase 2. Land Use Phase 1 Impact 5.9 -3: The City of Newport Beach has reviewed the proposed project and a determination of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) by the City cannot be made at this time, as the proposed project has not yet been before the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency. The possibility of an ALUC determination of inconsistency with the AELUP is considered potentially significant. No mitigation measures are available that would reduce this impactto less than significant. Therefore, Impact 5.9 -3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Phase 2 Same significant and unavoidable impact for Phase 1 applies to Phase 2. Noise Phase 1 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -3 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project measures, occupants at the offices adjacent to the project site would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction activities, and Impact 5.10 -6 would remain significant and unavoidable. Phase 2 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 Impact 5.10 -6 would remain significant and unavoidable. 7.2 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 this DEIR. 7.2.1 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, and; • 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 Mariners 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 of the City. As shown in Figures LU26, "Mariners Mile," LU21, "Newport Center /Fashion Island," and LU19, "Balboa Peninsula, Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square," of the City's General Plan Land Use Element, these areas are designated as Mixed Use Horizontal 1 (MU -H1), 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 -H4 designations permit a density of 20.1 -26.7 dwelling units per net acre (du /acre), and the areas designated MU -H3 are only permitted a maximum of 450 dwelling units. These areas of mixed -use Page 7 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project designation do not have adequate size or density to accommodate a project similar to Uptown Newport, which would include a total of 1,244 dwelling units at a density of 50 du /acre. Other sites within the Airport Area could accommodate the proposed project without a General Plan Amendment (see 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, 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 interim residential use for Phase 1 of the proposed project with the adjacent semiconductor manufacturing facility. The significant impacts associated with this adjacency, however, including operational noise, potential hazards are less than significant for the proposed project upon mitigation. 8B 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][131). 7.2.2 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 residences could be occupied until at least 2017, and under the lease option to renew the lease, Phase 1 residences could not be occupied until the extended lease expiration in 2027. This alternative, however, would allow the retail operations in Phase 1 (11,500 square feet including an upscale restaurant) to commence operation. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -5 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 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, or 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 potentially 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 (up to 2 years for some of the units) under the best case for this alternative and potentially until 2027 (at least 9 years for all of Phase 1 residents and up to 12 years for some units) under the lease option. 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. 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER 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 then required to identify as 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 those impacts found significant and unavoidable 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 this DEIR. Page 7 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Alternatives Comparison Table 7 -1 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. Table 7 -1 Statistical Summary Comparison ' Assumes 2.19 persons per household as determined in 2010 Census for Newport Beach (Census 2012). Assumes 450 square feet per employee, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001). ' Assumes 352 square feet per employee for low -rise office uses, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001). ^ 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 per hotel employee rate for Orange County, the regional rate of 1,804 was used to develop the number of employees for this alternative. ' Jobs -to- housing ratio is based on SCAG projections forthe 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 as shown in Figure 3 -6, 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, which is currently set to expire in March 2017, but could be extended to as late as March 2027. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -7 KNI� Proposed Project No Project Alternative Hotel /Office/ Commercial Alternative Office /Commercial/ Residential Alternative Reduced Density Alternative Dwelling Units 1,244 — — 830 561 Commercial/Retail 11,500 — 20,000 7,000 11,500 Office — 126,675 160,000 100,000 — Industrial — 311,452 0 0 0 Hotel Rooms — — 174 — — Park Space 2.05 — 1.52 1.40 2.05 Population 2,724 — — 1,818 1,229 Employment Commercial P 26 — 44 16 26 Office' — 135 455 284 — Hotel ^ — — 96 — — Industrial — 3,000 Total 26 3,135 595 300 26 Jobs -to- Housing Ratios 1.78 1.91 1.85 1.88 1.81 ' Assumes 2.19 persons per household as determined in 2010 Census for Newport Beach (Census 2012). Assumes 450 square feet per employee, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001). ' Assumes 352 square feet per employee for low -rise office uses, per SCAG's Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001). ^ 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 per hotel employee rate for Orange County, the regional rate of 1,804 was used to develop the number of employees for this alternative. ' Jobs -to- housing ratio is based on SCAG projections forthe 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 as shown in Figure 3 -6, 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, which is currently set to expire in March 2017, but could be extended to as late as March 2027. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -7 KNI� 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project • 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 (12.29 for Phase 1 and 12.76 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 (subterranean and above - ground) parking. • 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 7 -2 provides a comparison of the vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed project and each of the alternatives. Table 7 -2 Trip Generation Comparison 7.4 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 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. Aesthetics Phase 1 and Phase 2 The project site would remain in its current condition under this alternative. Existing land uses and views would remain as depicted in Figures 4 -1, Site Photographs, and 4 -2, Photographs of Surrounding Uses. As with the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a valued panoramic view. This alternative would not generate new light or glare sources, and would not cast shadows on surrounding properties. However, the improvements under the proposed project would subjectively be Page 7 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 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 i 4,139 64 233 297 236 135 370 7.4 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 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. Aesthetics Phase 1 and Phase 2 The project site would remain in its current condition under this alternative. Existing land uses and views would remain as depicted in Figures 4 -1, Site Photographs, and 4 -2, Photographs of Surrounding Uses. As with the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a valued panoramic view. This alternative would not generate new light or glare sources, and would not cast shadows on surrounding properties. However, the improvements under the proposed project would subjectively be Page 7 -8 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project characterized as improving existing site conditions, particularly through the introduction of new and enhanced landscaping and other site improvements. Overall, aesthetic impacts would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant. Air Quality Phase 1 This alternative would retain the existing land uses onsite. The primary source of criteria air pollutants onsite is from vehicle trips to and from the Half Dome building. The proposed project would generate substantially more vehicle trips associated with the residential and commercial land uses compared to the existing office land use. In addition, the proposed residential and commercial buildings would generate higher area source emissions than the existing office building. Phase 1 air quality impacts for this alternative would therefore be less than emissions for the proposed project. This alternative would eliminate project - related air quality impacts related to placement of sensitive receptors proximate to major sources of toxic air contaminants, including the TowerJazz facility. Phase 2 The existing TowerJazz facility generates stationary source emissions from industrial processing onsite and mobile sources of emissions related to vehicle trips. While the proposed project generates fewer stationary/area sources of emissions onsite than the TowerJazz facility, the residential land uses under the proposed project would generate substantially more vehicle trips. When taken together, total emissions generated by the proposed project would be higher than emissions generated by the TowerJazz facility. 88 Therefore, this alternative would reduce long -term operational air quality impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Construction The No Project alternative would eliminate construction - related air quality impacts that are associated with the proposed project. Since construction - related air quality impacts for the proposed project are significant and unavoidable, the No Project Alternative would eliminate a significant, unavoidable impact. Overall, this alternative would reduce operational air quality impacts and eliminate the significant construction - related air quality impacts of the proposed project. Biological Resources Phase 1 and Phase 2 Impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be reduced. Trees and other vegetation onsite that currently could be used for nesting by migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would remain, as no existing vegetation would be removed. However, all biological resource impacts associated with the project as proposed would be mitigated to less than significant. Therefore, although this alternative would reduce impacts, it would not eliminate any significant impacts in comparison to the proposed project Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -9 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Cultural Resources Phase 1 and Phase 2 Since this alternative would not involve any site disturbance, it would not have the potential to adversely affect any archaeological or paleontological resources at the project site. As with the proposed project, this alternative would not disturb any historical structures. Although this alternative would reduce impacts to cultural resources in comparison to the proposed project, it would not eliminate a significant impact since potential cultural resource impacts would be mitigated to less than significant for the proposed project. Geology and Soils Phase 1 and Phase 2 Grading and excavation of the project site would not occur under this alternative. Moreover, no additional structures or persons would be introduced to the potential seismic - related hazards associated with the project site. Geologic and soils impacts for this alternative, therefore, would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. However, since no significant geologic and soils - related impacts would occur under the proposed project with implementation of mitigation, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact in comparison to the proposed project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 1 Existing, onsite land uses would remain under this alternative and TowerJazz operations would continue, including the substantial GHG emissions generated by this facility. TowerJazz would also continue to operate during Phase 1 of the proposed project. Under the No Project Alternative, GHG emissions would also be generated by the Half Dome office use, and vehicle trips generated by both TowerJazz and the office use. Since trip generation associated with the Phase 1 portion of the proposed project (680 units and 11,500 square feet of commercial) generates more vehicle trips than the Half Dome building, GHG emissions for the No Project alternative for Phase 1 would be less than the proposed project. However, since no significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts occur under the proposed project, no impacts would be avoided. Phase 2 The ongoing operation of TowerJazz underthe No Project Alternative would result in greater GHG emissions compared to the proposed project, because the TowerJazz facility is a major stationary source generator of GHG emissions. Closure and removal of the TowerJazz facility would result in a substantial reduction of GHG emissions onsite. The No Project Alternative, therefore, would result in greater GHG emissions for buildout of the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Phase 1 In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not introduce residential uses within the property boundary and therefore would not potentially expose future residents to facility - related hazards, including the potential for a hazardous chemical release or VOC vapor intrusion into residential parking garages or residential buildings. Similarly, the Half Dome building would not be demolished and people Page 7 -10 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project would not be potentially exposed to hazardous building materials (asbestos and lead paint). As with the proposed project, onsite remediation activities for the Phase 2 portion of the project would continue during the Phase 1 timeline. In comparison to the proposed project, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be reduced under the No Project Alternative. Although this alternative would eliminate significant hazards impacts associated with the proposed project (prior to mitigation), each of the significant impacts is mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project, and therefore, this alternative would not eliminate any significant, unavoidable impacts. Phase 2 Since TowerJazz would continue to operate indefinitely under the No Project Alternative, new residences would not be introduced (as with the proposed project) and surrounding land uses would continue to be exposed to potential hazardous conditions associated with the operation, including the potential release of chemicals used and stored onsite. This impact would be eliminated by Phase 2 of the proposed project, under which the facility would be demolished and cease to operate. The No Project Alternative, however, would eliminate the potential release of hazardous materials associated with site grading /soil disturbance and the potential release of hazardous building materials during demolition. The No Project Alternative would also eliminate the proposed project's impact of potential VOC vapor intrusion into Phase 2 residential structures. Phase 2 hazardous impacts would be reduced by the No Project Alternative in comparison to the proposed project. Significant impacts under this alternative would be eliminated in comparison to the proposed project; however, since project impacts would be mitigated to less than significant, no significant, unavoidable impacts would be eliminated. Overall, impacts from hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced under the No Project Alternative. / Significant impacts would be eliminated, but no significant, unavoidable impacts would be eliminated in /`%8 comparison to the proposed project (since all impacts can be mitigated). Hydrology and Water Quality Phase 1 an Phase 2 Under the No Project Alternative, the TowerJazz semiconductor manufacturing operation would remain, including any potential for this use to adversely impact water quality (chemical release, etc.). Existing drainage patterns and water quality conditions would not change. New storm drains and onsite water quality drainage features as proposed by the project would not be constructed. For example, the infiltration basins that would be developed under the parks proposed by the project would not be implemented. Additionally, development pursuant to the proposed project would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and would reduce stormwater volumes and peak flow rates into drainage systems. These improvements would be considered a beneficial impact of the proposed project. Potential water quality impacts of the proposed project, including short-term construction - related and long- term operational impacts would be mitigated by best management practices (BNPs) required under the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and water quality management plan (WQMP). The source control, treatment control, and site design BMPs that would be implemented under the proposed project would improve the quality of stormwater runoff from the site. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be greater for this alternative in comparison to the proposed project. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -11 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Land Use and Planning Phase f and Phase 2 Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain in its present condition. As with the proposed project, this alternative would not physically divide an established community through the introduction of either physical or community barriers. This alternative would not, however, implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and the Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). 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. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not require review by ALUC for consistency with the AELUP prior to Newport Beach City Council action on the alternative. Therefore, this alternative would eliminate the proposed project's significant and unavoidable land use impact related to a potential find of inconsistency with the AELUP by ALUC. Overall, land use and planning impacts for this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed project, since the project's significant and unavoidable land use impact would be eliminated. Noise and Vibration Noise Phase 1 In comparison to the proposed project, noise impacts during Phase 1 of this alternative would be less compared to the proposed project because it would not place residential uses in proximityto the TowerJazz facility. No construction would occur under this alternative; therefore, there would be no significant noise impacts at nearby office uses related to construction activities. The No Project Alternative would reduce Phase 1 noise impacts in comparison to the proposed project and would eliminate the significant, unavoidable noise impact of the proposed project. Phase 2 Under the No Project alternative, the TowerJazz operation would continue indefinitely and the 24 -hour, seven - day /week noise generation would continue. New development surrounding the project site could be impacted by the noise generation. In comparison, the land uses under the proposed project would not generate substantial noise. Although traffic generation would be greater under the proposed project, the increase in traffic noise in comparison to the No Project Alternative (existing conditions) would be negligible. The No Project Alternative, however, would eliminate the significant construction noise impact associated with the proposed project. Overall, the No Project Alternative would reduce noise impacts in comparison to the proposed project, primarily because it would eliminate a significant, unavoidable impact (construction noise), even though long -term noise generation from the site would be greater than with the proposed project. Page 7 -12 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Vibration Phase 1 This alternative would retain the existing land uses onsite. Consequently, there would be no vibration due to construction activities that would have the potential to cause disruptions to the TowerJazz Semiconductor facility and annoyance at uses adjacent to the project site. Vibration impacts during Phase 1 of this alternative would be less compared to the proposed project. This alternative would eliminate the significant construction - related vibration impacts due to the project. Underthe proposed project, however, this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Phase 2 This alternative would retain the existing land uses onsite. Consequently, there would be no vibration due to construction activities that would have the potential to cause annoyance at uses adjacent to the project site. Impacts during Phase 2 of this alternative would be less compared to the proposed project. This alternative would eliminate the significant construction - related vibration impacts due to the project. This impact, however, is mitigated to less than significant for the proposed project. Overall, vibration impacts would be reduced for the No Project Alternative in comparison to the proposed project. Population and Housing Phase 1 and Phase 2 8B In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would not introduce new housing and residents into the City. It would not provide 185 affordable housing units that, underthe proposed project, would assistthe City in achieving its Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) goals. The proposed project would introduce 2,724 new residents and 26 new jobs to the City, resulting in an increase in population but a net decrease in employment considering existing onsite jobs. As shown in Table 7 -1, Statistical Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives, the forecast jobs -to- housing balance in 2035 for the No Project Alternative is 1.91 in comparison to the proposed project's ratio of 1.78. In comparison to the No Project Alternative, the proposed project results in a positive impact to the jobs: housing balance (SCAG's ideal jobs /housing ratio is 1.36). Overall, population and housing impacts for the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project. Impacts for this alternative as well as the proposed project, however, are less than significant. Public Services Phase 1 and Phase 2 Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no increase in demand for fire and emergency protection services, police protection, or school and library services. Although potential impacts would be less than for the proposed project, no significant impacts on public services would occur with the proposed project; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -13 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Recreation Phase 1 and Phase 2 Under this alternative, there would be no increase in demand for recreational facilities or services, since no residential uses would be developed. The onsite park, also to be available to the public, that would be developed under the proposed project, would not be developed under the No Project Alternative. Similarly, Quimby Act fees for park dedication or improvements would not be paid under the No Project Alternative. Although potential impacts would be less than forthe proposed project, no significant impacts on recreation would occur with the proposed project; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact. Transportation and Traffic Phase 1 and Phase 2 This alternative would retain the existing land uses onsite. As shown in Table 7 -2, Trip Generation Comparison, the No Project alternative would generate substantially fewer trips than the proposed project (747 dailytrips in comparison to 9,033 for the proposed project). However, since the proposed project would not substantially affect traffic at study area intersections and freeway mainlines and ramps (see Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic), traffic impacts to study area roadways under this alternative would be similar to the project. Because this alternative would retain the existing industrial uses rather than develop the residential and commercial uses as proposed, this alternative would be less effective than the proposed project in promoting alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking, and public transit. Moreover, the No Project alternative would not provide improvements to encourage pedestrian and bike use in the project area, as included in the proposed project. Overall, transportation and traffic impacts would be similarto the proposed project, and as with the proposed project, would be less than significant. Utilities and Service Systems Phase 1 and Phase 2 Table 7 -3, Utility /Service Systems Needs Comparison - No Project Alternative, summarizes utility and service system demands for the proposed project in comparison to the No Project Alternative at buildout. Table 7 -3 Utility /Service System Needs Comparison - No Project Alternative Utility/Service System Proposed Project No Project Alternative Difference Wastewater 140,065 gpd 900,000 god — 759,935 gpd Water 214,191 gpd 1.4E +06 gpd — 1.2E +06 gpd Solid Waste 8,038 Ibs /day 3,447lbs /day +4,585lbs /day Electricity 4.4E +06 kWh/year 31 E +06 kWh /year — 27E +06 kWh /year Natural Gas 16,486 MMBTU /year 240,000 MMBTU /year — 239,984 MMBTU /year Notes: gpd = gallons per day; Its = pounds per day; kWh = kilowatt hour; MMBTU = Brfth Thermal Unit Page 7 -14 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project As shown in this table, electricity, natural gas and water use for the existing development (No Project Alternative) are substantially greater than for the project as proposed. The No Project Alternative also generates more wastewater than projected for the Uptown Newport development. These demands reflect the intense service demands of the TowerJazz manufacturing operation. The No Project Alternative, however, would reduce solid waste generation in comparison to the proposed project. Overall, utility and service system impacts would be much greater under the No Project Alternative than under the proposed project. 7.4.2 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts 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 eliminatethe significant unavoidable construction - related impacts for air quality and noise, as well as the potentially significant land use and planning impact related to a consistency finding for the AELUP required 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. 7.4.3 Ability to Achieve Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project, as 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 8B 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. 7.5 HOTEL /OFFICE /COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE 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. 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). 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 7 -1, Statistical Summary Comparison. A conceptual layout for this alternative is shown in Figure 7 -1, Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Site Plan and Phasing Plan. This alternative could potentially include subterranean parking for one or more of the uses. Phase I 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -15 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 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. Trip Generation Table 7 -4 provides the number of vehicle trips that would be generated by this alternative. The trip generations were based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (8th edition) trip rates used in the proposed project's traffic study. As shown, this alternative would generate 3,983 average daily trips (ADT), 365 AM peak hour trips, and 404 PM peak hour trips. Table 7 -4 Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Unit Trip Generation Rates' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 310 Rooms 8.17 0.34 0.22 0.56 0.31 0.28 0.59 General Office Building 710 KSF 11.01 1.36 0.19 1.55 0.25 1.24 1.49 Shopping Center 820 KSF 42.94 0.61 0.39 1.00 1 1.83 1.90 3.73 Land Use Quantity . Unit Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 174 Rooms 1,422 59 38 97 54 48 102 General Office Building 160 KSF 1,762 218 30 248 41 198 239 Shopping Center 20 KSF 859 12 8 20 37 38 75 Subtotal- Before Internal Capture /Pass -by 4,042 289 76 365 132 284 416 Internal Trip Captures 60 2 2 4 Pass -by Reduction for Retail (10 %) 4 4 8 Total 3,983 289 76 365 126 278 404 Proposed Project Total Trips 9.033 134 511 644 537 292 829 DIFFERENCE -5050 155 1 -435 -279 -411 -14 1 -425 Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Notes: KSF = thousand square feet ' Institute of Transportation Engineers,: Trip Generation, 8th edition. 2 ITE, Trip Generation. 3 Based on net retail trips, after internal capture reduction. Page 7 -16 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Tt 4* u —. . -- OFFICE l S OFiKE (B$,75Ut A Cnrlesl KOM I U�, 17a Rooms &[unierente Arens I . 1!'lll?.!!!99111llll11 ]?9(]]11i�i�lill i17a,noa :rraxmrle:l �i rid --------- - - - - -- - -- - - MICE -,Se 7T- J A M 3 0 R E E R O A M ...... Site Boundary Phasing Boundary POW 111 i i i i � ► V+fftt+lM 1C Iii _ 200 00 Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 7 -1 Phase 7 Phase 2 Total Hotel (rooms): 174 0 174 Office (sf) 0 160,000 160,000 Commercial 0 20,000 20,000 Open Space Area (ac): 1.52 0 1.52 Total Area (ac): 12.29 12.76 75.05 200 00 Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 7 -1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 7 -18 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.5.2 Environmental Assessment Aesthetics Phase 1 and Phase 2 The visual character of this alternative would be substantially differentthan the proposed project. The overall footprint for buildings would be reduced, as well as the maximum height of buildings. Under the proposed project, residential building towers could be as high as 150 feet. Forthe Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative, maximum building height would be assumed to be 75 feet. It is anticipated that a hotel use would be 3 to 4 stories, office uses 1 to 2 stories, and the commercial /retail use 1 story. This alternative would not obstruct scenic vistas and may reduce any view obstruction in comparison to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the architectural, site, landscape, lighting, and streetscape design forthe hotel uses would be driven by the required regulatory plan. The standards and guidelines outlined in the regulatory plan would ensure the orderly development of the hotel uses and thatthis alternative is developed in a manner that is not visually detrimental to the surrounding commercial and office uses. As with the proposed project, the TowerJazz building would continue to operate during construction and initial operation of Phase 1 of this alternative. The required regulatory plan would provide the necessary landscape standards and guidelines (e.g., dense evergreen trees, screen walls) to ensure thatthe industrial building would be adequately screened from the proposed hotel uses. Since building heights would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would 8B reduce potential shade /shadow impacts, although light and glare impacts would likely be similar to the proposed project and include typical lighting for hotel uses, parking areas, and walkways. This alternative would include signage and potentially lighting for signage, not required for the proposed project. Such improvements would be in accordance with mandated design standards and codes, and impacts would be less than significant. Overall, scenic vista, visual character, shade /shadow, and light and glare impacts would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant. Air Quality Phase 1 Regional Air Quality Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of a hotel with 174 rooms and the continued operation of the TowerJazz facility. This alternative is estimated to reduce Phase 1 vehicle trips by 73 percent from the proposed project (Phase 1 only). Because transportation emissions comprise the majority of a development project's criteria air pollutant emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in criteria air pollutant emissions generated by this alternative would be substantially less than the proposed project. This alternative would substantially reduce the magnitude of operational phase air emissions during Phase 1. Operational phase air emissions by the proposed project are less than significant. Therefore, the incremental increase in emissions onsite would remain less than the SCAQMD thresholds. This alternative would reduce the proposed project's operational impacts. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -19 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Air Quality Compatibility This alternative would also reduce project - related air quality impacts related to placement of sensitive receptors proximate to major sources of toxic air contaminants, including the TowerJazz facility. While no significant impacts were identified for the proposed project, hotels are not considered sensitive land uses for air quality compatibility. Consequently, air quality impacts with this alternative would be less than significant and this alternative would reduce air quality compatibility impacts of the project. Phase 2 Regional Air Quality Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of a hotel with 174 rooms, 20,000 square feet of commercial retail space, and 160,000 square feet of office space. TowerJazz would cease to operate prior to development of Phase 2, resulting in a substantial reduction in stationary source emissions onsite, the same as the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to reduce vehicle trips during Phase 2 by 56 percent from the proposed project (Phase f plus Phase 2). Because transportation emissions comprise the majority of a development project's criteria air pollutant emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in criteria air pollutant emissions generated by this alternative would be substantially less than the proposed project. This alternative would substantially reduce the magnitude of operational phase air emissions. Operational phase air emissions by the proposed project are less than significant. Therefore, the incremental increase in emissions onsite would remain less than the SCAQMD thresholds. This alternative would reduce the proposed project's operational impacts. Construction - Phase 1 and Phase 2 Regional and Localized Air Quality Construction emissions would be similar in this alternative to those of the proposed project. Both scenarios would involve development on a portion of the site and may include subterranean parking, resulting in similar equipment use during the grading phase. Construction emissions impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would require similar mitigation. As with the proposed project, regional construction - related air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources Phase 1 and Phase 2 Although this alternative would replace residential uses for hotel, office and commercial uses, its impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the proposed project since they would both develop the entire site. The same mitigation would be required, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Cultural Resources Phase 1 and Phase 2 Cultural resources impacts would be similar to the proposed project since this alternative would redevelop the entire site. Recommended mitigation under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Overall, as with the proposed project, cultural resource impacts would be less than significant. Page 7 -20 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Geology and Soils Phase f and Phase 2 The Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative would involve disturbing the entire project site and grading the same acreage under each phase, similar to the proposed project. During project operation, this alternative would introduce hotel and office patrons, increase the number of commercial patrons, and eliminate the number of permanent residents who would be potentially exposed to seismic - related hazards associated with the project site (e.g., ground shaking, liquefaction). These seismic hazards, however, are similar to most of southern California. Impacts from expansive soils would also be similar to the proposed project. Overall, geology and soils impacts would be similar to the proposed project and, as with the proposed project, recommended mitigation would mitigate impacts to less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 1 Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of a hotel with 174 rooms and the continued operation of the TowerJazz facility. This alternative is estimated to reduce Phase 1 vehicle trips by 73 percent from the proposed project (Phase 1 only). Because transportation emissions comprise the majority of a development project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in GHG emissions generated by this alternative would be substantially less than the proposed project. While this alternative would be less dense than the proposed project and therefore less efficient on a per capita basis, this alternative would substantially reduce the magnitude of operational phase air emissions during Phase 1. 88 GHG emissions generated by Phase 1 of this alternative would likely not exceed the draft SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTons because of the substantial decrease in vehicle trips. GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project are less than significant. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts during Phase 1 of this alternative would also be less than significant. Phase 2 Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of a hotel with 174 rooms, 20,000 square feet of commercial retail space, and 160,000 square feet of office space. TowerJazz would cease to operate prior to development of Phase 2, resulting in a substantial reduction in stationary source GHG emissions onsite, the same as for the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to reduce vehicle trips for Phase 2 (project buildout, Phase 1 plus Phase 2) by 56 percent in comparison to the proposed project. Because transportation emissions comprise the majority of GHG emissions for development projects, it is expected that GHG emissions generated by this alternative would be substantially less than emissions generated by the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would result in a beneficial GHG emissions impact in comparison to existing conditions. GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project are less than significant and would be less than significant with this alternative. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Phase 1 Under this alternative, the TowerJazz facility would continue operation during an interim period after the Phase 1 improvements were completed and occupied. Hotel guests and open space users would be subject to the hazards associated with the potential release of hazardous chemicals from the TowerJazz portion of Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -21 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project the site as well as potential vapor intrusion impacts. In comparison to future residents as proposed under Phase 1 of the proposed project, however, the duration of hotel guest exposure to potential site hazards would be nominal. Moreover, this alternative would comply with the City's California Fire Code (CFC) amendment prohibiting residential uses adjacent to storage of extremely hazardous chemicals in excess of defined quantities. Potential hazards would be reduced under this alternative for Phase 1, and in comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would comply with CFC Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment). With mitigation, this impact is less than significant for the proposed project, and therefore this alternative would not eliminate a significant, unavoidable impact. Phase 2 Under this alternative, Phase 1 hotel guests would be subject to potential exposure of hazardous materials, including building materials (asbestos and lead paint), when the Phase 2 portion of the site is developed. Since guests would be exposed to Phase 2 impacts for a shorter duration than residents, this impact would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Phase 2 development under this alternative could not occur until site remediation was completed and cleared by the RWQCB for development. Office and retail uses would occupy the Phase 2 portion of this alternative. Although hazards would be mitigated to less than significantfor the proposed project, since this alternative would not introduce any residents in Phase 2, impacts would be less. Overall, hazards and hazardous materials impacts for this alternative project would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, and this alternative would eliminate one potential significant impact. Since that impact (compliance with CFC Section 2401.1.1 [Amendment]) would be mitigated to less than significant for the proposed project, this alternative would not eliminate any significant, unavoidable impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality Phase 1 and Phase 2 As with the proposed project, the majority of the site would be developed with impervious surfaces underthis alternative. As shown in the conceptual plan for this alternative (see Figure 7 -1, Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Site Plan and Phasing Plan), including expansive surface parking, this alternative may increase impervious surfaces in comparison to the proposed project, and therefore increase surface runoff. Subterranean parking, however, could be provided and additional hotel amenities, including open space, could also be provided. As with the proposed project, storm drains could accommodate surface runoff and water quality treatments would meet regulatory standards, assuring that impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and less than significant. Land Use and Planning Phase 1 and Phase 2 As with the proposed project, development of this alternative would not physically divide an established community through the introduction of either physical or community barriers. The land uses proposed under this alternative would be compatible with and complementary to the adjacent and surrounding office and commercial uses. Additionally, as with the proposed project, this alternative would not introduce any roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect the adjacent business park uses. Page 7 -22 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Although the office and hotel uses proposed under this alternative are permitted under the General Plan land use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -H2), this alternative would not be as effective as the proposed project in achieving some of the specific goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. Moreover, it would not be consistent with the ICDP approved for the combined 25 -acre Uptown Newport project site and 12.7 -acre adjacent Koll project site. Additionally, this alternative would require an amendmentto the PC- 15 to change the current zoning designation from Industrial Site 1 to Professional and Business Offices or adopt a new Planned Community Development Plan to allow hotel and professional business office uses. The General Plan's policies forthe 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 within the existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail, and airport- related businesses. Therefore, this alternative would not implement City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area. This alternative would be consistent with other applicable regional and local plans, including SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS). As with the proposed project, this alternative would require review by the ALUC of Orange County for consistency with the AELUP prior to Newport Beach City Council action on the alternative. The review would be required due to the zoning designation change and zoning code adoption required underthis alternative. The commercial uses underthis alternative, including the hotel use, would not be subjectto the AELUP noise level restrictions that apply to the residential units proposed in the Uptown Newport project. Also, since the building heights of this alternative would not exceed 75 feet (as opposed to 150 feet under the project), it is assumed that this alternative could be designed to be consistent with any height restrictions pursuant to the AELUP. It is expected that this alternative would be consistent with the AELUP, but as with the proposed project, it would still need approval by the ALUC. Impacts with respect to AELUP consistency would be 8B slightly less than the proposed project, but still potentially significant until reviewed and approved by ALUC. This alternative, therefore, would not eliminate the potentially significant impact. Overall, land use and planning impacts for this project alternative would be greater compared to the proposed project. Noise Phase 1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Relative to the proposed project, this alternative would eliminate the land -use compatibility issues related to the placement of residential uses proximate to the TowerJazz facility. Under the proposed project, the operational noise impacts from TowerJazz could disturb residents for 6 to 12 years (depending on whether the lease option is exercised). Hotel guests under this alternative would be exposed to the same high noise levels, but for much shorter durations compared to permanent residents under the proposed project. The hotel uses would be subject to a slightly less stringent exterior noise maximum in comparison to the proposed project's residential uses (70 dBA instead of 65 dBA). This use, however, would have to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise standard. As with the proposed project, standard windows and doors would not provide the required exterior -to- interior noise reduction to meet the interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL at the hotel rooms. Under this alternative, impacts related to noise and land use compatibility would be reduced compared to the proposed project; however, impacts would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant with mitigation. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -23 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Construction Noise This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area as Phase 1 of the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the operation of construction equipmentwould have the potential to cause annoyance and interfere with activities at the adjacent office buildings and the TowerJazz facility facing the construction area. Noise impacts to nearby office and commercial uses during Phase 1 construction would be similar to the proposed project, significant and unavoidable. Construction Vibration This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area and would require the use of heavy construction equipment similarto Phase 1 of the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the TowerJazz building would continue to operate during construction and initial operation of Phase 1 of this alternative. 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. Under this alternative, vibration impacts during project construction would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant after mitigation. Phase 2 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Phase 2 would include the development of office and commercial uses, which are not considered noise sensitive. Under this alternative, impacts related to noise and land use compatibility would be less than the proposed project; however, impacts would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant. Construction Noise This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area as Phase 2 of the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the operation of construction equipmentwould have the potential to cause annoyance and interfere with activities at the office buildings facing the construction area. In addition, construction of Phase 2 would result in high noise levels at the hotel uses constructed in Phase 1 and existing office buildings adjacent to the project site. Underthis alternative, construction noise impacts related to the project would be similar to the proposed project, significant and unavoidable. Construction Vibration This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area and would require the use of heavy construction equipment similar to Phase 2 of the proposed project, and would have the potential to cause sporadic annoyance at the hotel uses constructed in Phase 1 and on adjacent office and commercial uses. Under this alternative, vibration impacts during project construction would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant after mitigation. Overall, temporary noise and vibration impacts during construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would be similarto the proposed project. Long -term operational impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project; however, this alternative would not eliminate the noise impacts identified for the proposed project. Noise impacts during project construction would remain significant and unavoidable. Population and Housing Phase 1 and Phase 2 Due to the elimination of residential uses under this alternative, there would be no direct increase in population or housing in the City (see Table 7 -1, Statistical Summary Comparison). The indirect population Page 7 -24 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project growth and need for housing elsewhere in the City and surrounding communities outside the City limits, however, would be slightly greater than for the proposed project due to the increase in hotel, office, and commercial uses. This alternative would not provide 185 affordable housing units that, under the proposed project, would assist the City in achieving its RHNA goals. As shown in Table 7 -1, this alternative would generate approximately 595 employees. The elimination of the residential uses and the increase in employees would increase the City's jobs /housing ratio, which is jobs rich. Overall the population and housing impact of this alternative would be greater than the proposed project, but as with the proposed project, would be less than significant without mitigation. Public Services Phase land Phase 2 This alternative would be expected reduce the demand on public services in comparison to the proposed project. The elimination of residential units would result in the reduction on library and school services and facilities. Since high density residential uses typically generate a higher need for police and fire services, the hotel /office /commercial land use mix would also likely reduce the demand for these services relative to the proposed project. Overall, public service impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, and like the proposed project, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Recreation Phase 1 and Phase 2 8B The elimination of 1,244 residential uses in comparison to the proposed project would substantially reduce the demand for recreational facilities. Hotel guests may use local recreational facilities, but onsite recreational amenities would also be expected to be provided. As shown on the conceptual plan for this alternative (see Figure 7 -1, Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Site Plan and Phasing Plan), open space, potentially for public use, could also be integrated into this alternative. Although potential impacts would be less than for the proposed project, no significant recreational impacts would occur with the proposed project upon mitigation, and therefore this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact. Transportation and Traffic Phase 1 and Phase 2 As shown on Table 7 -4, Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Trip Generation, this alternative is projected to generate 3,983 daily trips, 365 during the AM peak hour and 404 during the PM peak hour. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate 5,050 fewer daily trips, and 425 fewer trips during the PM peak hour. This alternative would generate substantially less inbound (to the site) and outbound (from the site) trips than the proposed project during the PM peak hour, totaling 425 trips. The project would also generate a total of 279 fewer trips during the AM peak hour. However, this alternative would generate 155 more inbound trips during the AM peak hour, which would add traffic to the predominant traffic flow on Jamboree Road during the AM peak hour. Because this alternative would add traffic to the predominant traffic flow along nearby roadways, this alternative would have the potential to more adversely impact some intersections in comparison to the proposed project. The proposed project would develop residential uses in close proximity to employment and commercial centers that could encourage residents of the proposed project to walk or bike to work or shop rather than Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -25 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project drive. This alternative would be less effective than the proposed project in promoting alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking, and public transit due to the development of hotel rooms and office uses on the project site — rather than the residential uses planned under the proposed project. In summary, although total daily trips would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, the overall transportation and traffic character of this alternative would be different and not provide some of the benefits of the proposed project. Overall, transportation and traffic impacts would be considered similar. As with the proposed project, it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant. Utilities and Service Systems Phase 1 and Phase 2 Compared to the proposed project, the Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative would introduce office uses, increase commercial uses, and reduce the number of residential units. Based on the generation rates that would be applicable to each of the utility and service system demands (wastewater, water, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas) for each of the land uses that would be developed under the proposed project and this alternative, the overall demand for utility and service systems would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact of the proposed project. 7.5.3 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts 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. It would comply with CFC Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment) since it would not locate residents adjacent to extremely dangerous chemicals, and thus would eliminate a 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 the proposed project, and aesthetics, biological resource, cultural resources, geology and soils impacts, and hydrology /water quality impacts would be similar. 7.5.4 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 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. 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 Page 7 -26 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 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. 7.6 OFFICE /COMMERCIAL /RES IDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE 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 7 -1, Statistical Summary Comparison. The conceptual layout and location of the uses that would be developed under this alternative are shown in Figure 7 -2, Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative Site Plan and Phasing Plan. 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 8B 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 underthis alternative. Residential product types could be for sale and /or rent with 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 passed and walkway connections would be provided onsite and to surrounding areas. Trip Generation Table 7 -5 provides the number of vehicle trips that would be generated under this alternative. The trip generations were based on the ITE Trip Generation (8th edition) rates used in the proposed project's traffic Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -27 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project study. As shown in Table 7 -5, this alternative would generate 6,805 ADT, 584 AM peak hour trips, and 672 PM peak hour trips. Table 7 -5 Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Unit Trip Generation Rates' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out I Total In Out Total Specialty Retail 814 KSF 44.32 0.61 0.39 1.00 1.38 1.33 2.71 General Office Building 710 KSF 11.01 1.36 0.19 1.55 0.25 1.24 1.49 Apartment z 220 DU 6.65 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 Land Use Quantity Unit Trip Generation Estimates FDaily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In out Total Specialty Retail 7 KSF 310 4 3 7 10 9 19 General Office Building 100 KSF 1,101 136 19 155 25 124 149 Apartment 830 DU 5,520 83 340 423 332 183 515 Sub -total - Before Internal Capture /Pass -by 6,931 223 362 585 367 316 683 Internal Trip Capture 3 106 0 0 0 5 5 10 Pass -By Reduction for Retail (10%)4 20 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 6,805 223 362 1 584 362 311 672 Proposed Project Total Trips 9,033 134 511 644 537 292 829 DIFFERENCE -2,228 89 -149 1 -60 1 -175 1 19 1 -157 Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Notes: KSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit ' Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th edition. The alternative may consist of a combination of multi - family residential product types, including condominium, apartment, townhome, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment' are used here. ' ITE, Trip Generation. ° Based on net retail trips, after internal capture reduction. 7.6.1 Environmental Assessment Aesthetics Phase 1 As with the proposed project, views of the surrounding scenic vistas would not be significantly impacted. New structures and buildings associated with this alternative would not substantially affect existing limited /intermittent views of the undeveloped open space beyond Jamboree Road within the North Campus planning area of UCI (see Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph). In comparison to the proposed project, the building height and massing for Phase 1 would be reduced. Page 7 -28 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives Of ce/Commercial /Residential Alternative A J A M B O R E E R O A D ...... Site Boundary � � � Phasing Boundary ran mma kat /: v i.Y I. Total Area (ac): 10.94 14.11 25.05 0 zoo Scab Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 7 -2 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 7 -30 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Due to the difference in land use mix and the introduction of office uses, this alternative would have a different character than the proposed project, but would nonetheless alter the overall character of the project site. As with the proposed project, the heights and scale of the office buildings would be comparable to existing office building skylines to the north, south, and west. As with the proposed project, the architectural, site, landscape, lighting, and streetscape design for the office uses would be driven by the required regulatory plan. The standards and guidelines outlined in the regulatory plan would ensure the orderly development of the hotel uses and that this alternative is developed in a manner that is not visually detrimental to the surrounding commercial and office uses. Since building heights for Phase 1 would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would slightly reduce potential shade /shadow impacts, although light and glare impacts would likely be similar to the proposed project and include typical lighting for office uses, parking areas, and walkways. Phase 2 Visual Character Transition to residential uses under Phase 2 of this alternative would change the general character of the project site. As with the proposed project, the variable building scale of the residential buildings would be comparable in size to existing office building skylines to the north, south, and west and to the office buildings associated with Phase 1 of this alternative. The massing and heights of the proposed buildings under Phase 2 would also not create a significant visual barrier or separation within the office park. Additionally, as with Phase 1 of this alternative, the architectural, site, landscape, lighting, and streetscape design for the residential uses of Phase 2 would be driven by the required regulatory plan. The standards and guidelines outlined in the regulatory plan would ensure the orderly development of the residential uses and that this alternative is developed in a mannerthat is notvisually detrimental to the surrounding commercial and office 8B uses. Overall, scenic vista, visual character, shade /shadow, and light and glare impacts would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant. Air Quality Phase f Regional Air Quality Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of 7,000 square feet of commercial uses and 100,000 square feet of office uses and the continued operation of the TowerJazz facility. This alternative is estimated to reduce Phase 1 vehicle trips by approximately 72 percent from the proposed project (Phase 1 only). Because transportation emissions comprises the majority of a development project's criteria air pollutant emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in criteria air pollutant emissions generated by this alternative would be less than the proposed project. This alternative would substantially reduce the magnitude of operational phase air emissions during Phase 1. Operational phase air emissions by the proposed project are less than significant. Therefore, the incremental increase in emissions onsite would remain less than the SCAQMD thresholds. This alternative would reduce the proposed project's operational impacts. Air Quality Compatibility This alternative would also reduce project - related impacts related to placement of sensitive receptors proximate to major sources of toxic air contaminants, including the TowerJazz facility. While no significant Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -31 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project impacts were identified for the proposed project, commercial and office land uses are not considered sensitive land uses for air quality compatibility. Consequently, air quality impacts with this alternative would be less than significant, and this alternative would reduce air quality compatibility impacts of the project. Phase 2 Regional Air Quality Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of 7,000 square feet of commercial retail space, 160,000 square feet of office space, and 830 residential units. TowerJazz would cease to operate prior to development of Phase 2, resulting in a substantial reduction in stationary source emissions onsite, the same as the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to reduce Phase 2 vehicle trips by23 percent from the proposed project (Phase 1 and Phase 2). Because transportation emissions comprise the vast majority of a development project's criteria air pollutant emissions inventory, it is assumed thatthe incremental increase in criteria air pollutant emissions generated by this alternative would be less than the proposed project. This alternative would reduce the magnitude of operational phase air emissions. Operational phase air emissions by the proposed project are less than significant. Therefore, the incremental increase in emissions onsite would remain less than the SCAQMD thresholds. This alternative would reduce the proposed project's operational impacts. Construction - Phase 1 and Phase 2 Regional and Localized Air Quality Construction emissions would be similar in this alternative to those of the proposed project. Both scenarios would involve development on a portion of the site and may include subterranean parking, resulting in similar equipment use during the grading phase. Construction emissions impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would require similar mitigation. As with the proposed project, regional construction - related air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources Phase 1 and Phase 2 Although this alternative would replace some of the residential uses for office and commercial uses, its impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the proposed project since they would both develop the entire site. The same project mitigation would be required under this alternative, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Cultural Resources Phase 1 and Phase 2 Cultural resources impacts would be similar to the proposed project since this alternative would redevelop the entire site. Recommended mitigation under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Overall, as with the proposed project, cultural resource impacts would be less than significant. Page 7 -32 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Geology and Soils Phase f and Phase 2 The Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative would involve disturbing the entire project site and grading the same acreage under each phase similar to the proposed project. During project operation, this alternative would introduce office employees and commercial patrons and eliminate the number of permanent residents who would be potentially exposed to seismic - related hazards (e.g., ground shaking, liquefaction) associated with the project site. These seismic hazards, however, are similar to most of southern California. Impacts from expansive soils would also be similar to the proposed project. Overall, geology and soils impacts would be similar to the proposed project and, as with the proposed project, recommended mitigation would mitigate impacts to less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 1 Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of 7,000 square feet of commercial uses and 100,000 square feet of office uses and the continued operation of the TowerJazz facility. This alternative is estimated to reduce Phase 1 vehicle trips by 73 percent from the proposed project (Phase 1 only). Because transportation emissions comprise the majority of a development project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in GHG emissions generated by this alternative would be substantially less than the proposed project. While this alternative would be less dense than the proposed project and therefore less efficient on a per capita basis, this alternative would substantially reduce the 88 magnitude of operational phase air emissions during Phase 1. GHG emissions generated by Phase 1 of this alternative would likely not exceed the draft SCAQMD bright -line screening threshold of 3,000 MTons because of the substantial decrease in vehicle trips. GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project are less than significant. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts during Phase 1 of this alternative would be less than significant. Phase 2 Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of 7,000 square feet of commercial retail space, 160,000 square feet of office space, and 830 residential units. The TowerJazz facility would cease to operate prior to development of Phase 2, resulting in a substantial reduction in stationary source GHG emissions onsite, the same as the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to reduce Phase 2 vehicle trips by 23 percent from the proposed project (Phase 1 plus Phase 2). Because transportation emissions comprise the majority of a development project's GHG emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in GHG emissions generated by this alternative would be less than the proposed project. This alternative would not be as dense as the proposed project; therefore, on a per capita basis (employees + residents) this alternative would generate slightly higher per capita GHG emissions. However, because the TowerJazz facility generates a substantial amount of GHG emissions, the decrease in GHG emissions from its closure overwhelms any potential increase in GHG generated by this project alternative. As with the proposed project, this alternative would result in a beneficial GHG emissions impact. GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project are less than significant and would be less than significant with this alternative. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -33 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Hazards and Hazardous Materials Phase 1 Under this alternative, the TowerJazz facility would continue operation during an interim period after the Phase 1 improvements were completed and occupied. Office tenants and commercial use employees and customers would be subject to the hazards associated with the potential release of hazardous chemicals from the TowerJazz portion of the site as well as potential vapor intrusion impacts. In comparison to future residents under Phase 1 of the proposed project, however, the duration of office employees and commercial patrons would be reduced substantially. Moreover, this alternative would comply with the City's CFC amendment prohibiting residential uses adjacent to storage of extremely hazardous chemicals in excess of defined quantities. Potential hazards would be reduced under this alternative for Phase 1, and in comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would comply with CFC Section 2704.1.1 (Amendment). With mitigation, this impact is less than significant for the proposed project; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate a significant, unavoidable impact. Phase 2 Underthis alternative, Phase 1 office tenants and commercial employees and customers would be subjectto potential exposure to hazardous materials, including building materials (asbestos and lead paint) when the Phase 2 portion of the site is developed. This impact would be reduced relative to the proposed project; however, the duration of exposure would be reduced (residents with potential 24 hour exposure). As with the proposed project, Phase 2 development could not occur until site remediation was completed and cleared by the RWQCB for development. The Phase 2 residential development for this alternative is assumed to be the same as Phase 2 for the proposed project, and impacts for this phase would be the same. Overall hazards and hazardous materials for this alternative project would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, and this alternative would eliminate one potential significant impact. Since that impact (compliance with CFC Section 2401.1.1 [Amendment]) would be mitigated to less than significant for the proposed project, this alternative would not eliminate any significant, unavoidable impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality Phase 1 and Phase 2 As with the proposed project, the majority of the site would be developed with impervious surfaces under this alternative. As shown in the conceptual plan for this alternative (see Figure 7 -2, Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative Site Plan and Phasing Plan), including expansive surface parking, this alternative may increase impervious surfaces in comparison to the proposed project and therefore increase surface runoff. Subterranean parking, however, could be provided for the office use, however, potentially increasing open space and landscaping opportunities. As with the proposed project, storm drains could accommodate surface runoff, and water quality treatments would meet regulatory standards assuring that impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and less than significant. Page 7 -34 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Land Use and Planning Phase 1 and Phase 2 As with the proposed project, development of this alternative would not physically divide an established community through the introduction of either physical or community barriers. The land uses proposed under this alternative would be compatible with and complementary to the adjacent and surrounding office and commercial uses. Additionally, as with the proposed project, this alternative would not introduce any roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect the adjacent business park uses. Although the office uses proposed under this alternative are permitted under the General Plan land use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -1­12), this alternative would not be as effective as the proposed project in achieving some of the specific goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. Moreover, it would not be consistent with the ICDP approved for the combined 25 -acre Uptown Newport project site and 12.7 - acre adjacent Koll project site. This alternative would provide 830 residential units in comparison to the 1,244 anticipated for the project site in the ICDP. 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 within the existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail, and airport- related businesses. This alternative would be consistent with other applicable regional and local plans, including SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy. As with the proposed project, this alternative would require review by ALUC for consistency with the AELUP prior to Newport Beach City Council action on the alternative. The office and commercial uses under this alternative would not be subject to the AELUP noise level restrictions that apply to the residential units as proposed in the Uptown Newport project and Phase 2 of this alternative. As with the proposed project, the maximum building heights for residential towers of Phase 2 of this alternative would be 150 feet. It is assumed that this alternative could be designed to be consistent with any height restrictions pursuant to the AELUP, but as with the proposed project, a consistency finding would be required by ALUC. Since this alternative would have fewer residential units and building heights for Phase 1 would be reduced relative to the proposed project, AELUP consistency impacts would be slightly less than the proposed project, but still potentially significant until reviewed and approved by ALUC. This alternative, therefore, would not eliminate the potentially significant land use impact. Overall, land use and planning impacts for this project alternative would be slightly greater than for the proposed project. Noise Phase 1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility This alternative would include the development of nonsensitive land uses in Phase 1, thereby eliminating project - related land use compatibility issues related to the placement of residential uses under Phase 1 adjacent to the TowerJazz facility. Construction Noise Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -35 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area as Phase 1 of the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the operation of construction equipmentwould have the potential to cause annoyance and interfere with activities at the adjacent office buildings and the TowerJazz facility facing the construction area. Construction Vibration This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area and would require the use of heavy construction equipment similar to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the TowerJazz building would continue to operate during construction and initial operation of Phase 1 of this alternative. 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. Under this alternative, vibration impacts during project construction would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant after mitigation. Phase 2 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Phase 2 of this alternative would develop residential uses similar to the proposed project. Under this alternative, long -term noise impacts related to noise and land use compatibility would be similar to the proposed project (less than significant with mitigation), as noise from aircraft overflights and nearby roads would be similar. Construction Noise Under this alternative, short-term construction activity noise impacts related to noise generated from Phase 2 construction activities on Phase 1 residents would be eliminated. However, construction noise impacts to nearby office and commercial uses would be similar to the proposed project and would remain significant and unavoidable. Construction Vibration This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area and would require the use of heavy construction equipment similar to the proposed project, which in turn would have the potential to cause sporadic annoyance on the uses constructed under Phase 1 and on adjacent office and commercial uses. Under this alternative, vibration impacts during project construction would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant after mitigation. Overall, temporary noise and vibration impacts during construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Noise impacts during project construction would remain significant and unavoidable. Population and Housing Phase 1 and Phase 2 As shown in Table 7 -1, Statistical Summary Comparison, this alternative would generate approximately 595 employees. The elimination of the residential uses and the increase in employees in Phase 1 would increase the City's jobs /housing ratio, which is jobs rich. Overall, the population and housing impact of this alternative would be greater than the proposed project, but as with the proposed project, would be less than significant without mitigation. Page 7 -36 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project As quantified in Table 7 -1, this alternative would provide both jobs and housing. In comparison to the estimated 26 jobs provided by the proposed project, this alternative would provide an estimated 300 employees. It would provide 830 housing units in Phase 2, and as with the proposed project, would be conditioned to provide 15 percent affordable housing units (125 units). This alternative would assist the City in achieving its RHNA goals, but not to the same degree as the proposed project, which would provide 185 affordable units. The jobs /housing ratio for this alternative is 1.88 in comparison to the City's existing ratio of 2.15. Although not as effective as the proposed project with a 1.78 jobs /housing ratio, this alternative would also be beneficial in providing housing to Newport Beach, which is jobs rich. Overall, housing and population impacts are similar to the proposed project and less than significant. Public Services Phase 1 and Phase 2 This alternative would be expected to reduce the demand on public services in comparison to the proposed project. A reduction in residential units from 1,244 for the proposed project to 830 for this alternative would reduce impacts to library and school services. Since high density residential uses typically generate a high need for police and fire services, the office /commercial /residential land use mix would also likely reduce the demand forthese services relative to the proposed project. Overall, public service impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, and like the proposed project, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Recreation — — Phase 1 and Phase 2 Due to the reduction in residential units relative to the proposed project (1,244 for the proposed project to 830for this alternative), this alternative would reduce the project - generated need for recreational facilities. As with the proposed project, this alternative would provide the improved open space standard or in -lieu fees to achieve the City's standard. Overall, recreation impacts for this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic Phase 1 and Phase 2 As shown on Table 7 -5, Office/ Commercial /Residential Alternative Trip Generation, this alternative is projected to generate 6,805 daily trips, 584 during the AM peak hour and 672 during the PM peak hour. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate 2,228 fewer daily trips, and 157 fewer trips during the PM peak hour and 60 fewer trips during the AM peak hour. However, this alternative would generate 89 more inbound trips during the AM peak hour, which would add traffic to the predominant traffic flow on roadways in the vicinity of the site during the AM peak hour. Because this alternative would add traffic to the predominant traffic flow along nearby roadways, this alternative would result in increased impacts relative to the proposed project for the morning peak hour. The proposed project would develop residential uses in close proximity to employment and commercial centers that could serve as encouragement to the residents of the proposed project to walk or bike to work Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -37 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project or shop rather than drive. This alternative would be less effective than the proposed project in promoting alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking, and public transit, since residential uses would be limited to Phase 2 and substantially reduced relative to the proposed project. In summary, although total daily trips would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, the overall transportation and traffic character of this alternative would be different and not provide some of the benefits of the proposed project. Overall, transportation and traffic impacts would be considered similar. As with the proposed project, it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant. Utilities and Service Systems Phase 1 and Phase 2 Compared to the proposed project, the Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative would introduce office uses, increase commercial uses, and reduce the number of residential units. Based on the generation rates that would be applicable to each of the utility and service system demands (wastewater, water, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas) for each of the land uses, the overall demand for utility and service systems would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 7.6.2 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts 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. 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) (it would not locate residents adjacent to extremely dangerous chemicals). This would eliminate a 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 the proposed project, and aesthetics, biological resource, cultural resources, geology and soils impacts, and hydrology /water quality impacts would be similar. 7.6.3 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. It is uncertain whether this alternative would be a viable project that could yield a reasonable return on investment. As discussed in Section 7.5.4, 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. Page 7 -38 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.7 REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE 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 forthe 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. A conceptual plan for this alternative is included as Figure 7 -3, Reduced Density Alternative. 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 related to the proximity of the TowerJazz facility and residences during Phase 1 in the proposed project. 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). 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 to the neighborhood parks, 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 within 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. 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 Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -39 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project include open space area that could accommodate a neighborhood park, which would be available to the public. Trip Generation Table 7 -6 provides the number of vehicle trips that would be generated under Phases 1 and 2 of this alternative. The trip generations were based on the ITE Trip Generation (8th edition) rates used in the proposed project's traffic study. As shown in Table 7 -6, this alternative would generate 4,139 ADT, 297 AM peak hour trips, and 370 PM peak hour trips. Table 7 -6 Reduced Density Alternative Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Unit Trip Generation Rates' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Apartment Z 220 DU 6.65 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 Specialty Retail Centers 814 KSF 44.32 0.61 0.39 1.00 1.19 1.52 2.71 Land Use Quantity Unit Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In FOut Total In Out Total Apartment 2 561 DU 3,731 57 229 286 226 122 348 Specialty Retail Centers 11,500 KSF 510 4,241 7 4 11 14 17 31 Subtotal - Before Internal Capture /Pass -by 64 233 297 240 139 379 Internal Trip Capture ° 102 — — — 3 3 6 Pass -By Reduction for Retail (10 %) s 1 2 3 Total 4,139 1 64 233 297 1 236 135 370 Proposed Project Total Tripsi 9,033 1 134 511 1 644 1 537 1 292 1 829 DIFFERENCE -4894 1 -70 1 -278 1 -347 1 -301 1 -157 1 -459 Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. Notes: KSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit Institute of Transportation Engineers publication: Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The alternative may consist of a combination of multi - family residential product types, including condominium, apartment, townhome, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment" are used here. 3 ITE Trip Generation does not provide AM peak hour rates for a. Specialty Retail Center. Therefore, the AM peak hour rates for Land Use Category 820 (Shopping Center) were used to estimate AM peak hour trips. 4 ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 5 Based on net retail trips, after internal capture reduction. Page 7 -40 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives Reduced Density Alternative J A M B Q R E E ...... Site Boundary � � � Phasing Boundary ® Ground -Level Neighborhood- Serving Retail 0 200 �%n Scale (Feet) Uptown Newport Draft EIR The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 7 -3 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 7 -42 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Aesthetics Phase 1 and Phase 2 As with the proposed project, views of the surrounding scenic vistas would not be significantly impacted under the Reduced Density alternative. In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would be characterized by reduced building mass and heights. Building height maximum would be 75 feet in comparison to the 150 feet for potential residential towers under the proposed project. This alternative would also incorporate approximately eight acres of open space, in comparison to just over two acres for the proposed project. Although not significant for the proposed project, this alternative would reduce viewshed impacts in comparison to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be limited to residential and commercial uses, and the commercial use would be integrated as ground -level neighborhood serving retail at the primary project entrance in Phase 1. The substantial reduction in project density, would, however, alter the character of the site in comparison to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the architectural, site, landscape, lighting, and streetscape design for the office uses would be driven by the required regulatory plan. The standards and guidelines outlined in the regulatory plan would ensure the orderly development of the residential uses and that this alternative is developed in a manner that is not visually detrimental to the surrounding commercial and office uses. Since building heights for Phase 1 would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce potential shade /shadow impacts. However, light and glare impacts would likely be similar to the proposed project and include typical lighting for office uses, parking areas, and walkways. 8B This alternative would provide more open space, and buildings would be limited to four or five stories. Without residential towers, it may not provide the diversity and variation of housing unit types that make the proposed project visually interesting. The visual character would also depend on the capability for the applicant or successor, and /or City (if parkland was dedicated) to maintain the more extensive open space under this alternative. Overall, scenic vista, visual character, shade /shadow, and light and glare impacts would be similar to the proposed project and less than significant. Air Quality Phase 1 Regional Air Quality Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of 11,500 square feet of commercial uses and 260 residential uses and the continued operation of the TowerJazz facility. This alternative is estimated to reduce vehicle trips during Phase 1 by 58 percent from the proposed project (Phase 1 only). Because transportation emissions comprise the majority of a development project's criteria air pollutant emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in criteria air pollutant emissions generated by this alternative would be substantially less than the proposed project. This alternative would substantially reduce the magnitude of operational phase air emissions during Phase 1. Operational phase air emissions by the proposed project are less than significant. Therefore, the incremental increase in emissions onsite would remain less than the SCAQMD thresholds. This alternative would reduce the proposed project's operational impacts. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -43 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Air Quality Compatibility This alternative would reduce impacts related to placement of sensitive receptors proximate to major sources of toxic air contaminants. This alternative would place residential uses in close proximity to the TowerJazz facility, a major stationary source emitter, in comparison to the proposed project, which would situate residents immediately adjacent to TowerJazz. Moreover, substantially fewer units would be introduced, to the project site. Air quality compatibility impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project for Phase 1, and as with the proposed project, would be less than significant. Phase 2 Regional Air Quality Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of 11,500 square feet of commercial retail space and 561 residential units. TowerJazz would cease to operate prior to development of Phase 2, resulting in a substantial reduction in stationary source emissions onsite, the same as the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to reduce vehicle trips during Phase 2 (project buildout) by 54 percent from the proposed project. Because transportation emissions comprise the vast majority of a development project's criteria air pollutant emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in criteria air pollutant emissions generated by this alternative in comparison to existing conditions would be substantially less than the proposed project. This alternative would substantially reduce the magnitude of operational phase air emissions in comparison to the proposed project. Operational phase air emissions by the proposed project are less than significant. This alternative would reduce the proposed project's operational impacts, and they would be less than significant, as with the proposed project. Construction - Phase 1 and Phase 2 Regional and Localized Air Quality Construction emissions for this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. The maximum daily emissions for construction activities would be related to site grading and improvements requiring major construction equipment for both scenarios. Construction emissions impacts for this alternative, therefore, would be similar to the proposed project and would require similar mitigation. As with the proposed project, regional construction - related air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources Phase 1 and Phase 2 Impacts to biological resources under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project, since they would both develop the entire site. Trees and other vegetation onsite could be used for nesting by migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As with the proposed project, development under this alternative would remove all existing vegetation onsite. Development would be required to implement mitigation regarding potential impacts to active nests in and near the project area similar to that outlined in Section 5.3, Biological Resources. Overall, as with the proposed project, biological resource impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 7 -44 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Cultural Resources Phase 1 and Phase 2 Cultural resources impacts would be similar to the proposed project as this alternative would redevelop the entire site. Recommended mitigation under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Overall, as with the proposed project, cultural resource impacts would be less than significant. Geology and Soils Phase 1 and Phase 2 The Reduced Density Residential alternative would involve disturbing the entire project site and grading the same acreage under each phase similar to the proposed project. During project operation, this alternative would introduce fewer residents to the site than the proposed project who would be potentially exposed to seismic - related hazards (e.g., ground shaking, liquefaction) associated with the project site. These seismic hazards, however, are similar to most of southern California. Impacts from expansive soils would also be similar to the proposed project. Overall, geology and soils impacts would be similar to the proposed project and as with the proposed project, recommended mitigation would mitigate impacts to less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 1 Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of 11,500 square feet of commercial uses and 260 residential uses and the continued operation of the TowerJazz facility. This alternative is estimated to reduce vehicle trips during Phase 1 by 58 percent from the proposed project (Phase 1 only). Because transportation emissions comprisethe majority of a development project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase in GHG emissions generated by this alternative would be substantially less than the proposed project. This alternative would be less dense than the proposed project and would have slightly higher per capita emissions than the proposed project because while it includes a similar mix of commercial and residential uses, it has less residential population. However, this alternative would substantially reduce the magnitude of operational phase air emissions during Phase 1. GHG emissions generated by Phase 1 of this alternative would likely not exceed the draft SCAOMD bright -line screening threshold of 3,000 MTons because of the substantial decrease in vehicle trips in Phase 1. GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project are less than significant. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts during Phase 1 of this alternative would also be less than significant. Phase 2 Under this alternative, onsite operations would consist of 11,500 square feet of commercial retail space and 561 residential units. TowerJazz would cease to operate prior to development of Phase 2, resulting in a substantial reduction in stationary source GHG emissions onsite, the same as the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to reduce vehicle trips during Phase 2 (project buildout) by 54 percent from the proposed project. Because transportation emissions comprise the majority of a development project's GHG emissions inventory, it is assumed that the incremental increase GHG emissions generated by this alternative in comparison to existing conditions would be substantially less than the proposed project. While this alternative would not be as dense as the proposed project, on a per capita basis (employees plus residents) Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -45 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project this alternative would generate the same per capita GHG emissions because it includes a similar mix of commercial and residential land uses. However, because the TowerJazz facility generates a substantial amount of GHG emissions, the decrease in GHG emissions from closure of TowerJazz would overwhelm any potential increase in GHG generated by this project alternative. As with the proposed project, this alternative would result in a beneficial GHG emissions impact. As with the proposed project, GHG emissions for this alternative would be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Phase 1 As with the proposed project, the TowerJazz facility would continue operation during an interim period after Phase 1 improvements are completed and occupied. In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce the number of residents potentially exposed to Phase 1 site hazards (from 680 residential units for the proposed project to 260 units). Moreover, under this alternative, the closest residential unit would be approximately 100 feet from the TowerJazz facility in comparison to 25 feet for the proposed project. Residences would therefore be farther from the contaminated portion of the TowerJazz site and related vapor intrusion health risk and risks associated with a potential chemical release. Potential Phase 1 resident exposure to hazards would therefore be reduced for this alternative in comparison to the proposed project. Potential hazardous material releases (asbestos and lead paint) impacts associated with development of Phase 1 and demolition of the Half Dome building would be similar to the proposed project. Phase 2 Under this alternative, Phase 1 residents and commercial employees and patrons would be subject to potential exposure of hazardous materials, including building materials (asbestos and lead paint), when the Phase 2 portion of the site is developed. This impact would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project relative to the reduction in Phase 1 residents. Phase 2 development could not occur until site remediation was completed and cleared by the RWQCB for development. Although fewer residences are proposed in Phase 2 in comparison to the proposed project, the onsite hazards would be remediated, so the impacts would be similar and less than significant. Overall hazard and hazardous materials impacts for this alternative would be less than for the proposed project. As with the proposed project, however, impacts would be significant prior to mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Phase 1 and Phase 2 In comparison to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would include more open space, less pervious surface. Therefore, site runoff would be expected to be reduced. As with the proposed project, storm drains could accommodate surface runoff, and water quality treatments would meet regulatory standards, assuring that impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar to the proposed project and less than significant. Page 7 -46 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Land Use and Planning Phase 1 and Phase 2 As with the proposed project, development of this alternative would not physically divide an established community through the introduction of either physical or community barriers. The land uses proposed under this alternative would be compatible with and complementary to the adjacent and surrounding office and commercial uses. Additionally, as with the proposed project, this alternative would not introduce any roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect the adjacent business park uses. The Reduced Density Alternative would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Mixed - Use Horizontal -2 (MU -1-12) and the Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. This alternative has been designed to achieve the minimum density allowed by these plans (30 du /ac). This alternative would only provide 560 residential units in comparison to the 1,244 anticipated for the project site in the ICDP. This alternative would be consistent with other applicable regional and local plans, including SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS). As with the proposed project, this alternative would require review by ALUC for consistency with the AELUP prior to Newport Beach City Council action on the alternative. Due to the elimination of the 150- foot -high towers under this alternative, consistency with the AELUP would unlikely be an issue, but as with the proposed project, a consistency finding with the AELUP would be required by ALUC dueto the zone change (adoption of PCDP). Impacts would be potentially significant until reviewed and approved by ALUC. This alternative, therefore, would not eliminate the potentially significant impact. Overall, land use and planning impacts for this project alternative would be similar to the proposed project. 8B Noise Phase 1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility As with the proposed project, development under this alternative would include residential and commercial uses similar to the proposed project. Fewer residences would be proposed, however, and the closest residences to the TowerJazz facility would be approximately 100 feet instead of 25 feet as proposed under the Uptown Newport project. The increased distance from the TowerJazz noise source would decrease operational noise impacts in comparison to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. The mitigation and costs associated with implementing the components of the mitigation, however, would be expected to be less intensive than the mitigation required for the proposed project. Construction Noise This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area as Phase 1 of the proposed project and require the same major construction equipment. Some reduction in the overall duration of construction impacts could be anticipated because of the reduced number of residential units. As with the proposed project, the operation of construction equipment would have the potential to cause annoyance and interfere with activities at the office buildings and the TowerJazz facility facing the construction area. Construction noise impacts to nearby office and commercial uses would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project, but would remain significant and unavoidable. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -47 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Construction Vibration This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area and would require the use of heavy construction equipment similar to the proposed project. Since the closest residences to the TowerJazz facility would be approximately 100 feet away instead of 25 feet in the proposed project, the use of heavy construction equipment for building construction, including subterranean parking, would be at a greater distance. Vibration impacts to the TowerJazz facility, therefore, would be reduced. Although reduced under this alternative, vibration impacts during project construction would be significant priorto mitigation and less than significant upon implementation of mitigation. Phase 2 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Under this alternative, long -term noise impacts related to noise and land use compatibility would be similar to the proposed project, as noise from aircraft overflights and nearby roads would be similar. However, as with the proposed project, noise impacts to the proposed residential uses would be less than significantwith mitigation. Construction Noise This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the operation of construction equipment would have the potential to cause annoyance and interfere with activities at the office buildings facing the construction area, and would expose occupants of residences constructed during Phase 1 to high noise levels. In comparison to the proposed project, however, fewer residents would be exposed to construction noise. Under this alternative, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project, significant and unavoidable. Construction Vibration This alternative would involve disturbance of the same area as the proposed project and would require the use of similar heavy construction equipment, which in turn would have the potential to cause sporadic annoyance at the uses constructed during Phase 1 and at adjacent office and commercial uses. Under this alternative, vibration impacts during project construction would be similar to the proposed project, less than significant after mitigation. Overall, temporary noise and vibration impacts during construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Long -term operational impacts would also be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Noise impacts during project construction would remain significant and unavoidable. Population and Housing Phase 1 and Phase 2 As shown in Table 7 -1, Statistical Summary Comparison, as with the proposed project, this alternative would generate approximately 26 employees. It would provide 561 units, of which 15 percent would be affordable units (84 units). These units would assist the City in achieving its Regional Housing Need Assessment goals, but not to the same degree as the proposed project, which would provide 184 affordable units. Page 7 -48 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The jobs /housing ratio for this alternative is 1.81 in comparison to the proposed project's ratio of 1.82 and the City's existing ratio of 2.15. This alternative, therefore, would be similar to the proposed project in providing additional housing to Newport Beach, which is jobs rich. Overall, housing and population impacts are greaterthan the proposed project (less beneficial) and less than significant. Public Services Phase 1 and Phase 2 This alternative would be expected to reduce the demand on public services proportionate to the reduction in housing units in comparison to the proposed project (from 1,244 for the proposed project to 561 for this alternative). Service demand for police, fire, schools, and library services would all be reduced. Overall, public service impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project, and like the proposed project, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Recreation Phase 1 and Phase 2 Due to the reduction in residential units relative to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce the project - generated need for recreational facilities. Per the conceptual layout as shown in Figure 3, Reduced Density Alternative, the open space provided could meet the City's requirement to provide five acres of park per 1,000 residents. This alternative provides 8.38 acres of open space, and based on 561 units, would generate a population of 1,228 residents, requiring a total of 6.15 acres of park area. Alternatively, as with the proposed project, this alternative could achieves the park requirement with payment of in -lieu fees. Overall, recreation impacts for this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic Phase 1 and Phase 2 As shown in Table 7 -6, Reduced IntensityAlternative Trip Generation, this alternative is projected to generate 4,139 daily trips, 297 during the AM peak hour, and 370 during the PM peak hour. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate 4,894 fewer daily trips, 347 fewer trips during the AM peak hour, and 459 fewer trips during the PM peak hour. Phase 1 of this alternative would also generate substantially fewer trips than the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the peak trips generated by this alternative would be generally opposite to the predominant traffic flow. This alternative would reduce project trip generation and, like the proposed project, it would not cause significant traffic impacts. The proposed project would develop residential uses in close proximity to employment and commercial centers that could encourage residents of the proposed project to walk or bike to work or shop, rather than drive. This alternative would be less effective than the proposed project in promoting alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking, and public transit, due to the development of less residential use on the project site (561 versus 1,244 units) than planned under the proposed project. Transportation and traffic impacts of this alternative would be less than the proposed project; however, as with the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -49 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Utilities and Service Systems Phase I and Phase 2 This alternative would include the same commercial uses as the proposed project and would reduce residential units from 1,244 to 561. Utility and service demands would be reduced roughly proportionately for wastewater treatment, water supply, solid waste collection and disposal, electricity, and natural gas. As with the proposed project, it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 7.7.1 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts 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. Since residential uses still would 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, both because of 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. 7.7.2 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 forthe Airport Area, and it would be consistentwith 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, business and visitors. Although fewer than the proposed project, this alternative would provide housing proximate to jobs and supporting services, with 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. 7.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative" when significant environmental impacts result from the proposed project. In cases where the "No Project" Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, an environmentally superior development alternative should be identified as well. Table 7 -7 summarizes the impacts associated with each alternative as compared to the proposed project. Based on the preceding analysis, the No Project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. As shown in Table 7 -7, the No Project alternative would eliminate each of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project: Page 7 -50 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 7 -7 Summary of Impacts of Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project < Impacts would be less than those of the proposed project > Impacts would be greater than those of the proposed project = Impacts would be similar to the proposed project LS Less than Significant Impact S Significant Impact (if not indicated, impacts could be mitigated to less than significant) * Eliminates a significant impact prior to mitigation (e.g., project impact is mitigated to less than significant for proposed project, is less than significant without mitigation for aftemative) ** Eliminates a significant, unavoidable impact • Construction - related air quality impacts • Potential inconsistency with the AELUP (pending consistency finding by ALUC) • Construction - related noise impacts Of the development alternatives, the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Because this alternative would eliminate residential uses in Phase 1, it would eliminate the significant impacts associated with resident adjacency to the TowerJazz facility, an interim condition which would last between 6 and 12 years. Although mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project, the following impacts would be significant prior to mitigation: Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -51 04 Project Alternatives Hotell0l/tce/ Reduced Proposed No Project Commercial Office /Commercial /Residential Density Environmental Impact Project Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Aesthetics LS Air Quality Regional Air Quality Air Quality LS < < < ` Compatibility LS < < < ` Short-Term S (Construction) Biological Resources LS < Cultural Resources LS < — — — Geology and Soils LS < — — — Greenhouse Gas Emissions LS > < < < Hazards and Hazardous LS <* <* < < Materials Hydrology and Water Quality LS > Land Use and Planning S < ** > > _ Noise and Vibration Long -Term LS < <* < < Short-Term Construction S Population and Housing LS > > _ > Public Services LS < < < < Recreation < < < < Transportation/Traffic Long -Term LS = _ < < Short-Term LS < (Construction) Utilities and Service Systems LS > < < < < Impacts would be less than those of the proposed project > Impacts would be greater than those of the proposed project = Impacts would be similar to the proposed project LS Less than Significant Impact S Significant Impact (if not indicated, impacts could be mitigated to less than significant) * Eliminates a significant impact prior to mitigation (e.g., project impact is mitigated to less than significant for proposed project, is less than significant without mitigation for aftemative) ** Eliminates a significant, unavoidable impact • Construction - related air quality impacts • Potential inconsistency with the AELUP (pending consistency finding by ALUC) • Construction - related noise impacts Of the development alternatives, the Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Because this alternative would eliminate residential uses in Phase 1, it would eliminate the significant impacts associated with resident adjacency to the TowerJazz facility, an interim condition which would last between 6 and 12 years. Although mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project, the following impacts would be significant prior to mitigation: Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -51 04 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project • Operational noise impacts to Phase 1 residences related to 24 -hour operation of TowerJazz • Compliance with CFC 2704.1.1 (amendment), which prohibits use or storage of any extremely hazardous substance equal to or greater than disclosable amounts adjacent to residential uses. Potential exposure to hazardous materials during Phase 2 development related to site groundwater and soil contamination of TowerJazz site Additionally, this would eliminate the following impact of the project on the TowerJazz facility: Phase 1 construction - related vibration impacts to sensitive TowerJazz equipment Each of these impacts, however, would be mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project. None of the development project alternatives were determined to eliminate any of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. Table 7 -8, Alternatives Ability to Achieve Project Objectives provides a comparison of the ability of each alternative to achieve the project objectives. Table 7 -8 Alternatives AbilitV to Achieve Project Objectives Page 7 -52 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 Office/ Reduced Hotell0flicel Commercial/ Density Proposed Commercial Residential Alternative Project Objective Project Alternative Alternative Implementthe goals and policies that the Newport Beach General Plan has established forthe Airport Area Yes No No Yes and the Integrated Conceptual Plan Development Plan. Develop a mixed -use residential village characterized by a diversity of building and housing types that is Yes No No Yes consistent with the prescribed 30 dwelling unit per net acre minimum density forthe 25.05 acre project site. Develop up to 11,500 square feet of retail commercial Yes Yes Yes uses to serve local residents, businesses and visitors. Yes Provide housing in close proximity to jabs and supporting services, with pedestrian - oriented amenities that facilitate Yes No Yes Yes walking and enhance livability. Integrate neighborhood parks inter - connected by pedestrian walkways to encourage a sense of Yes Yes Yes Yes community. Develop an attractive, viable project that yields a Yes Maybe Unlikely Unlikely reasonable return on investment. Provides for the phased transition from existing industrial Yes No Yes Yes and office uses to a mixed -use residential village. Provide beneficial site and area -wide improvements including implementing a Water Quality Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Plan. Page 7 -52 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant California Public Resources Code Section 21003 (f) states: "...it is the policy of the state that... [a]II persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment." This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15126.2(a), which states that "[a]n EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project," and Section 15143, which states that "[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment." The Guidelines allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant (Guidelines Section 15063[a]). Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. 8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY The Initial Study prepared forthe proposed project in December 2011 determined that impacts listed below would be less than significant. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this DEIR. Please refer to the Initial Study in Appendix Afor an explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and questions below are summarized directlyfrom the CEQA Environmental Checklist, as contained in the Initial 8B Study. Table 8 -1 Found Not to Be Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination I. AESTHETICS. Would the b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, within a data rnrk n I Less Than Significant Impact utrrnnninnc and hictnrir hmldinnc cranir hinhmiav9 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the No Impact Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources D) uonllict With existing Zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act I No Impact contract? Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 8 -1 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues initial Study Determination c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as No Impact defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned No Impact Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section No Impact 51104(g))? No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest No Impact use? No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their Less Than Significant Impact location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- No Impact agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. would the project: b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through the natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations No Impact or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined No Impact by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, No Impact vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological proposed school? interruption, or other means? No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological Less Than Significant Impact resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or No Impact state habitat conservation plan? working in the project area? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through the including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a No Impact known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special No Impact Publication 42. proposed school? iv Landslides? No Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for No Impact the disposal of waste water? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through the Less Than Significant Impact routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or No Impact proposed school? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use Less Than Significant Impact airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result Less Than Significant Impact in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency Less Than Significant Impact response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Page 8 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Table 8 -1 Found Not to Be h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized Less Than Significant Impact areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with a Physically divide an established community? groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the Less Than Significant Impact production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. would the project: would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits No Impact have been granted)? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard No Impact delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede No Impact or redirect flood flows? construction of replacement housing elsewhere? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or No Impact dam? XV. RECREATION. j Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a Physically divide an established community? No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community No Impact conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a No Impact value to the region and the residents of the state? J) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land No Impact use Ian? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the project: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the No Impact construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of No Impact replacement housing elsewhere? XV. RECREATION. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical Less Than Significant Impact effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in Less Than Significant Impact traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or Less Than Significant Impact dangerous intersections ) or incompatible uses e.., farm equipment)? e Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Si nificant Impact XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. would the project: g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid No Impact waste? Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach Page 8 -3 ffl 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant This page intentionally left blank. Page 8 -4 • The Planning Center � DC&E September 2012 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The following are the significant irreversible changes that would be caused by the proposed project, should it be implemented: Implementation of the proposed project would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and /or slowly renewable energy resources, human resources, and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. Operation of the proposed project would require the use of natural gas and electricity, petroleum -based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project. • An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long -term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed. An increase in project- related vehicle trips would accompany project - related population growth. Over the long term, emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin's nonattainment designation for ozone (O,) and particulate matter (PM,., and PIVI J, nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO,) under the California AAQS • The project would remove industrial land uses that have been onsite for about 45 years and redevelop the site with mixed uses consisting mainly of residential uses with some retail and commercial uses. Upon project development it is very unlikely that the conversion of industrial land use to residential and commercial land uses would be reversed. Given the low likelihood that the project site would revert to lower intensity uses or to its original form, the proposed project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 9 -1 "301 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 9 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E Septemher2012 10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an assess- ment of other projects that would foster other activities which could affect the environment, individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth- inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions: • Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? • Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? • Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? • Would approval of this project involve some precedent- setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? 88 Please note that growth- inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this DEIR. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? Uptown Newport would be built in a developed and highly urbanized area of the City that is adequately served by public infrastructure facilities such as water and wastewater pipelines; drainage; roads; and electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication utilities. As described in Section 5.14, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would not require development of major new infrastructure. While the proposed project would modify the existing storm drainage, sewer, water, and wastewater infrastructure onsite and immediately adjacent to the project site along Jamboree Road, improvements are proposed solely to accommodate the proposed project. Additionally, extensions of existing utility facilities from surrounding roadways would provide a sufficient tie -in to the existing utility systems to accommodate the demands of the proposed project atfull buildout. Any new infrastructure would not traverse undeveloped or open space land. Therefore, no obstacles to growth would be removed by the proposed project, and the project would not significantly influence future development of the City's Airport Area beyond that which is already allowed in the City's General Plan and Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 10 -1 10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? As described in Chapter 5.11, Public Services, the San Ana Unified and Newport Mesa Unified School Districts indicated that the proposed project would necessitate the need to expand existing facilities or build new schools in order to maintain a desired level of service. No other public service agencies consulted during preparation of this DER have indicated that the proposed project would necessitate the immediate expansion of their service and facilities in order to maintain desired levels of service. The expansion of public services would primarily be provided to serve the specific project needs, but the increase in school capacity would also likely facilitate services to future growth within the project vicinity. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction - related jobs would be created. This would be a temporary condition as each phase is constructed, lasting until project construction is completed, anticipated in 2018 for Phase 1 and 2021 for Phase 2. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, 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. This would be a direct, growth- inducing effect of the proposed project. The retail component of the proposed project, approximately 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving retail uses, would primarily serve the needs of the project residents, but would also serve the surrounding business uses. As detailed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, development of the proposed project is projected to generate approximately 24 jobs. With the provision of 1,244 residential units, the forecast jobs /housing ratio for the City in year 2035 with development of the project would be reduced from 1.91 to 1.78. As stated in Section 5.11, in comparison to the Orange County and southern California regional jobs /housing ratio projections in year 2035 (1.58 and 1.29, respectively), the City is jobs -rich because of the higher number of jobs compared to household units. Therefore, even with the slight reduction in the City's jobs /housing ratio due to project development, the City would continue to be jobs -rich in comparison to the county and southern California region. Additionally, development of the proposed project would further the objectives of the City's General Plan and the ICDP by providing residential development in the City's Airport Area. New residents of the project would also seek shopping and employment opportunities beyond those opportunities that would be offered within the proposed project. This would represent an increased demand for goods and services in the project area. Would approval of this project involve some precedent- setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The proposed project consists of the development of a master - planned community within the City's Airport Area. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -H2) and the zoning designation is Industrial Site 1 of the Koll Center Planned Community (PC -15). The General Plan's policies for the Airport Area 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. The ICDP calls for the redevelopment of the project site (which encompasses 25 acres) with new residential development (up to 1,244 units) and open space, carefully integrated within the existing office park. Permitted uses in the Industrial Site 1 zoning designation include commercial and light industrial. Page 10 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project As concluded in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, with the adoption and implementation of a new Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP), the proposed project would carry out the intent of the ICDP and City's General Plan for this portion of the area covered under the ICDP, as the project site would be developed with the mix of residential and neighborhood- serving uses and park space envisioned in and approved under the ICDP and in accordance with the City's General Plan goals and policies and the provisions of the project- specific regulatory plan (i.e., PCDP). Moreover, no changes to any of the City's building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve a precedent- setting action that would encourage and /or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. "301 Uptown Newport EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 10 -3 10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project This page intentionally left b lank. Page 10 -4 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner (Project Manager) James W. Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Public Works Department John Kappeler, Code and Water Quality Environmental Division Manager David Keely, Senior Civil Engineer Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Municipal Operations Department Kathryne Cho, Junior Engineer Recreation and Senior Services Department Sean Levin, Recreation Superintendent Fire Department Ron Gamble, Division Chief Kevin Kitch, Assistant Chief, Life Safety Services Susan Guzzetta, Fire Prevention Specialist /Plans Examiner Police Department William Hartford, Lieutenant Public Library Melissa Kelly, Library Support Services Coordinator PROJECT APPLICANT Shopoff Management, Inc. Brian Rupp, Director, Asset Management Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 11 -1 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted PROJECT APPLICANT SUBCONSULTANTS Community Outreach /Government Relations Government Solutions, Inc. Coralee S. Newman, Principal Architect MVE & Partners Kenneth E. Nelmeire, Principal and Director of Planning Geotechnical Engineer Ginter & Associates David. H. Ginter, President Civil Engineer Hall & Foreman, Inc. John C. Hogan, P.E., LEED A.P., C.E.O. /Principal School Planning Jeanette Justus Associates Olga Tsiba, Project Manager Noise Wilson IHRIG & Associates James T Nelson, PH. D., P.E. Site Assessment R M Environmental, Inc. Robert C. Manning, RG /CEG /RCE, Project Manager PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITY PROVIDERS Newport -Mesa Unified School District Ara Zareczny, Facilities Analyst Page 17-2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2012 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted Santa Ana Unified School District Joe Dixon, Assistant Superintendent of Facilities Jessica Mears, Facilities Planner OC Waste & Recycling Lu Lu Goh, Staff Specialist Orange County Sanitation District Daisy Covarrubias, Senior Staff Analyst Irvine Ranch Water District Raghavender Joshi, P.E., PMP, Engineer Southern California Gas Company Jeanette Garcia, Technical Services Supervisor r2l� Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 11 -3 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted This page intentionally left blank. Page 11 -4 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR THE PLANNING CENTER IDC &E JoAnn Hadfield Principal, Environmental Services Bob Mantey Manager, Noise, Vibration and Acoustics Nicole Vermilion Manager, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Services Cathy Fitzgerald Senior Engineer, Hazards Cecilia Kim Associate Designer Shade /Shadow Analysis Fernando Sotelo Senior Planner, Noise, Vibration and Acoustics Jorge Estrada Associate Planner • BS University of Utah, Urban Planning. • Coursework Completion, Engineering, California State University, San Diego • Engineer -in- Training Certificate BS, Engineering, Harvey Mudd College • MURP, University of California, Irvine • BA, Environmental Studies, and BS, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz • DEnv, Environmental Science & Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles • MA, Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara • BA, Biology, University of California, Los Angeles • Master of Urban Planning, University of Southern California • Master of Engineering, City Planning, Hong -lk University (Seoul, Korea) • Bachelor of Engineering, Civil & Urban Engineering, Hong -lk University • MS, Civil Engineering, University of Southern California • BS, Naval Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil • BS, Urban and Regional Planning, Cal Poly, Pomona • Certificate in Engineering /Architectural AutoCAD, Cal State Long Beach Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 12 -1 "301 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR Michael Milroy Associate Planner Leah Boyer Assistant Planner Steven Bush Assistant Scientist TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Kimley Horn & Associates Traffic /Circulation Serine Ciandella, Vice President Associate Stephen Chang Transportation Engineer Cogstone Resources Management, Inc. Cultural Resources Sherri Gust Project Manager Cadre Environmental Biological Resources Ruben Ramirez, Research Biologist • MS, Interdisciplinary Studies: Neuroscience, California State University, Long Beach • BS, Biological Science California State University, Long Beach • MURP, University of California, Irvine • BA, Conservation Biology and Anthropology; Certificate in Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison • MS, Chemical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles • BS, Chemical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara Page 12 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 13. Bibliography 13.1 REFERENCES Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC). 2008, April 17. Airport Environs Land Use Plan For John Wayne Airport. American Planning Association (APA), Planning Advisory Service (PAS). 2003. Planning Advisory Report Number 516: Jobs - Housing Balance. hftp://www.planning.org/pas/reports/subscribers/pdf/PAS516.pdf. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009a. Energy Aware Planning Guide. 2008, September. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. CEC- 500 - 2008 -0077. 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. 2006 Biennial Report. CEC -500- 2006 -077. California Climate Change Center. Cogstone. 2012, January. Archeological and Paleontological Assessment of the Uptown Newport Village Project. Environmental & Occupational Risk Management (EORM). 2009, April. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: 25 Acre Lot - Newport Beach Conexant Systems, Inc. Ginter & Associates, Inc. 2011, November. Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Uptown Newport Village, 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California. Goh, Lu Lu (Orange County Waste and Recycling). 2011. Response to Solid Waste Questionnaire. Hall & Foreman, Inc. 2011, December. Uptown Newport Preliminary Hydrology Report. Hartford, William S (Executive Officer, Newport Beach Police Department). 2012. Response to Police Services Questionnaire. Irvine Ranch Water District. 2007. Water Resources Master Plan. . 2008. Sub -Area Master Plan for the Irvine Business Center. Jacob & Hefner Associates, Inc. (JHA 2008a), Comprehensive Groundwater Summary Treport, Conexant Systems, Inc., 4311 jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California. January 2008. Jacob & Hefner Associates, Inc. (JHA 2011) 2011 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report Conexant Systems, Inc., 4311 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California. March 2011. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 13 -1 13. Bibliography Newport Beach, City of. 2012. Uptown Newport - Park & Open Space (Summary of Subdivision and GP Land Use Policy Obligations) 2011. Housing Element Update. 2006a. City of Newport Beach General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. 2006b. Cooperative Agreement between City of Newport Beach and County of Orange, November 1. 2006. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 2002, June. Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers. Sponsored by NIEHS /DOE Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination Program. Available at http: / /www.niehs.nih.gov /health /materials /electric_and magnetic_ fields_ associated-with-the-us e_of_ electric_ power_questions_and _ answers_eng I ish_508. pdf. Powell, Gavin, P.E., LEED AP. 2011, December. City of Newport Beach Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan: Uptown Newport. R M Environmental, Inc. 2010, June 17. Report of Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Proposed Uptown Newport Village Development, Jazz Semiconductor Facility, Newport Beach, California. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2012a. Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (by Components and Income), 1/1/2014- 9/30/2021. 2012b. SCAG 2012 Draft Regional Transportation Plan Growth Forecasts. 2004. Southern California Compass Growth Vision Report. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report (prepared by The Natelson Group). Wald, et al. 1999, August. Relationships Between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 15, No. 3. 13.2 WEBSITES Bonterra Consulting, Inc. 2011, September 9. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Volume I: Newport Banning Ranch Project, City of Newport Beach. Section 4.6: Biological Resources. http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov /pin /CEQA_REV I EW /Newport%20Bann ing %20Ranch %20DEIR /N ewport%20Banning %20Ranch_DEIR /Newport%20Ban n ing %20Ranch_DEI R_September %20201 1 / 4. 6 %20Biological %20Resources.pdf. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009b. Residential Appliance Saturation Survey. hftp: / /www.energy.ca.gov /appliances /rass /. California Department of Finance (CDF). 2011, May. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2010 -2011, with 2010 Benchmark. http: / /www.dof.ca.gov/ research / demographic /reports /estimates /e- 5/2011 -20 /view. php. Page 13 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 13. Bibliograpby California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2012a. Construction /Demolition and Inert Debris Tools and Resources. http: / /www.cal recycle.ca.gov /swfacil ities /CDI/Tools /Calculations.htm. . 2012b. Disposal Facility Inspection Report for the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. http: / /www.calrecycle.ca.gov /SW Faci lities /Di rectory /30 -AB- 0360 /Detail /. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2004, September 30. New Development and Redevelopment Handbook. Section 3: Site and Facility Design for Water Quality Protection. http: / /www. cab m phan d books. co m/ Documents /Devel op ment/Sectio n_3. pdf. CB Richard Ellis (CRBE). 2011. Market View: Orange County Office, Fourth Quarter 2011. http: / /f.ticollect.com /fr2 /01 1 / 501 27 /0range_County_Office_Marketl . pdf. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2008, August 25. Glossary of Environmental Terms. http: / /www.dtsc.ca.gov /I nformationResources/ Glossary _of_Environmental_Terms.cfm. Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). 2012. Irvine Ranch Water District- About Us. http: / /www. i rwd.com/ about -us /irwd- basics /map /service -area. htm I. . 2011 a. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. http: / /www.irwd.com /doing- business /engineering- planning /urban- water - management -plan. html. . 2011 b. Irvine Desaiter Project Brochure. http: / /www.irwd.com /your- water /facilities- construction /i rvine-desalter-project.html. Los Angeles, City of. 2006 (LA). L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles. Chapter A. Aesthetics and Visual Resources. hftp://www.cl.la.ca.us/EAD/programs/thresholdsguide. htm. Newport Beach Fire Department. 2012, July 16. Fire Prevention Guidelines. hftp://www.newportbeachca.gov/jndex.aspx?page= 1038. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), United States Department of Labor. 2012, May 29. Extinguisher Basics. http: / /www.osha.gov /SLTC /etools /evacuation /portable- about.htmi. Office of Wastewater Management (OWM). 2004, September. Water Permitting 101. US Environmental Protection Agency: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. http: / /www.epa.gov /npdes /pubs /101 pape.pdf. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2012c. Compass Blueprint Opportunity Areas. Maps. http:// www. compassblueprint .org /opportunityareas. .2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report. http: / /www.mwcog.org /uploads /committee- documents /bl5aX1 pa20091008155406.pdf State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Combined California 2010 303(d) List. http: / /www.waterboards.ca. gov /water_issues /prog rams /tmdl /integrated20l 0.shtml. TowerJazz. 2012a. About Us Fact Sheet. http: / /www.jazzsemi.com /fact- sheet.htmi. Uptown Newport Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 13 -3 r2l� 13. Bibliography . 2012b. Correspondence between Brian Rupp and TowerJazz. Email dated February 27, 2012. University of California, Irvine (UCI). 2007. 2007 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). http://www.ceplanning.uci.edu/finallrdp.html. US Census. 2012. American FactFinder: Average Household Size Of Occupied Housing Units By Tenure for the City of Newport Beach, 2010. http: / /facffi nder2.census.gov/ faces /tableservices /jsf /pages /prod uctview.xhtm I ?pid = DEC_10_SF1 -H 1 2&prodType =table US Geological Survey. 2009, October 27. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalli.php. 13.3 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Covarrubias, Daisy. 2011, December 28. Response to Sewer Questionnaire. Hogan, John C. 2012, May 22. E -mail between John C. Hogan (Hall and Foreman, Inc.) and Kathryne Cho (City of Newport Beach): Uptown Newport - Sewer Monitoring Results. Rupp, Brian. 2012, February 27. E -mail correspondence. The Shopoff Group. Rupp, Brian. 2012, May 31. E -mail correspondence. The Shopoff Group. Page 13 -¢ • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2012 Attachment No. CC 17 Final EIR (February 2013) This document is not included in the staff report package due to its size and bulk. It is available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at http: / /newr)ortbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2029 4 I 420 FINAL 1 -lei 9 /: TO ell 5I -lJILI4 IMPACT REPORT FOR UPTOWN NEWPORT SCH NO. 2010051094 co prepared fora CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER IDC &E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Director, Environmental Services FEBRUARY 2013 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Tel: 949.644.3208 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 E -mail: information @planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT FOR UPTOWN NEWPORT SCH NO, 2010051094 �� prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER IDC &E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Director, Environmental Services CNB -13.OE FEBRUARY 2013 Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................1 -1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FOR ........................................................................ ............................1 -1 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .......................1 -2 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .................................................................. ............................2 -1 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ............................................................ ............................3 -1 3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................3 -1 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ............ ............................3 -1 3.3 UPDATES TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................... ...........................3 -25 3.4 UPDATED TRAFFIC MODELING ........................................................ ...........................3 -27 3.5 REVISED AND NEW FIGURES ........................................................... ...........................3 -59 APPENDICES A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan B Uptown Newport Phase 1 RWQCB NFA Letter C1 I- Shuttle Route A �� B C2 I- Shuttle Route D ALUC Hearing Finding Letter E Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page i Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3 -6a Phase 1 Master Site Plan .................................................................... ...........................3 -61 Figure3 -6b Master Site Plan .................................................................................. ...........................3 -63 Figure 3 -7 Conceptual Grading and Earthwork: Phase 1 and Phase 2 ............... ...........................3 -65 Figure 3 -8 Phase 1 Circulation Plan ..................................................................... ...........................3 -67 Figure 3 -9 Phase 2 Circulation Plan ...................................... ............................... ...........................3 -69 Figure 3 -10 Storm Drainage Concept: Phase 1 and Phase 2 ................................ ...........................3 -71 Figure 3 -11 Proposed Water System: Phase 1 and Phase 2 ................................. ...........................3 -73 Figure 3 -12 Proposed Sewer System: Phase 1 and Phase 2 ................................ ...........................3 -75 Figure 3 -13 Illustrative Site Plan and Vision ........................................................... ...........................3 -77 Figure 4 -4 Cumulative Project Location Map ....................................................... ...........................3 -79 Figure 5.1 -2 High Rise Zones and Height Limits ................................................ ............................... 3 -81 Figure 5.7 -4 Phase 1 Site Layout and Chemical Storage Locations ...................... ...........................3 -83 Figure 5.8 -4 Phase 1 Storm Drain Concept ............................................................ ...........................3 -85 Figure 5.8-5 Proposed Drainage Plan ..................................................................... ...........................3 -87 Figure 5.12 -3 Cumulative Projects and SAUSD School Attendance Area Boundaries .......................3 -89 Page ii • The Planning Center I DC &E Februaty 2013 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FOR shall consist of: (a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft. (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR. (d) The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. (e) Any other information added by the lead agency. This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Uptown Newport project co during the public review period, which began September 10, 2012, and closed October 24, 2012. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency. This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FOR Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR, copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (AO through At 1 for letters received from agencies, 01 through 08 for letters received from organizations, and 11 through 16 for letters received from individuals). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter, and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2. A separate subsection is also included to detail the results of updated traffic modeling to reflect a cumulative project not previously included in the analysis. And finally, this section includes minor updates to the project description and /or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. The subsections are as follows: Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -1 1. Introduction 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Revisions to Respond to DEIR Comments 3.3 Updates to the Project Description 3.4 Updated Traffic Modeling 3.5 Revised and Updated Figures The City of Newport Beach staff has reviewed the revisions to the DEIR and determined that none of this material 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 this new material indicates that the project would 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. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the ER." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204 (d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15204 (e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs. Page 1 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 2. Response to Comments Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency (City of Newport Beach) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DER and prepare written responses. This section provides all written responses received on the DER and the City of Newport Beach's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DER are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DER text are shown in underlined text for additions and GtFike% for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DER during the public review period. Number Reference Commenting Person /Agency Date of Comment Page No. Agencies AO State Clearinghouse October 25, 2012 2 -3 Al Newport-Mesa Unified School District September 19, 2012 2 -9 A2 Native American Heritage Commission September 20, 2012 2 -13 A3 Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County October 15, 2012 2 -21 A4 Santa Ana Unified School District October 16, 2012 2 -25 A5 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board October 16, 2012 2 -31 A6 City of Irvine October 17, 2012 2 -39 A7 California Department of Transportation October 24, 2012 2 -47 A8 Irvine Ranch Water District October 24, 2012 2 -55 A9 University of California Irvine October 24, 2012 2 -59 A10 South Coast Air Quality Management District October 25, 2012 2 -63 Organizations 01 John S. Adams & Associates October 23, 2012 2 -71 02 Canopi, LLC October 23, 2012 2 -83 03 Olen October 24, 2012 2 -87 04 Kennedy Commission October 24, 2012 2 -91 05 Saunders Property Company October 24, 2012 2 -97 06 4200 Von Karman, LLC October 24, 2012 2 -101 07 MIG Real Estate October 24, 2012 2 -105 08 PRIES Companies October 24, 2012 2 -109 09 The Gas Company October 25, 2012 2 -113 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -1 co 2. Response to Comments Number Reference Commenting Person /Agency Date of Comment Page No. Individuals 11 Kimberly A. Jameson, PhD October 6, 2012 2 -117 12 Bruce Asper September 2012 2 -121 13 Debbie Stevens October 23, 2012 2 -125 14 Whitney Allen October 23, 2012 2 -137 15 Roger Stone October 24, 2012 2 -141 16 James B. Hasty October 24, 2012 2 -145 Page 2 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER AO — State Clearinghouse (3 pages) Y'�•' STATE OF CALIFORNIA �offl % g GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING Am) RESEARCH Pa'rcerenuF° °es STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT EDMUND G. BROWNJR. - Kan ALEX GOVERNOR GOVED'31- DIMCNR commnuNnv October 25, 2012 ' OCf 'L Rosalinh Ung P�DEVELOPM6'K' City of Newport Beach OF NEWPU ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Uptown Newport SCHN: 2010051094 Deal Rosalinh Ung: The Slate Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on Oclober 24, 2012, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) eclosed. if this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Ctem'inghousc inunedia(ely. Please refer to the project's ten -digit Slate Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive connnents regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of ale agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." - These comments ure forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clo'ification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the conunenling agency dil ectly. ']'his letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements fur dull environmental documents, pursuant to the California Enviroume tal Quality Act. Please central the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Dll'eelor, Slade Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 958123044 (916)445.0613 FAX(916)323 -3018 wimmopr.cagov AM Uptown Newport Final EIR Cite of Newport Beach • Page 2 -3 �� 2. Response to Comments D'of : umenf- Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2 010 0 510 94 Project Title Uptown Newport Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed Uptown Newport project would consists of mixed uses with up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 sf of neighborhood - serving relail space, and -two acres of park space. Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feel in height; with residential lowers up to 150 feet high (13 stories). Residential product types would be for -sale products with a mix of lownhomes, mid -and high -rise condominiums, and affordable housing. In addition to neighborhood- serving retail, the vision for the project is to incorporate an upscale, sit -down restaurant within the 11,500 sf commercial development. Two parks totaling -2 acres would be developed, as well as landscaped area surrounding proposed buildings. Parks and landscaped areas would be accessible to 'the public but privately owned. Access to file site would be from Jamboree Road, Birch Street, and Von Karmen Avenue. Lead Agency Contact Name Rosalinh Ung .Agency City of Newport Beach' Phone (949) 644 -3208 Fax email rung @newporlbeach.ca.gov Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92658 -8915 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Lat /Long 33 °39'45 "N /117°51'37 "W Cross Streets Jamboree Road and Fairchild Road Parcel No. Township 6S Range 9W Section 7 Base SBB &M Proximity to: Highways 1 -405, SR -55, SR -73 - Airports John Wayne Airport Railways Waterways San Diego Creek, Sentence Channel, Upper Newport Bay Schools 5 private /Parochial Schools /1 public ES Land Use LU: Z: GP: Industrial: Kali Center Planned Community (PC -15): Mixed Use Horizontal -2 (MU -H2) Project issues AesthelicA/isual; Air Quality; Archaeologic- Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage /Absorption; Flood Plain /Flooding; Forest Land /Fire Hazard; GeologiclSeismic; Noise; Population /Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation /Parks; Schools /Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Solid Waste; ToxiclHazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Management Agency, California; Calirans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Department of Housing and Community Developmenl; Stale Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Page 2 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E Februai)r 2013 2. Response to Comments -- Document Document "D"etails Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Date Received 09/10/2012 Start of Review 0911012012 End of Review 10/24/2012 co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -5 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -6 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 2. Response to Comments A0. Response to Comments from State Clearinghouse, Scott Morgan, Director, dated October 25, 2012 AO -1 The comment acknowledges that the City of Newport Beach has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for the DEIR, pursuant to CEQA. This comment also acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse received the DEIR and submitted it to select state agencies for review. Comment acknowledged. �� Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -7 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -8 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER Al — Newport Mesa Unified School District (2 pages) NEWPORT - -MESA Unified School District 2985 Bear Street • CO-via 61eea s California 92616 a (714) 424 -5000 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Daum Block • Dave Brooks a Wilk Davaiporl Martha Fluor a Katrina Fraley -Judy Fnmco • Knreu Yclvcy Frederick Nevm'ro, Ed.D., Superintendent September 19, 2012 Ms Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 ,gOEIVCo eY COI MUNITY SEP 24 2012 p� DEVELOPMENT q. P hOP M1'f- 4VPORt 6� RE: Response of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District to the Uplown Newport Draft EIR dated September, 2012 Dear Ms Ung: Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Draft EIR for the proposed Uptown Newport Project. On behalf of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District I would like to offer the following points of clarification: 1. The proposed project is not within the jurisdiction of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District ( NMUSD). It is within the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). As such, I Al -1 Newport -Mesa will not be serving the students to be generated by the project. 2. Please be advised (hat Newport -Mesa does not accept inter - district application's for students who (to not reside within the NMUSD boundaries due to funding constraints. Al-2 Again, Newport-Mesa will not be serving the students to be generated by the project. 3. while the Draft EIR, under the heading of "Expansion of NMUSD Boundaries" on page 5- 12-21, discusses the general procedure for transfer of territory from one school district to another, the discussion is complete only If read in its entirety in accompaniment with section 2.1.5 of the School Impacts and Mitigation Study, attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix L. The latter document makes clear, as the body of the Draft EIR does not, that there are many considerations which apply in any proposal to shift territory from one school district to another. One significant consideration is the agreement of the school districts Involved as to whether the proposed shift is acceptable. It is a rare instance when any change in school district boundaries occurs without the agreement of the boards of education of both districts. No such discussions have occurred to dale between NMUSD and SAUSD. Al -3 4. The information regarding NMUSD generation tales and the availability of capacity in I AI.4 NMUSD schools, while factually correct, is not directly relevant to the larger consideration Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -9 �� 2. Response to Comments of the Draft EIR. NMUSD has no jurisdiction, nor any obligation to serve the students from the proposed project. I A13 Consequently, In that the Project area is not vAlhln NMUSD borders, the students generated by the gored Project will have no foreseeable eligibility to be served by NMUSD. Please let me know If there are any questions. Sincerely, 411& Paul H. Reed Deputy Superintendent and Chief Business Official Page 2 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments Al. Response to Comments from Newport Mesa Unified School District, Paul H. Reed, Deputy Superintendent and Chief Business Official, dated September 19, 2012. Al -1 The DEIR correctly indicates that the project site is within the service boundary of the Santa Ana Unified School District ( SAUSD). The City acknowledges the Newport Mesa Unified School District's (NMUSD's) clarification that Newport-Mesa will not be serving students generated by the Uptown Newport project. Al -2 Comment acknowledged. Al -3 The commenter is correct in noting that the DEIR description under Expansion of NMUSD Boundaries is not complete without the context provided in the "School Impacts and Mitigation Report" prepared by Jeanette C. Justus Associates and included in Appendix L of the DEIR. The DEIR text has been supplemented to describe the process and findings required to reorganize school district boundaries (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). As included in the supplemental text, four types of reorganization proposals exist, and proposals must show that the district: • Will have a sufficient number of pupils enrolled, • Will be organized on the basis of a substantial identity, • Will result in an equitable division of property and facilities, ` 6.) • Will preserve its ability to educate students in an integrated environment and will C not promote racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation, • Will not increase in costs to the state as a result of the proposed reorganization, • Will continue to promote sound education performance and will not significantly disrupt the educational program, • Will not increase school facilities costs as result of the proposed reorganization • Is not designed for purposes to significantly increase property values, • Will continue to promote sound fiscal management and not cause a substantial negative effect on the fiscal status. It is also acknowledged that no discussions have yet occurred between NMUSD and SAUSD regarding any potential district boundary changes. Al -4 Comment acknowledged. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -11 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -12 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER A2 — Native American Heritage Commission (5 pages) SIDTE9ECOLICOnNN [Jmuntl d Ilrowp,.lc,pev NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, FOOM 904 sACnAL1 CnTO, CA 95014 s <"4xTl \ Ftt0r9,01057-5390 woE Silo vrw,v.nm,c.ca.0ov da. nohc®pacNii.not 1ypCC -IVGO Bf- COd'MUNRY September 20, 2012 srP 24 2or2 Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Project Planner n nev- nronmelur City of NewportBeach o a 3300 Newport Boulevard �A/Fyyl'nny D�PG Newport Beach, CA 92658 ZSCW42010051094; CEQA Notice of Complelion; draft Environmental Impact Repoil IR) for the "Uptown Newport Project" located on about 25 -acres in the Cilyof Newport Beach; Orange County, California Dear Ms. Ung: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the State of California 'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC V. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3fd 604). This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties or resources of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA — CA Public Resources Code 21000- 21177, amendments effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, . that includes archaeological resources, is a'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ...objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC recommends that the lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the proposed project. The NAHC "Sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code § §5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code 56254 (r). Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural A2 -1 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -13 �� 2. Response to Comments significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties, including archaeological studies. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (Archaeological Resources) that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources, construction to avoid sites and the possible use of covenant easements to protect sites. Furthermore, the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 - 43351). Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 of seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.0 4371 at seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Inferiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to "research" the cultural landscape that might include the'area of potential effect.' Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and /or cultural significance identified in or near the APES and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for inadvertent discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery of human remains in a project location other than a'dedicated cemetery'. To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. Finally, when Native American cultural sites and /or Native American burial sites are prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends 'avoidance' of the site as referenced by CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a). A2 -1 confd Page 2 -14 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 2. Response to Comments If you have any questions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to A2 "1 me at (915) 5538251. I cold 1. Program Cc: Attachment Native American Contact List �� Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -15 2. Response to Comments Native American Contacts Orange County September 20, 2012 TI'At Society /Inter - Tribal Council of Pimu Cindi M. Alvitre, Chairwoman- Manlsar 3094 Mace Avenue, Apt. B Gabrielino Costa Mesa, , CA 92626 calvitre@yahoo.cofn (714) 504 -2468 Cell Juanmlo Band of Mission Indians Aclachomon Nation David Belardes, Chairperson 32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno Son Juan Capislranq CA 92675 In chiefdavidbelardes @yahoo. (949) 493 -4933 - home (949) 293 -8522 Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Private Address Gabrielino Tongva tattnlaw @gmail.com 310-570-6567 abbrlelenorronpva San Gabriel Band of Mission nthony Morales, Chairperson PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva San Gabriel , CA 91778 GTTribalcouncil @ aol.com (626) 286 -1632 (626) 286 -1758 - Home (626)'286- 1262 -FAX This list Is current only as of tile date of Ihia do current. Gat)rielino'rongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director P.O. Box 66966 Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeles . CA 90006 sainduiiiap@eartlilink.net (909) 262 -9351 - cell Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capislranq CA 92675.2674 arivera @juaneno.com (949) 488 -3484 (949) 488 -3294 - FAX (530) 354 -5876 - cell Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair /Cultural Resources P.C. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva Bellflower CA 90707 gtongva @verizon.net 562. 761.6417 - voice 562- 761 -6417 -fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Cultural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 ,luaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 alfredg eruz @ sbcg to bal. n et 714 -998 -0721 714 -998 -0721 - FAX 714 - 321 -1944 - cell Blind button of this list does not relieve any parson of the statutory responsibility as dcfinod In Socllon 7050.6 of the Health and Solely Code, Section 6097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is applicable for contacting loco[ Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCN02010051094; CIRCA Notice of Complotlon; draft Environmental Impact Report (BEIR) for the Uptown Newport Protect; located In the City of Newport Beach; Orange County, California. Page 2 -16 • The Planning Center I DCPTE Februai), 2013 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 sonia.johnslon @ sbcglobal. 714- 323 -8312 714 - 998 -0721 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Jrlaneno Anaheim I CA 92807 n et a 77 7@ s b cg t o ba I. n e t (714) 779 -8832 United Coalition to Protect Panhe (UCPP) Rebecca Robles 119 Avenida San Fernando Juaneno San Clemente CA 92672 rebroblesl @gmail.com (949) 573 -3138 Gabrielino - Tongva Tribe Bernie Acuna 1875 Century Pk East #1500 Gabrielino Los Angeles , CA 90067 (619) 294- 6660 -work (310) 428 -5690 - cell (310) 587 -0170 - FAX bacunal @gabrieinoiribe.org This list Is current only as of the data of this document. 2. Response to Comments Native American Contacts Orange County September 20, 2012 .luaneno Band of Mission Indians Aclachemon Nation Joyce Perry, Representing Tribal Chairperson 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno Irvine . CA 92612 949 -293 -8522 Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe Linda Candelaria, Chairwoman 1875 Century Pk East #1500 Gabrielino Los Angeles , CA 90067 Icandelarial @gabrielinoTrlbe.org 626 -676- 1184 -cell (310) 587 -0170 - FAX Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Gabrielino Covina , CA 91723 (626) 926 -4131 g a b r i e l e n of n d i a n s @yahoo. com Distribution of tills list does not relieve ally person of the statutory responsibility as deft nod In 80010117050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.99 of the Public Resources Carlo. This Ilst Is applicable for contacting local Native Amarlcans with regard to cultural easoumos for the proposed SCHk2010051094; CEOA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Uptown Newport Project; located In the City of Newport Beath; Orange County, California. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -17 �� 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -18 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments A2. Response to Comments from the Native American Heritage Commission, Dave Singleton, Program Analysis, dated September 20, 2012. A2 -1 A cultural resources report prepared by Cogstone for the proposed project ( "Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment of the Uptown Newport Village Project, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California," January 2012) and included as DEIR Appendix F, followed the recommendations as outlined in this comment letter. As described in DEIR Section 5.4.1, [Cultural Resources] Environmental Setting, a sacred lands record search was requested and conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in October 2011. Cogstone also contacted 16 Native American tribes or individuals for further information as recommended by NAHC. Letters requesting information and containing maps and project information were sent to these 16 tribal contacts on November 14, 2011. One response was received from the Acjachemen tribe, stating that the area is sensitive in general. No other responses were received. DEIR Mitigation Measure 4 -1 requires cultural resource monitoring for ground - disturbing activities and outlines procedures in the event of cultural resource discoveries. As noted by the commenter, the project applicant shall comply with regulatory requirements in the event of a discovery of human remains. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce the potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -19 co 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 LETTER A3— Airport Land Use Commission (2 pages) ORANGE COUNTY - xt, 2. Response to Comments AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626.949.252.5170 fax: 949152.6012 October IS, 2012 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Uptown Newport Project Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR for the proposed Uptown Newport Project in the context of the Airport Land'Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plon for John Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP) and the AEL UPfor Heliports. The project proposes a mix of residential, commereial,`and open space uses. Up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of commercial space, and two acres of park space are proposed Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet high, with residential towers up to 150 feet high (13 stories). The site encompasses 25 acres in the Airport Business Area of the City, and is approximately .6 mile southeast of JWA. We wish to offer the following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comme °nts as you proceed with preparation of your DEIR. e The DEIR does include a discussion of the proposed project within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imugin`arySurfaces and the Notification Surface for JWA. Based on FAA's aeronauticalstudy- forthe- Proposedproject, three oFl1 selected latitude/longitude building points onsi[e;�wele identified as obstacles underthe obstruction standards of Title 14 CFR Part 77; Section 77.19 (a) by approximately one to three feet. In response to the FAA'saeronauticalstudy,.the DEIR states that the Planned, Community Development Plan (PCDP) for_Uptow will include the requirement that buildings, and any appurtenances not exceed 206 feet above, em a° sea level (AMSL). We suggest that the Figure 3- r...�_....��, 2 of the PCDP include anote,clarifylm that the Tower Zone 1 -h height limit. is 150 feet, but cannot exceed 206 feet AMSL The DEIR should also clarify that the three points considered obstacles per the FAA aeronautical study arcllassociatEd with 1lie Tower Zone I building. A3-1 A3-2 The DEIR states that the southern and easternmost parts of the site are within the 60 A community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contour for JWA. The DEIR includes several policies to address aircraft overflight and noise. The city is requiring that the interior CNEL for Uptown does not exceed 4S dB. In addition, the applicant and or future residential developers A3-3 will be required to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. Proposed parks in Uptown would be required to post notifications to users regarding proximity to JWA and aircraft overflight and noise. We recommend that these requirements arc also incorporated into the PCDP for Uptown Newport. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -21 �� 2. Response to Comments ALUC Comments -Upwwn Newport Project Oct. 15.2012 Page 2 With respect to safety issues, the DEIR discusses the project's location within Safety Zone 6 for JWA. Risk factors associated with Safety Zone 6 generally include a low likelihood of accident occurrence. Allowed uses in this safety zone include residential and most nonresidential uses, A3-4 with the exception of outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities. Children's schools, large day care centers, hospital and nursing homes should be limited, as well as processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly hazardous materials. The proposed mixed uses for the Uptown project would be compatible within this zone. The DEIR should clarify that noise and overflight should be considered and disclosed to residents. In addition, the Draft EIR should identify if the project allows for heliports as defined in the Orange County AELUPfor Heliports. Should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiction, proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC A2-5 for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5. Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA, by the ALUC for Orange County and by Celtrans/Division of Aeronautics. As you know, referral by the City to the ALUC is recommended for this project due to the location of the proposal within a JWA AELUP Planning At" and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e., Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and Adoption) under PUC Section 21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Commission suggests such referrals be submitted to the ALUC for a determination, between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Because your City is referring the project to the ALUC prior to the City's Planning Commission hearing instead of between the City's Planning Commission and City Council hearings, we recommend that the City submit any project changes relevant to JWA that occur prior to City Council project approval to ALUC staff for review and resubmit the project for ALUC consistency determination. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252 -5123 or via email at khourn0ocair.com if you need any additional details or information regarding the future referral of your project. Sincerely, Kati A. Rigoni �� Executive Officer A3-a Page 2 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments A3. Response to Comments from Airport Land Use Commission, Karl A. Rigoni, Executive Officer, dated October 15, 2012. A3 -1 Comment acknowledged. A3 -2 In response to the commenter, the discussion under subsection Potential Hazards to Aircraft Flight on page 5.9 -37 of the DEIR has been revised to clarify that the three points considered obstacles by FAA are related to the Tower Zone 1 buildings (please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). As requested, Section 3.1 of the Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) has also been modified to include that the maximum height limit is 150 feet for buildings in the "High- Rise" zone, but cannot exceed 206 feet AMSL. A3 -3 The specified requirements as included in the DEIR have been incorporated into the PCDP as requested. A3 -4 The commenter concludes that the proposed mixed uses for Uptown Newport are compatible with the project's location within John Wayne Airport's (JWA's) Safety Zone 6. As included in the City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval (DEIR Page 5.10 -51), the City's General Plan Noise Element Policy N 3.2 requires that residential developers notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. As stated in Response A3 -3, the PCDP has also been revised to specify this requirement. A3 -5 Comment acknowledged. Heliports are not being proposed as a part of the project. Should heliports be proposed in the future, such proposals would be submitted through the City to the ALUC pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 and would fully comply with the state permit procedure, FAA, and ALUC. A3 -6 As requested, the City provided applicable project information /updates to ALUC staff prior to the ALUC's public hearing for the Uptown Newport project held on October 18, 2012. The Commission considered the project at the hearing 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." 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" (see ALUC letter dated October 22, 2018, documenting this determination, Appendix D). As described in the DEIR, since the ALUC has made the determination that Uptown Newport is not consistent with the AELUP, approval of the project would require the Newport Beach City Council to override this determination with a two- thirds vote. ALUC's inconsistency determination results in a significant, unavoidable impact for the project. Pending ALUC's determination, the DEIR disclosed this impact as a ,.potentially significant impact" for which no applicable mitigation is available. To reflect the October 18, 2012, action by ALUC, the DEIR has been modified to conclude that the AELUP inconsistency determination represents a significant, unavoidable impact for Uptown Newport (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft Uptown Newport Final FIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -23 co 2. Response to Comments EIR). If the City Council overrides the inconsistency determination, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact will be required by the City Council prior to approving the project. Page 2 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER A4 — Santa Ana Unified School District (4 pages) SppT! '!'ter �. _ Santa Ana Unified School District [+ Foci /ices & Gm-ernmenm! Relations Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, Ph.D f0'r[Yg6vp @_ Joe Dbron,ASiarant Superinteadurit Superintendent October 16, 2012 Rmadinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach. CA 92658 -8915 Re: Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown Newport Proiect Dear Ms. Ung: The Santa Ana Unwed School District (SAUSD or District) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Uptown Newport Project. The cumulative planned residential development in the project vicinity, in consideration of the distance to the nearest District schools, warrants the need for a school facility in the area. One of the goals of the District is to build a neighborhood school in the John Wayne Airport area to best serve students, promote community ownership, increase property values, and limit bossing costs. While developer fees are intended to help offset impacts from the students generated by new development, the fees will not be sufficient to build a new comprehensive school facility, including classrooms, library space, or other educational or recreational facilities. The District has initiated discussions with local developers regarding the potential placement of a new neighborhood school and mitigation agreement that is mutually agreeable for all parties. In the unfortunate event that a site or sufficient funding cannot be obtained to construct the new facility, the District has capacity at the existing schools serving the project area, including Monroe Elementary, McFadden Intermediate, and Century High Schools. In response to the DEIR School Services section, the District has the following comments regarding the analysis of the existing school capacity and cumulative impacts. The comments are ntunbered and in sequential page order for your reference. 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701 -6371, (714) 480-5357 BOARD OF EDUCATION Rob Richardson, Resident • ,ba§ Alfredo Hernandez, JD., Vim Resident Audrey Vamagata -Noji, Ph.D., Cler k • .bhn Pa1acio, Member • Roman A. Retna, Member A4-0 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -25 �� 2. Response to Comments SAUSD Comments: Page 5.12 -12, Section 5.12.3, School Services The DEIR references the date of the School Impacts and Mitigation Report as January 2012; however, according to the title page of the report (Appendix L), the DEIR text I A4 -1 should be corrected to "August 2012." 2. Page 5.12 -12, Table 5.12 -5, SAUSD Overall Capacity Table 5.12 -5 references SAUSD capacity taken from the 2011 School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA). As noted in the SFNA, the capacity reflects permanent classroom capacity only, and does not include the capacity of portable classrooms. Without noting this in the DEIR text, Table 5.12 -5 can be misleading, showing deficient capacity at the K -6 grade level. SAUSD requests the DEIR text be revised to add clarification that Table 5.12 -5 reflects permanent classroom capacity. 3. Page 5.12 -12, Table 5.12 -5, SAUSD Overall Capacity Table 5.12 -5 references SAUSD enrollment taken from the School Impacts and Mitigation Report. According to the report, SAUSD's enrollment excludes enrollment at Orange County High School of the Arts (OCHSA), one of the District's charter schools. However, SAUSD has five charter schools. District enrollment is ordinarily stated m either including all charter enrollment, or no charter enrollment. It is unrepresentative of SAUSD's enrollment to exclude a single school- 4. Page 5.12 -15, Table 5.12 -6, SAUSD Schools Near Project Site A4 2 A4 -3 Table 5.12 -6 references school enrollment and capacity from SAUSD's response letter to A44 the DEIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated November 28, 2011. Therefore, the source of the data referenced in the table should be changed from Jeanette C. Justus Associates to SAUSD. 5. Page 5.12 -15, Table 5.12 -6, SAUSD Schools Near Project Site As noted in SAUSD's NOP response letter, the District's capacity reflects permanent classroom capacity only, and does not include the capacity of portable classrooms. Without noting this in the DEIR text, Table 5.12 -6 can be misleading, showing deficient capacity at the intermediate school level. SAUSD requests the DEIR text be revised to add clarification that Table 5.12 -6 reflects permanent classroom capacity. 0. Page 5.12 -21, Section 5.12.3.3, Alternative School Facility Options A4-5 The subsection Expansion ofNMUSD Boundaries says a boundary change `would enable I A4-6 project students to maximize their quality of life." As an objective DEIR, the document should read as follows: 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, 33nta Ana, CA 92701 -6322, (714) 480.5357 BOARD OF EDUCATION Rob Richardson, Resident - ,bse Alfredo Hernandez, JD., Vice Resident A udret Yarnagata -Noji, Ph.D., Clerk • ,bhn Palacio, Member • Roman A. Reins, Member Page 2 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments "The project applicant may choose to propose to modify the school district boundaries so that the entire project would be within the boundaries of the neighboring NMUSD. In the absence of a neighborhood school within SAUSD, such territory transfer would ensure that project- generated students attend school facilities nearest to their homes and busing or other transportation costs and impacts are minimized. I_ '1•- -'n, -- ws�.,�mee of - sluda"il ............:...:.... .1. •:- ..uali,.. ..O CQ L.. L.:.... 1..,, .- able is ,..1. a adyant........9*Ok.•..1 ..,1.., ,a ..._.:.dr. ... ....A. M ..A..- _.11801 '-_......_... ....a 1.11.1..:.. A.J.. I :..:__ H... FOR NN Oki' 4WA ° ° ° °- °•-• — °-•-" ° °. The transfer of school district boundaries would be subject to concurrence of the Orange County Committee on School District Organization and the State Board of Education. The impacts and reorganization would differ between elementary and middle secondary school students." 7. Page 5.12 -21, Section 5.12.3.4, Cumulative Impacts The DEIR says "The cumulative projects in the project area are listed on Table 4.3." This is a typo, and should be corrected to "Table 4-2." 8. Page 5.12 -21, Section 5.12.3.4, Cumulative Impacts Section 5.12.3.4 says, "No cumulative projects including residential use, which would therefore generate students, were identified within SAUSD boundaries." This is not correct. Table 4-2, Cumulative Projects, lists six residential projects within SAUSD boundaries, including 96 Koll Center, #12 Central Park, #15 The Lofts, #18 Plaza II and IV, #19 Carlyle, and 928 Martin Street Residential. Each one of those projects will impact SAUSD enrollment and should be considered cumulatively as part of this DEIR. In addition, Table 4 -2 is missing a planted residential project within the vicinity of the Uptown Newport Project. The proposed Irvine Technology Center is located at the northeast comer of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. The project includes the development of up to 1,800 single - family attached residential units and up to 17,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses. Therefore, the text of the DEIR should be revised to the following: "Nine cumulative projects were identified within SAUSD boundaries; seven of those projects contain residential uses and would thus generate students." 1601 Fast Chestnut Avenue, S)nta Ana, CA 92701 -6322, (714) 480-5357 BOARD OF EDUCATION Rob Richardson, Resident • ,bse Alfredo Her nAndez, JD., Vim President Audrey Yamagata -Nop, Ph.D., Clark • ,bhn Polado, Member • Roman A. Reyna, Member A4-6 conVd A4 -7 A4 -8 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -27 50 2. Response to Comments 9. Page 5.12 -22, Table 5.12 -11, SrudeN Generation by Cturudarive Prnjed> Table 5.12 -I1, Student Generation by Gnulative Projerta, does not analJze the cumulative impacts to SAUSD. As previously mentioned, the Cumulative Impacts section does not recognize the six residential projects within SAUSD referenced in Table 4 -2. These cumulative projects include #6 Koll Center, #12 Central Park, #15 The Lofts, #18 Plaza 11 and IV, #19 Carlyle, and #28 Martin Street Residential. Table 5.12 -11 also does not include the Irvine Technology Center, a planned residential and commercial project located at the corner of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive within SAUSD boundaries. In addition, Table 5.12 -11 incorrectly lists cumulative project #6 Koll Center as a project with NMUSD. The address of that project, 4343 Von Karman Avenue, is located within SAUSD boundaries. In order to analyze cumulative impacts to SAUSD, Table 5.12 -11 should be revised to include the above referenced projects and analyze the student~ generated within SAUSD boundaries. Thank you for considering SAUSD's comments in response to the DEIR for the Uptown Newport Project. I took forward to receiving the response to the comments. Sincerely, / ` C re _ YJ� Joe Dixon Assistant Superintendent 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92711 -6322, (714) 480 -5357 BOARD OF EDUCATION Rob Richardson, President • )nse Alfredo HemAndez, J.D., Vice President Audrey Yamagata -Noll, Ph.D., Clerk • Jahn Palacio, Member • Roman A Reyna, Member A4-9 Page 2 -28 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments A4. Response to Comments from the Santa Ana Unified School District, Joe Dixon, Assistant Superintendent, dated October 16, 2012. A4 -0 Comment acknowledged. A4 -1 As requested, the report date for the "School Impacts and Mitigation Report" has been corrected on page 5.12 -12 of the DEIR (please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). A4 -2 DEIR page 5.12 -12 and Table 5.12 -5, Santa Ana Unified School District Overall Capacity (2011- 2012), have been revised to clarify that the classroom capacity provided only includes permanent classroom capacity. As noted in this comment and described in the "School Impacts and Mitigation Report," DEIR Appendix L, all students in McFadden Intermediate School are housed with use of portable classrooms. The revisions are included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. A4 -3 Charter school capacity and enrollment information is not included in Table 5.12 -12, Santa Ana Unified School District Overall Capacity (2011- 2012); DEIR Section 5.12, Public Services; or in "School Impacts and Mitigation Report" in DEIR Appendix L. The information excludes all five SAUSD charter schools. We concur that the footnote in the "School Impacts and Mitigation Report" highlighting exclusion of the Orange County High School of the Arts ( OCHSA) enrollment information is confusing. The note regarding the OCHSA charter school that is outlined in the "School Impacts and Mitigation Report" has been removed accordingly. A4 -4 The commenter is correct in noting that the source of the SAUSD enrollment and capacity information is from the response letter from SAUSD dated November 28, 2011. A copy of the SAUSD letter was included in DEIR Appendix K, Service Provider Correspondence. Table 5.12 -6, Santa Ana Unified School District Schools near Project Site (2011- 2012), has been revised accordingly (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). A4 -5 Table 5.12 -5 and the accompanying text have been revised to clarify that capacity information only reflects permanent facilities (please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). A4 -6 The discussion under subsection Expansion of NMUSD Boundaries on page 5.12 -21 of the DEIR has been revised as requested (please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). A4 -7 The typo referenced has been corrected (please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). A4 -8& 9 The commenter has correctly identified related development projects within the SAUSD boundaries that were erroneously excluded from the cumulative analysis for SAUSD. Table 5.12 -11, Student Generation by Cumulative Projects, has been updated to reflect the additional projects and the inclusion of the Koll Project within SAUSD. The analysis has also been supplemented to identify the cumulative effect of student generation associated with these projects as well as Uptown Newport on the schools closest to the project site (James Monroe Elementary, McFadden Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -29 co 2. Response to Comments Intermediate, and Century High School; please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Development of these projects as planned would result in the permanent capacity of each of these schools being exceeded as follows: James Monroe by approximately156 students, McFadden Intermediate by approximately 46 students, and Century High School by approximately 66 students (see revised Table 5.12.11 in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). As stated in Comment A4 -0, SAUSD has initiated discussions with local developers regarding the potential placement of a new neighborhood school and mitigation agreement. The cumulative analysis substantiates the need for additional classrooms, but does not reflect a significant impact with respect to school services. As concluded in the DEIR, according to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation." Page 2 -30 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER A5 - Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (4 pages) il Water Boards Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board October 16, 2012 Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ii. }�` Eov ^o G. Bnmm fin. v.uo....w •wucu. COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT (SCH NO. 2010051094) Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for providing Regional Board staff the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the Uptown Newport Project ( "Project "). The project involves the eventual redevelopment of the Tower Jazz industrial site into a mixed -use development consisting of 1,244 residential units, two public parks totaling 2.05 acres, and 11,500 square feet of retail space. The project is proposed to occur in two phases with the first phase commencing in 2013 and the second phase as early as 2017 contingent on the termination of the lease of the Tower Jazz facility on the remainder of the property. Regional Board staff is providing the following comments: 1) Mitigation measure 7 -3 requires, in part, that the project applicant obtain a "No Further Action" declaration or "Letter of Allowance" from the Regional Board. Regional Board staff agrees that we will have some oversight for the site clean- up. However, we request that the mitigation measure be amended to allow the desired clearance to also come from the Orange County Health Care Agency. This will accommodate several alternative avenues for obtaining the clearance. 2) The project description provided in the DEIR appears to be inadequate. The project includes more than the construction of the improvements summarized above and in the DEIR but also the related agency approvals. The Project appears to include the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 17438; the Design Guidelines; Phasing Plan; Preliminary Site Plan; and Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures. None of these actions by the City are described in the DEIR. Please include a list of all discretionary approvals that are anticipated from the Lead and Responsible Agencies in the Final EIR. CeROte H. Bcawwx, Cw I KuRt V. Bena..O,o, neeon.e orexeR 9]3)MWn 5, Su11. 500. Pi­.. C B2SO11 A51 A5-2 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -31 �� 2. Response to Comments City of Newport Beach - 2 - October 16, 2012 3) The DEIR does not accurately characterize the City's responsibilities to address the water quality impacts of the Project. The Area -Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Permit for Orange County and the Incorporated Cities, Regional Board Order No. R8- 2009 -0030, NPDES Permit No. CAS618030 ( "Permit ") requires, in part, that the permittees have an effective public education program. The circulation of an environmental document to the public and decision - makers is a logical opportunity to educate the readers about the City's storm water program along with the potential water quality impacts of projects. As such, please make the following changes to the DEIR: a. Please correct the statement in the final sentence of the second paragraph on page 5.8 -2. The Regional Board is the agency responsible for enforcing the "MS4 NPDES permit', not the permittees. The City of Newport Beach must obtain and exercise its own separate authority to enforce requirements related to preventing pollution in urban runoff according to the requirements of the Permit. b. Please include a specific description of the Permit and summarize its requirements relevant to the Project. These requirements include the City's application of the processes, procedures, and standards described in the 2011 Model Water Quality Management Plan ( "WQMP "), and the related Technical Guidance Document, to the approval and implementation of the Project's WQMP. c. Please also include a description of the relevant municipal ordinances and programs and how they will be applied to the Project. This should include a description of the City's construction and industrial /commercial site inspection programs; public education programs; and requirements for the operation, maintenance and City- inspection of structural treatment control BMPs. 4) The City's approval of the Project draft or preliminary WQMP will violate the requirements of the Permit and subject the City to enforcement action. The basis for this conclusion is summarized below. The applicable standard for urban runoff is the "maximum extent practicable' standard. This standard is met by the City complying with the requirements of the Permit. When a project WQMP is not prepared according to the Permit's requirements, the maximum extent practicable standard has not been met and the permiee may not conclude that the project's water quality impacts have been addressed or mitigated. a. The Project WQMP does not follow the feasibility criteria for evaluating evapotranspiration or harvest and [re -]use required by the Permit. Instead, evapotranspiration and harvest and use are rejected based on an unsubstantiated statement that they are "not practicable for the site due to the high building density and land use proposed for the site'. The Project WQMP must substantiate this conclusion based on the methods described in the Technical Guidance Document. b. The Project WQMP does not contain sufficient information to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed infiltration facility according to the requirements of the Technical Guidance Document. The infiltration surface area has not been calculated using a factor of safety and the site - specific infiltration CLASH Aso Page 2 -32 • The Planning Center I DC&E Februai), 2013 City of Newport Beach -3- 2. Response to Comments October 16, 2012 rate has not been estimated. As a result, the expectation for an infiltration facility is speculative. The Project WQMP must employ the techniques in the Technical. Guidance Document to evaluate the feasibility of the infiltration facility. c. The Project WQMP indicates that if an infiltration facility is ultimately infeasible, then an "engineered filter media" will be used. This description of the alternate facility is unacceptably vague, it has not been sized or assessed for feasibility, and its use may violate the Permit's required hierarchy of BMPs. The alternate facility must be properly identified, assessed, and comply with the hierarchy for selecting structural treatment control BMPs. d- The Project WQMP site plan does not indicate any site design best management practices ( "BMPs ") and none could be found in the text of the WQMP. Provision XII.B.3. of the Permit requires "source control, pollution prevention, site design, (low impact development ( "LID ")) implementation .... and structural treatment control BMPs ". Site design includes the use of disconnected roof drains and permeable pavements. Many of the design concepts mentioned in Section 4.5 of the Design Guidelines are site design BMPs but none appear in the preliminary WQMP. Site design BMPs must be provided in the preliminary WQMP. e. The inclusion of vague and unnecessary materials in the Project WQMP burdens both the City and the future occupants of the project to the detriment of the City's storm water program. Of the 387 page document, less than 10% of the pages constitute the body of the WQMP, suggesting that some unnecessary information has been included in the document. For example, the hydrology study omits the drainage map, rendering the data difficult to interpret to technical staff or even to assess its relevance to the sizing of structural BMPs. The purpose of including BMP fact sheets is unclear and the fact sheet for an infiltration basin appears irrelevant since one is not proposed. The City is obligated to enforce the final WQMP and any commitments must be clear. This includes any commitments implied by the inclusion of the fact sheets. The City should purge vague and unnecessary material from the Project WQMP. Technical information that is not immediately relevant to the BMPs should be removed and maintained elsewhere. 5) Of notable importance is the City's approval of the Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures. This document includes a declaration that "whenever the development regulations of this plan conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained herein shall prevail ". As the result, this document has the potential to promulgate regulations that pose a barrier to the implementation of LID BMPs within the project area. This document should be given special mention in the DER and any potential barriers to implementing LID BMPs disclosed consistent with Provision XII.A.4, of the Permit. A5-a coned A5 -5 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -33 �� 2. Response to Comments City of Newport Beach - 4 - October 16, 2012 6) Regional Board staff requests that specific consideration be given in the preliminary Project WQMP to providing a community wash rack or designate vehicle wash areas that minimize the discharge of wastewater to the storm drain. Private vehicle washing is a reasonably anticipated activity. This activity should A5-6 be accommodated unless the City is able to provide valid objective evidence that its existing municipal ordinance and enforcement programs are effective. If you have any questions, please contact me at afscher(&waterboards.ca.00v or at (951) 320 -6363. Sincerely, V-7 Adam Fischer Environmental Scientist cc: County of Orange RDMD — Grant Sharp City of Newport Beach — John Kappeler City of Newport Beach — Rosalinh Ung (rungpnewoortbeachca.00v) Uptown Newport LP — Brian Rupp (brupppshopoff.com) Page 2 -34 • The Planning Center I DC&E Februai), 2013 2. Response to Comments A5. Response to Comments from Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Adam Fischer, Environmental Scientist, dated October 16, 2012. A5 -1 A No Further Action letter dated November 1, 2012, for the Phase 1 development of the Uptown Newport project has been issued by the RWQCB (see Appendix D). Per the letter, "Board staff has no objection to the proposed site development and is not requiring further remediation of the soil on the Phase 1 portion of the property." The Orange County Health Care Agency is not party to the risk assessment, and there is no regulatory requirement to include the agency in the review process. A5 -2 The project includes all requested discretionary actions by the City of Newport Beach listed on page 3 -34 in DEIR Chapter 3, Project Description. A5 -3 Following are responses to the individual lettered comments. a. Page 5.8 -2 in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, is revised as shown below. Deleted text is shown in 6# keewt and added text is shown underlined. These revisions are also documented in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR The NPDES has a variety of measures designed to minimize and reduce pollutant discharges. All counties with storm drain systems that serve a population of 50,000 or more, as well construction sites one acre or more, must file for and obtain an NPDES permit. Another measure for minimizing and reducing pollutant discharges to a publicly owned conveyance or system of conveyances (including roadways, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man -made channels, and storm drains designed or used for collecting and conveying stormwater) is the EPA's Storm Water Phase II Final Rule. The Phase II Final Rule requires an operator (such as a city) of a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to develop, implement, and enforce a program (e.g., best management practices [BMPs], ordinances, or other regulatory mechanisms) to reduce pollutants in post - construction runoff to the City's storm drain system from new development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance greater than or equal to one acre. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the local enforcing agency of the MS4 NPDES permit. b. Per the commenter's request, the following additional information is added to the DEIR (please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). The "MS4 NPDES Permit" (Permit) refers to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 118- 2009 -0030. NPDES Permit No. CAS618030. The permit provides a framework for regulating stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems as well as other designated stormwater discharges that are considered significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States. Under the permit, the City of Newport Beach is named a permittee —along with a number of other municipalities. Each permittee owns and operates storm drains and other drainage facilities that are generally considered waters of the United States, and each permittee is held responsible for adhering to and enforcing the regulations of the permit. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -35 co 2. Response to Comments It is the intent of the permit to require the implementation of BMPs to reduce —to the maximum extent practicable —the discharge of pollutants in urban stormwater from the MS4s in order to support attainment of water quality standards. The permit requires development of a WQMP to be implemented as part of a project's post - development stormwater management program. The WQMP shall identify various BMPs based on a preferred hierarchy. The proiect- specific WQMP shall be prepared under the standards, procedures, and guidelines outlined in the 2011 Model WQMP and the related Technical Guidance Document. Being a significant redevelopment oroiect, the Uptown Newport Planned Community is required to prepare a project - specific WQMP in accordance with the requirements of the MS4 /NPDES permit, and a revised preliminary WQMP has been prepared (see Appendix A). A final WQMP will be prepared during the final designphase of the project. c. Per the commenter's request, the following additional information is added to the DEIR (please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). The City of Newport Beach has developed a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) that provides a written account of the activities that the City has undertaken and is undertaking to meet the requirements of the Third Term Permit and make a meaningful improvement in urban water quality. In developing this LIP, the City has used the 2003 DAMP as the foundation for its program development, and the LIP contains numerous references to it. The two, in effect, act as companion parts of the City's compliance program. The LIP is intended to serve as the basis for City compliance during the five -year life of the Third Term Permit, but is subject to updating and modification as the City determines necessary, or as directed by the RWQCB. A copy of the City of Newport Beach's LIP and additional information regarding the City's water quality programs can be found at htti):// www. newi)orlbeachca .gov /index.asr)x?paacle =429. Relevant City of Newport Beach Municipal Code sections are described in the table below. Page 2 -36 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments Municipal Code Section Requirements 14.36.040 All new development and significant redevelopment within the City of Newport Control of Urban Runoff Beach shall be undertaken in accordance with: a. The DAMP, including but not limited to the development project guidance: and b Any conditions and requirements established bV the planning department, engineering department or building department, which are reasonably related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in storm water runoff from the project site. 14.36.050 Compliance Assessments. The Authorized Inspector may inspect property for the Inspections purpose of verifying compliance with this chapter, including but not limited to: (i) identifying products produced, processes conducted, chemicals used and materials stored on or contained within the property: Oil identifying point(s) of discharge of all wastewater, process water systems and pollutants: NO investigating the natural slope at the location, including drainageepatterns and man -made conveyance systems: iv establishing the location of all points of discharge from the property, whether by surface runoff or through a storm drain system: (y) locating any illicit connection or the source of prohibited discharge: NO evaluating compliance with any permit issued pursuant to Section 14.36.070: and (vii) investigating the condition of anV legal nonconforming connection. 14.36.060 Enforcement Enforcement methods include: • Administrative remedies o Notice of Noncompliance • Administrative Compliance Order • Cease and Desist Order • Nuisance (emergency abatement by City Manager) • Citation (arrest, release, and citation to appear before magistrate) • Injunction 14.36.070 The City may issue permits for discharges to the storm water drainage system from Permits properties or facilities not subiect to requirements of a State General Permit or a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit. A5 -4 a. Upon further review of the subsurface data from the Uptown Newport Geotechnical Investigation Report and from input received from the project's geotechnical engineer, it has been determined that the infiltration capacity of the onsite soils will support the use of infiltration BMPs. Therefore, the project preliminary WQMP has been revised to designate infiltration BMPs as "feasible" for the entire design control capture volume (DCV). For this reason, a revised preliminary WQMP has been prepared (see Appendix A of this FEIR) that replaces the currently proposed biotreatment BMPs with infiltration BMPs. Because infiltration BMPs are anticipated to treat the entire DCV, determining the feasibility of evapotranspiration and harvest and reuse BMPs is not necessary, and the WQMP is consistent with the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -37 co 2. Response to Comments b. The revised preliminary WQMP relies on a design infiltration rate based on available geotechnical data and input from the project's geotechnical engineer. The infiltration surface area has been calculated using a factor of safety and a site - specific infiltration rate of 1.0 inch per hour, provided by the project's geotechnical engineer. It is the intent to provide infiltration for the entire DCV. There are, however, a number of unknown site - specific variables that can potentially influence to what extent infiltration can be provided over the entire 25- acre site. Biotreatment BMPs would be used only if upon final design it is realized that infiltration BMPs are not capable of treating the entire DCV in accordance with the TGD. c. As described in responses 4a and 4b, it has been determined through review of available geotechnical data and input from the project's geotechnical engineer that favorable infiltration capacity can reasonably be expected on the project site. For this reason, the "alternative" facility no longer applies and has been removed from the revised preliminary WQMP accordingly. d. In accordance with Provision XII.B.3 of the Third Term Permit, site design BMPs are proposed for the project. The site design BMPs applicable to the project are included in the revised preliminary WQMP. e. Nonapplicable reference data have been removed from the appendices of the revised preliminary WQMP. A5 -5 The Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) is the proposed zoning for the project and sets forth land use regulations and development standards for the project. These regulations and standards take precedence over similar but conflicting standards and regulations from the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This declaration does not remove the burden on the project to comply with the requirements of the MS4 /NPDES permit. A5 -6 Private vehicle washing would be prohibited within Uptown Newport. This restriction would be included in the CC &Rs for the project. Therefore, a community wash area or designated vehicle wash area would not be provided as part of the Uptown Newport project. Page 2 -38 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 LETTER A6 - City of Irvine (3 pages) October 17. 2012 Connnunity Devolopmenl 2. Response to Comments vnvw.cilynlirvino.org City of IMne. Oro Civic Conlor Kim, P.O. nox 19575. hinn, Qflifamin 97(W3- IS (949) 04.601M) Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 jy�,GEIVeD &), nO1ARIN1TY OCI 2 2 2Ci2 c� orvtt.orolileHr Z' y' air' o 'vFVvl i Subject: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Uptown Newport Project Dear Ms. Ung: City of Irvine staff has received and reviewed the information provided for the referenced project and offers the following comments: General Comments 1. The main full access to the site is calculated to have 300 feet of queuing before the 90- degree bend. Please provide the interim and ultimate distribution analysis for each access using the interim and ultimate PM peak hour in bound projected traffic volumes. In addition, we request to review the master plans or site plans As, associated with the project, including detailed access analysis for the site, since the three proposed access locations could potentially result in peak hour impacts to streets within the City of Irvine. 2. We recommend a shared access agreement be in place before finalizing the EIR I A6-2 with the property owner for the proposed shared Birch Street access. 3. There are two projects being processed adjacent to this site which should be included in the list of cumulative projects in the area (Scholle and Irvine Technology Asa Center (ITC)). Please contact Peter Anderson at (949) 724 -7370 for more detailed information regarding these two projects.. 4. Please confirm that Caltrans has received a copy of this EIR. Asa 5. On Page 1 -5, the last paragraph states that the Tower Jazz facility is expected to continue as an interim use after the development of Phase 1; however, Table 5.14- Ass 6 states that the trips for existing Tower Jazz will be demolished for Phase 1. Please clarify the text and the table. Ptillyl loD ON ❑ECycl.ED f'N tai Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -39 �� 2. Response to Comments Ms, Rosalinh Ung October 17, 2012 Page 2 6. Revise figure 5.14 -3 to include City of Irvine I- Shuttle routes and stops. I As -s Traffic Study 7. Revise the traffic study to include a list of City of Irvine Congestion Management A 6-7 Plan (CMP) links within the study area. 8. Provide existing 2018 and 2021 no project and with project Average Daily Trips (ADT) volumes for each link within the study area. ADl -s were missing from the AR report. 9. Please include Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values for the intersections of Ar>s Michelson/Teller and Dupont/Teller which are within the study area. 10. Please check the existing 2018 and 2021 ICU values for the following locations since there are major discrepancies between IBC Vision Plan values and this report: • Von Karman /Campus • Von Karman /Michelson • Jamboree /Main • Jamboree /1 -405 NB ramps • Jamboreell -405 SB ramps • Jamboree /Michelson • Harvard /Michelson • MacArthur /Campus • MacArthur /Birch • MacArthur /Jamboree • Carlson /Campus • Mesa /University • California /University Please review the data used to generate the ICU values and modify accordingly or provide an explanation for the changes. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. Staff would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds. As -10 Page 2 -40 • The Planning Center I DC&E Februai), 2013 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ling October 17, 2012 Page 3 If you have any questions, I can be reached at (949) 724 -8314, or at dlawacitvofirvine orn. Sincerely, P"9K-'e-- David R. Law, AICP Senior Planner Cc: Barry Curtis, Manager of Planning Services (via email) Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner (via email) Farideh Lyons, Senior Transportation Analyst (via email) co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -¢1 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -42 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments A6. Response to Comments from the City of Irvine, David. R. Law, Senior Planner, dated October 17, 2012. A6 -1 The distribution of project traffic at the site entry points for Phase 1 and ultimate buildout of the project is shown on Figure 23 of the updated traffic study (FEIR Appendix E). The current site plan is in Figure 3.6 -b, Master Site Plan, in Section 3.5, Revised and New Figures. The main entry on Jamboree Road has been modified to provide two inbound lanes between Jamboree Road and the 90- degree bend in order to provide more capacity for incoming traffic. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection output has been reviewed, and the evening peak hour entering queue on northbound Jamboree is estimated to average no more than 1 vehicle at the unsignalized entrance and 11 vehicles at the main entrance at ultimate project buildout. A6 -2 The DEIR accurately stated the Birch Street access easement rights (see DEIR page 5.14 -34), and the use of the easement is appropriately incorporated into the traffic analysis. According to the applicant and current property owner of the Uptown Newport project, the access easement to Birch Street is a nonexclusive easement dated April 28, 1978, and recorded in the Orange County Recorder's Office on May 26, 1978. The easement granted to Rockwell International, Uptown Newport's predecessors -in- interest, is a "non- exclusive easement for passage in, over and along the real property including the right to maintain driveways, roadways, sidewalks and passageways on said property." The easement has been continuously used for many decades by the property owners, employees, agents, and guests, among others. The easement contains no such restrictions as outlined in the comment and does not limit its use to (1) a specific period of time, (2) private access only, or (3) vehicular access. Additionally, "passage over' and the right to maintain sidewalks necessarily imply pedestrian access. The DEIR, therefore, accurately states the easement rights. A6 -3 The project - related traffic from the two additional cumulative projects (Scholle and Irvine Technology Center) has been added to the study intersections, and the peak hour intersection analysis for all affected scenarios has been rerun (see Section 3.4, Updated Traffic Modeling). No new project impacts have been identified in the revised analysis. The traffic impact study has been updated to reflect the revised analysis (FEIR Appendix E). A6 -4 Caltrans received and reviewed the DEIR and provided comments in a letter to the City of Newport Beach dated October 24, 2012. Please see Letter A7 and Responses A7 -1 to A7 -10. A6 -5 The existing TowerJazz includes two buildings -4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road. The trips that would cease after completion of Phase 1 are related to the 4311 Jamboree Road building, which would be demolished during project Phase 1. This is presented in DEIR Table 5.14 -6, which shows the project's trip generation for Phase 1. A6 -6 Copies of the I- Shuttle route maps and schedules for Routes A and B in the project study area are attached in Appendices C1 and C2. Uptown Newport Final FIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -43 co 2. Response to Comments A6 -7 In the City of Irvine, the following roadways are congestion management plan (CMP) roadways: • Jamboree Road • MacArthur Boulevard • Irvine Center Drive • Laguna Canyon Road This information has been added to the traffic impact study prepared in November 2012, which is included as FEIR Appendix E. A6 -8 ADT volumes for Existing, 2018, and 2021 without and with the project are provided in Table 1 on the next page. A6 -9 The list of study intersections was developed in the Fall of 2011, with input and concurrence from City of Irvine staff. Furthermore, based on the trip distribution assumptions in the study, project traffic is not distributed through either of these intersections. The two requested intersections were not added to the traffic impact analysis. A6 -10 The commenter does not state which scenario from the IBC Vision Plan is being compared to the Uptown Newport intersection results. This response is based on a comparison of the Year 2021 Cumulative with Full Uptown Newport Project results and the Year 2015 Cumulative Baseline with Project scenario for the IBC Vision Plan. The IBC Vision Plan analysis was based on traffic forecasts from the then - current (2009) ITAM model. The ]TAM forecasts for the Uptown Newport analysis were provided by the City in December 2011. There are various differences between the two ITAM data sets, depending on the intersection / location. In addition, based on direction from the City of Irvine, a growth rate of 1.5 percent per year was added to the ITAM forecasts for all intersection movements to develop 2018 and 2021 forecasts. This means that for the ultimate project completion (Year 2021), the 2015 ITAM forecasts were "grown" by 9 percent. As a result, it is not surprising that the Uptown Newport 2021 Cumulative with Project intersection results are typically 8 to 10 percent higher than the IBC Vision Plan results. It should be noted that two intersections of those listed, (MacArthur /Birch and MacArthur /Jamboree) are City of Newport Beach intersections. ITAM forecasts were not provided for these intersections, and therefore they were analyzed using the "build -up" method, per City of Newport Beach policy. In the case where Uptown Newport intersection results are less than the IBC Vision Plan results, this was the result of a combination of differences in the ITAM forecasts themselves, as well as lane changes. Page 2 -44 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 V RN _m 12 a a h m 3 a R 3 N Z 3 N r N z O f� V W ti W 0 fi N O O O O o o O o O O O O o O O o O O o OJ M A N O O) Ol N O O OJ M M Q) LL'> N Q O vj O Q 5 N 0 N y v d Q O N C T M A M Q Q O 1° O M M N (O A M O M M N N LLJ LL� Q N M N M M M 3 Lj Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O y •O f0 6> N IfJ A LC% M Ol Ol M (O Q Q W W 6> W cci m Q fO f0 (O_ M M_ Q1 W m m M M M N N L[J LL'J Q 'd N N M N M M M n 0 A y O ct 0 o O o 0 o O o o O O o 0 0 0 a N Q M O Q D7 M M N Q R] Q] LO W 1!> LL'> C, M Q Ni A f0 M � Q A cl N 11'9 O] Q 3 N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 6i A A N N M CO M_ O O M O 4CJ N y= m O m Q A A O N O M O> C OI .1. Q Q M N N N C a h W Co 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 N N A A '> OI O O Q A M M O O m O M O u L A O> Q M m Q Q M N Ch cl W N Q) N W N W d O C y 7 > CIO o N V1 t0 C U m C Ci m O r V tO N t0 UJ o a U O [O ° 3 > ? o> a o o w O w .m `- E m Z ..> ..> E E E N r N z O f� V W ti W 0 fi N M ti O N m W W � Q c �y- Ell, U � U m � � o � m h � c • m v Q N y � N � a 2. Response to Comments LETTER A7 — California Department of Transportation (5 pages) STATE OF I ON AND HOUSUNG AGENCY Fe, nor Pmwn Gewnm DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2267 Fkr yn:nporver! F.: (949) 724 -2592 Pe en,' effeleml Subject: Uptown Newport Village Specific Plan Project Dear Ms. Ung, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Uptown Newport Village Specific Plan Project. The project proposes redevelopment of existing industrial and office uses with residential and mixed -use development. Approximately 1,244 housing units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood serving uses, a Central Park and two pocket parks totaling 2 acres, and parking would be developed in a pedestrian - friendly village format. A new street grid system would be developed to provide appropriate circulation throughout the project site. The nearest State routes to the project are SR -73, SR -55, and 1 -405. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. This project will impact SR -73, SR -55, and I -405 freeway mainlines, interchanges, ramps and intersections. Impacts of development causing operating conditions to deteriorate to deficient levels of service, or impacts adding to an existing deficient level of service A7 -1 condition require mitigation. 2. The Department's traffic operations branch requests a capacity analysis study for all mainline ramps and ramp intersections within the study area to determine if the project will A7-2 cause queuing from the ramps to the mainline. 3. The study area acid trip distribution diagrams for the Existing vs. Proposed condition show significant impacts to SR 55, SR 73, SR 5511405 connectors. However, the report does not include an analysis that these trips have on the State Highway facilities or a quantative A7 -3 analysis of the cumulative impacts this project will create on SR 55, SR 73 and I -405 and the connections between these facilities. 4. The following significance thresholds SHOULD be used when analyzing State I A7 -4 Transportation Facilities: "cw".nr imymvei mnLilip none: Culifomk" Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -47 �� FAX & M.AZitDE ' Qy COMMUNITY October 24, 2012 OCT 26 2012 Rosalmh Ung File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach 0 DEVELOPMENT VS SCH #: 2010051094 3300 Newport Boulevard yoF .t e`�P NEV4p00 Log #: 2533A Newport Beach, CA 92655 SR -73, SR -55, and 1 -405 Subject: Uptown Newport Village Specific Plan Project Dear Ms. Ung, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Uptown Newport Village Specific Plan Project. The project proposes redevelopment of existing industrial and office uses with residential and mixed -use development. Approximately 1,244 housing units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood serving uses, a Central Park and two pocket parks totaling 2 acres, and parking would be developed in a pedestrian - friendly village format. A new street grid system would be developed to provide appropriate circulation throughout the project site. The nearest State routes to the project are SR -73, SR -55, and 1 -405. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. This project will impact SR -73, SR -55, and I -405 freeway mainlines, interchanges, ramps and intersections. Impacts of development causing operating conditions to deteriorate to deficient levels of service, or impacts adding to an existing deficient level of service A7 -1 condition require mitigation. 2. The Department's traffic operations branch requests a capacity analysis study for all mainline ramps and ramp intersections within the study area to determine if the project will A7-2 cause queuing from the ramps to the mainline. 3. The study area acid trip distribution diagrams for the Existing vs. Proposed condition show significant impacts to SR 55, SR 73, SR 5511405 connectors. However, the report does not include an analysis that these trips have on the State Highway facilities or a quantative A7 -3 analysis of the cumulative impacts this project will create on SR 55, SR 73 and I -405 and the connections between these facilities. 4. The following significance thresholds SHOULD be used when analyzing State I A7 -4 Transportation Facilities: "cw".nr imymvei mnLilip none: Culifomk" Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -47 �� 2. Response to Comments For Freeway Mainline Segments- a significant impact occurs wben: a) The project degrades the Level of Service (LOS) from LOS DIE cusp or better without the project to a LOS that is worse than D/E cusp with the project, or b) The project contributes at least 50 peak hour trips to a freeway segment (one -way, all lanes) that, without the project, is or will be operating at an unacceptable LOS (worse than D/E cusp). The 50 -hip threshold is specified in the Department's LD -IGR Technical Bulletin dated June 2005. For Off - ramps, a significant impact occurs when: a) The project degrades the Level of Service (LOS) from LOS D/E cusp or better without the project to a LOS that is worse than D/E cusp with the project, or b) The project contributes at least 10 peak hour trips per lane at the gore point to an off - ramp that, without the project, is or will be operating at an unacceptable LOS (worse than D/E cusp). The 10 trips per lane is derived proportionally from the 50 -trip mainline threshold with the following assumptions: • Freeway Mainline Segments: 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for mixed -flow (general purpose) lanes • Off - ramps: 1,500 vehicle per hour (vph) for a one -lane ramp • Number of lanes for a typical freeway segment: 4Imes Off -ramp Threshold = Mainline Threshold Mainline Capacity * Number of lanes 50 2,000 * 4 = 9.375 * Off -ramp Capacity - * 1,500 a 10 (rounded up to nearest integer because trip numbers are integers) For On- ramps, a significant impact occurs when: a) The demand on a ramp exceeds the storage capacity, and the queue extends back on to City streets. The storage analysis should follow the Department's Ramp Metering Guidelines with the capacity assumption of a maximum of 900 vphpl for 1 lane and 1,200 vphpl for 2 lanes. For Ramp Intersections, a significant impact occurs when: ' a) The project degrades the Level of Service (LOS) from LOS DIE cusp or better without the project to a LOS that is worse than D/E cusp with the project, or "CNtmm improves nrobiliry nrross Cnlifarnin" A7 -4 conrd Page 2 -48 • The Planning Center I DC&E Februai)i 2013 2. Response to Comments b) The project contributes at least 10 seconds per vehicle in delay to an intersection that, without the project, is or will be operating at an unacceptable LOS (worse than D/E cusp). To calculate a projects fair share responsibility: The formula is included below for your use: The Department's Methodology T P= (TB — TE) Where: P = The equitable share for the proposed project's traffic impact. T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during the peak hour of adjacent State highway facility in vehicles per hour, vph. TB = The forecasted traffic volume on an impacted State highway facility at the time of general plan build -out (e.g., 20 year model or the finthest future model date feasible), vph. TE = The traffic volume existing on the impacted State highway facility plus other approved projects that will generate traffic that has yet to be constructed/opened, vph. A7 -4 cont'd 5. The Department has interest in working cooperatively to establish a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to mitigate such hnpacts on a "fair share" basis. Local development project applicants would pay their "fair share" to an established fund for future transportation improvements on the slate highway system. If there is an existing TIF program, it can be A7 -5 amended to include mitigation for the state highway system or a new TIF program may be considered. The Department requests the opportunity to participate in the TIF for state highway improvements development process. 6. The Department requests to participate in the process to establish and implement "fair share" mitigation for the aforementioned project impacts. The Department has an established methodology standard used to properly calculate equitable project share A7 -6 contribution. This can be found in Appendix R of the Department's Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies which is available at: http: //wn+nv.dot.ca. eov/ ha/ trarrops /devclousery /ooerationalsystems /reports /tisnuide.pdf. 7. The Department, in accordance with Section 130 of the California Streets and Highways Code, may enter into a contract with the lead agency to provide the mitigation measures listed in the EIR. This may include construction of the mitigation measures, the A7 -7 advancement of funds (proportional to the fair -share cost) to pay for mitigation measures, or the acquisition of rights -of -way needed for future improvements to the state highway system. S. For CEQA purposes, the Department does not consider the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) significance threshold of an increase in v/c more than 1% ramps or 3% for mainline A7 -8 appropriate. For analysis of intersections connecting to State facilities, ramps and freeway tmrw.= ,,,oen;y Cm f.,d„ Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -49 �� 2. Response to Comments mainline, we recommend early coordination occur to discuss level of significance A7_8 thresholds related to traffic and circulation. I cont'd 9. The Department understands that it is the lead agency's right and responsibility to choose an appropriate significance threshold when analyzing a project's environmental impacts. However, the significance threshold of 1% increase in VIC established by the city is not the type of significance threshold the Department would use for cunmlative impacts. Per. CEQA Case Law (King County Farm Bureau el al. v. City ofAangford, 1990), a fixed ratio or percentage may not be an appropriate significance threshold for cumulative impact analysis. A minor increase (less than 1 °/) in traffic could affect the operation of State Route 73. Should there be any significant cumulative impacts on State Facilities, appropriate mitigation measures are to be identified and submitted for our review and continent. If the City has any questions about selecting appropriate significance threshold, we would be happy to provide assistance. 10. The Department endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities. Any degradation of the LOS past this threshold should be mitigated to bring the facility back to the baseline/existing condition. The traffic study should analyze impacts in terms of LOS and hours of delay. For example, when the existing condition of a freeway segment is operating at LOS F and a project will add a significant number of new trips to this segment the LOS will not change but the total hours of delay would. Therefore, when fully disclosing the impacts a project will have on this segment, the total hours of delay would be a more accurate method to use. For future projects that may impact State facilities, we recommend that early coordination be done between the Department and the City to fully address level of significance thresholds (transition between LOS C and D) and appropriate methods for analyzing impacts. (LOS vs. Hours of Delay). Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487. Sin erely" /1 / hris If,", Branch Chief Local Developmenttlmtergovemmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "CaJ,., In proves mo6ilirynmu C°le/ ,r in" A7 -9 A7 -10 Page 2 -50 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 October 24, 2012 Rosatinh Ting City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 2. Response to Comments File: IGRrCEQA SC}Iy'2010051094 Log K 2533A SR -73, SR-55, and 1 -405 Subject: Uptown Newport Village Specific Plan Project BC: Ahmed Abou- Abdou. Acing Deputy Distnct Director co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -51 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -52 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments A7. Response to Comments from the California Department of Transportation, Chris Herre, Branch Chief, dated October 24, 2012. A7 -1 Potential impacts to the freeways and ramp intersections in the study area are addressed in the DEIR, section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic. The analysis includes 4 ramp intersections and 10 freeway mainline segments on SR -73 and 1- 405. The analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology, as specified in the Caltrans "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" (December 2002). A7 -2 See response to A7 -1. A7 -3 See response to A7 -1. A7 -4 The analysis shows that the project will not cause a freeway ramp intersection to worsen from LOS D/E or better and will not contribute 10 seconds per vehicle in delay at any intersection ramp that is already operating at worse than LOS D /E. On the freeway mainline segments, the project will not cause a freeway mainline segment to worsen from LOS D/E or better. For any freeway mainline segment that is already operating at worse than LOS D /E, the project's contribution to the peak hour density (pc /mi /In) will be 0.0 to 0.2 vehicle per hour per lane (less than one - quarter of a vehicle). The HCM analysis provides queuing information for freeway ramp intersections. The analysis results indicate that the queuing storage length available for traffic entering and exiting the freeway will accommodate the future 2021 peak hour volumes with the project traffic. A7 -5 The comment is noted. The project impact on state highway facilities would not require mitigation. A7 -6 The comment is noted. A7 -7 The comment is noted. A7 -8 The comment is noted. The project does not have a significant impact using the thresholds described in response A7 -4. A7 -9 The comment is noted. The project does not have a significant impact using the thresholds described in response A7 -4. A7 -10 The comment is noted. The project does not have a significant impact using the thresholds described in response A7 -4. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -53 co 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -54 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER A8 — Irvine Ranch Water District (2 pages) 6-129 MM WCR DATER DISTRICT 15600 S.ndCenyo Ave., P.O. Box 57000, INIne, CA 8261 &7000 (049) 4515300 October 24, 2012 Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (SCH #2010051094) for Uptown Newport, 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach Dear Ms. Ung: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received and reviewed the subject DEIR and offers the following comments. The DEIR states that the TowerJazz building, northern parking area and other remaining site improvements would be demolished under Phase 2 to develop up to 830 dwelling units and other associated site improvements. The DEIR assumes that Phase 2 could commence as early as A8-1 spring 2017 with build -out through 2021. IRWD has confirmed with TowerJazz that the company has previously negotiated and signed two five -year extensions to its lease after 2017 which will extend TowerJazz operations until 2027. IRWD completed a Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) in February 2008 which analyzed demands for land use changes envisioned by the Irvine Business Complex including this site within the City of Newport Beach. IRWD would request that the developer meet with IRWD staff to A8-2 determine the necessity of a SAMP update or SAMP addendum as specifics of the project become known. Please contract Eric Akiyoshi at (949) 453 -5552 regarding the SAMP update with respect to the land use changes proposed by the project. On March 14, 2011, the IRWD Board of Directors approved an assessment of water supplies for the Uptown Newport Beach project and made the determination that sufficient water supply is available for the project. This water supply assessment (WSA) included projections for water demand up to 1,244 units in the City of Newport Beach and is included in the DEIR. As tract Aga maps are prepared for this project, verification of water supply for projects with a minimum of 500 dwelling units is required. Please contact Kel lie Welch at (949) 453 -5604 to request the verification of water supplies. In Section 5.1.5.1 Water Supply and Distribution Systerns, page 5.15 -1, the DEIR stales "Approximately 50 percent of TRWD's water supply is imported through the Metropolitan Water Ago District (MWD) and 50 percent is groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -55 �� 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach October 24, 2012 Page 2 Basin (Basin) ". Tables 5.15 -1, 5.15 -2 and 5.15 -3 in this Section include potable water supply information taken from IRWD's WSA, As clarification, this information from the. WSA actually depicts IRWD's capacity and actual . deliveries are different from capacity. Currently, A 84 approximately 30 percent of iRWD's potable water supply is imported. through MWD and 70 cont'd. percent of its potable supply is through groundwater pumped from the Basin. Under the Single and Multiple Dry year discussion in Section 5.15.1 at page 5.15-3, the DEIR states, "ERWD has used the single dry-year of 1977 and the multiple dry years of 1990 -1992 to model these scenarios." As clarification, these specified years were used in IRWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan UWMP and do, however, correspond with projections used in the WSA. As stated on page 3 of the approved WSA, IRWD projects increased dry year and multiple dry year demands as follows: "Lower levels of precipitation and higher temperatures will result in higher water demands, due primarily to the need for additional water for irrigation. To reflect this, base (normal) WRMP water demands have been increased 7% in the assessment during both "single -dry" and "multiple-dry" years. This is consistent with 1RWD's 2005 UWMP and historical regional demand variation as documented in the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's ( "MWD's ") Integrated Resources Plan (1996) (Volume I, page 2 -]0)." The DEIR references the statement quoted above as from (IRWD 201 lb), however, in the Bibliography, item IRWD 2011 b is cited as an Irvine Desalter Project Brochure. The correct reference for discussion of IRWD's water supply sufficiency and single and multiple dry years should be the WSA which is included in.Appendix.N. Also, on page 5.15 -2 under discussion of the Irvine Desalter, there is a. reference to IRWD 2011c which is not shown in the Bibliography. IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Kellie Welch at (949) 453 -5604. Sincerely, q Paul Weghorst Director of Water Resources and Environmental Compliance PW /CLK/clg cc: Mike Hoolihan, IRWD Kellie Welch, IRWD Eric Akiyoshi, IRWD Greg.Heiertz, IRWD S:Idepa]Wadminn 10&k Commenu Letter Oct 24_2012.d,.., A &5 Page 2 -56 • The Planning Center I DC&E Februai), 2013 2. Response to Comments A8. Response to Comments from Irvine Ranch Water District, Paul Weghorst, Director of Water Resources and Environmental Compliance, dated October 24, 2012. A8 -1 As documented in the DEIR, TowerJazz's current lease expires in March 2017, but the company has an option to extend the lease to as late as March 2027. The analysis of Phase 1 throughout the Draft EIR addresses the operating impacts, including water demand, associated with concurrent operation of the manufacturing facility and Phase 1 development of Uptown Newport. If TowerJazz extends its lease to 2027, these conditions would extend to that year. Mitigation measures for the Phase 1 condition would apply whether the lease expires in 2017 or is extended to 2027. A8 -2 The project applicant, Uptown Newport LP, will consult with IRWD staff regarding water service requirements for the project and whether an update or addendum to the Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) is needed. A8 -3 As the project submits tentative tract map(s) to the City of Newport Beach for approval, the applicant will request verification of water supply from IRWD for each proposed tentative tract map of 500 or more dwelling units. A8 -4 Comment acknowledged. The text on DEIR page 5.15 -1 has been revised to clarify the distinction between IWRD's water capacity vs. current deliveries (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). A8 -5 Pages 5.15 -2 and 5.15 -3 have been revised as follows to correctly reflect the co methodology employed in the IRWD- prepared water supply assessment (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR): seeigaFiE)S. IRWD has used the s Rgle eFy yeaF of 1977 and the multiple dFY yea 1990 1992 te Fnede' these seenar as (IRWD 2011 3�—. Lower levels of precipitation and higher temperatures will result in higher water demands, due primarily to the need for additional water for irrigation. To reflect this. base (normal) Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) water demands were increased 7 percent in the assessment during both "single -dry" and "multiple-dry" years. DEIR Page 5.15 -2 has been corrected to show the source under the header Irvine Desalter as the "Irvine Desalter Project Brochure," IRWD 2011b (see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -57 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -58 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER A9 — University of California Irvine (1 page) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE aFAKFa.EI' . onvrs . ota-ma . cos nncv.EC' . smrct:o . cn�— . sa.� orsco ses �Ncrco (p`( °w �F )} Sw l anae.awa 1. UC I wine's response to the Notice of Preparation for this project identified the 2007 UCI .Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) as the adopted land use plan Ibr the UCI campus and requested that the LR DP development program be used in the analysis contained in the DEIR. It is not apparent A9'1 from reviewof the DEI R that the project analysis and cumulative analysis included and considered the LRDPdevelopmenlprogmm. 2. Please confirm whether the UCI LRDP development program was included in the DEIR analysis and I A9.2 identify the LRDP program or projects thalwcre utilized in the cumulative analysis. 3. Appendix C in the DEIR Traffic Impact Analysis does not appear to mention the UCI LRDP or include the LRDP development program in the tragic forecasts and analysis. Please indicate at%dnat A93 level the 2007 LR DP (UC Irvine campus as a whole and the North Campus planningarea) awm included in the analysis prepared for the DEIR. 4. Please describe the analysis used to determi ne that i mple me ntation of the project win Id not conflict IAS4 with the UCI LRDP nor result in any impacts to the UCI LRDP 5. Please describe the traffic volume forecasts and criteria used to conclude that the intersection on Jamboree Road (north of Fairchild Road) uould cont inue to operate at an acceptable level ofservice A9 -5 as an u n- signalized inters-eclion fol lowingcompletion of Phase 2. Please continue to keep UC Irvine informed of the project review and approval process and provided with any subsequentdocummns. Please contact me at (949) 824 -8692 ifyou require additional information reeding UC Irvine planning. Sincerely, Alex Marks, Associate Planner Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -59 �� •i i INNn1IDn cruil Planning OLl S6M1U4natThty 751lunivasity -riwcr imi'm CA 92697.232-5 (949)524 -6316 (949) 524 -1213 Fax 24 October20.12 Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City ofNewpud Beach 3300- Nevport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re:. DEIR. Uptown Newport Project (PA201.1 -134) Dear.Nls. Ung:. Think you fortheopportunily to aviewthe Drift Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Uptoem 'Neu.p3 rt Project (Project) in the City o fNewport Beach. The University of Cal ifa mia, Irvine has the follovAngcomments on Ole document: 1. UC I wine's response to the Notice of Preparation for this project identified the 2007 UCI .Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) as the adopted land use plan Ibr the UCI campus and requested that the LR DP development program be used in the analysis contained in the DEIR. It is not apparent A9'1 from reviewof the DEI R that the project analysis and cumulative analysis included and considered the LRDPdevelopmenlprogmm. 2. Please confirm whether the UCI LRDP development program was included in the DEIR analysis and I A9.2 identify the LRDP program or projects thalwcre utilized in the cumulative analysis. 3. Appendix C in the DEIR Traffic Impact Analysis does not appear to mention the UCI LRDP or include the LRDP development program in the tragic forecasts and analysis. Please indicate at%dnat A93 level the 2007 LR DP (UC Irvine campus as a whole and the North Campus planningarea) awm included in the analysis prepared for the DEIR. 4. Please describe the analysis used to determi ne that i mple me ntation of the project win Id not conflict IAS4 with the UCI LRDP nor result in any impacts to the UCI LRDP 5. Please describe the traffic volume forecasts and criteria used to conclude that the intersection on Jamboree Road (north of Fairchild Road) uould cont inue to operate at an acceptable level ofservice A9 -5 as an u n- signalized inters-eclion fol lowingcompletion of Phase 2. Please continue to keep UC Irvine informed of the project review and approval process and provided with any subsequentdocummns. Please contact me at (949) 824 -8692 ifyou require additional information reeding UC Irvine planning. Sincerely, Alex Marks, Associate Planner Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -59 �� 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -60 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments A9. Response to Comments from the University of California, Irvine, Alex Marks, Associate Planner, dated October 24, 2012. A9 -1 The UCI LRDP is included in the cumulative analysis for the Year 2018 and 2021 scenarios. The project was inadvertently left off the cumulative projects in DEIR Table 4 -2. A9 -2 The UCI LRDP is included in the cumulative analysis for the Year 2018 and 2021 analysis. Information regarding the LRDP project trips (2025 with Proposed LRDP) at the study intersections was obtained from the "LRDP Update 2007 EIR" traffic study. A9 -3 Information regarding the LRDP as a cumulative project has been added to the revised traffic study (see FEIR Appendix E). The LRDP project trips for the uses anticipated to be operational by 2025 were included to develop future year forecasts in the study area. A9 -4 The project impact was evaluated at 43 study intersections in the project vicinity, including intersections in both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. The traffic forecasts for the Irvine intersections are from the City of Irvine citywide ITAM traffic model, provided by Irvine staff. Per direction from the City of Irvine, a growth rate of 1.5 percent per year was added to the ITAM forecasts for a very conservative analysis. The results of the analysis indicated that the Uptown Newport project would not cause any study intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service and would not contribute a significant amount of traffic to any study intersection already operating at an unacceptable level of service. A9 -5 The unsignalized entrance on Jamboree Road currently allows all turning movements. With completion of the project, the entrance would be relocated approximately 175 feet farther to the north and modified to prohibit left turns out. At project completion, the intersection would be limited to right turns in from southbound Jamboree Road, right turns out from the driveway onto southbound Jamboree Road, and left turns in from northbound Jamboree Road. With these changes, the intersection would operate with very low levels of delay in both peak hours and would not adversely affect traffic flow on Jamboree Road. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -61 co 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -62 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER A10 — South Coast Air Quality Management District (4 pages) South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 (909) 396 -2000 • www.anmd.Rov E-Mailed: October 25.2012 rung@newportbeachca.gov Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 October 25. 2012 Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Uptown Nrmnort Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above - mentioned document. The following comment is intended to provide guidance to the lead agency and should be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) as appropriate. Based on a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) the lead agency has not provided sufficient transportation- related technical information to substantiate the project's operational air quality impacts from the proposed project. Therefore, the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide additional information in the Final EIR that addresses these concerns. Further, given that the Draft EIR demonstrates significant air quality impacts from NOx emissions during construction the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide additional mitigation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Details regarding these comments are attached to this letter. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final ERR. Further, staff FARE Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -63 co 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung 2 October 25, 2012 is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Dan Garcia, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396 -3304, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. Sincerely, ,/ v. A Ak Ian MacMillan Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter - Governmental Review Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment IM:DG ORC120911 -05 Control Number Page 2 -64 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Ms. Rosalinh Ung 2. Response to Comments October 25, 2012 CalEEMod Input Data - Vehicle Fleet Mix 1. Upon review of the air quality appendix for the Draft EIR the AQMD staff noticed that the reported values for the transportation emissions source categories (i.e., fleet -mix input values) are based on a set of non - default values in CalEEMod. Specifically, the lead agency assumed that 60% of the project's vehicle trips are attributed to light duty automobiles (LDA) and 30% are due to light duty trucks (1,1372) based on CalEEMod input sheets, however, the lead agency did not provide any technical information to substantiate these values. Therefore, the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide additional information in the Final EIR that substantiates the fleet -mix values used to determine the project's air quality impacts. Construction Mitieation Measures 2. Given that construction air quality analysis in the Draft EIR demonstrates significant air quality impacts from NOx emissions the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide additional mitigation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Specifically, AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts by adding the mitigation measures provided below. These measures should be made applicable to all construction equipment regardless of the duration of time that certain equipment pieces remain on site. • Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil unport /export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall tine trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx and PM emissions requirements. • Consistent with measures that other lead agencies in the region (including Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Metro and City of Los Angeles)' have enacted, require all on -site construction equipment to meet EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards according to the following: ✓ Project Start, to December 31, 2014: All offroad diesel- powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 offroad emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. ✓ Post - January 1, 2015: All offroad diesel- powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions For example see the Metro Green Construction Policy at; han Owww.metro.netloroiects studies/susminaMity /imaees/Green Construction Policy.pdf A10 -2 A10-3 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -65 co 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung October 25, 2012 reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. ✓ A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. ✓ Encourage construction contractors to apply for AQMD "SOON" funds. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for AQMD "SOON" funds. The "SOON" program provides funds to accelerate clean up of off -road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment. More information on this program can be found at the following website: h"://www.acimd,Pov/tao/Imolmentation/SOONPropram.htm For additional measures to reduce off -road construction equipment, refer to the mitigation measure tables located at the following website: www.agmd .eov /cega/bandbook/mitieation/MM intro.html. Page 2 -66 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments At 0. Response to Comments from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Ian MacMillan, Program Supervisor, dated October 25, 2012. At 0-1 Response to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) comments are provided in Responses A10 -2 and A10 -3, below. Written responses to all public agency comments will be sent prior to the certification of the EIR, in accordance with CEQA Statutes Section 21092.5. At 0-2 Air quality modeling was based on a tailored fleet mix for the proposed project in Newport Beach. The data used to substantiate the change to model defaults were included in DEIR Appendix C (see pages 4, 11, and 14). The CalEEMod run is based on EMFAC for Orange County, albeit modified as described below. EMFAC fleet mix percentage is the fleet mix by vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and not trips (e.g., percent of miles traveled by light duty automobiles and not percent of trips that are light duty automobiles). The default fleet mix in CalEEMod for Orange County (2018) assumes that approximately 83 percent of vehicles are passenger vehicles (LDA, LDT1, and LDT2) and 17 percent are medium - duty and heavy -duty trucks and buses. Because CalEEMod calculates emissions from the transportation sector based on trip generation, the fleet mix assumes a disproportionately high number of medium -duty and heavy -duty trucks and bus trips. For example, of the 9,033 trips generated by the project per day, the CaIEEMod default would assume that 1,585 trips per day are medium- and heavy - duty truck and bus trips, which is unrealistic for a residential /commercial mixed -use project. CalEEMod calculates such a high number, again, because the fleet mix in CalEEMod is based on VMT and not trips, and trucks travel approximately three to four times longer per trip than passenger vehicles (e.g., in the Southern California Association of Government's [SCAG] region, 8- to10 -mile average trip length for passenger vehicles versus 30+ -mile trip length for trucks). In CalEEMod, the length of the trip is applied to the trip generation rate by trip type (e.g., home to work, commercial to commercial, etc.) and does not allow the user to modify the length of the trip based on the vehicle type (i.e., passenger vehicle or truck trips). Therefore, the CaIEEMod defaults were modified to reflect the fleet mix as a percentage of trips (not VMT) based on the fleet mix provided by Caltrans for Pacific Coast Highway. This data was provided in DEIR Appendix C. As identified in Appendix C, Caltrans's "Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System" (2011), Pacific Coast Highway south of State Route 55 was 98.9 percent passenger vehicles, 0.9 percent medium -duty trucks, and 0.3 percent heavy -duty trucks. This traffic volume is more reflective of the residential and commercial nature of projects in the City of Newport Beach and of the residential - commercial nature of the proposed project. It also more accurately reflects the fleet mix by percentage of trips instead of by percentage of VMT, which is currently the model default. At 0-3 Mitigation Measure 2 -1 has been revised based on the recommendations of SCAQMD to further reduce project - related NO„ from off -road construction equipment. Construction - related NO, emissions generated by the project were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the project (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -67 co 2. Response to Comments Applicability of Mitigation Based on the Duration of Time Onsite: Mitigation Measure 2 -1 has been revised to apply to nonemergency equipment rather than only to equipment onsite for more than five days. Tier 4 Phase -In: At the time of the preparation of the DEIR, Tier 4 equipment is not readily available in southern Californian construction equipment fleets, and it is speculative to determine when such equipment may be readily available for contractors. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 2 -1 includes a phase -in for Tier 4 equipment, if available. Level 3 DPF: Diesel particulate filters (DPF) reduce the amount of particulate matter (PM1, and PM,.,) generated by project - related off -road construction equipment exhaust. As shown in DEIR Table 5.2 -16 and Table 5.2 -17, with mitigation the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for particulate matter (PM1, or PMZ.S). Therefore, use of DPF is not warranted. Copy of Tier /BACT Specification: Mitigation Measure 2 -1 already states that a copy of each unit's certified Tier specification shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. 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 nonemergency equipment over 50 horsepower that aFe ensite feF Fnere than 6 days. Tier 3 engines between 50 and 750 horsepower are available for 2006 to 2008 model years. After January 1, 2015, nonemergency equipment over 50 horsepower the a; e 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, eq er:�t the construction contractor 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. 2010 Haul Trucks: Mitigation Measure 2 -2 already requires use of EPA - certified SmarlWay trucks for large vendor truck deliveries. However, a new mitigation measure has been added in order to further reduce project - related NO, from on- road construction vehicles and is based on the recommendations of SCAQMD for on -road haul trucks used to transport demolition debris and soil offsite. Construction - related NO, emissions generated by the project were identified as Page 2 -68 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments a significant unavoidable impact of the project (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). 2 -7 The construction contractor shall use haul trucks and /or require subcontractors to use haul trucks that are 2010 or newer for demolition and construction (CM debris removal offsite and soil haul, unless evidence is provided by the contractor /subcontractor that such trucks are not readily available at the time of issuance of a demolition and /or grading permit. SOON Funds: The comments on SCAQMD's Surplus Off -Road Opt -In for NOx (SOON) fund are noted. The SOON program provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off -road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment. Because there is no calculation for measuring a decrease in emissions based on this recommendation and no way to monitor emission reductions, CEQA does not consider this a mitigation measure; however, the comment is noted and is included in the administrative record. co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -69 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -70 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 01 — John S. Adams & Associates, Inc. (5 pages) JOHN S. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5100 BIRCH STREET, NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 19491 833.1972 FAX 194918512055 October 23, 2012 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: EIR — September 2012 Uptown Newport Project Newport Beach, California Dear Ms. Ung I am submitting these comments as President of Courthouse Plaza Association. This association includes 5100, 5120, 5140 and 5160 Birch Street (Courthouse Plaza), a four building office complex located immediately adjacent to the proposed Uptown Newport Project. This letter expresses our strong opposition to the Uptown Newport project, in particular the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in conjunction with this project. The following comments outline the flaws and errors contained in the Uptown Newport Project EIR dated September 2012. Project Alternatives The report gives minimal consideration to Project Alternatives. The alternatives all are considered as unlikely to yield a reasonable return on investment. 01.1 The report provides no basis, economic analysis or support for these conclusions. In addition the report does not consider a traffic neutral alternative as indicated in the General Plan. Traffic The applicant's presentation, Part I, to the Planning Commission Study Session on October 4, 2012 indicated the following regarding the General Plan considerations for the project. The General Plan allocated 2,200 residential units within the airport area. • 550 new /additive units • 1,650 replacement units from conversion of commercial and industrial uses • Traffic neutral 01 -2 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -71 �� 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach October 23, 2012 Page 2 The daily trip generation for this project is summarized in the report as follows: Existing Use: 747 Proposed Total: 9,047 Net New Trips: 8,286 The proposed project results in an increase of 8,286 trips, which is a twelve -fold increase. However, the EIR concludes that this impact in not significant. An increase of 8,286 trips at this location cannot be considered not significant and is certainly not traffic neutral, as required by the General .Plan. The EIR's conclusion that this massive traffic increase is insignificant defies all logic. Traffic studies appear to have been completed prior to the implementation of the EIR. If traffic studies were completed on behalf of the project developer prior to the EIR they should not be considered valid and current traffic studies should be completed. In addition, the traffic studies do not appear to consider increases in traffic that will result when the current. 24% office vacancy rate in the airport area reduces to a more typical 5% office vacancy rate when economic conditions improve in the future. Birch Street Easement The proposed development proposes to utilize a private easement (Birch Street Easement) for one of the three primary ingress and egress points to the development. The traffic study for the Birch Street Easement indicates the following peak hour traffic volumes. The peak hour traffic as a result of the project will increase 124% in the AM and 95% in the PM. Additionally, certain turning points have an even more significant increase in traffic. "rile added traffic created by this development is an added burden on the easement and cannot be considered not significant. Again, the EIR's conclusion that the increased traffic on the Birch Street Casement is not significant defies logic. 01 -3 Page 2 -72 • The Planning Center I DC&E Febrnai)' 2013 Figure 7 Existing Peak Hour Figure 12 Existing plus Project Peak Hour Percent Chan e AM PM AM PM AM PM Left in 46 19 45 70 -2% +268% Right in 21 25 21 82 0 +228% Left out I 58 55 75 +5500% +29% Right out 14 46 63 62 Totals 82 148 184 289 +124% +951% The peak hour traffic as a result of the project will increase 124% in the AM and 95% in the PM. Additionally, certain turning points have an even more significant increase in traffic. "rile added traffic created by this development is an added burden on the easement and cannot be considered not significant. Again, the EIR's conclusion that the increased traffic on the Birch Street Casement is not significant defies logic. 01 -3 Page 2 -72 • The Planning Center I DC&E Febrnai)' 2013 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach October 23, 2012 Page 3 In addition, the traffic study is Flawed. Under Site Access and Oh -Site Circulation (Page 86) the report indicates two access points to Jamboree Road: (1) the southerly signaled access at Fairchild Road and; (2) the northerly unsignalized intersection to the north. This northerly intersection is described as allowing right turn -in -and -out and left turn -in movements. Left turns out would be prohibited by signage as well as a raised medium on Jamboree. However, Figure 23 (Page 90) incorrectly shows left turn -out traffic. The traffic study needs to be revised to address this issue and determine how much of this .additional peak hour traffic will be directed through the Birch Street Easement. The EIR also does not address the added impact of the Phase I development on the Birch Street Easement. Under the proposed plan a majority of Jazz traffic will be directed out the Birch Street Easement. Current plans indicate a narrow gated access point to the two Jamboree Road driveways which will directly encourage additional traffic to utilize the Birch Street. Easement.. The. traffic Flow should be mitigated to insure equal traffic access by Jazz out to Jamboree Road and not additionally burden the Birch Street Easement. Lastly, the entire traffic study is based on the assumption that public vehicular access is allowed across the Birch Street Easement. The easement is a private driveway easement and does not allow public access. The general public does not have any current or future rights to utilize the Birch Street Casement. Therefore, the traffic study is based oil an incorrect assumption. Pedestrian Traffic The proposed development plan indicates pedestrian access directed across the Birch Street Easement. On Page 5.14 -34 of the EIR under Access Easement to Birch Street; the EIR states the grant of easements includes the right of pedestrian passage. The easement does not have language that addresses the allowance of pedestrian passage. The EIR needs to be revised to correctly state the easement access rights. Construction Traffic 01 -3 contd. 01 -4 The EIR fails to address when, where and how much construction traffic will ingress and egress 01 -5 at the Birch Street Easement. The EIR does not address the impact on the easement due to construction traffic, noise and driveway maintenance. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -73 �� 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach October 23, 2012 Page 4 Noise /Vibration On Page 5.10 -39 of the EIR, the. CIR states that vibration levels during Phase 2 will exceed Thresholds at the adjacent office buildings to the northeast, which is our Courthouse Plaza project. The EIR states the vibration levels will cause annoyance to the occupants. However, the EIR concludes that the impact is less than significant because vibration moves around the site. The impact will be significant on Courthouse Plaza. The loud noise and vibration caused during construction could result in lost tenants and reduced rental rates during construction. This will have significant economic impact on the Courthouse Plaza buildings. Equinox Shadows Figures IC, 213, and 2C indicate the Courthouse Plaza office . buildings will be subject to significant shadow impacts. These shadow issues should be mitigated by increasing the 15 foot set back from the Courthouse Plaza property line and reducing the building height from the proposed 150 feet, In addition, any proposed buildings that will cast shadows on adjacent properties should be relocated to the interior of the Uptown Village parcel so that all shadows are contained on -site. Design Guidelines The EIR indicates the property would be subject to Uptown Newport Design Guidelines. On pages 33, 47 and 48 of Design Guidelines are exhibits that indicate landscaping, walks and trails and lighting plans that are placed along the Birch Street Easement and Birch Street frontage. The project developer does not have the right to construct these improvements in the easement area. The report should remove reference to these items and address project impacts absent these incorrect assumptions. Phasine Plan. The EIR references the project Phasing Plan On pages 23, 26, 29, 30 and 33 are exhibits that indicate various utility, landscaping, pedestrian circulation plans that are placed along the Birch Street Easement. The project developer does not have the right to construct these improvements in the easement area. The report should remove reference to these items and address project impacts absent these assumptions. 01 -6 01 -7 01 -9 01 -9 Page 2 -74 • The Planning Center I DC&E Februai), 2013 2. Response to Comments 'Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach October 23, 2012 Page 5. Site Development Standards The EIR references land uses and Site Development Standards, Site Development Standards Page 13, Figure 3 -4 indicates interior spine and neighborhood public sheets with widths of 34 to 54 feet that connect to the Birch Street Easement. The City of Newport Beach should not approve a development plan that funnels public street traffic through a private driveway easement with only a 30'width. The result is an attempt to convert a private . driveway easement into -a public street. Conclusion The EIR has not adequately addressed the proposed impact on adjacent property due to traffic, shade and shadow, and proposed infrasOVCture. The EIR's identifies numerous traffic, shade, noise /vibration and construction impacts on the adjacent properties. Yet the EIR consistently downplays all the impacts and classifies them as not significant. The EIR appears biased in support of the proposed development and does not adequately consider the impacts on the adjacent property owners. The developer should be required to mitigate all traffic, shadow, noise /vibration, and infrastructure plans on its property and not put any added burden on our properly or other adjacent property. Sincerely, JOHN S. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC. John S. Adams 01 -10 01 -11 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -75 �� 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -76 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 01. Response to Comments from John S. Adams & Associated, Inc., John S. Adams, dated October 23, 2012. 01 -1 As required by CEQA (Guidelines Section 15126.6), the DEIR "describe(s) a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The DEIR reviews two project alternatives Alternative Project Location and Optional Project Phasing Alternatives —and provides the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis. The No Project alternative and three optional development alternatives are evaluated in the DEIR in more detail. A "reasonable return of investment" is included as a project objective (see DEIR page 7 -2, Objective No. 6). Per CEQA, the alternatives are reviewed, in part, for their ability to "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project." Additionally, CEQA includes economic viability as one of the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives. The DEIR concludes that the Hotel /Office /Commercial alternative may be able to attain this objective and that the Office /Commercial /Residential and Reduced Density alternatives are unlikely to achieve this objective. The reasoning supporting these conclusions is provided in the DEIR text. For example, the following discussion supports the conclusion regarding economic viability for the Hotel /Office /Commercial alternative (see DEIR page 7 -26): 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. Each alternative was reviewed for its ability to avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. As substantiated in the DEIR, although each development alternative could reduce one or more impacts of the proposed project, none of the development alternatives could eliminate any of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. Contrary to this commenter's assertion, each of the development alternatives evaluated for the DEIR would be traffic neutral. General Plan consistency, including trip neutrality, was a primary criterion in defining project alternatives (please refer to the third bullet on DEIR page 7 -8). Moreover, a detailed trip summary, including daily and AM /PM peak trips for each alternative, was provided and compared to the proposed project. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -77 co 2. Response to Comments 01 -2 Significance of Traffic Impact The commenter has correctly reproduced the daily trip information for the proposed project in comparison to the existing use. This information is provided in DEIR Table 5.14 -7, Summary of Full Project Trip Generation. The traffic impact analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the congestion management program (CMP), and CEOA requirements. The criteria to evaluate the significance of traffic impacts was consistent with the detailed significance criteria for both the City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine, as described on DEIR pages 5.14 -10 and -11. Impacts from the project - related traffic trips were evaluated at 43 intersections in the study area for existing and future conditions. For example, based on the analysis, the proposed project would not significantly impact any local intersections: • In the City of Newport Beach, the addition of project - generated trips would not cause the level of service at any intersection to deteriorate from acceptable (e.g., LOS "D ") to a deficient level of service and would not increase the ICU at a study intersection by 1 percent or more (volume /capacity increase of 0.010 or more). • In the City of Irvine, the project would not result in a 2 percent or greater impact (V /C increase of 0.02 or more) at any intersection that exceeds the acceptable level of service in the baseline condition, nor would it increase the ICU by 1 percent or more at a study intersection, causing it to become deficient. As described in the DEIR, the trip generation estimates for the existing office and industrial development on the site, compared to the proposed project's, reveals that the proposed development would result in a shift of traffic patterns to and from the site. The existing office and industrial uses and nearby office uses have a heavier inbound traffic flow toward the project site in the morning and a heavier outbound traffic flow in the afternoon. The proposed project would have reverse traffic patterns. The results of the analysis show that though there would be increases in delay at some intersections related to project traffic, these increases would not exceed the significance criteria established by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Trip Neutrality The project has been determined to be "trip neutral" as set forth in General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.5, "Residential and Support Uses." The provisions of this policy and the project consistency analysis are provided in DEIR Table 5.9 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. The policy states: "When a development phase includes a mix of residential and nonresidential uses or replaces existing industrial uses, the number of peak hour trips generated by cumulative development of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would result from development of the underlying permitted nonresidential uses" (emphasis added). This policy additionally provides for the development of a maximum of 2,200 multifamily residential units and mixed -use buildings within the Airport Area. Page 2 -78 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments The City applies a land use conversion methodology to determine consistency with the general plan's trip - neutral policy (i.e., office to residential) As detailed on DEIR page 5.9 -15, based on the land use conversion methodology, a total of 694 residential units may be allocated to the site based on the permitted land uses and square -foot allocations in the general plan. The conversion methodology is also used to allocate units allowed as infill development (known as "additive units ") in addition to general replacement units. Under the ICDP, 290 units were allocated to the project site as additive units. When the replacement and additive units are combined, the total is 984 units, but retail uses are factored in and reduce the total number of units by 62. Based on the methodology used to conform to the general plan traffic - neutral policy, 922 units may be constructed on the site. Pursuant to California law, 322 additional density bonus units may also be added to the site, for a total of 1,244 units as proposed. Based on the detailed analysis provided on DEIR page 5.9 -15, the DEIR concludes that the number of peak hour trips generated by development of the project site would not exceed the number of trips attributable to existing permitted nonresidential uses. The Uptown Newport project is therefore consistent with the traffic - neutral requirement of General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.5. (Note that the trip - neutrality policy does not apply to any bonus density units; these units would be additive to traffic. The traffic analysis for the project, however, is conducted on the entire 1,244 units.) Traffic Study Completion Date The Uptown Newport traffic study was initiated at the same time as the EIR, and the `,� ) traffic consultant, Kimley -Horn, is a subconsultant to The Planning Center IDC &E. C The report was completed May 2012. The Planning Centers DC &E was selected for preparation of the Uptown Newport EIR pursuant to a Request for Proposal process and is under contract to the City. Note also that this FEIR includes a revised traffic study dated November 2012 (see Appendix E, bound separately). As described in FEIR Section 3.4 , Updated Traffic Modeling, the traffic analysis was updated to respond to comments received on the DEIR. The analysis was updated to include two additional cumulative projects in the area identified by the City of Irvine and to reflect minor changes in the site plan. The update also includes corrections to respond to comments in this letter regarding turning movements for the northernmost Jamboree Road project access. Effect of Office Vacancy Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the EIR impact analysis should evaluate the changes in conditions in comparison to existing conditions (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, Consideration and Discussion of Significant Impacts). Existing conditions are normally defined as the time that the notice of preparation (NOP) is issued for the project. The Uptown Newport NOP was issued December 8, 2011. The traffic study is appropriately based on the conditions at the time the NOP was released (including vacancy conditions). Also, as described above, the proposed project is consistent with the general plan for the project site and complies with General Plan Policy 6.15.5, which requires that peak hour trips not exceed the peak hour trips attributed to underlying existing uses. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -79 2. Response to Comments The City's general plan provides for the conversion of existing land uses in the Airport Area to residential uses on a traffic - neutral basis. The City applies conversion factors for determining consistency with the trip - neutral requirement of this policy. The application of the conversion factors to the Airport Area properties is documented in the report, "Airport Area Residential & Mixed -Use Adjustment Factors for Traffic Analyses in Newport Beach," prepared by Richard M. Edmonston, PE, and dated March 10, 2009. 01 -3 Birch Street Easement Level of Service The project - related percentage increases in peak hour traffic for the Birch Street easement are relatively high because the existing traffic is very low due to the existing buildings not being fully occupied. However, based on the intersection operation analysis in the traffic impact analysis, the driveway has sufficient capacity to absorb project - related traffic. Peak hour volumes would be less than 180 vehicles each way, which is less than 3 cars per minute per direction. As shown in DEIR Tables 5.14 -10 and 5.14 -11 for the Birch Street /Birch Street easement intersection (Birch St /Driveway), both AM and PM peak hour movements would operate at level of service B (or A) for cumulative conditions for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 (project buildout) conditions. The acceptable level of service results (LOS A and B) for the Birch Street /Birch Street easement intersection did not change as a result of the updates included in the revised traffic study (FEIR Appendix E). Project - related impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The updated traffic modeling corrected the erroneous left turn out at the northern project site access at Jamboree Road. Please refer to FOR Appendix E, Figure 23, page 90. As detailed in updated Tables 5.14 -11 and -12 (FEIR pages 3 -41 through 3- 44 and 3 -51 through 3 -54, respectively), the level of service at the Birch Street /Birch Street Easement intersection would remain at acceptable levels (A and B) with this correction for both 2018 (Phase 1) and buildout conditions in 2021. Phase 1 TowerJazz Traffic During Phase 1, TowerJazz traffic would continue to utilize both the Birch Street easement and the Jamboree Road driveway. The intersection of Birch Street/Project Driveway (Birch easement) would operate at LOS A in the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour (see updated Table 5.14 -10, FEIR page 3 -41). The Birch Street easement would operate at an acceptable LOS, and impacts would be less than significant. Birch Easement Public Access The DEIR accurately stated the Birch Street access easement rights (see DEIR page 5.14 -34), and the use of the easement is appropriately incorporated into the traffic analysis. According to the applicant and current property owner of the Uptown Newport project, the access easement to Birch Street is a nonexclusive easement dated April 28, 1978, and recorded in the Orange County Recorder's Office on May 26, 1978. The easement granted to Rockwell International, Uptown Newport's predecessors -in- interest, is a "non- exclusive easement for passage in, over and along the real property including the right to maintain driveways, roadways, Page 2 -80 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments sidewalks and passageways on said property." The easement has been continuously used for many decades by the property owners, employees, agents, and guests, among others. The easement contains no such restrictions as outlined in the comment and does not limit its use to (1) a specific period of time, (2) private access only, or (3) vehicular access. Additionally, "passage over" and the right to maintain sidewalks necessarily imply pedestrian access. The DEIR, therefore, accurately states the easement rights. 01 -4 Please refer to Response 01 -3, Birch Easement Public Access. 01 -5 As stated on DEIR page 5.14 -67, the approach and departure routes for construction vehicles would be via Jamboree Road. There would be no construction traffic using the Birch Street easement. 01 -6 An analysis was conducted to evaluate vibration impacts during construction at the properties nearest to the project site. Because of proximity, the highest vibration levels at the Courthouse Plaza would occur during Phase 2 construction. DEIR Table 5.10 -17 shows that the 84 VdB threshold would be exceeded when vibratory rollers operate nearest to the Courthouse Plaza (referred to as "buildings to the northeast" in the analysis; see DEIR Figure 5.10 -6). The operation of other equipment — including large bulldozers, jackhammers, and loaded trucks —would not generate vibration levels above the thresholds of significance. Although these levels would have the potential to cause annoyance to the occupants of the Courthouse Plaza, vibration dissipates rapidly with distance. As described on DEIR page 5.10 -36, vibration from the use of heavy earthmoving equipment would not exceed the thresholds when operating over 100 feet away from a receptor. Vibration equipment moves around the site and is used intermittently; therefore, annoyance caused by vibration generated by construction equipment would be sporadic and short term. Construction noise would potentially cause annoyance to office occupants in areas facing the construction area. Noise levels from the construction of the project are comparable to existing noise levels along Jamboree Road and in the vicinity of the existing TowerJazz building. Noise disturbances would be greatest during Phase 2 of the project and would be intermittent, but could occur for prolonged periods. Due to the length of construction activities and the level of noise from the combination of construction activities, project - related construction noise at the nearby office and retail receivers would be significant. 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. Line -of -sight variations between existing buildings and proposed buildings preclude the use of sound walls —they would not effectively block sound from the project. Noise impacts during construction would be significant and unavoidable. As summarized above, project- related vibration impacts would be less than significant, and construction - related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The commenter's concern about potential economic impacts due to short-term construction- related project impacts is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. Economic issues that do not result in direct or indirect physical environmental impacts are not within the realm of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -81 co 2. Response to Comments 01 -7 The shade /shadow exhibits provided in DEIR Appendix B illustrate project - related building shadows that would be cast on- and offsite at various times on the shortest and longest days of the year (winter and summer solstices) as well as the fall equinox (equal day and night). Shadow lengths are longest in December during the winter solstice (which is the worst case for shadow impacts to adjacent land uses). Figures la through is of DEIR Appendix B show fall equinox shadows, and winter solstice shadows are depicted in Figures 2a through 2c of Appendix B. DEIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, applies the threshold described on page 5.1 -18 as a guideline, and —as illustrated in the shadow /shade analysis figures —no onsite or surrounding land uses or areas (including the Courthouse Plaza building) would be shaded in excess of the thresholds, which are four hours on any day during the fall equinox or summer solstice and three hours on any day during the winter solstice. Additionally, in response to public comments and discussion at the Planning Commission public hearings, the setback for the tower zone (150 -foot building height area) from the Courthouse Plaza boundary was increased by 100 feet (see revised Figures 5.1 -2, High Rise Zones and Height Limits, in Section 3.5, Revised and New Figures). The height limit within the 100 -foot setback from the Courthouse Plaza property boundary would now be limited to 55 feet. The modified height limits would reduce the amount of shadow that could be cast onto the office buildings and common areas of the Courthouse Plaza. Shade /shadow impacts would not occur under either phase of the proposed project during the fall equinox, winter solstice, or summer solstice. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required, including those measures recommended by the commenter. 01 -8 The Birch Street easement does not restrict the improvements as indicated in this comment. Please refer to response 01 -3, Birch Easement Public Access. 01 -9 The Birch Street easement does not restrict the improvements as indicated in this comment. Please refer to response 01 -3, Birch Easement Public Access. 01 -10 As described in Response 01 -3, Birch Easement Level of Service, this easement would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. Based on the traffic analysis, the existing roadway can accommodate the traffic that would enter and exit through this easement. 01 -11 As detailed in these responses to this comment letter, the DEIR analyzes the project - related impacts due to traffic, shade and shadow, noise and vibration, infrastructure, and construction - related impacts. The analysis is objective and quantified where applicable, based upon professional industry practices. In accordance with CEQA requirements, impact significance has been determined based on adopted significance thresholds, and mitigation measures have been provided for any significant impacts. Nevertheless, significant construction - related impacts remain unavoidable for the proposed project. These impacts are documented in the DEIR and would require a statement of overriding considerations by City decision makers to approve the proposed project. Page 2 -82 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 02 — Canopi, LLC (2 pages) CANOPI, LLC October 23, 2012 Via Facsimile: 949.644.3229 Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Uptown Newport Project Concerns Dear Ms. Ung: On behalf of Canopi LLC I wish to express our concerns regarding the proposed Uptown Newport Development being considered for 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road. As the owner of the property at 4440 Von Karman Avenue in Koll Center Newport (KCN), we are worried about several aspects of this proposed development that do not appear to have been adequately reviewed: Density: At over 1200 units, the proposed density of this development is extremely high, leading to several concerns: General Traffic: The FIR notes that this project will result in 8,286 additional daily trips in the immediate vicinity of the development, but states that the impact will be "Less than significant. ". In an area where traffic already backs up in the mornings and evenings as commuters move through Kali Center Newport, it seems counter - intuitive (to say the least) that an additional 8,200 02 -1 trips per day in the immediate area would not have a significant impact on traffic. We feel the traffic studies for this development are incomplete and/or inaccurate and should be revisited. Kali Center Newport Traffic: While the design guidelines for the project suggest only emergency :vehicle access to Koll Center Newport, the EIR clearly shows vehicular circulation through the backside of KCN (EIR p.99, figure 3 -9). This access is presumably meant to connect with Von 02 -2 Karmen Ave. Koll Center Newport was nor. designed nor meant to support this kind of residential and/or retail traffic. This additional traffic would have an extreme adverse impact on KCN which is designed only to support traffic to /from the office buildings in the facility. Kali Center Newport Pedestrian Traffic: The EIR also shows several pedestrian access paths directly into Koll Center Newport. The impact of additional fool traffic on surrounding workplaces, employees and companies located in KCN. has not been adequately addressed. Aside from the 02.3 general concern of excessive foot traffic around the office buildings, there are common areas (walking paths, lakes, etc.) maintained at the expense of KCN building owners. Will the cost of maintaining these areas be shared with Uptown Newport in the future? Parking: This plan does not show adequate surface parking to meet retail /restaurant minimum parking counts. The traffic burden on surrounding parking lots by use of pedestrian access is a 02-4 serious concern that has not been addressed. AIAO Iron Kaman Ave., Ste. 12n o Newport Reach, CA 92660 , Phone 919198.0061 . N. 949.i96.0062 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -83 �� 2. Response to Comments CANOPI, LLC Building owners in Koll Center Newport purchased properties in this office park specifically for the exclusive business environment available in this facility and the attractive tenants that can be lured based on this dynamic. It is a structure that serves both property owners and the City of Newport Beach well. Canopi is not opposed to new, innovative development that can enhance the business, residential and retail environments in Newport Beach. However, Koll Center Newport is an established business center in the city and the impact on workplaces, employees and companies in this business park has not been adequately considered in the Uptown Newport proposal. Further, we are concerned that this project has proceeded to this point without the developer and city planners soliciting input from Koll Center Newport property owners who will be so directly impacted by its implementation. We request that the concerns noted above be addressed in further detail and we look forward to being more closely involved in the project as it proceeds. Sincerely, Scott. Wessler Vice President Canopi LLC :1440 Vbn:Ka,nrun.:lte., Sie: 120 < Ne,vporPOe,ch,CA92660 POUne949.79 8.0051 a Fei949.i98100e2 02 -5 Page 2 -84 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 02. Response to Comments from Canopi, LLC, Scott Wessler, Vice President, dated October 23, 2012. 02 -1 The traffic analysis presented in DEIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, evaluated the traffic impacts from project - related trips -8,286 daily, 644 in the AM peak hour, and 829 in the PM peak hour. The analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the congestion management program (CMP), and CEQA requirements. The criteria to evaluate impacts in the study area were consistent with the thresholds of significance required by the City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine, as described in pages 5.14- 10 and -11 of the DEIR. The project trip generation would result in a shift of traffic patterns. The existing and nearby office and industrial uses have a heavier traffic flow toward the project site in the morning and a heavier traffic flow away from the site in the afternoon. The proposed project (primarily residential) would have reverse traffic patterns. Based on the analysis, project - related traffic would increase delays at some intersections, but would reduce delays (improve operations) at others. Project - related traffic impacts would not exceed the significance criteria established by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. 02 -2 As described in the DEIR and depicted in DEIR Figure 3 -8, Phase I Circulation Plan, emergency access only would be provided through the Koll Center property to the west of the project site. No project - related trips are included in the traffic analysis to /� exit at this location (see DEIR Figure 5.14 -5, Trip Distribution [Proposed]). The `'� ) project would therefore not impact Koll Center Newport traffic. C 02 -3 As noted in the DEIR, the proposed project includes pedestrian connections at several different locations between the project site and the adjacent Koll properties. This is consistent with the policies in the City's general plan and the subsequent Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) adopted by the City Council on September 28, 2010. As shown on DEIR Figure 3 -5, Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, the ICDP provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Uptown Newport site and the 12.7 acres between Birch Street and Von Karmen Avenue (Koll property): ...with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain. Connectivity within the two properties will be provided with existing and new pedestrian ways, improved parking lot screening, planting and /or enhanced paving which are compatible between the Koll and Conexant [Uptown Newport]. (emphasis added) It is not expected that Uptown Newport project - generated pedestrian traffic would cause degradation of Koll Center Newport amenities such as walking paths and lakes. Moreover, it is intended that the two project sites be integrated, and Koll Center Newport employees and future residents would both use the pedestrian improvements within the Uptown Newport project site. The Uptown Newport project would offer new retail uses and services, including eating establishments, within convenient walking distance for Koll Center Newport office employees. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -85 2. Response to Comments 02 -4 Uptown Newport would comply with the specific parking requirements detailed in the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP), "Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures" (see Section 3.4, Parking Requirements, of the PCDP). Please note that parking is no longer considered an environmental issue under CEQA and is not a subject of review in the DEIR. This comment, however, will be forwarded to City decision makers for their consideration of the project. 02 -5 As stated in Response 02 -3, the Uptown Newport project is consistent with the City's general plan and ICDP as approved by the City Council of Newport Beach (2006 and 2010, respectively). These plans both envisioned mixed land uses for the project site and integration of these uses with the adjacent Koll Center Newport property. The planning process for both these plans included numerous opportunities for public participation and feedback. Similarly, public participation and input for Uptown Newport has been solicited in accordance with CEQA. Page 2 -86 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 03 — Olen (2pages) r October 24. 2012 VIA MESSENGER and EMAIL (ruig c newportbeachca.gov) Ms. Rosaliah Ung Associate Planner 3300 Newport Blvd. _ Newport Beach. California 92663 RE: Uptown Newport (PA2011 -134) - Draft Environmental Impact Report SCI-I No. 201005194 Dear Ms. Ung: My client, OCRC Capital Corporation (`OCRC "), owns a building, located at 4910 Birch Street, situated located within the Kell Center office park. On behalf of OCRC, this correspondence shall serve as our opposition and comments regarding the Uptown Newport Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2010051094 ( "DEER "). As set forth in detail below, a review of the proposed Uptown Newport project and specifically, the DEIR reveals that it insufficiently addresses many environmental issues. Notably, the DEIR comes to the unlikely conclusion that there will not be a significant or adverse impact on the substantial increase in traffic that will result from the project. It seems doubtful that an increase in car trips from approximately 747 cars to 9,033 cars will have no impact on the environment. Also, the traffic study is outdated and fails to evaluate the traffic burden on the surrounding parking lots by the use of pedestrian access and lick of surface parking to meet the retaillrestaurant minimum parking counts. Additionally, the DEIR fails to provide an adequate evaluation of the noise after development and the decibel levels at different heights. Moreover, there is inadequate support for the evaluation of the shade and shadow created by the 150' buildings on the already existing buildings. Another noteworthy aspect of the DEIR that will affect our client is that it presumes that access for ingress /egress through Kell Center Newport will be granted. At this point, it is our understanding that no such grant of rights has been tentatively structured nor suggested. Also, as you know, Uptown Newport proposes to install new utilities that will traverse private property and property easements. The legal implications that underscore the proposal to install utilities and public walkways across third -party private casements is the material long, drawn out, expensive legal battles are made of Seven Corporate Plaza • Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 644 -OLEN Fax (949) 719 -7200 www. olenp rope rties. corn 031111 03 -2 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -87 �� 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosaliah Ung Associate Planner October 24, 2012 Page - 2 - As we wrote previously, the Uptown Newport proposed project and the DEIR do not address the necessary, elements and impact to emergency services that are relevant to providing a foundation for a successful residential development. The DEIR does not adequately evaluate the impact of all additional 1.244 units to police and fire services. Similarly, it seems obvious that a residential development in this area would be isolated and surrounded by cone nercial- and industrial -use property that is incompatible with a residential development. Also, there are a lack of basic necessities, including schools, libraries, public parks and even grocery stores. None of these issues are evaluated in the DEIR. Lastly, the DEIR does not address the impact to the businesses in the Airport Area of Newport Beach, which are the economic blood supply to the City. Without a doubt, companies, including the tenants that occupy our building, will be driven out of the Airport Area due to the increased traffic on the streets, inconvenience during- construction, and obliterated tenant views. The City benefits from the tax revenues and job creation these businesses provide. Projects like Uptown Newport show a lack of concern for local businesses and influence companies to move to adjacent areas in Irvine. Finally, the DEIR fails to evaluate the deleterious effect on property values and the impact to the current owners and tenants in the Airport Area, and will affect the current and future commercial use of those properties. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly ,yours, Marisa D. Poulos Associate Counsel cc: Igor Olenicoff 03 -3 03 -4 Page 2 -88 • The Planning Center I DC&E Februai), 2013 2. Response to Comments 03. Response to Comments from Olen, Marisa D. Poulos, Associate Counsel, dated October 24, 2012. 03 -1 Regarding traffic impacts related to project traffic to the study area, please refer to Response 02 -1. Regarding concerns related to parking supply, please refer to Response 02 -4. 03 -2 Following is a response to the individual comments in the commenter's paragraph: As detailed in DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, analyses were conducted to evaluate both short-term and long -term project - related noise impacts to surrounding land uses. Long -term, project - related noise impacts related to traffic and stationary noise would not significantly impact nearby buildings at any height. Project - related construction noise impacts were also evaluated for the buildings facing the project site. The impacts described in Impact 5.10 -5 apply at all building floors facing 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. 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. Despite the application of mitigation measures, nearby noise- sensitive uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction activities. Impact 5.10 -6 would remain significant and unavoidable. DEIR Section 5.1.3, Aesthetics, Environmental Impacts, includes a detailed description of shade /shadow impacts as depicted in nine separate exhibits included in DEIR Appendix B. The exhibits illustrate project - related building shadows that would be cast on- and offsite at various times on the shortest and longest days of the year (winter and summer solstices) as well as on the fall equinox (equal day and night). DEIR Section 5.1 applies the threshold described on page 5.1 -18 as a guideline, and —as illustrated in the shadow /shade analysis figures —no onsite or surrounding land uses or areas would be shaded in excess of the thresholds, which are four hours on any day during the fall equinox or summer solstice and three hours on any day during the winter solstice. At no time would the project cast a shadow on the property at 4910 Birch Street. • The applicant has existing utility easements on title to accommodate the project as proposed. • Please refer to Response 01 -3 regarding the Uptown Newport access via Birch Street and Response 02 -2 regarding emergency access through Koll Center Newport. 03 -3 Since a response to the EIR notice of preparation was not received from this commenter, the reference to previous correspondence regarding emergency services is unclear. Public services— including police, fire, school, and library services —are addressed in DEIR Section 5.12, Public Services. Project- related park demand is assessed in DEIR Section 5.13, Recreation, and impacts are concluded to be less than significant (note also that two parks, available to the public, are incorporated into the project). Conclusions that adequate police, fire, school, and Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -89 co 2. Response to Comments library services would be provided for the project are supported by letters from the respective service providers (see DEIR Appendix K, Service Provider Correspondence). Grocery store proximity is not an environmental issue addressed under CEQA. The commenter's opinion that a residential development at the Uptown Newport project site would be incompatible with existing commercial and industrial land uses surrounding the site is acknowledged. The proposed project, however, is consistent with the City of Newport Beach's General Plan and the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP, adopted by the City Council September 28, 2010). As shown on DER Figure 3 -5, Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, the ICDP provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Uptown Newport site and the 12.7 acres between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue (Koll property) "with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain." 03 -4 Project - related traffic (including construction traffic) and aesthetic impacts are addressed in DER Sections 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, and 5.1, Aesthetics. The project would not significantly impact the level of service of the area roadway system, and construction traffic impacts are determined to be less than significant. As described on DER page 5.1 -5 (Impact 5.1 -1), the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas. The City of Newport Beach does not protect private views, such as the tenant views referenced by this commenter. Moreover, the DER does not address the potential impact on area property values because economic issues that do not result in direct or indirect physical environmental impacts are not within the realm of the environmental review under CEQA. The commenter's concerns about tenant views and the potential for the project to adversely impact surrounding property values will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. Page 2 -90 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 LETTER 04 — The Kennedy Commission (3 pages) October 24, 2012 Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: Draft Uptown Newport Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Ung, 2. Response to Comments www.kemedycommusion.org 17101 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irene, CA 92614 949 250 0909 la. 9`9263061) The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create strategic and effective housing and land -use policies that has led to new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. The Commission applauds the City for providing the community an opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Uptown Newport project. On January 6, 2012, the Commission provided a comment letter regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project's EIR and we want to thank the City for addressing our comments and recommendations from the NOP in the DElli The Commission would also like to commend the City for it's leadership in encouraging and facilitating the development of 184 homes affordable to lower income working families. Locating homes, especially affordable homes, near job centers (i.e. John Wayne airport and corporate offices), mass transit and neighborhood amenities will create a more walkable, healthier and sustainable Newport Beach. As the City moves forward in drafting the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (i.e. providing specific language on the affordability levels), the Commission strongly urges the City to continue to make the development of homes affordable to lower income working families a priority at Uptown Newport. Affordability for Extremely Low, Very Low and Low - Income Households With a significant lack of quality affordable homes, it is evident that Orange County is a very expensive place to live in. While the economic downturn has allowed home prices to be at an all - time low, many lower income working families are still not able to purchase a home and remain as renters; however, many of these renting families continually struggle financially to live in the city they work in. Over the past year, Orange County had the bigest rental increase in Southern California (13 %) and compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significant ' Dm0 Uptown Newport Environmental Impact Report, City of Newport [teach, p. 2 -0. September 2012. 1 Rng Rents May Signal a Housing Market Recovery, Los Angeles Times, March 13, 2012. ta_0 042 Working for systemic change resulting In the production of housing for Orange County's extremely low income households Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -91 co 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung October 24, 2012 Page 2 of 3 higher in Newport Beach? Newport Beach is the most expensive place to rent in Orange County (average rent of $2,118 a month) and had the county's "biggest rent hike in the year... with average big - complex apartment rents rising by $167 a month... '4 The city is also the only one in the County where "...the typical apartment rents for at least $2,000 a month -- more than the typical Orange County mortgage payment.s5 According to the City's certified 2008 -2014 Housing Element, the City's total Regional Housing. Needs Assessment (RHNA), including the un- accommodated portion of the 2000 -2005 RHNA, for lower income households are: 451 homes at very low-income, 319 homes at low-income and; 442 homes at moderate - income.' Located inthe John Wayne Airport Area, the Uptown Newport project will provide 1,244 homes, of which 184 homes will beset aside as affordable.' While the ,project will accommodate more than half of Airport Area's maximum development capacity of .2,220 homes,8 the project provides an opportunity for the City to count the proposed homes towards its RHNA, especially for the lower income categories. According to the City's. Housing.. Element, the Airport Area was identified as the "greatest potential" to accommodate the City's lower income RHNA need of 770 homes. Affordable Homes Decreases Environmental Impacts With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live in the city they work in. Compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significantly higher in Newport Beach and simply out of reach for extremely low -, very low- and low- income families. These impacts not only hurt workers and families but may also have negative environmental impacts to the City. The environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work in. With low wages and high housing costs, many workers live in other cities and become dependant on their automobile to commute to and from work and other destinations. These trips may increase traffic congestion and air pollutants that not only negatively impact the environment but also the quality of life for the community. Locating homes, specifically affordable homes, near transit, job centers and neighborhood services will decrease the environmental impacts of traffic congestion, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing these 'City ofNewpon Beach General Plan Housing Element Draft, P. 5.30 and 5.31, August 2011. ' Newpon Beach Rents Up 5167 a Month, Orange County Register, July 18, 2012. Newport Beach Has Highest Average -Rent Leap in County, Orange County Register, October 21, 2012. 6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element, p. 5 -45, November 2011. Uptown Newport Environmental Impact Report, City of Newport Beach, p. 1.5, September 2012. s City ofNewpon Beach General Plan dousing Element, p.5 -78, November 2011. v City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element, p. 5.54, November 2011. tels] Page 2 -92 • The Planning Center I DC&E Februai), 2013 2. Response to Comments Ms. Rosalinli Ung October 24, 2012 Page 3 of 3 environmental impacts will also align with the Sustainable Communities, and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with the goals ofSB 375. Conclusion The Commission looks forward to hearing the City's response to our concerns and partnering with the City to achieve our mutually beneficially goals in creating more livable and economically competitive communities to all working families in the City. The Commission also welcomes the opportunity to continue our dialogue that will result in the production of new homes affordable to extremely low, very low and low- income working families. ,Please . keep us informed of any upcoming meetings and additional information on the Uptown Newport Project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (949) 250 -0909 or cesarc @kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarmbias Executive Director cc: Melinda Coy, State Department of Housing and Community Development 04 -4 conic. 04 -5 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -93 �� 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -94 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 04. Response to Comments from The Kennedy Commission, Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director dated October 24, 2012. 04 -1 Comment acknowledged. 04 -2 Comment acknowledged. 04 -3 Comment acknowledged. 04 -4 Comment acknowledged. The environmental benefits of locating housing—including affordable homes —near transit, job centers, and neighborhood services is acknowledged and reflected in the City's General Plan policies, the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), and the Uptown Newport project objectives, which are outlined in DEIR Chapter 3, Project Description. As summarized on DEIR page 5.9 -11, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 2.2, Sustainable and Complete Community: Emphasize the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as a self- sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside the community for retail, goods and services, and employment. Project- specific objectives in DEIR Section 3.3., Statement of Objectives, include /� implementation of the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and ICDP and to ` "provide housing in close proximity to jobs and supporting services, with pedestrian- co C oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability." The project will provide housing, including affordable housing, adjacent to transit, and will assist the City in achieving the sustainability goals as set forth in SIB 375. 04 -5 Comment acknowledged. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -95 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -96 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 05 — Saunders Property Company (1 page) 4010 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 John R. Saunders r Newport Beach, C.4 92660 President Tel: (949) 251 -0444 Fax: (949)2.51 -0688 October 24, 2012 i Ms. Roso!iah Ung Associate Planner City of Newporl.Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Uptown Newport (the "Project") Dear Ms. Ung: Saunders Property Company (SPC) is the owner of the office building located at 4040 MacArthur Blvd., within the Koll Center Newport (KCN) development. This letter (somewhat similar to the one we sent in June of this year) is intended to express our concerns regarding the Project. The lack of inclusion in the planning process of those surrounding commercial property owners most directly impacted by the Project is very disconcerting. The sheer size of the Project at 1,200 units, the ten fold hrcreasein traffic counts (despite the EIR claiming "no impact" ), degradation of access to KCN and the lack of addressing shadelshadow, impacts on surrounding single story office buildings from 150 foot planned structures. There are a lot of issues that need m be addressed and surrounding commercial owners should have a scat at that table for those decisions. SPC is not opposed to the residential applications in the airport area, but believe these developments need to not overshadow existing uses and negatively impact their use and value. The best way to accomplish that is to include, in a significant and meaningful manner, the input of existing neighbors which, in this case, include all KCN owners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, SAUNDERS PROPERTY COMPANY John Saunders President m 05.1 �n Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -97 �� 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -98 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 05. Response to Comments from Saunders Property Company, John Saunders, President, Dated October 24, 2012. 05 -1 In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental review process incorporates numerous opportunities for the public and surrounding property owners to participate in project review. Opportunities for input into the CEQA process for the project have included the following to date (all of which have been publicly noticed): • Public Scoping Meeting: held 12/15/11, providing an overview of the proposed project and soliciting agency and public input regarding the scope of the EIR. • Notice of Preparation: issued 12/8/11, soliciting agency and public EIR input and providing a 30 -day public review and comment period (12/8/11-1/9/12). • DEIR Public Review: 45 -day public review and comment period for the DEIR (9/10/12- 10/24/12). • Planning Commission Study Session: 10/4/12, providing public opportunity to comment on the project. Planning Commission and City Council public hearings also provide the opportunity for public participation regarding the Uptown Newport project and the EIR. Contrary to this comment, the DEIR does not claim that the proposed project would result in "no impact' to surrounding properties. The analysis in the DEIR does, however, substantiate that traffic impacts and shade /shadow impacts would be less than significant. Please refer to Responses 01 -2 and 01 -7 for further discussion regarding these impacts. Also note that, based on the worst -case shade /shadow analysis in DEIR Appendix B, at no time would Uptown Newport buildings cast a shadow on the Saunders Property Company office building at 4040 MacArthur Boulevard. Based on the DEIR analysis, including in -depth technical assessments of traffic, air quality, noise and vibration, and risk, the proposed project would not result in any long -term significant impacts to surrounding properties. The DEIR does conclude, however, that short -term, construction - related noise and air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The impacts to surrounding office buildings are disclosed in the DEIR, and a statement of overriding considerations will be required for these impacts. Note, however, that each of the development alternatives evaluated for the project site — including alternative uses and reduced density alternatives —would also result in significant, unavoidable construction - related air quality and noise impacts. Regardless of the ultimate use, redevelopment of the project site and elimination of the existing industrial use would most likely result in short-term significant impacts. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -99 co 2. Response to Comments Economic impacts, including potential impacts on surrounding property values, that do not directly or indirectly result in physical environmental impacts are not within the realm of the environmental review under CEQA. The commenter's concern about potential impacts to the value of surrounding land uses will be forwarded to decision makers. Page 2 -100 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 06 — 4200 Von Karman, LLC (2 pages) 14174/2410 no 15,24 PAY 4200 Von Karman, LLC 4000 Westerly Place, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 October 74, 7017 VIA FACSIMLE (949) 6443779 Ms. Ilosallnh ling Assncwte Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Reach, California 92663 re: Uptown Newport (the "Pro)ect) Dear Ms. Ung- I am the co -owner of a small office building located at 4200 Von Kerman Avenue, Newport Beach, California (the "Property"), which Property is pan of Koll Center Newport ( "KCN" ). This letter Is to express strong opposition to the referenced Project, and specifically the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR') prepared in conjunction with such Project. As the Project contemplates over 12W residential units, the EIR focuses Its concern on residential tenants, and gives virtually no commentary to commercial office use and /or recall use In the impacted area. The EIR insufficiently addresses a number of areas of concern for the owners surrounding the Project, and none more than the significant Increase In traffic. The EIR projects a traffic count that will Increase ten fold (8,286 additional daily trips) with the Project, and to conclude that such an increase has NO IMPACT stretches the maim of credulity. In addition, the EIR falls to sufficiently address the Lraff c burden on surrounding parking to meet retail /restaurant minimum parking counts. In addition, the EIR insufficiently addresses traffic during construction (a period that could easily be a period of five (5) years) along Jamboree Road as an arterial corridor. We believe the EIR uses outdated traffic study data that msuhs in incomplete conclusions. Setting aside obvious traffic concerns, the EIR also fails to sufficiently address the following matters: (a) effect on surrounding workplaces, employees and companies located In the John Wayne Airport area; (b) dependency on KOLL development that Is very unlikely to occur; (c) Inconsistency with the CC &R's for KCN that owners relied upon to govern the common areas at KCN; and (d) effect of shade /shadow on surrounding one -story office buildings from 150 font planned nructures that Is significant 0 &1 0 &2 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -101 co 2. Response to Comments Lastly, the applianes development plan and EIR fail to address altematIve land use options with collaborative Input from adjacent property owners. This landmark site cries out for a true mimed -use plan that would include a variety of uses including but not limited to: office, retail, residential, child care 063 and restaurants. The current plan of dense, mid -rise apartment hulldings undoubtedly yields the highest land value In the shortest period of time. My question: why settle for such dense, traffic oriented use when "uptown' could be so much more? Thank you for considering a more creative and less dense land use on this unique site. Sincerely, 4200 Von Karmen, LLC By ARYAN SENTROrf Managing Member (949) 655$226 CC: Brad Schroth, bschrnthgstoresusa.com Bruce McDonald, bruce.mcdonaldNide.us.rom Page 2 -102 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 06. Response to Comments from 4200 Von Karman, LLC, Bryan Bentrott, dated October 24, 2012. 06 -1 The DEIR prepared for the Uptown Newport project is a comprehensive document addressing all topics under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the exception of Agricultural and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources (these topics were closed out in the Initial Study). The remaining topics are addressed in detail in the DEIR, including potential project - related aesthetic, air quality, hazards, land use and planning, public services, traffic, and utility impacts to surrounding commercial office and retail uses. Both short-term construction and long -term operational impacts are evaluated. The traffic study is not outdated. It was initiated at the same time as the EIR and was completed May 2012. In response to issues raised in DEIR comment letters, this study was updated and is included in FEIR Appendix E. The original and updated analyses both conclude that the project would not result in significant construction or long -term operational traffic impacts (please refer to Responses 01 -2, 3, and 5). Please refer to Response 02 -4 regarding project parking requirements. Potential construction - related traffic impacts are addressed under DEIR Impact 5.14- 7, page 5.14 -67. During project construction, temporary delays in traffic may occasionally occur due to oversized vehicles traveling at lower speeds on local streets. Up to 289 vehicles a day would be added on Jamboree Road during building construction, and up to 65 haul truckloads would occur during demolition and grading. Segments of Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the project site currently handle over 40,000 vehicles per day. Delays during construction would be occasional and of short duration. These temporary delays would be less than significant. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to prepare and submit a traffic - management plan and acquire a street - closure permit prior to the commencement of any construction activities, in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapters 12.62, Temporary Street Closure, and 13.01, Street Construction Permits, of the City's Municipal Code. 06 -2 Following are individual responses to parts (a) to (d) of this comment: (a) In accordance with CEQA, the DEIR evaluates project- specific impacts in additional to cumulative projects for each environmental topic. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), both of which outline specific goals and policies relating specifically to the John Wayne Airport Area. Based on the DEIR analyses, the project would not result in any long -term significant impacts to surrounding properties (e.g., including workplaces, employees, and companies). Short-term, construction - related significant impacts to adjacent properties are detailed in the DEIR for air quality and noise. (b) As shown on DEIR Table 4 -2, Cumulative Projects, and based on the application for the Koll Center project, it would consist of 260 residential units and 3,400 square feet of commercial use. The project is analyzed as a related, cumulative project throughout the DEIR. The potential impacts associated with the proposed development have therefore been incorporated in the cumulative Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -103 co 2. Response to Comments analysis to account for additional, incremental air quality, traffic, noise, utility and public service impacts, etc. The DEIR does not assume any improvements or mitigation associated with the Koll Center project, and the Uptown Newport project could proceed as detailed in the DEIR completely independently of whether the Koll Center project is implemented. (c) Although the Uptown Newport project is within the Koll Center, it is not subject to the Koll Center CC &Rs. (d) Please refer to Response 01 -7 regarding project - related shade /shadow impacts. Also note that the Uptown Newport project would at no time cast a shadow on the property at 4200 Von Karman Avenue. 06 -3 Please refer to Response 05 -1 regarding opportunities for the public and surrounding property owners to provide input into the planning review process for the Uptown Newport project. Please also note that DEIR Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, evaluates three alternative land use scenarios for the project site, including a Hotel /Office /Commercial alternative, an Office /Commercial /Residential alternative, and a Reduced Density alternative. Pursuant to CEQA, these alternatives have been reviewed for their potential to avoid or lessen the significant effects of the project as proposed while feasibly attaining most of the basic objective of the project. This commenter's opinion regarding the land use mix and density of the proposed project will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration. Page 2 -104 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 07 — Merged Investment Group (2pages) Mk REAL ESTATE Merage investment Group October 24, 2012 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport. Beach, California 92658 Seal Na Email runb0lewporIhenchen.gnv Re: Uptown Newport (the "Project') Dear Ms. Ung: MIG Real Estate ( "MIC"), . as the sole member of 4350 Von Karman, CLC,, is the owner of the property with an address at 4350 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, Califomia(tbe "Property"), which Property is pall of Koll. Center Newport (-KCN"). This letter is to express strong opposition to the referenced - Project, and specifically the Environmental Impact Report. ( "SIR ") prepared in conjunction with such :Project. The .EIR focuses its concern on the approximate new 1;200 plus residential tenants and does not address the true impact on the surrounding commercial and retail use in the impacted area. The EfR.. insulTcieutly addresses a. number of areas of concern for MIG, and none more than the significant increase in traffic. The EIR projects a traffic count that will increase ten -fold (8,286 additional daily trips) a; a result of the Project, and to conclude that such an increase has NO IMPACT is not reasonable. In addition, the EIR fails to appropriately address the traffic burden on surrounding . parking to meet retaithestaurant minimum parking counts. Further, the EIR insul7iciently addresses traffic during construction (a: period that could easily last five years) along Jamboree Road as an arterial corridor. MIG believes the EIR uses outdated traffic study data that results in incomplete conclusions. , In addition . to the traffic concerns; the EJR also fails to adequately address the following matters: (a) consequence on surrounding workplaces, employees and .companies located in the John Wayne. Airport area; (b) Project dependency on the KOLL development that is very unlikely to occur; (c) inconsistency with the CC &2s for KCN that owners relied upon to govern the common areas at KCN; (d) effect of shade/shadow on surrounding oue -story office buildings front 150 foot ;planned structures that is significant; and (e) impact of additional pedestrian tialtic in a commercial office setting (within KCN) OL2 Lastly,. Ihe.EIR does not aptly address alternative options for the Prgiects ingress and egress (which will create a major problem for adjacent owners) and that KCN was neither designed nor meant to 07 -3 support this type of project. Affiliate of MIG Capital 4350 Von Karman Ave, 4 ll,Floor N'ew,it Beach. CA W66e Main: 949.474.58.0 ww .mrgcapeem Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -105 �� 2. Response to Comments Page 2 -106 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 07. Response to Comments from Merged Investment Group Real Estate, Kevin Stiles, Director Asset Management, dated October 24, 2012. 07 -1 The commenter's opposition to the project and the EIR is acknowledged. The traffic study is not outdated. It was initiated at the same time as the EIR, traffic counts were taken in March 2011, and the traffic study was completed May 2012. An update to the traffic study was prepared to address comments on the DEIR and is included as FOR Appendix E. The updated results and conclusions are included in Section 3.4, Updated Traffic Modeling, of this FEIR. The estimated construction traffic is presented in DEIR Tables 5.14.19 and 5.14 -20. The DEIR concluded that the maximum number of truck trips per day would be 65 and the maximum number of vehicular trips would be 289 per day. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles would be via Jamboree Road; there would be no construction traffic on Birch Street. Current daily traffic volumes on Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the project site are above 30,000. Temporary delays in traffic may occasionally occur due to oversized vehicles traveling at lower speeds on local streets; however, such delays would be occasional and of short duration. The analysis concludes that the project would not result in significant construction or long -term operational traffic impacts (please refer to Responses 01 -2, 3, and 5). Please refer to Response 06 -1 regarding specific construction - related traffic impacts. The project would have access on Jamboree Road and Birch Street; there would be no significant traffic impacts on these driveways. Adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors would be provided onsite in accordance with the standards outlined in the project's PCDP and the City's zoning code. The project would provide sufficient parking onsite and there would be no burden to surrounding parking lots or traffic generated at nearby parking lots. Please refer to Response 02 -4 regarding project parking requirements. 07 -2 Please refer to Response 06 -2 for response to parts (a) to (d) of this comment. Please refer to Response 02 -3 regarding part (e) of this comment. 07 -3 Please refer to Responses 01 -3, 01 -5, and 02 -2 regarding the potential impacts of project - related ingress and egress on Koll Center Newport properties. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -107 co 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -108 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 08 — The PRES Companies (2pages) 4& r PRIES PACE coMPCMi =i PRO &PlsenYABr41P PRES ]evHUpmm1 & Cmslrvcmn 'Aevpement Graep PrraS Coreaete Cor.vur,g Group PATS Prepeny /Ass Menseemmt Group PRE$ ACgVl6iine6 & Irnotlmml Oro, Pres Resone Group — - October 24, 20'_' VIA FACSIMLE (949) 644.3229 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 re: Uptown Newport (the "Project ") Dear Ms. Ung- PRES- Lakeside L.P. ( "PRES ") is the owner of the property, with address at 4306-0340 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California "Property "), which Properly is part of Kell Center Newport ( "KCN "). This lelte, to express strong opposition to the referenced Project, and specifically the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "I prepared in conjunction with such Project. As the Project contemplates over 1200 residential units, the EIR focuses its concern on residential tenants, and gives short shrift to commercial office use andlar retail use in the impacted area. The EIR Insufficiently addresses a number of areas of concern for PRIES, and none more than the significant Increase in traffic. The EIR projects a traffic count that will increase ten -fold (8,286 additional dally trips) with the Project, and to conclude that such an Increase has NO IMPACT stretches the realm of credulity. In addition, the EIR fails to sufficiently address the traffic burden on surrounding parking to meet retail /restaurant minimum parking counts. In addition, the EIR Insufficiently addresses traffic during construction la period that could easily be a period of five (5) years) along Jamboree Road as an arterial corridor. PRIES believes the EIR uses outdated traffic study data that results in incomplete conclusions. Besides traffic concerns, the EIR also falls to sufficiently address the following matters: (a) effect on surrounding workplaces, employees and companies located in the John Wayne Airport area; (b) dependency on KOLL development that is very unlikely to occur; (c) Inconsistency with the CC &R's for KCN that owners relied upon to govern the common areas at KCN; and (d) effect of shade /shadow on surrounding one -story office buildings from 150 foot planned structures that is significant. 4300 Von Kvman Avenue I Nawpon Bean. CA 92080 .v. /., 84928177371 rT, 949A44.19251 wwx pewsemm 0 &2 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -109 50 2. Response to Comments A Lisuy, what a VIII dacu'i[eRmg about the EIR; IS the failure to aow = alternative options, to wit, access is a major problem and KCN was not designed nor meant to support (his tYOe of project. but there is no well conceived Plans 08-3 to address the impact of add,tionai pedestrian traffic in a commercial office P t'} �i, E S setting. PRIES believes these enumerated concerns, and others, have not been adequately reviewed. Thank you foi your consideration. Very Truly Ygyrs, PRES -tAK E BY, A EY W. SCHROTH ember /Manager THE PRES COMPANIES Page 2 -110 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 08. Response to Comments from The PRES Companies, Bradley W. Schroth, Member /Manager, dated October 24, 2012. 08 -1 The commenter's opposition to the project and the EIR is acknowledged. The traffic study is not outdated. It was initiated at the same time as the EIR and was completed May 2012. An updated traffic analysis was prepared to respond to comments on the DEIR and is included as FOR Appendix E. Both the original analysis and updated report conclude that the project would not result in significant construction or long -term operational traffic impacts (please refer to Responses 01- 2, 3, and 5). Please refer to Response 02 -4 regarding project parking requirements. Please refer to Response 06 -1 regarding specific construction - related traffic impacts. 08 -2 Please refer to Response 06 -2 for response to part a) through d) of this comment. Please refer to Response 02 -3 regarding part e) to this comment. 08 -3 Please refer to Responses 01 -3, 01 -5, and 02 -2 regarding the potential impacts of project - related ingress and egress on Koll Center Newport properties. co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -111 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -112 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 09 — The Gas Company (1 page) IYIi : Stni! Cn11P5F etrn, nns•nrn. i.43ffi9e fi•¢ 1M G. famPal A LA)$ernpra Energy oosty Oclober 25, 2012 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Rosalinh Ung Subject: ElR for (SCH# 2010051094) for Uptown Newport. 4311 -4321 Jamboree Rd., Newport Beach (PA2011 -134) Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document. We are pleased m inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations- The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rates on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service The availability of natural gas service is baud upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. Asa public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action: which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or nun - utility, laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could ancet construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if harxrdous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements ere made and construction has begun. Ustimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects arc developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- IndustrialfResidentiel Market Services Sian'by calling (800) 427 -2000 (Commemia0lndustrial Customers) (800) 427.2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, Jeannette Garcia 'Technical Services Supervisor Orange Coast Region - Anaheim MM 09.1 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -113 co 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -114 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 09. Response to Comments from The Gas Company, Jeanette Garcia, Technical Services Supervisor, dated October 25, 2012. 09 -1 The comment acknowledges that The Gas Company has facilities in the project area and gas service can be provided to the proposed project. The comment letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but is provided only as an information service. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate City of Newport Beach decision makers for their review and consideration. co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -115 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -116 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER li — Kimberly A. Jameson, PhD, (1 page) From: Kimberly A. Jameson, Ph.D. [mailto:kjameson @ud.edul Sent: Saturday, October 06, 201211:32 AM To: Afford, Patrick Cc: kjameson @uci.edu; Sabrina @uci.edu Subject: Submitted Public comment on the Uptown Newport DEIR impacts project on UCI CCDC. Patrick Afford, Herewith I submit one public comment on the DEIR for the Uptown Newport project proposed in the city of Newport Beach. Thank you for submitting the entire paragraph below in the comments on the Draft EIR that the city submits. And please inform me if you are unableto submit the entire textshow below as numbered paragraph (1) as a public comment. (1) What provisions and safe guards are planned for minimizingthe sensitive receptors present at the UCI Child Care Development Center (approximately 875 feet southeast of the project site on Jamboree Road)? The Child Development Center Clinic engages in Outpatient Clinical Services, Neuropsychological and /or Psychoeducational Evaluations, Cognitive Behavioral Interventions, Parent Training Courses, Social Skills Courses with are all activities that require a nondisruptive enviroment free of environmental toxins. As partof your response please describe plans related to factors of project transportation, fencing, sound buffering plans that aime to minimizing noise impacts on the UCI CCDC. Also provide analyses of Fugitive Drat impacts, Construction traffic impacts, Toxic Emissions impacts and other hazards that will be present during all phases of this project. Pay particular attention to enumerating the impacts on the UCI CCDC during Phase 1 &2 development, and describe in detail mitigated and unmitigated impacts analyses. Thank you for submitting this comment. Sincerely, Kimberly A. Jameson Kimberly A. Jameson, Ph.D. Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences University of California, Irvine Social Science Plaza Irvine, CA 92697 -5100 http://aris.ss.uci.edu/—kjameson/kjameson.html I1 -1 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -117 co 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -118 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 11. Response to Comments from Kimberly A. Jameson, PhD, dated October 6, 2012. 11 -1 Upon completion of Phase 2 development, the proposed project would reduce exposure of toxic air contaminants (TACs) at the University of Irvine (UCI) Child Care Development Center. The implementation of the proposed project would result in the closure of the TowerJazz facility, which releases TACs. The residential mixed -use development would not generate substantial quantities of TACs per SCAQMD thresholds. Consequently, receptors in the area would have an overall net benefit in air quality as a result of the project. An analysis of the project's air quality impacts on sensitive receptors during construction activities was conducted and discussed in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality (see Impact 5.2 -4). Although construction activities would result in emissions of TACs from diesel - powered construction equipment, as described in the DEIR, short- term emissions of TAC from construction activities would not result in long -term health risks. Furthermore, localized emissions from construction activities with mitigation would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds at the UCI Child Care Development Center, as shown in Table 5.2 -17. These thresholds are based on the California ambient air quality standards (AAQS), which are designed to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. As identified in the DEIR, Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -6 would reduce localized construction emissions below the localized significance thresholds, and impacts to UCI Child Care Development Center would be less than significant. Noise impacts during project construction and operation were evaluated at nearby sensitive receptors, including the UCI CCDC. The analysis concluded that there would be no substantial traffic noise increases due to project - related traffic along roadways. In addition, noise from operation of the project (such as HVAC units, parking lot activities, and use of outdoor areas) would be negligible at the UCI CCDC due to distance and existing traffic noise from Jamboree Road. The analysis concluded that noise impacts at the office and retail uses adjacent to the site would be significant and unavoidable. At the UCI CCDC there would be temporary noise increases during project construction. The maximum noise increase over the entire construction period would occur during Phase 1, when a noise level increase of up to 8 dBA could occur. However, due to distance and the existing traffic noise on Jamboree Road, the average noise during construction would be less than the existing ambient noise, and noise from construction activities at the project site would generally not be heard. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -119 co 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -120 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 12 — Bruce Asper (2 pages) Uptown Newport Project DEIR, Sep. 2012 NOISE , Section 5.10 Bruce Asper, EQAC This ambitious project is to be in the development and construction phases for a period of at least seven years, from as early as 2013 to as late as 2021 or even beyond. There are over 1200 residences in the 2 Phases of construction, similar to the developments on the Irvine side of Jamboree as you proceed north and over the 405. The construction related noise implications for people who either work or live in the area are a big consideration, given both the scope in size as well as build out time for the entire project. The report does a very thorough and analytical job on the technicalities of vibration noises, various types of sound and the City of Newport Beach's Conditions of Approval (the latter on p.5.10 -51) . Arguably, the approach of the report is too analytical and lacks human concern or empathy, especially for those who live and work in the area. As but one small but important example, one of the most impacted sites nearby is the UCI Child Care Development Center, across the street from the project and less than 300 feet away. If there is a regular theme to this DEIR noise section.it is, by implication, that the whole area is already very noisy, given airplanes flying overhead at approach and take -off level altitudes, heavy traffic on major traffic arteries such as Jamboree road and its associated noise levels and other ongoing construction project noises. The assumption implicitly is " what's a little more noise for a while'. To drill down a bit on just one of these noise elements, traffic. Jamboree is far and away the busiest in daily traffic volume of any of the streets measured in the DEIR. A typical work day has traffic volumes of between 35,000 and nearly 46,000 vehicles a day, depending on the stretch of the street measured. Noise from this source is already "the dominant noise in the vicinity of the project site" (p.5.10- 12 -1 12 -2 12 -3 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -121 �� 2. Response to Comments 18, para #2). During the excavation phase of the project, it is the report's estimate that over 400 truck trips a day will be added to that number. The area already has a noise level of 72 to 73 dBA within 100 feet of Jamboree (the desired goal is below 65 dBA), without the additional truck traffic they will add in this phase. Sound engineers they hired to analyze the incremental noise due to the project indicated that the increase in noise level would only be "less than .2 dBA "( DER p.5.10 -22, IMPACT 5.10 -1, Kimley -Horn and Assoc., 2012). 1 find this to be very hard to believe, but I'm no sound engineer. Still another area of concern is the exposure to noise to the people who will have moved into residences in Phase ! as a result of the soon to follow Phase 2, which begins with the demolition of the Tower -Jazz facility. The estimated noise levels during this construction time for the nearest Phase 1 buildings will be from 83 -96 dBA, from 18 to 21 decibels over the desired threshold of 65dBA (chart, p.5.10- 45), and this can go on for" up to 4 months" (same page as above, last para). At minimum, it seems a reasonable requirement that the affected people in Phase 1 residences be assured of some serious evaluation of sound barriers, sound walls or some protection for them and their hearing. This project seems like too much and for too long. UTILITIES This is one of the feel good parts of the DEIR, in that the consumption of all the utility sources will dramatically decrease when both Phases, 1& 2,are completed.Most notably, the water consumption is estimated to drop by a whopping 85%, from the Tower -Jazz and Half Dome buildings current rate of 1,400,000 gallons of water EACH DAY to a predicted consumption of just over 200,000 gallons each day upon project completion and occupancy. What is going on at those two buildings that uses so much water, one may well ask. 12 -3 coma 12 -4 12 -5 Page 2 -122 •The Planning Center I DC &E Februai), 2013 2. Response to Comments 12. Response to Comments from Bruce Asper, dated September 2012. 12 -1 Comment acknowledged. 12 -2 In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Uptown Newport DEIR is a public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage, and to identify alternatives to the project (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15002, General Concepts). The analysis is appropriately objective, and technical as needed, to accurately analyze the potential project's environmental impacts. The Uptown Newport noise analysis specifically addressed potential noise and vibration impacts to the UCI Child Care Development Center. Because vibration diminishes rapidly with distance, vibration levels at the UCI Child Development Center would be less than significant (see DEIR Tables 5 -10 -16 and 5.10 -17). The anticipated noise impacts during construction are shown in DEIR Tables 5.10 -19 to 5.10 -22. Construction noise would generally be overshadowed by traffic noise on Jamboree Road and would be less than significant at the UCI Child Development Center. Long -term project - related traffic noise would also be less than significant. 12 -3 In accordance with CEQA, the noise analysis includes an evaluation of the existing noise environment, and quantitatively analyzes the project's impacts in comparison /� to existing conditions. The noise analysis evaluates both construction - related `,� ) impacts and long -term impacts for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 project conditions. C The impacts are compared to objective thresholds of significance (regulations, standards, and policies) as detailed under DEIR Section 5.10.2, Thresholds of Significance, page 5.10 -18. The noise increase from project - related traffic for Phase 1 and Phase 2 is provided in Tables 5.10 -11 and 5.10 -12, respectively. The methodology used to project future noise levels is described on page 5.10 -22. As shown for all the roadway segments analyzed, the increase in noise levels would be less than 0.2 dB. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear (i.e., a person with no hearing deficiencies) can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, either increase or decrease. A doubling in traffic would be required to increase noise levels by 3dBA. The project would generate far less traffic than the existing traffic volumes on study area roads. 12 -4 As described on DEIR page 5.10 -46, Phase 2 construction would result in high noise levels at the residential units built during project Phase 1. Due to the length of construction activities and the noise level, these impacts would be significant. Mitigation Measures 10 -9 to 10 -12 (see DEIR page 5.10 -56) would reduce construction noise impacts. However, due to the residential building heights, sound walls would not be effective for receptors at the second floor and above. Because some of the Phase 1 residential areas would overlook the Phase 2 construction area, these uses would be exposed to elevated noise levels during construction activities. This would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact that would cease once Phase 2 construction is completed. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -123 2. Response to Comments 12 -5 DER Table 5.15 -11, Project Water Demand: Phase 2 and Project Buildout, details the project site water demand at project buildout in comparison to existing conditions. The existing TowerJazz semiconductor manufacturing process is extremely water intensive. The proposed project, therefore, would result in a substantial reduction in water demand. Page 2 -124 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 13 — Debbie Stevens (4 pages) Debbie Stevens 1120 Sea Lane Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 October 23, 2012 Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 SUBJECT: Comments on Uptown Newport Draft EIR Dear Mr. Alford: I have reviewed tine Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Uptown Newport Project. My comments on the Draft EIR are summarized below. COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE DRAFT EIR • There are a number of references used in the Draft EIR that are not defined or I Ill included in Chapter 13 - Bibliography. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Page 3 -2: The terms "additive," "replacement," and "density bonus' in Table 3 -1 13-2 should be defined and explained how they apply to the project. AIR QUALITY • There are a number of references used in the air quality section. None of them are defined or included in Chapter 13 - Bibliography. Examples include: WRCC 2012, SCAQMD 2005; Caltrans 1997, CARB 2011, BAAQMD 2011, and SCAQMD 2012. • The existing facility emissions should be included as part of the environmental setting discussion. • The reference to SCAQMD, 2005 looks like an old reference, but the information cannot be verified without knowing the source. • Page 5.2-2, Last paragraph The statement is made that "Adverse effects on hnunan health are not caused directly by VOCs ..." This statement is not true as some VOCs are toxic air contaminants. The statement should be revised. • Page 5.2-7, first paragraph. The section on Air Quality Management Planning should be updated to reflect that the SCAQMD has prepared and published the 2012 AQMP. • Pages 5.2 -13 through 5.2 -23. The emission calculations for the proposed project were developed using CALEEMod. This model is based on EMFAC2007 13-3 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -125 �� 2. Response to Comments P. Alford October 23, 2012 Page 2 emission factors and does not use the latest EMFAC201 I emission factors. Further, it virtually impossible to verify the model input assumptions and output data with the information provided in the impact tables. • Page 52 -22 and 5.2 -23, Tables 5.2 -13 and 52 -14. The units of the numbers in the tables should be provided and the LST significance thresholds should be identified. • Page 52 -24, CO Hotspot Analysis. It appears that a BAAQMD screening threshold has been used, although hard to verify because the reference is not identified ( BAAQMD 2011). Justification for the use of a BAAQMD screening threshold in Newport Beach should be provided. • Page 5.2 -24, Impact 5.2 -6. It does not appear that diesel particulate matter was included in the HRA summarized in Table 52 -15. • Page 5.2 -25, Table 5.2 -15. It appears that the ISCST3 model was used to estimate health risks. The most recent air quality model for preparation of HRAS is AERMOD. • Page 5.2 -31, Table 52 -17. The SCAQMD significance thresholds should be included in the table. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 5.7 -15, Thresholds of Significance. The thresholds identified in this section were not used to evaluate hazard impacts. Other thresholds were used including a risk threshold of 1.0E -06 (see Table 5.7 -3), and ERPG -2 toxic endpoints (see page 5.7 -25). Page 5.7 -13, page 5.7 -18. A number of the conclusions in Table 5.7 -3 are incorrect. Vapor intrusion cancer risk identified as "Slab - Maximum," "Garage - 95% UCL," and "Garage - Maximum," range from 1.42E -06 to 8.78E -06, all of which exceed the threshold of LOE -06. Therefore, development and occupancy of Phase 1 of the project would expose future residents to substantial hazards from soil vapors originating from soil and groundwater contamination under the Phase 2 portion of the project site. These impacts should be considered significant. Page 5.7 -33, Section 5.7.7 - Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures for extremely hazardous materials should not be limited to anhydrous ammonia but should also include boron trichloride, chlorine, hydrofluoric acid, and sulfuric acid. The presence of extremely hazardous materials in close proximity to residential areas is a concern. The offsite consequence modeling completed used RMP *Comp and claimed that worst -case scenarios were used along with alternative scenarios. It should be noted that the RMP *Comp uses default assumptions. Site specific, container specific or chemical specific assumptions are not required to be used for all RMP *Comp assumptions. For example, RMP *Comp assumes that all releases take 10 minutes. This assumption actually underestimates the releases of gases from pressurized vessels as a release from a tank or cylinder failure would likely release its contents in much less time and 13 -3 conrd 13 -4 Page 2 -126 •The Planning Center I DC &E Februai)r 2013 2. Response to Comments P. Alford October 23, 2012 Page 3 result in higher concentrations than modeled, as would be the case with chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, and boron trichloride. The Hazard Assessment (see Appendix 14) indicates that an alternative release scenario was completed for chlorine assuming as release from a restrictive flow orifice of 0.03 inch, which does not seem to be a release. The alternative release scenario for anhydrous ammonia assumes a release of I minute only and assumes that mitigation systems, e.g., water spray system, would operate immediately reducing an ammonia release by 90 percent and limiting the distance to the toxic endpoint of 200 ppm to 192 feet. The analysis should have taken response time into consideration It seems highly unlikely that a release would occur, be detected immediately, the spray system would be operational, and the release would stop all within 60 seconds. Instead there is usually some type of response time, generally 2 -5 minutes BEFORE a release is detected and then some short delay before the mitigation measures (e.g., water spray system) start operating. The alternative scenarios modeled for boron tdchloride and chlorine also assumed a 1 minute release. The alternative release scenarios should be re- modeled using more realistic operating assumptions to detennine an appropriate minimum distance for residential areas to be located. Residents of Phase I should be informed of the presence of extremely hazardous materials in the Towerdazz facility. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT • Page 7 -5, Optional Phasing Alternative. It does not make sense to assume that residences would be built and remain vacant. Rather it would make sense to assume that construction of the residences would be delayed until 2015 or 2016 and could then be occupied in 2017, after the closure of the TowerJazz operation. • Page 7 -10, third paragraph, last sentence should be revised as follows: However, since no significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts occur under the proposed project, no significant impacts would be avoided. • Page 7 -14, Table 7 -3. Are the utilities /service system uses identified in Table 7 -3 under No Project Alternative based on the existing (current) use at the site (e.g., existing water /electricity/natural gas use at the site)? • Page 7 -16, Table 7 -4. There is a typo in the second to last lines of the table (e.g, 9.033 should be 9,033. • General comment. The alternatives analysis evaluates a Reduced Density Alternative (561 dwelling units) and compared it to the proposed project (1,244 dwelling units). It was concluded that the Reduced Density Alternative would achieve all project objectives, except providing a reasonable return on investment. It was concluded or implied in the Draft EIR that the proposed project would provide a reasonable return on investment. Therefore, there are some alternatives between 561 dwelling units and 1,244 dwelling units that should be evaluated that would provide a reasonable return on investment and achieve all project objectives. What defines a "reasonable return on investment' should be defined. 13 -4 mrdd 13.5 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -127 �� 2. Response to Comments P. Alford October 23, 2012 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, &LWL & 0 r Debbie Bright Stevens Page 2 -128 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 13. Response to Comments from Debbie Stevens dated October 23, 2012. 13 -1 DEIR Chapter 13, Bibliography, has been supplemented to include the missing references. The updated chapter is included at the end of Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. The added references are shown in underlined format. 13 -2 DEIR Table 3 -1, ICDP Unit Allocation Summary, is reproduced directly from the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The explanation of the calculation of allowable units on the Uptown Newport site is included on DEIR page 3 -2 in the paragraph preceding Table 3 -1. Following is a basic definition of the terms as requested: Replacement Units: these units replace existing land uses. The City used a conversion process based on equivalent traffic trips by land use to convert square footages of existing onsite uses (office, commercial, and industrial uses) to equivalent housing units. The conversion factors and the application to Airport Area properties converting to residential use is documented in "Airport Area Residential & Mixed -Use Adjustment Factors for Traffic Analyses in Newport Beach," prepared by Richard M. Edmonston, PE, and dated March 10, 2009. • Additive Units: 550 units within the MU -H2 designated area in the Airport Area are allowed to be developed pursuant to the City's general plan (see DEIR, page 3 -1). These units were designated additional infill units. In the ICDP, these units are classified "additive" units and do not replace any existing uses. • Density Bonus: to help meet the City's housing element goals, the ICDP allocates up to 322 units on the maximum 35 percent allowance pursuant to City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and government code for the Uptown Newport site (e.g., Conexant property) Also refer to DEIR Table 5.9 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, under Policy LU 6.15.5, Residential and Support Uses, on pages 5.9 through 15 -16, for description of dwelling- unit - allocation General Plan consistency and calculation methodology. 13 -3 References: The following air quality references have been added to the DEIR (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Western Reaional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Newport Beach Harbor Monitoring Station (ID No. 046175). http : / /www.wrcc.dri.edu /summary/Climsmsca.htmi. Accessed 2012. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2005, May. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997, December. Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. UCD- ITS- RR- 97 -21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies. University of California. Davis. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. June 23. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. htti):// www .arb.ca.aov /desio /adm /adm.htm. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -129 co 2. Response to Comments Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011 (revised). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk Map. http: / /www3.agmd.00v /webappl /matesiii/ Accessed 2012. Existing Facility Emissions: Although the environmental setting discussion does not describe the emissions currently generated by the Half Dome Building and the TowerJazz facility, existing facility emissions are described under DEIR Impact 5.2 -3, and emissions from the Half Dome Building and TowerJazz facility are shown in Tables 5.2 -10 and -11, respectively. SCAQMD 2005 Reference Is Old: The reference is current; it is used to provide a general description of air quality pollutants of concern identified in SCAQMD's guidance document for addressing air quality issues in planning. SCAQMD has not revised this guidance document. VOCs: Page 5.2 -2 of the EIR has been revised as follows in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR: Although based standards standards have not been established for VOCs, health effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations of VOCs. Some hydrocarbon components classified as VOC emissions are hazardous air pollutants. Benzene, for example, is a hydrocarbon component of VOC emissions that is known to be a human carcinogen (SCAQMD 2005). Draft 2012 AQMP: At the time of preparation of the air quality analysis, SCAQMD had not yet released the Draft 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Since release of the DEIR, the Draft 2012 AQMP has been released (mid - July), but has not yet been adopted. A discussion of the Draft 2012 AQMP has been added to page 5.2 -7 in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR: On July 18. 2012. the SCAQMD released the Draft 2012 AQMP, which employs the most up -to -date science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on -road and off -road mobile sources, and area sources. The Draft Plan also addresses several state and federal planning requirements, incorporating new scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and new meteorological air quality models. The Draft 2012 AQMP builds upon the approach identified in the 2007 AQMP for attainment of federal PM and ozone standards. It highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to engage in interagency coordinated planning to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources, to meet all federal criteria air pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal CAA. The Draft 2012 AQMP demonstrates attainment of federal 24 -hour PM., standard by 2014 and the federal 8 -hour ozone standard by 2023. The Draft 2012 AQMP includes an update to the revised EPA 8 -hour ozone control plan with new commitments for Page 2 -130 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments short-term NO. and VOC reductions. The plan also identifies emerging issues of ultrafine (PM ,,,) particulate matter and near - roadway exposure and includes an analysis of energy supply and demand. EMFAC2011: Appendix C provides assumptions used in air quality modeling. The CaIEEMod program uses the EMFAC2007 plus the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) post - processor for Pavley + Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS). The next version of CaIEEMod will have the EMFAC2011 emissions factors integrated with the model (anticipated late 2012). CaIEEMod is a SCAQMD- accepted modeling tool for calculating air quality and greenhouse gas emissions of a project. Table Units: The measurement units (pounds per day) have been added in Tables 5.2 -13, 5.2 -14, and 5.2 -17 in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. The LST significance thresholds are already identified in the tables (e.g., SCAQMD LST Phase 1 and SCAQMD LST Phase 1+2). CO Hotspot: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines (revised 2011) were not used as screening thresholds for the proposed project. However, BAAQMD's guidance document (see Appendix D of BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines) was used as additional evidence that unless a typical roadway intersection experiences volumes of over 44,000 vehicles per hour, the concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) would not exceed the California ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, the discussion on CO hotspots explains that, prior to being designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as in attainment of CO in 2003, SCAQMD's 1992 Federal Attainment Plan identified that peak carbon monoxide concentrations in 1992 were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. As described in the EIR, the proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot; therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed project. DPM: Diesel particulate matter (DPM) was included in the health risk assessment (HRA), which is provided in DEIR Appendix D. DEIR Table 5.2 -15, Health Risk Assessment, provides a summary of the excess cancer risk and noncancer hazards, which include the impact of DPM as well as other TACs. Six of the nine facilities that emit TACs within a 1,000 400t radius of the site have emergency diesel generators and were evaluated for DPM. In addition, DPM emissions from TowerJazz included heavy duty trucks making 16 deliveries per day. ISCST3 v. AERMOD: While the EPA now recommends the use of AERMOD for air dispersion modeling, the SCAQMD approves the use of either ISCST3 or AERMOD for health risk assessments. Studies conducted by SCAQMD indicate that in urban environments, the results from ISCST3 or AERMOD show no significant differences. SCAQMD Significance Thresholds in Table: The line in DEIR Table 5.2 -17 called "SCAQMD LST Phase 2 & Overlap of Phase 1 + Phase 2" is the localized significance threshold. Table 5.2 -17 compares "Maximum Daily Emissions 2018" to the "SCAQMD LST Phase 2 & Overlap of Phase 1 + Phase 2" to determine if the project, with mitigation, would result in substantial concentrations of air pollutants at Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -131 co 2. Response to Comments sensitive receptors near the site during construction. As identified in the DEIR, Impact 5.2 -4 would be less than significant with mitigation. 13 -4 Threshold of Significance. The thresholds of significance shown on DEIR page 5.7- 15 are the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds. They do not provide a quantified threshold to evaluate the significance of a potential hazard (e.g., thresholds H -1 and H -2 are not defined beyond `create a significant hazard "). The impact analysis in Section 5.7.3, Environmental Impacts, defines and references the quantified thresholds applied to refine the Appendix G thresholds and make the significance conclusions. Vapor Intrusion. The risk /hazard threshold for subsurface parking garages was incorrectly transferred from the technical report to the summary table in the DEIR, Table 5.7 -3. The cancer risk threshold has been corrected from 1.0E -06 to 3.0E -06, below (also in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR): Table 5.7 -3 Risk Assessment Results and Conclusions: Assessment of Vapor Intrusion Risks for Future Residents of Phase 1 Risk /Hazard: Exposure Concentration Sampling Depth Assessed Risk /Hazard Conclusion Scenario Assessed 15 feet 1 10 feet 1 5 feet Threshold (Risk) Slab 95% UCL 3.69E -07 5.32E -07 9.56E -07 1.0E -06 Acceptable Slab Maximum 1.42E -06 2.01E -06 3.61E -06 1.91i 964.0E -06 Acceptable Garage 95% UCL 8.96E -07 2.34E -06 2.34E -06 1.91i 06r3.OE -06 Acceptable Garage Maximum 4.24E -06 8.78E -6 8.78E -6 1.91i 961.OE -05 Acceptable Noncarcinogenic Health Hazard Slab 95116 UCL 2.00E -2 2.89E -03 5.25E -03 1 Acceptable Slab Maximum 7.49E -03 1.73E -02 3.16E -02 1 Acceptable Garage 95 %UCL 4.97E -3 1.32E -2 1.31E -2 1 Acceptable Garage Maximum 2.78E -02 7.27E -02 7.27E -02 1 Acceptable The risk conclusions in the table (acceptable) are correct. Future residents of Phase 1 would not be exposed to substantial hazards from soil vapors from soil and groundwater contamination under the Phase 2 portion of the site, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is proposed for the anhydrous ammonia tank because it is the only extremely hazardous chemical used at TowerJazz that poses a potential risk to Phase 1 residents, based on the results of the "Off -Site Consequence Analysis" presented in DEIR Appendix H. The other chemicals stored at the facility (boron trichloride, chlorine, hydrofluoric acid, and sulfuric acid) are already equipped with the multiple safety measures recommended for a new anhydrous ammonia tank, including automatic shut -off valves, restrictive flow valves, toxic gas detection system, alarms, and double containment piping. RMP *Comp Modeling. The RMP *Comp screening model was used to determine worst -case scenarios, as requested by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Page 2 -132 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments However, this model uses simplistic assumptions and default parameters and does not have the capability to incorporate site - specific conditions. The commenter is correct that RMP *Comp assumes all releases take place over a period of 10 minutes. However, the model assumes that the entire contents of the largest onsite storage tank or vessel is released over that 10- minute period (e.g., 1,000 lb tank /10 min = release rate of 100 lb/min). Although RMP *Comp is a simplistic screening tool, its results are conservative for determining worst -case scenarios because it assumes the entire contents of the tank are released over a relatively short period of time and form an instantaneous toxic vapor cloud that travels directly to the receptor during nighttime conditions (low wind speeds), not considering wind direction. The commenter is correct in stating that the release of gases from pressurized vessels may occur over a shorter period of time and is concerned that the modeled results are not conservative. The ALOHA model, which was used to model the alternative scenarios, does take into account the higher initial instantaneous flow rate for a pressurized vessel in calculating the release rate and the resultant toxic vapor cloud. It should be noted that though the initial instantaneous flow rate is higher than the RMP *Comp release rate, the pressure and flow rate decrease rapidly as the release occurs under choked flow conditions. As a comparison between RMP *Comp and ALOHA, a hypothetical release scenario was assumed for a 1,000 -lb anhydrous ammonia tank at a pressure of 90 psig. The RMP *Comp results for the worst -case scenario show a toxic endpoint of 0.2 mile, whereas the ALOHA distance for a release from a one -inch hole in the tank extends to only 234 feet. This is because as the pressure in the tank equalizes with the outside atmospheric pressure, the vapor flow from the tank stops. These results show that the RMP *Comp worst -case scenarios are conservative. The alternative release scenarios also were conservative because the calculated initial instantaneous release rate entered into the ALOHA model was assumed to occur during the entire release period, and no credit was taken for a reduction in the release rate over time. Chlorine Release Scenario. The chlorine cylinders are equipped with a restrictive flow orifice to limit the potential danger of an uncontrolled release from a compressed gas cylinder. It is threaded onto the outlet of the cylinder so it is an integral part of the unit. The maximum flow rate from a cylinder during normal operating conditions is therefore limited to the flow through this 0.03 -inch opening. For the alternative release scenario, it was assumed that both walls of the double containment piping connected to the chlorine cylinder completely ruptured, resulting in flow from the cylinder. Since the release scenario flow rate could never exceed the normal operating flow rate through the restricted flow orifice, this flow rate was used for the alternative release scenario. Alternative Release Scenario Durations. The alternative release scenario may consider "active" mitigation such as automatic shut -off valves, excess flow valves, and containment with scrubbers. The ammonia storage tank is equipped with excess flow valves that automatically close when the flow rate from the tank exceeds a specified amount. The leak detection systems for the boron trichloride and chlorine cylinders consist of gas sensors at the storage cabinets. When the gas concentration exceeds a specified amount, these are set to activate audible and Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -133 co 2. Response to Comments visual alarms, which in turn activate the automatic shut -off valves. In addition, the chlorine cylinders have restrictive flow orifices so that a very low flow rate can never be exceeded, even under normal operating conditions. The EPA and CaIARP guidance indicate that a release duration of one minute is appropriate for automatic responses, i.e., where the release is detected and a valve is closed automatically without human intervention, or where the device is "intrinsically automatic." This is the case with the extremely hazardous substances stored at TowerJazz. No human intervention is required to activate the safety measures, and therefore an alternative release duration of one minute is appropriate. Disclosure. DEIR Mitigation Measure 7 -3, page 5.7 -34, requires that Phase 1 Uptown Newport residences be notified of the hazardous chemicals used and stored at the adjacent TowerJazz facility. 13 -5 Page 7 -5, Optional Phasing Alternative. Redefining the optional phasing alternative to delay Phase 1 construction a couple of years would not alter the primary conclusions of this alternative. As with the DEIR- defined alternative, Phase 1 residents would not be exposed to operational impacts associated with TowerJazz, but would still be subject to the impacts associated with Phase 2 TowerJazz demolition and construction. Although the Phase 1 units would not remain vacant (as defined in the DEIR alternative) and associated impacts such as property vandalism could be avoided, the applicant's return on investment would be substantially postponed in comparison to the proposed project. Moreover, the significant, unavoidable impacts of demolition and construction - related impacts associated with the proposed project would not be avoided. Page 7 -10, GHG Revision. The requested change has been made and is included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Page 7 -14, Table 7 -3. The No Project alternative is defined as the existing conditions at the project site at the time the proposed project environmental review was initiated. Page 7 -16, Table 7 -4. The referenced typographical error has been corrected. Please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Reasonable Return on Investment: As summarized in the bullet list on DEIR page 7- 1, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, Purpose and Scope, 'The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a 'rule of reason' that require the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1 ]). The 561 -unit development analyzed as the Reduced Density project represented the fewest number of units that could still be consistent with the City's general plan and ICDP for the project site. This was based on the rationale that the fewest number of units would have the greatest potential to reduce environmental impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Although the alternative would reduce some environmental impacts (expose fewer Phase 1 residents to TowerJazz operational impacts), it would not eliminate any of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. Although an alternative with an increased number of units Page 2 -134 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments (between 561 and 1,244) could attain more of the project objectives than the Reduced Density alternative, it would not substantially reduce any impacts and would not eliminate any significant, unavoidable impacts. Moreover, it would be less effective in achieving the objectives of the City's general plan and ICDP, including affordable housing goals. The project alternatives as analyzed in the EIR comply with the CEQA requirement to provide a reasonable range of alternatives. co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -135 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -136 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 14 — Whitney Allen (1 page) October 23, 2012 RE: Uptown Newoort Plan & EIR Objections Planning Study Session, October 4, 2012 Dear Planning Commission, I do not oppose the Uptown Newport project, I am an advocate for low income housing and I look forward to a well planned Uptown Newport that Is sustainably beneficial to the region. lam passionate about the planningsystem within our local government and I have concerns with poorly planned projects that can negatively Impact the City and region. The Uptown Newport project that was presented to the Commission on October 4, 2012 lacked the vitality to become an asset 14.1 to the community and risks becoming an attractive public nuisance if llie Planning Commission does not take action. The Isolated high rise housing project Is located In an office park, cutoff from vital resources. As 21" century planners we should have learned from our history- NOT to build high -rise projects on Islands completely cutoff from resources such as schools, grocery stares, and daily amenities. We should be building scattered -site housing that seamlessly blends with local values. This Is not an Intelligent way to meet RHNA allocations. This project is piecemeal planning- rather than looking at the entire picture (the entire Idea behind city planning). this is accommodating developers and tweaking plans to meet state /regional allocations. Newport Beach Is a world - renowned City with high quality planners that have the. power to learn from other's mistakes and protect their City from poor planning. Irvine condos just down the street stand empty because high -rise condos are not appealing to the local market- built and assessed just a few years ago they are now worth half what they were when constructed. This Is not a mixed use project; It Is high -rise residential units placed within an Airport Area office park. Living in the Airport Area is not ideal for residents; It is a prime location for businesses- the economic engines that create local jobs that will unfortunately be pushed out of the City by the forces pushing these plans through. I am not a resident of Newport Beach; I work here. I work In an office with coworkers who share my concerns. My coworkers and I will all be affected by the increase in traffic, pollution, nolse, and shadows of 13 story high -rises during and after construction. 14-2 This project reflects planning that Is detrimental to Newport economy. The businesses in the Airport Area of Newport Beach are the economic engines that power the City, driving companies out to prioritize housing hurts the City in the long run. Replacing income generating businesses with residential units will 14-3 increase the tax burdens on residents. Newport Beach Is fortunate to be home to many large companies located in Airport Area. the City benefits from tax revenues and job creation they provide. Projects like this shov., a lack of concern for local businesses and Influence companies to move to adjacent areas in Irvine. The EIR Insufficiently addresses the project's Impacts an the surrounding area. The EIR does not address the adverse Impacts on surrounding office parks, companies or their employees that will directly Impacted by this project. It inadequately addresses traffic on the streets surrounding the site after construction is complete. 14.4 and does not address the burden on surrounding parking lots that will have access to the under - parked project. Newport Beach does not have shade /shadow restrictions; this project places thirteen story high -rises directly adjacent to one story offices. This is not a sustainable development. With this project the City will he trading in the long term businesses that are the vital backbone to the community- In 14-5 exchange for short term rewards that will burden the City's residents and plague the City with another attract public nuisance. Thank you for your consideration of these Issues. Sincerely, Whitney Allen Airport Area Employee Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -137 �� 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -138 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 14. Response to Comments from Whitney Allen, dated October 4, 2012. 14 -1 Comment acknowledged. 14 -2 The Uptown Newport project has been designed to be consistent with the City's general plan and Integrated Conceptual Design Plan ()CDP) for the property and adjacent Koll Center site. Moreover, the project is consistent with the numerous planning goals and objectives in the general plan and detailed in DEIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning (see Table 5.9 -1, General Plan Consistency). The project does not represent piecemeal planning. The commenter's concern about the market demand for the project and potential loss of Airport Area businesses will be forwarded to decision makers. Economic issues that do not result in direct or indirect physical environmental impacts are not within the realm of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commenter's concern regarding Airport Area office worker exposure to project - related traffic, pollution, and noise and shadow impacts is acknowledged. Please refer to Responses to letter 01, John Adams and Associates. Also note that long- term air - quality impacts would be less than significant, and toxic air emissions associated with the existing TowerJazz facility would be eliminated, resulting in a net benefit to receptors in the project vicinity. 14 -3 The commenter has not provided any substantiation for the assertion that existing businesses in the Airport Area would be driven out by the proposed project or that the implementation of Uptown Newport would increase tax burdens on local residents. Moreover, such economic issues are not within the realm of environmental review under CEQA unless they would result in direct or indirect physical environmental impacts. 14 -4 Please refer to responses to comment letter 01 regarding potential project - related traffic and shade /shadow impacts on surrounding office uses. Please refer to Response 02 -4 regarding potential parking - related impacts. 14 -5 Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Response 14 -3. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -139 co 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -140 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 15 — Roger Stone (1 page) From: Roger Stone Imailto: Roaers0smneins.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:35 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Shopoff proposed developement I am writing to you to communicate my huge concern over the proposed developmentof the land just south of Birch and east of Jamboree, known as the " Shopoff project". I am one of the KCN Building owners and was informed that there is a good chance this development will be given a green light if not apposed. I actually like the idea of a nicer development replacing the Jazz building/parking lot. With the proper are, it would boost the area. But, From what I understand , there will be over 1,200 units of housing built in this IoC I drive down jamboree to get to my office each day on Birch and Van Karmon. It gets pretty busy each morning and even worse between the hours of 4and 6pm when I drive home. If there were 8,000 more ars on the road during those times, it would be a real crunch for most of us. Without any meaningful path for the reduction in cars during the rush hours, we will all be sitting for awhile. Not good for air quality and not good for our nerves and sooner or later will detract from the leasing and employment potential for our area. 8,000 additional units on the road spread out over 4 hours is 2,000 units per hour additional traffic in this heavy traffic area as itis, It's going to create areal problem. Maybe an additional lane on each side of Maarthur, Jamboree, birch and Von Karmon may help. I think adding 2,000 cars on the road may be livable, but 8,000 will kill the commerce around here. I suggest that we're think this project and make sure it allows for the commerce already here and doesn't back us up into a nightmarish driving situation. Poorer Stone / President Lcaer Stone Insurance Aeenci, Sots tfirch Street Newport [+each, ca. 9x" an afflliate et Pacific Interstate Insurance Grehers www.roeerstoneinsurance.com ph. 949. 265.4179 fax 949. 757.0375 15-1 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach a Page 2-141 50 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -142 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 15. Response to Comments from Roger Stone, dated October 24, 2012. 15 -1 Based on the project- specific traffic analysis prepared for Uptown Newport, the project in conjunction with other cumulative, related projects would not result in any significant traffic impacts (see DEIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic; DEIR Appendix M, Uptown Newport Traffic Impact Analysis; and updated traffic analysis, Appendix E of this FEIR). As described in the DEIR, the proposed development would result in a shift of traffic patterns to and from the site. The existing office and industrial site uses have a heavier traffic flow toward the project site in the morning, and a heavier traffic flow away from the site in the afternoon. The proposed project would have the reverse traffic pattern. The results of the analysis show that though there would be increases in delay at some intersections related to project traffic, these increases would not exceed the significance criteria established by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The level of service at some intersections would experience a net benefit. Please also refer to Responses 01 -2 and 01 -3. No traffic mitigation or improvements would be required. The project would not result in long -term significant air quality impacts and, upon closure of the TowerJazz industrial facility, would result in a net benefit to air quality. co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -143 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -144 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments LETTER 16 — James B. Hasty (1 page) From: Jim Hasty ImailtodHastyPmevercrop.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 2:25 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Cc: Denise Bennett Subject: Uptown Newport EIR Dear Rosalinh: I don't know if you recall assisting me when I was trying to understand what PRES was planning on the property next to ours. I'm currently out of the country and just learned comments on the Uptown Newport EIR are due today. Based upon my initial review I recall the EIR was deficient in addressing adverse impacts that could not be mitigated, in failing to provide the assumptions supporting their conclusion that a lower density project was not feasible, their traffic conclusions were factually untenable, they failed to fully address the magnitude of the construction noise impacts and completely ignored permanent noise and air quality impacts and the impacts on fire, police and schools were primarily ignored. In short, the Daft EIR was inadequate, incomplete and unsatisfactory. I'll be happy to provide you a letter to this effect upon my return should you request one. Thank you in advance for our company's comments. Sincerely, Meyer Properties James B. Hasty Senior Vice President Sent from my Wad 16 -1 Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2-145 15� 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -146 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 2. Response to Comments 16. Response to Comments from James B. Hasty, dated October 24, 2012. 18 -1 Comments acknowledged. Please refer to Response 13 -5 regarding the feasibility of a lower density residential alternative. Please refer to Response 01 -2 regarding traffic impacts and the DEIR's conclusions that impacts are less than significant. Contrary to the assertion in this comment, the DEIR fully analyzes long -term air quality, noise, fire, police, and school impacts (see respective DEIR topical Sections 5.2, Air Quality; 5.10, Noise and Vibration; and 5.12, Public Services). For each topic, project- specific impacts are analyzed for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 (buildout) conditions, as well as for cumulative project conditions. co Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2-147 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -148 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information and figures required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) minor updates to the project description and related analyses; (3) updated traffic modeling results; (4) applicable updated information not available at the time of DEIR publication; and /or (5) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions disclosed in the DEIR. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in StFi eewt tee to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DEIR Pages 1 -14 and 1 -15, Table 1 -1, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, Chapter 1, Executive Summary. The following text has been �, modified in response to Comment A10 -3 from Ian MacMillan of the South Coast Air Quality a Management District. `o Table 1 -1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis in this DEIR. Table 1 -1 presents a summary of the environmental impacts of the Modified Project (see FEIR Section 3.3, Updates to the Project Description, regarding project changes since DEIR), mitigation measures that reduce potential significant impacts of the proposed project and the level of significance of each significant impact after implementation of mitigation. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 �G W N y . y N n M c O Of M d V A W G y O J a R d t ~ O A OI M E c d G W i A E CO) m tl a, • 0 z 0 y V W w 0 z 11 N m �a m y A o _ ct > a wg o � a y w o =A m° co °' v m° c n y E" >, � °' U a E w y° L-' ° N aEi m y tv VJ O to m L C VI L N° d C U E' T m e c« ° L o c a m y 0 v o w o d o m_ of ° «� E O :� o o c a A io U x m o c a E 'c ° (n c `° c v c E c o CO °' a ° E m a -> °i tO •n d o m °' c a� o� m o o °a m A' c> mm 2 o c C T L 1 A L tmn ' E CJ C to _ .- (") O m U O O m Q NY N C y A C A L -mommy LC�Cf°nm� CTI nr E 'tOO E d a a? = �°n ° v E `° a `o ° w E poi m c w> S Q 'a Z id s `- m H R .m. > F ti y a`> y L �e Q > o c > -° m t L a• is -.=2o a n L E c (n m o m m r o is vi w m U r E. w n z N � O 6i to t0 U tC d U O .c OI w m° a C N C •� O tC o 0.- �� dfn m0'Um O C U c y w J a L m O E a U p m 3 L m m a 'E naxi y�fn � a� o o E.- o E ca amy °_pu C E> > w>.y ° « vi W o a y E L 7 m E E p �o 5 c N « A N N c° C m w O ui u'i o>>i cn0 3 �U m tl a, • 0 z 0 y V W w 0 z 11 ' N ' N U M c O Of M L d d O A v C y O J a d L A 1� G O A OI !Y C M �0 E G d C O G W r O i R E CO) M ti O N W VW7 V a H • M a N m c o a t v cCOi io vyi "� a OI.Zz ° J Vl wg o � �a 6J m N iv o f `m c y 'p w a� m �E y m L L a � C w O .rL. O y U O U � � N N N N N V C V L� C y O y U N p U p n N U] d C c a> E ° .E O L � A m y op A 2 m y a o E2 3 t°E :� n ai o •� w p E y b .- c n c E >, tE °`� c d m c N L OJ N t0 O E H Z tOC 'O O. => = ! r` O. E Nth E tE O 'C > j 0 O.y C p' L C tC o v L E N N O � o y U T'O n y Z d 0 C y O a iE D. N O O mo y to 2 o°.c O •' iE m iE iE v Y y y o t y A °� � m ° E `A c E ' N~ tL 4l in U E t0 N N. O) E y N n N m ie O° E N C 0 C CH O O •O L al _$ d U y O aCi A p r �i O tC N U L 4j A N C y y C y E m m can E "S vi a�i voiv �U �vti 12 O_��'Y `a °ECa�� _ =Ev >tOa`o R F. ns O E u c • • • • 00 c7 L V N 1 N 0 V C14 O O c O T C U C 61 y C Z 2 V� ct t C O x y` O E t�ll y V U N 20 v a om w E. o'E � U N O C c ° 3 c a> aCi '°E 3"0 E c o r n ° O i y X � n U �i U to O v M ti O N W VW7 V a H • M a �G W N y . y c O Of M d d V A O W y O J a d t A 1� G O Y !Y C M �0 Q c m c 0 S c W O i R E CO) tl a, • z 0 y v ti W w 0 z 5 N as iz o � 9!a a O � O Q O d Y ^"' N 0 tC .'NC O LVl w E O¢ U td O co °' cod�N co cmA oa 4`m i�My caE oA d> 42 id 'CJ r CJ YO O O L d V O O N 23 c E w y o> c c 22 0 - oaEp ococ� c =�' 3od o¢ o� NL - y tO tC o� L n t0 O -� c � j o U c � v,m E _ a .0 C o L 'U E ° o n � AZI td C p r oi?�2EEL.. tJ C N L j 12 VI U 2Ecmoo6�'°'na�°o VJ in On 'O E O p tO ¢> Y a GJ 1 c o c cp�o 0 ?o0 2 'ow -6' Uro Yn ° mac mviiy��'mE .c�m3 ENDm O y p L tK -O f0 L i0 p L C c N p �O CUJ ry p t O 2 L N [O (¢C o fm w o L E CJ N E p p c N r d o c s o N v N % 'a 1 Q 4 O� 'w o co Q E E e 0 W tl a, • z 0 y v ti W w 0 z 5 N 0 5 O ' N ' N a N U M c O Of M m O A w y O J a d t A ~ O w A O) C M �0 Q c m c 0 S W O i R E CO) M ti O N s w q U n a h • i M m a N a iz o � �a a m d ca n> t p y N Y C C — O L y L c L'S E Id Of 41 O o w a `off A N c o E m EE yon oia Or c °_ mvi y, ry c c m °m ocUyL poE soo Y O U c c p W _ N O R1 = L O O. C '� O. > L V a ~ O N O y� a V �Emo LLO =2 E O Oa '� E U U �mEMo « O y O, Q A Y o o t nV- O w N •— V m w N > �a p-T o O `'j In E cc. so- y cy p we Oi O E E N o O_I iC i] D o> N N 6J N d T O O N U y T N t` L? C YO g c 01 C 2 o a E d 'i R ~° E y o N c° a aEi ,a_i 0 o v W O N �-p j U tOA C y N Z C O O S N C Vl L -mu ci) c c m d�d�aEAd'E_ L =�aE o p ` A YL �a > pEi 0-3 C'aE rr N N v N Q 4 O1 'w o g y co E �o E e O W M ti O N s w q U n a h • i M m a 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Pages 4 -14 to 4 -15, Table 4 -2, Cumulative Projects, Chapter 4, Environmental Setting. The following text has been modified in response to Comments A4 -8 and A4 -9 from Joe Dixon of the Santa Ana Unified School District and Comment A6 -3 from David R. Law of the City of Irvine. Table 4 -2 Cumulative Prr Project Name No. Project Location Proposed Land Use(s) City of Irvine 9 Element Hotel • 5 Residential DUs 17662 Armstrong Avenue • 27 Hotel Rooms 10 Newport Beach County Club 2,048 SF Concierge and Guest Center 1 1600 & 1602 E. Coast Highway' 3,725 SF Tennis Club Irvine Crossing • 7,490 SF SPA 11 17386 Gillette Avenue and 17871 Van Karmen • 54,819 SF Golf Club Avenue • 7 Tennis Courts and a Swimming Pool 2 Mariner's Medical Arts 12,245 SF Medical Office Addition 12 1901 W. Westcliff Drive 90,000 SF Office • 1,375 Residential DUs 3 Banning Ranch 75,000 SF Commercial Retail 4520 W. Coast Highway 75 -Room Hotel Accommodations • 28 Acres of Parks and Open Space 4 Sunset Ridge Park 13.67 Acre Active Park 4850 W. Coast Highway 2 Fields Soccer Complex • 10.45 Acre Public Marina, Beach, and Park 26,990 SF Balboa Center Complex 5 Marina Park 23 Slips Visiting Vessel Marina 1700 Balboa Boulevard 1,328 SF Marina Services Building • 5,500 SF Girl Scout House • 153 Parking Spaces 6 Koll Center 260 Residential DUs 4343 Von Karman Avenue 3,400 SF Commercial 7 AERIE 6 -Unit Condominium with 201 Carnation Avenue' Subterranean Parkin Newport Coast Planned Community 3,180 Single- family DUs 8 Newport Coast Drive 1,298 Condominiums/Townhomes • 582 Multifamily DUs City of Irvine 9 Element Hotel 122 Room Extended Stay Hotel 17662 Armstrong Avenue 10 Diamond Jamboree 25,362 SF Office Southwest comer of Millikan Avenue /Alton Parkway Irvine Crossing 178,500 SF Office 11 17386 Gillette Avenue and 17871 Van Karmen Avenue Central Park 1,380 DUs 12 Northwest corner of Jamboree Road/Michelson Drive 90,000 SF Office • 19,700 SF Retail 13 Metlife 481 DUs 2567 Main Street Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -7 �� 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 4 -2 Cumulative Projects Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine. Notes: DUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet ' Project does not have a net increase in traffic. Page 3 -8 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 Project Name No. Project Location Proposed Land Use(s) 14 Essex 132 DUs 2552 Kelvin Avenue 15 The Lofts 116 DUs 2300 Dupont Drive 16 Avalon 1 280 DUs 2701 Alton Parkway 17 2801 Alton Parkway 178 DUs 18 Plaza III and IV 105 DUs 3000 Scholarship 19 Carlyle 156 DUs 2201 Martin Court 20 Granite Court 71 DUs 17421 Murphy Avenue 21 2801 Kelvin Avenue 248 DUs 22 17352 Von Karmen Avenue 32,066 SF Office • 67,698 SF Warehouse 23 Metropolis 457 DUs 2500 Main Street and Cartwright Road 24 Aloft Extended Stay Hotel 170 Rooms 2320 Main Street 25 HINES 785,000 SF Office 18582 Teller Avenue and 2722 Michelson Drive 15,500 SF Retail • 3,697,770 SF Office 26 Park Place 350,000 SF Retail Northwest comer of Jamboree Road /Michelson Drive 2,008 DUs • 308 Hotel Rooms 27 2851 Alton Parkway 171 DUs 28 Martin Street Residential 82 DUs 18301 Van Karmen Avenue and 2301 Martin Court 29 UCI Long Range Development Plan • Campus Master Plan 30 Irvine Technology Center- Phase 1 1.035 DU Multi - Family North of Campus Drive, West of Jamboree Road . 8.500 SF Retail 31 Scholle Building 107.211 SF Office — Fairchild Road east of Jamboree Road Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine. Notes: DUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet ' Project does not have a net increase in traffic. Page 3 -8 • The Planning Center I DC&E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.2 -2, Section 5.2, Air Quality. The following text has been modified in response to Comment 13 -3 from Debbie Stevens. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse Although health -based standards have not been established for VOCs, health effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations of VOCs. Some hydrocarbon components classified as VOC emissions are hazardous air pollutants. Benzene, for example, is a hydrocarbon component of VOC emissions that is known to be a human carcinogen (SCAQMD 2005). There are no ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of 03, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established a significance threshold for this pollutant (SCAQMD 2005). Page 5.2 -7, Section 5.2, Air Quality. The following text has been modified in response to Comment 13 -3 from Debbie Stevens. On July 18, 2012, SCAQMD released the Draft 2012 AQMP, which employs the most up -to -date science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on -road and off -road mobile sources, and area sources. The Draft Plan also addresses several state and federal planning requirements, incorporating new scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and new 9� meteorological air quality models. The Draft 2012 AQMP builds upon the approach identified in the 2007 t AQMP for attainment of federal PM and ozone standards, and highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to engaa(e in interagency coordinated planning to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources, to meet all federal criteria air pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed under the federal CAA. The Draft 2012 AQMP demonstrates attainment of federal 24 -hour PM .5 standard by 2014 and the federal 8 -hour ozone standard by 2023. The Draft 2012 AQMP includes an update to the revised EPA 8 -hour ozone control plan with new commitments for short-term NO,, and VOC reductions. The plan also identifies emerging issues of ultrafine (PM�I particulate matter and near - roadway exposure and includes an analysis of energy supply and demand. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -9 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.2 -22, Table 5.2 -13, Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions, Phase 1 (Portion), Section 5.2, Air Quality. The following table has been modified in response to Comment 13 -3 from Debbie Stevens. Table 5.2 -13 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions, Phase 1 (Portion) 2014 Onsite Demolition Phase 1 50 26 4.6 2.5 Grading Phase 1 46 21 5.4 3.2 Utilities Phase 1 34 14 1.3 1.3 Paving /Concrete Phase 1 50 28 3.0 3.0 Building Construction Phase 1 76 45 3.7 3.7 Maximum Daily Emissions 2014 160 87 7.9 7.9 2015 Onsite Building Construction Phase 1 70 43 3.3 3.3 2016 Onsite Building Construction Phase 1 64 1 41 2.7 2.7 SCAND LST Phase 1 175 1,461 44.1 13.4 Potentially Significant? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1., SCADMD 2003, and SCADMD 2006. Notes: Based on receptors in SRA 20. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Phase 1 Construction LSTS are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses at 260 feet (79 meters) for PM,o and PMzs and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NO,. Note that during overlap of Phase 1 and Phase 2, a portion of Phase 1 residential buildings are assumed to be occupied and analyzed based on the LSTs for sensitive receptors within 25 meters for PM, and PMzs (see Table 5.2- 14). Construction phasing and equipment is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CaIEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCADMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CalEEMod that calculates PM,, fugitive dust from hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PM, and PMzs fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsite to 15 miles per hour. Page 5.2 -23, Table 5.2 -14, Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions, Phase 1 (Portion) and Phase 2, Section 5.2, Air Quality. The following table has been modified in response to Comment 13 -3 from Debbie Stevens. Page 3 -10 •The Planning Center) DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.2 -14 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions, Phase 1 (Portion) and Phase 2 Source 2017 Onsite CO Pollutants Building Construction Phase 1 58 41 2.7 2.7 Architectural Coatings Phase 1 2 2 0.2 0.2 Total Building Construction + Coatings Phase 1 60 43 2.9 2.9 Demolition Phase 2 36 25 4.4 1.7 Grading Phase 2 36 17 5.0 2.8 Utilities Phase 2 25 12 0.9 0.9 Grading + Trenching Phase 2 61 30 5.9 3.7 Paving /Concrete Phase 2 38 27 2.2 2.2 Utilities + Paving/Concrete Phase 2 99 1 57 8.2 fi.0 Maximum Daily Emissions 2017 160 1 99 11.0 19 2018 Building Construction Phase 1 53 40 2.4 2.4 Architectural Coatings Phase 1 2 2 0.2 0.2 Total Building Construction + Coatings Phase 1 55 42 2.6 2.6 Paving /Concrete Phase 2 35 27 2.0 2.0 Building Construction Phase 2 53 40 2.4 2.4 Building Construction + Paving Phase 2 88 67 4.4 4.4 Maximum Daily Emissions 2018 143 109 7.0 7.0 2019 Building Construction 49 39 2.2 2.2 1.9 Building Construction 40 38 1.7 1.7 Architectural Coating 2 2 0.1 01 Maximum Daily Emissions 2021 42 40 1.8 1.8 SCAOMD LST Phase 2 & Overlap of Phase 1 + Phase 2 175 1,461 11.7 7.7 Potentially Significant? No No No Yes Sources: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1., SCAOMD 2003, and SCAOMD 2006. Notes: The highest emissions generated during the construction of the proposed project are bolded for PMr.s _Emissions that exceed SCAOMD Thresholds are underlined. Based on receptors in SRA 20. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Phase 1 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses at 260 feet (79 meters) for PMro and PM2.5 and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NO2 (see Table 5.2 -13). Note, during overlap of Phase 1 and Phase 2, a portion of Phase 1 residential buildings are assumed to be occupied and analyzed based on the LSTs for sensitive receptors within 25 meters for PM,, and PMzs Phase 2 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for PMro and PMzs and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feel (25 meters) for CO and NOz. Construction phasing and equipment is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAOMD of construction equipment and phasing far comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CalEEMod that calculates PM,o fugitive dust from hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PMlo and PMzs fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, managing haul road dust by watering two times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsho to 15 miles per hour. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -11 �� 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.2 -31, Table 5.2 -17, Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Overlap with Mitigation, Section 5.2, Air Quality. The following table has been modified in response to Comment 13 -3 from Debbie Stevens. Table 5.2 -17 Maximum Daily Onsite Construction Localized Emissions. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Overlap with Mitigation 2017 Onsite Total Building Construction + Coatings Phase 1 49 55 3.4 3.4 Demolition Phase 2 37 38 3.6 1.3 Grading + Trenching Phase 2 47 47 4.5 2.6 Utilities + Paving/Concrete Phase 2 50 55 1.8 1.8 Maximum Daily Emissions 2017 100 111 7.9 6.0 2018 Total Building Construction + Coatings Phase 1 49 55 3.3 3.3 Building Construction + Pavin Phase 2 77 87 3.0 3.0 Maximum Daily Emissions 2018 126 142 6.3 6.3 SCADMD LST Phase 2 & Overlap of Phase 1 + Phase 2 175 1,461 11.7 7.7 Potentially Significant? No No No No Sources: CatEEMod Version 2011.1.1., SCADMD 2003, and SCADMD 2006. Notes: Based on receptors in SRA 20. Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Phase 1 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses at 260 feet (79 meters) for PM,, and PMzs and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NO, (see Table 5.2 -13). Note that during overlap of Phase 1 and Phase 2, a portion of Phase 1 residential buildings are assumed to be occupied and analyzed based an the LSTs for sensitive receptors within 25 meters for PM,o and PM". Phase 2 Construction LSTs are based on 4 acres disturbed per day with sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for PM,o and PMzs and non - sensitive land uses within 82 feet (25 meters) for CO and NOz. Construction phasing and equipment are based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project - related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CaIEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCADMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. Modeling corrected for an error in CaIEEMod that calculates PM,o fugitive dust from hauling over the entire haul duration to occur on one day. Assumes overlap of site improvement phases, building construction, and architectural coatings based on the schedule provided by the application (see Appendix C). PM,o and PM25 fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, managing haul road dust by watering three times daily, street sweeping, and restricting speeds onsite to 15 miles per hour. Includes use of Tier 3 construction equipment (Mitigation Measure 2 -1). Site improvements associated with Phase 2 (grading, utilites, paving/concrete) calculated with installation of diesel particulate filters. Alternatively, site improvements (grading, utilities, paving /concrete) of Phase 1 could be scheduled to not overlap with Phase 1 construction. Page 3 -12 •The Planning Center) DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Pages 5.2 -27 and 5.2 -28, Section 5.2, Air Quality. The following revisions to mitigation measures have been made in response to Comment A10 -3 from Ian MacMillan of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Impact 5.2.2 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 nonemergency equipment over 50 horsepower that aFe ensite feF FHOFe than 6 days. Tier 3 engines between 50 and 750 horsepower are available for 2006 to 2008 model years. After January 1, 2015, nonemergency equipment over 50 horsepower that aFe eRSite `^- McFe than 6 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, equipmen the construction contractor 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. Impact 5.2 -4 2 -7 The construction contractor shall use haul trucks and /or require subcontractors to use haul trucks that are 2010 or newer for demolition and construction (C &D) debris removal offsite and soil haul, unless evidence is provided by the contractor /subcontractor that such trucks are not readily available at the time of issuance of a demolition and /or grading permit. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -13 �� 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.7 -18, Table 5.7 -3, Risk Assessment Results and Conclusions: Assessment of Vapor Intrusion Risks for Future Residents of Phase 1, Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The following table has been modified in response to Comment 13 -3 from Debbie Stevens. Table 5.7 -3 Risk Assessment Results and Conclusions:Assessment of Vapor Intrusion Risks for Future Residents of Phase 1 Risk/Hazard: Exposure Concentration Sampling Depth Assessed Risk7Hazard Conclusion Scenario Assessed 15 feet 1 10 feet 1 5 feet Threshold tRisk) Cancer Risk Slab 95% JCL 3.69E -07 5.32E -07 9.56E -07 1.0E -06 Acceptable Slab Maximum 1.42E -06 2.01E -06 3.61E -06 a-0E-064.0E -06 Acceptable Garage 95 %UCL 8.96E -07 2.34E -06 2.34E -06 4-0€- 10E -06 Acceptable Garage Maximum 4.24E -06 8.78E -6 8.78E -6 41 € 1.0E-05 Acceptable Noncarcinogenic Health Hazard Slab 95% UCL 1 2.00E -03 2.89E -03 5.25E -03 1 Acceptable Slab Maximum 7.49E -03 1.73E -02 3.16E -02 1 Acceptable Garage 95 %UCL 4.97E -3 1.32E -2 1.31E -2 1 Acceptable Garage Maximum 2.78E -02 7.27E -02 7.27E -02 1 Acceptable Page 5.8 -2, Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. The following tent has been modified in response to Comment A5 -3 from Adam Fischer of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The NPDES has a variety of measures designed to minimize and reduce pollutant discharges. All counties with storm drain systems that serve a population of 50,000 or more, as well construction sites one acre or more in size, must file for and obtain an NPDES permit. Another measure for minimizing and reducing pollutant discharges to a publicly owned conveyance or system of conveyances (including roadways, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man -made channels, and storm drains designed or used for collecting and conveying stormwater) is the EPA's Storm Water Phase II Final Rule. The Phase II Final Rule requires an operator (such as a City) of a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to develop, implement, and enforce a program (e.g., best management practices [BMPs], ordinances, or other regulatory mechanisms) to reduce pollutants in post- construction runoff to the City's storm drain system from new development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance greater than or equal to one acre. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the local enforcing agency of the MS4 NPDES permit. The "MS4 NPDES Permit" (Permit) refers to the Santa Ana Regional Water Qualitv Control Board Order No. 138- 2009 -0030. NPDES Permit No. CAS618030. The Permit provides a framework for regulating storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4 as well as other designated storm water discharges that are considered significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States (US). Under the Permit, the City of Newport Beach is named a permittee —along with a number of other municipalities. Each permittee owns and operates storm drains and other drainage facilities that are generally considered as waters of the United States, and each permittee is held responsible for adhering to and enforcing the regulations of the permit. Page 3 -14 •The Planning Center) DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR It is the intent of the permit to require the implementation of BMPs to reduce —to the maximum extent practicable —the discharge of pollutants in urban stormwater from the MS4s in order to support attainment of water quality standards. The permit requires development of a WQMP to be implemented as part of a project's post - development stormwater management program. The WQMP shall identify various BMPs based on a preferred hierarchy. The project- specific WQMP shall be prepared under the standards, procedures, and guidelines outlined in the 2011 Model WQMP and the related Technical Guidance Document. Being a significant redevelopment project. the Uptown Newport Planned Community is required to prepare a project- specific WQMP in accordance with the requirements of the MS4 /NPDES permit, and a revised preliminary WQMP has been prepared (see Appendix A). A final WQMP will be prepared during the final design phase of the proiect. Applicable Plans and Programs City of Newport Beach Local Implementation Plan The City of Newport Beach has developed a Local Implementation Plan (LIP), which provides a written account of the activities that the City has undertaken and the City is undertaking to meet the requirements of the Third Term Permit and make a meaningful improvement in urban water quality. In developing this LIP, the City has utilized the 2003 DAMP as the foundation for its program development and the LIP, as a result, contains numerous references to it and the two, in effect, act as companion parts of the City's compliance program. The LIP is intended to serve as the basis for City compliance during the five -year life of the Third Term Permit, but is subject to updating and modification as the City determines necessary, or as directed by the RWQCB. A copy of the City of Newport Beach's Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and additional information regarding the City's water quality programs can be /� found at http: / /www.newi)ortbeachca .goy /index.asi3x ?i)aae =429. 900 Relevant City of Newport Beach Municipal Code sections are described below: tro Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -15 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Municipal Code Section Reauirements All new development and significant redevelopment within the City of Newport Beach shall be undertaken in 14.36.040 accordance with: Control of Urban a. The DAMP, including but not limited to the development proiect guidance: and Runoff b. Any conditions and requirements established by the planning department, engineering department or building department, which are reasonably related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in storm water runoff from the proiect site. Compliance Assessments. The Authorized Inspector may inspect property for the purpose of verifying compliance with this chapter, including but not limited to: (i) identifying products produced, processes conducted, chemicals used and materials stored on or contained within the property: (ii) identifying point(s) of 14.36.050 discharge of all wastewater, process water systems and pollutants: (iii) investigating the natural slope at the Inspections location, including drainage patterns and man -made conveyance systems: 00 establishing the location of all points of discharge from the property, whether by surface runoff or through a storm drain system; (v) locating any illicit connection or the source of prohibited discharge: (vi) evaluating compliance with any permit issued ursuant to Section 14.36.070 and vii investi atin the condition of any legal nonconformin connection. Enforcement methods include: • Administrative remedies o Notice of Noncompliance 14.36.060 o Administrative Compliance Order Enforcement o Cease and Desist Order • Nuisance (emergency abatement by City Manager) • Citation (arrest, release, and citation to appear before magistrate) • In ui nction 14.36.070 The City may issue permits for discharges to the storm water drainage system from properties or facilities not Permits I subject to requirements of a State General Permit or a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit. Page 5.9 -37, Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The following text has been modified in response to Comment A3 -2 from Karl A. Rigoni of the Airport Land Use Commission. The FAA uses the Orange County Board of Supervisors established building height limit of 203.68 feet amsl to assess impacts to avigation activities of JWA. Additionally, because the proposed project falls within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area of JWA, the project applicant is required to file Form 7460 -1 with FAA. Based on calculations prepared by the project applicant and submitted for review to FAA in conjunction with Form 7460 -1, FAA conducted an aeronautical study for the proposed project consistent with FAA Part 77 regulations. As determined by the aeronautical study performed by FAA for 11 selected latitude /longitude building points onsite, three of the proposed building points (all within Tower Zone 1, as shown in Figure 5.1 -2, Building Height Limit Plan) were identified as obstacles under the obstruction standards of Section 77.199(a) of Title 14 CRF Part 77 by approximately one to three feet, as the tallest buildings that would be permitted by the proposed project (150- foot -tall residential towers) would reach a maximum height of 207 feet amsl. The additional one to three feet in building height would penetrate the JWA horizontal airspace surface and therefore be an obstruction to JWA operations. Page 3 -16 •The Planning Center) DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.10 -56, Section 5.10, Noise. The following text has been modified to correct a minor error. The mitigation measure noted was included in DEIR Table 1 -2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, but was inadvertently omitted in Section 5.10, Noise, page 5.10 -56. Impact 5.10.5 Phase 1: 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. Page 5.12 -12, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text has been modified in response to Comment A4 -2 from Joe Dixon of the Santa Ana Unified School District. This section provides an assessment of the existing school services and how the proposed project would affect these services. It is based, in part, on the following technical study included as Appendix L to this DEIR: • School Impacts and Mitigation Report, Jeanette C. Justus Associates, da%aFy August 2012. Page 5.12 -12, Table 5.12 -5, Santa Ana Unified School District Overall Capacity (2011 - 2012), Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text has been modified in response to Comment A4 -3 from Joe Dixon of the Santa Ana Unified School District. C Santa Ana Unified School District SAUSD covers nearly 24 square miles and currently has 55,497 students in grades K -12 (2011 -2012 academic year), with a total capacity of 55,844 students. Table 5.12 -5 indicates that SAUSD is near capacity for all grade levels, and s eveF eapaeity ieF enrollment Fade levels- currently exceeds permanent classroom capacity for grades K -6. Portable classrooms, also used to accommodate K -6 students, are not included in the capacity information, as shown in Table 5.12 -5. Table 5.12 -5 Santa Ana Unified School District Overall Capacity (2011 -2012) School Grade Levels Total Capacity Enrollment' Available Capacity Elementary (K -6) 29.360 31,876 —2,516 Intermediate 7 -8 8,663 8,353 310 High 9 -12 17,844 15,268 2,576 District Total 55,844 55,497 347 Source: Jeannette C Justus Associates 2012 ' Capacity shown does not include portable classrooms. Enrollment by rade level excludes charter school enrollment. Uptown Newport Final EIR Cite of Newport Beach • Page 3 -17 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.12 -15, Table 5.12 -6, Santa Ana Unified School District Schools near Project Site (2011- 2012), Section 5.12, Utilities and Service Systems. The following text has been modified in response to Comments A4 -5 and A4 -6 from Joe Dixon of the Santa Ana Unified School District. The SAUSD schools serving the project area are listed in Table 5.12 -6 and shown in Figure 5.12 -2. As indicated in Table 5.12 -6, James Monroe Elementary and Century High Schools are close to capacity and McFadden Intermediate School is over capacity by 455 students. It should be noted, however, that the capacity shown in Table 5.12 -6 for each school reflects permanent classroom capacity and does not include portable classrooms. Table 5.12 -6 Santa Ana Unified School District Schools near Project Site (2011 -2012) School Name Distance to Project Site (miles) Current Permanent Capacity! Enrollment Available Capacity James Monroe Elementary School 5.0 500 472 28 McFadden Intermediate 5.7 960 1,415 -455 Century High School 6.1 2,030 1,999 31 Source: JeAmpRe ". °^ ^ "^^^^'^'^^'"" Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 (see IS /NOP comment letter from SAUSD in Appendix K). ' Caoacity shown does not include oprtable classrooms. Page 5.12 -21, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text has been modified in response to Comment A4 -7 from Joe Dixon of the Santa Ana Unified School District. Expansion of NMUSD Boundaries The project applicant may choose to propose to modify the school district boundaries so that the entire project site would be within the boundaries of the neighboring NMUSD. T4,,ie In the absence of a neighborhood school within SAUSD, such territory transfer would ensure that project - generated students attend school facilities nearest to their homes and busing or other transportation costs and impacts are minimized. The transfer of school district boundaries would be subject to concurrence of the Orange County Committee on School District Organization and the State Board of Education. The impacts and reorganization would differ between elementary and eriddle secondary school students. Initiation of school district reorganization petitions is typically submitted by the County Superintendent of Schools to the State Board of Education, unless the petition is for territory transfer of uninhabited land. Four types of reorganization proposals exist: • At least 25 percent of the registered voters residing in the territory proposed to be reorganized if the territory is inhabited. Where the petition is to reorganize territory in two or more school districts, the petition needs to be signed by at least 25 percent of the registered voters in that territory in each of those districts. Page 3 -18 •The Planning Center) DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR • A number of registered voters residing in the territory proposed to be reorganized, equal to at least 8 percent of the votes cast for all candidates for governor at the last gubernatorial election in the territory proposed to be reorganized, where the affected territory consists of a sinale school district with over 200,000 pupils in average daily attendance and the petition is to reorganize the district into two or more districts. • The owner of the property, provided that territory is uninhabited and the owner thereof has filed either a tentative subdivision map with the appropriate county or city agency or an application for any project, as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code, with one or more local agencies. This type of territory transfer is assumed to be applicable to the properties in question. • A majority of the members of the governing boards of each of the districts that would be affected by the proposed reorganization. Proposals for reorganization of districts must show that each district: • Will have a sufficient number of pupils enrolled. • Will be organized on the basis of a substantial identity. • Will result in an equitable division of property and facilities. • Will preserve its ability to educate students in an integrated environment and will not promote racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation. • Will not increase in costs to the state as a result of the proposed reorganization. • Will continue to promote sound education performance and will not significantly disrupt the educational program. • Will not increase school facilities costs as result of the proposed reorganization. • Is not designed for purposes to significantly increase property values. • Will continue to promote sound fiscal management and not cause a substantial negative effect on the fiscal status. Page 5.12 -21, Tables 5.12 -11, Student Generation by Cumulative Projects, and 5.12 -12, SAUSD School Capacity with Cumulative Projects, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text and tables have been modified in response to Comments A4 -8 through A4 -10 from Joe Dixon of the Santa Ana Unified School District. 5.12.3.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to school services would occur when the proposed project, in combination with other recent, current, and proposed residential projects in the area, causes a substantial increase in the student population. The cumulative projects in the project area are listed on Table 4-3 44 =2, in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. Student generation for cumulative projects is estimated below in Table 5.12 -11. Ne -Seven cumulative projects that iaeludiflg include student - generating residential uses; Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -19 �� 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR were identified within SAUSD boundaries; one of those projects is within the City of Newport Beach and six are within the City of Irvine. Eight Seven cumulative projects were identified within NMUSD boundaries; five four of those projects contain residential uses and would thus generate students. Student generation within the NMUSD is calculated from estimated student generation for the proposed project in a service letter response by Ara Zareczny, NMUSD facilities analyst, dated February 13, 2012. NMUSD student generation rates per residential unit are 0.045 for elementary schools (K6), 0.016 for middle schools (7 -8), and 0.019 for high schools (9 -12). As shown below in Table 5.12 -11, cumulative projects would generate air an estimated 516 students in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. As listed above in Table 5.12 -7, overall remaining capacity in NMUSD schools as of the 2011- 2012 school year was 950 for elementary schools (K-6) and 1,086 at secondary schools (7 -12), for a total of 2,036 seats. The majority of the related projects would not generate students within the Eastbluff Elementary School boundary for which remaining capacity is limited. As of 2012, there was adequate remaining capacity within NMUSD schools to accommodate students generated by cumulative projects in addition to the project - related student generation prejeets. Each project would be required to pay school impact fees pursuant to SIB 50; payment of such fees is considered full mitigation for impacts to public school facilities. The increase in school service demand due to the proposed Uptown Newport project would not combine with future demand to result in cumulatively considerable impacts on NMUSD. Student generation within SAUSD was calculated using the IUSD generation rates outlined in Table 5.12- 9. Student Generation Rates for Proposed Project, similar to the proposed project. The locations of the cumulative Proiects within SAUSD's boundary listed in Table 4 -2 are shown in Figure 5.12 -3. Cumulative Proiects and SAUSD School Attendance Area Boundaries. As shown below in Table 5.12 -11, cumulative Proiects would generate approximately 269 students in SAUSD. As shown in Table 5.12 -12, SAUSD School Capacity With Cumulative Proiects, with development of the proposed project and cumulative projects, all three SAUSD schools (James Monroe Elementary School, McFadden Intermediate School. and Century High School) would all be over capacity. It should be noted, however, that the capacity shown in Table 5.12 -12 for each school does not include portable classrooms, only permanent classroom capacity. As with the proposed project, each cumulative project would be required to pay school impact fees pursuant to SB 50; payment of such fees is considered full mitigation for impacts to public school facilities. The increase in school service demand due to the proposed groiect would, therefore, not combine with future demand to result in cumulatively considerable impacts on SAUSD. Page 3 -20 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.12 -11 Student Generation by Cumulative Projects Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -21 50 Student Generation, students per DU? Schools: Elementary Middle High Total: Elementary/ Project Name Proposed Residential (K -6): (7 -8): (9 -12): 0.080 Middlel No. Project Location Land Use(s) 0.045 0.016 0.019 High City of Newport Beach / Newport-Mesa Unified School District Newport Beach Lincoln ES/ 1 County Club 1600 & 1602 E. 5 Residential DUs 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 Corona Del Mar HS/ Coast Highway' Corona Del Mar HS Mariner's Medical 2 1901 W. West cliff None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not applicable Drive Banning Ranch Newport Heights ES/ 3 4520 W. Coast 1,375 Residential DUs 61.9 22.0 26.1 110.0 Ensign MS/ Highway I Newport Harbor HS Sunset Ridge Park 4 4850 W. Coast None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not applicable Highway Marina Park 5 1700 Balboa None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not applicable Boulevard 6 Kell Conte F 4342 VAR Karnaan Avenue 260 Res dent al BUR 444 4-2 4.9 2" I East bluff 9S Serena go! MaFHS/ I Serena" Be)'fvlaFkkS AERIE 6 -Unit Condominium with Harbor View ES/ 7 201 Carnation Subterranean Parking 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 Corona Del Mar HS/ Avenue Corona Del Mar HS Newport Coast 3,180 Single- family DUs Planned 1,298Condominiums/ Newport Coast ES 8 Community Townhomes 227.7 81.0 96.1 404.8 Corona Del Mar HS! Newport Coast 582 Multifamily DUs Corona Del Mar HS Drive Subtotal, Newport -Mesa Unified School District 301.8 48 3 12-7:4 53 5 290.1 103.1 122.5 1 515.7 Student Generation. Students per DU Schools: Elementary Middle Hiah Total: E/ementar IK-6): f7-8): Proiect Name Proposed Residential (9 -12): 0.069 Middle Proiect Location Land Usetsl 0.017 No. 0.040 0.012 tkh City of Newport Beach / Santa Ana Unified School District Koll Center James Monroe 6 4343 Von Karman 260 Residential DUs 14-7 44 4-.9 29:8 Elementary School/ McFadden Intermediate/ 10.4 31 4_4 17.9 Avenue Century High School Subtotal, Santa Ana Unified School District 10.4 3.1 4.4 17.9 City of Irvine / Santa Ana Unified School District Element Hotel 9 17662 Armstrong None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not applicable Avenue Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -21 50 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.12 -11 Student Generation by Cumulative Projects 12 Central Park Northwest corner of 1,380 Residential DUs 55.2 16.5 23.4 95.2 James Monroe Elementary School/ Jamboree Road /Michelson Drive McFadden Intermediate/ Century Hloh School 15 The Lofts 2300 Dupont Drive 116 Residential DUs 4.6 — 1.3 — 1.9 — 8.0 — James Monroe Elementary School/ McFadden Intermediate/ Current Century Hiah School 18 — Plaza III and IV 3000 Scholarship 105 Residential DUs 4.2 — 1.2 — 1.7 — 7,2 — James Monroe Elementary School/ Student McFadden Intermediate/ Remaining Century Hiah School 19 Carlyle 2201 Martin Court 156 Residential DUs 6_2 1_8 22 10.7 James Monroe Elementary School/ McFadden Intermediate/ 472 50 Century Hiah School 28 Martin Street Residential 18301 Von Karmen 82 Residential DUs 3_2 0_9 1_3 5_6 James Monroe Elementary School/ McFadden Intermediate/ Avenue and 2301 Century High School Martin Court 29 Irvine Technology 1.800 Residential DUs 72.0 21.6 30.6 124.2 James Monroe Elementary School/ Center Northwest Corner of McFadden Intermediate/ Jamboree Road /Campus Drive Century Hiah School Subtotal, Santa Ana Unified School District 145.4 43.3 61.5 250.9 118 Total 384,8 445.9 497:3 149.5 42 4 188.4 43" 784.5 Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine. Notes: DUs = dwelling units; SF = square feet ' Project does not have a net increase in traffic. Student aeneration rates based on IUSD rates. ' Student oeneral rates based on NMUSD rates. Table 5.12 -12 SAUSD School Capaciry with cumuiarrve rro ects Total Uptown Cumulative Existing Project >L Current Newport Total Student Permanent Existin Student Student Future Remaining Ca aci ' School Name Cana Enrollment Generation Generation Generation' Students2 James Monroe 500 472 50 156 206 678 178 Elementary School McFadden 960 1 415 15 46 61 1 476 -516 Intermediate Century High 2 030 1 999 52 66 118 2117 -87 School Page 3 -22 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.12 -24, Table 5.12 -12, Newport Beach Public Libraries, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text and table have been modified to correct the number of this table. The Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) provides library services to the proposed project site with four branches and a concierge service building where patrons can drop off and pick up books on hold and search the library catalog. Services at branches include Wi -Fi, printing, interlibrary loans, home -bound service, computer training classes, and book clubs for children, teens, and adults. Branch locations are provided in Table 5.12 - 4-213. Table 5.12 -4-213 Newport Beach Public Libraries Branch Address Central Library 1000 Avocado Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mariners Branch 1300 Irvine Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Branch 100 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Corona Del Mar Branch 420 Marigold Ave. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Coast Community Center 6401 San Joaquin Hills Rd. (concierge service) Newport Coast, CA 92657 Page 5.12 -26, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text has been modified in response to Comment A4 -7 from Joe Dixon of the Santa Ana Unified School District. 5.12.4.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to school services would occur when the proposed project, in combination with other recent, current, and proposed residential projects in the area, causes a substantial increase in the student population. The cumulative projects in the project area are listed on Table 43 44 =2, in Chapter 4. Page 5.15 -1, Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. The following text has been modified in response to Comment AS -4 from Paul Weghorst of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Approximately 50 percent of IRWD's water supply capacity is water imported through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and 50 percent is groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin), including the Irvine and Lake Forest subbasins (see Figure 5.8 -3, Orange County Main Groundwater Basin and Irvine Subbasin). Currently, approximately 30 percent of IRWD's potable water suooly is imported throuah MWD. and 70 percent of its potable suooly is aroundwater pumped from the Basin Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -23 �� 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.15 -2, Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. The following text has been modified in response to Comment AS -5 from Paul Weghorst of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Irvine Desalter: The Irvine Desalter purifies water from the Irvine Subbasin (part of the larger Basin). Starting in 2007, the desalter performs two main operations: (1) it removes trichloroethylene (TCE) and other volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the groundwater from a contaminated plume on the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), and (2) it removes salts and purifies water outside the TCE plume to be used as drinking water. Approximately 3,900 AFY from the desalter are used for landscaping, and an additional 5,100 AFY are used as drinking water (IRWD 201 leb). Page 5.15 -3, Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems. The following text has been modified in response to Comment AS -5 from Paul Weghorst of the Irvine Ranch Water District. the SiRgle dFy yeaF of 1977 and the mult ple dFy yeaFs ef 1990 1992 to model these seeRar as (IRWD 2011 H). Water demands in a single dry year and multiple dry years were proiected in the WSA by increasing normal -year demands by 7 percent. Page 7 -10, Chapter 7, Alternatives. The following text has been modified in response to Comment 13 -5 from Debbie Bright Stevens. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 1 Existing, onsite land uses would remain under this alternative and TowerJazz operations would continue, including the substantial GHG emissions generated by this facility. TowerJazz would also continue to operate during Phase 1 of the proposed project. Under the No Project Alternative, GHG emissions would also be generated by the Half Dome office use, and vehicle trips generated by both TowerJazz and the office use. Since trip generation associated with the Phase 1 portion of the proposed project (680 units and 11,500 square feet of commercial) generates more vehicle trips than the Half Dome building, GHG emissions for the No Project alternative for Phase 1 would be less than the proposed project. However, since no significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts occur under the proposed project, no significant impacts would be avoided. Page 3 -24 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 7 -16, Table 7 -4, Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative Trip Generation, Chapter 7, Alternatives. The following text has been modified in response to Comment 13 -5 from Debbie Bright Stevens. Table 7-4 Hotel/Office/Commercial Alternative Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Unit Trip Generation Rates' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 310 Rooms 8.17 0.34 0.22 0.56 0.31 0.28 0.59 General Office Building 710 KSF 11.01 ]42.94 1.36 0.19 1.55 0.25 1.24 1.49 Shopping Center 820 KSF 0.61 0.39 1.00 1.83 1.90 3.73 Land Use Quantity . Unit Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 174 Rooms 1,422 59 38 97 54 48 102 General Office Building 160 KSF 1,762 218 30 248 41 198 239 Shopping Center 20 KSF 859 12 8 20 37 38 75 Subtotal- Before Internal Capture /Pass -by 4,042 289 76 365 132 284 416 Internal Trip Capture 60 — — — 2 2 4 Pass -by Reduction for Retail (10%)' — — — — 4 4 8 Total 3,983 289 1 76 365 126 278 404 Proposed Project Total Trips 93 134 511 644 537 292 829 DIFFERENCE 5050 155 1 -435 1 -279 1 -411 -14 -425 Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012, Notes: KSF = thousand square feet Institute of Transportation Engineers,: Trip Generation, 8th edition. R ITE, Trip Generation. ' Based on net retail trips, after internal capture reduction. Page 13 -7, Chapter 13, Bibliography. The following reference has been added in response to Comment A4 -5 from Joe Dixon of the Santa Ana Unified School District. 13.3 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Dixon. Joe. 2011, November 28. Comment letter on Uptown Newport Initial Study /Notice of Preparation. Santa Ana Unified School District. 3.3 UPDATES TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Master Site Plan for the Uptown Newport has been revised to address comments and concerns raised by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and general public during the Planning Commission study session and public hearings. Phase 1 of the revised plan is shown as Figure 3 -6a, Phase 1 Master Site Plan, and the full buildout conditions for the project are shown in Figure 3 -6b, Master Site Plan. Primary revisions to the site plan include: Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -25 �� 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR • Widening of the vehicular travel lanes at the primary entry at the intersection of Fairchild Avenue and Jamboree Road to provide additional lane width at the diagonal parking at the project entry. Two inbound travel lanes are provided (12 feet wide and 16 feet wide), and two outbound lanes are provided (12 feet wide and 14 feet wide). • Widening of the westerly neighborhood street to 32 feet, which meets the standards for a neighborhood street with public access and parking on one side. The westerly neighborhood street will provide access to the Phase 1 neighborhood park and residential parcels adjacent to the streets as well as provide opportunity for future access to Von Karman Avenue. • Relocation of the cul -de -sac street adjacent to the Phase 1 neighborhood park to the center of the project, which will allow for future connection between Uptown Newport and the Koll Center Newport, as envisioned by the City of Newport Beach General Plan. • A traffic roundabout has been added in the center of the project to provide additional traffic calming along the spine street in the project and enhance vehicular circulation within the project. • The neighborhood street from the Birch Street access through the Phase 2 portion of the project has been realigned farther south to provide more efficient parcel sizes in Phase 2. • A private access /cul -de -sac has been added in Phase 2 along the extension of the northeasterly access drive off of Jamboree Road to provide access to Parcel 12. • Minor modification to the high -rise zones and height limits as shown on Figure 5.1 -2 (see Section 3.5, Revised and New Figures). The revised site plan does not modify the overall land use proposed for the project or the phasing of development from the site plan analyzed in the DEIR. Although minor modifications to the internal circulation plan, developable area, and right -of -way acreages have been made, the overall land use and phasing remains essentially the same: Table 1 Uptown Newport Land Use Summary The circulation modifications have been included in the updated traffic modeling, summarized below in Section 3.4, Updated Traffic Modeling. The modifications would not alter the analysis or findings for construction - related impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gases, or noise impacts. The grading footprint would be the same, and any change to earthwork volumes would be nominal. Minor revisions to infrastructure improvement plans, including storm drainage, water system, and sewer system, have been made to coincide with the site plan /circulation modifications. Updated plans are included in the project's Planned Community Development Plan, January 2013, and have been reproduced as needed to update DEIR figures. These figures are in Section 3.5, Revised and New Figures: Page 3 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Number of Units 680 564 1,244 Developable Area ac.) 8- .%7.78 4913210.68 48.6718.46 Park Area (ac.) 1.03 1.02 2.05 Retail (sf) 11,500 0 11,500 Right of Way Area (ac.) 2- 643.24 4-7-21.30 4- 234.54 Total Area (ac.) 424912.05 42-.X 13.00 25.05 The circulation modifications have been included in the updated traffic modeling, summarized below in Section 3.4, Updated Traffic Modeling. The modifications would not alter the analysis or findings for construction - related impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gases, or noise impacts. The grading footprint would be the same, and any change to earthwork volumes would be nominal. Minor revisions to infrastructure improvement plans, including storm drainage, water system, and sewer system, have been made to coincide with the site plan /circulation modifications. Updated plans are included in the project's Planned Community Development Plan, January 2013, and have been reproduced as needed to update DEIR figures. These figures are in Section 3.5, Revised and New Figures: Page 3 -26 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Figure 3 -7, Grading and Earthwork: Phase 1 and Phase 2. This figure reflects updated cut and fill quantities that are reduced in comparison to the quantities analyzed in the DEIR (92,200 and 100,600 cubic yards cut and fill respectively, compared to 98,500 and 114,100 cubic yards in the DEIR. The construction - related impact analysis in the DEIR for air quality, greenhouse gases, and noise was therefore conservative, since it took into consideration higher earthwork volumes than required for the revised plan. • Figures 3 -8, Phase 1 Circulation Plan, and 3 -9, Phase 2 Circulation Plan. These figures were modified to reflect the minor modifications that were made to the site plan and internal circulation plan. • Figure 3 -10, Storm Drainage Concept., Phase 1 and Phase 2. This figure was modified to reflect the minor modifications that were made to the site plan and internal circulation plan. • Figure 3 -11, Proposed Water System: Phase 1 and Phase 2. This figure was modified to reflect the minor modifications that were made to the site plan and internal circulation plan. • Figure 3 -12, Proposed Sewer System: Phase 1 and Phase 2. This figure was modified to reflect the minor modifications that were made to the site plan and internal circulation plan. • Figure 5.1 -2, High Rise Zones and Height Limits. This figure reflects the modifications made to the high rise zones. The DEIR shade /shadow analysis is applicable to the revised site plan, which has similar footprints for future high rises (up to 150 feet). The modified zones reduce the overall area that will allow high rises and increase the setback from adjacent property ��''��,, boundaries. 9� • Figure 5.8 -4, Phase 1 Storm Drain Concept. This figure was modified to reflect the minor modifications that were made to the site plan and internal circulation plan. • Figure 5.8 -5, Proposed Drainage Plan. This figure was modified to reflect the minor modifications that were made to the site plan and internal circulation plan. Operational impacts as analyzed for the proposed project by Phase 1 and Phase 2 are dependent upon the land uses (no. of dwelling units, square footage of retail, park space, public services and utility demand etc.), which have not been altered. 3.4 UPDATED TRAFFIC MODELING Background The traffic impact analysis prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates has been updated to respond to comments from the City of Irvine. In particular, the traffic modeling for both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine was updated to respond to Comment A6 -3 (see Section 2.0, Letter A6) requesting that the following projects be added to the cumulative projects in the area (specific project information was obtained from the City of Irvine): Irvine Technology Center — Phase 1, north of Campus Drive, West of Jamboree Road, consisting of 1,035 multifamily dwelling units and 8,500 square feet of retail use. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -27 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR • Scholle Building on Fairchild Road east of Jamboree Road, consisting of 107,211 square feet of office space. The complete list of updated cumulative projects is provided in Table 4 -2 in Section 3.2 of this FEIR. An updated Figure 4 -4, Cumulative Project Location Map, is provided in Section 3.5, Revised and Updated Figures. The complete, updated traffic study is included as Appendix E of this FEIR, bound as a separate document. The analysis methodology used for the update is the same as described in the DEIR, Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, and the update does not alter the existing, baseline conditions or significance thresholds used in the analysis. This FEIR section summarizes the findings of the updated analysis and reproduces the updated tables from the traffic study to disclose detailed modeling results. For comparison, the DEIR tables are included in strike -out format. The information and updated tables in this section are all excerpted from the full traffic study. The updated modeling also reflects minor changes to the site plan described in Section 3.3, Updates to the Project Description. These changes include the modification of the main project entry to include two inbound lanes and two outbound lanes (formerly one inbound lane and two outbound lanes). Modeling Results: Summary The intersection levels of service analysis for the 2018 and 2022 Cumulative Scenarios and the traffic phasing ordinance (TPO) analyses have been updated. The traffic impact analysis (dated November 2012 and included as FEIR Appendix E) identified that the following intersections would operate below acceptable level of service for at least one of the scenarios evaluated: • Jamboree Road at Main Street • Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive • Mesa Road at University Drive As with the original traffic analysis, the project would not result in a significant impact at any of the 43 study area intersections. The updated results indicate that the project would not exceed the thresholds of significance for traffic impacts and no mitigation would be required. Modeling Results: Revisions to the DEIR The following details text and table revisions to the DEIR to reflect the updated traffic modeling and study: Page 5.14 -41. The following text has been modified to reflect updated traffic modeling results. The following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without and with Phase 1: • 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street: (PM: LOS F) 21. jaFRbBFee Read at 1 496 68 Ramps (AM! LOS F) • 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) Page 3 -28 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase 1 trips. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project - related impact of the project at some of the study intersections would be negative, reflecting the reduction in existing office trips, which would more than offset the trips that would be added as a result of the proposed residential development in the evening peak hour at some intersections. As a result, some intersections would improve slightly as a result of the project. Phase 2 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without, and with Phase 2 (project buildout) peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 5.14 -11. The following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without, and with Phase 2: • 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street: (PM: LOS F) 21. jaffihWee Read at Main StFeeti (PIVI! 6013 F) • 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 41. Mesa Road at University Drive (PM: LOS E) Page 5.14 -48. The following text has been modified according to the updated traffic modeling results. TPO Impact Analysis Intersection peak hour traffic conditions were evaluated for Year 2018 TPO (Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects) without Project, and with Phase 1 project traffic. The results of the intersection analysis are summarized on Table 5.14 -12. The following intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 TPO Analysis without, and with Project Phase 1 Conditions: 21. iambWee Read at 1 406 S13 Ramps (12% LOS F) • 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project - related impact of Phase 1 at the 'nteFse-"-- of HaWaFd AveRwe al9d Michelson DFiVe a few intersections in the study area would be slightly negative, meaning that the reduction in existing office trips would more than offset the addition of the proposed residential trips. As a result, the intersection operations would improve slightly as a result of the proposed project, but would continue to operate at LOS E. The project would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase 1 project trips at any of the study intersections. Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -29 co 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.14 -57. The following text has been modified to reflect the updated traffic modeling results. All state highway study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project scenario, With the addition of project traffic, all state highway study intersections, e)Eeept ene would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. The into• eetien of clambMee Read at 1 nnc Seuthb,.,,..a RaRq......,..,,id ......., Rue .,.....eFate at LOS E in the Ann ..ealk h eHF Page 3 -30 •The Planning Center) DC &E February 2013 �G W N 0 .y n M 0 a 0 n M a Ld m a M i M tl a • z 0 v w w 0 z 5 N O ' N ' N a N U M M ti O N GL U Q U a h • N M M a -1100- 01 ONE mum M ti O N GL U Q U a h • N M M a W 0 .a o� a m: M a y 2 v w 0 a a IA W 0 .y N n M 0 T a T Ld d ti d H a t r.1 3 N 0 c 0 U v A 3 j u co O N L m M M M tl a • n w z 0 v �i ti W 0 fi N tom. :�I p p p p p p p p p p p p p zl U G zj o 0 o p o o p o o p o 0 0 y Q Z Z ZI z Z ZI Z Z ZI Z Z ZI z E i �, a of of of of � of of of of of of of of c t " 6I 6I CI I �� Q� O O O O o c O 6 O O O O O o h � �I ml of wl of ¢I ¢I wl ¢I ml ¢I of wl o Y L. CL. ry m N N O N Q N m N M I� Z m m OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI O Y L O ¢l UI ml ml ml ¢I ml UI of ¢1 ¢1 ml ml O J m Q o o oI o o oI o o oI o o oI o = y � O �I of �I wl of ¢I ¢I of ¢I ml ¢I of wl o J 2 Y iv OJ O N OJ Q OJ LQ O I OI OI of OI OI OI OI OI of p O ¢I UI ml ml ml ¢I ml UI of ¢I ¢I of ml J Y Qf A Q � OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml n n N a > q m_ tEO m T C D E m m N y � Y c o o L L E o o �-y � > > > 7 > > 7 > > > E � CE L L L L L L L L L L C L c i rl NI MI QI ml ml rl ml rnl oT r �I M M M tl a • n w z 0 v �i ti W 0 fi N 0 T a T l% d N O 'lam O ' N ' N a M d H a Z r 3 N 0 c 0 U 42 3 j u co O N L m M ti O N U Q a U 'LV l • M M a a zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl C E U N °0 ifJ m O O O O N M o O O o 0 61 0 0 0 c t U QI of of of of °I O of of of of of of of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y ml oI aI QI ml LLI wl wl LLI UI oI ml UI O JO a0i ry � N OJ O M fO Q fO m I� M O W a OI of OI OI rl °I OI of �I OI oI OI OI N O a` Z !ti OI ¢I ml ¢1 ¢1 ml wl cj of oI UI UI ml UI O J CL. " °I�I °I "Iml °I O in ImIMI m M �n rn IMI m m m Irl Q= o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h � O ml of ¢I ¢I ml wl wl w1 wl UI of ml UI J m C � _ °I OI OI OI OI �I r OI OI �I OI OI OI OI 0 OI a1 ml a1 ¢1 ml wl �I of oI �I cal m1 �I J m Q OI OI OI OI NI OI OI OI of OI OI OI OI til ml ml ml wl ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ➢N fA ° N C E v z rn U 6�f c c c U CC m m m m m m m ° � E E > > m ao m ao ao m ao m Y Y Y a a a a a a E E El El E E E E E W r �I r ml R M NI NI NI R M M ti O N U Q a U 'LV l • M M a W 0 .y N n M 0 T a T Ld d d H a Z r 3 N 0 c 0 U 42 3 j u co O N L m M M a • n q z 0 v �i ti W ti +a 0 z N a ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI zl C E m gl O O O O O O O O O O o 0 O C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c m U QI of of of of � of of of of � � of of y � ml ml QI ml of mI mI UI QI QI QI QI ¢I o 2 m m � a � N N m LO f0 N 4CJ LL'] Ol V I� V 4 O OI O O OI O O OI O O OI O O = 67 O a` Z may` OI QI QI QI ml ml ml [j QI QI ml QI QI QI O J Q of of of of of of of of of of of of of = h � O ml MI QI MI of MI OI UI QI QI QI QI QI J m C a� co m m in v rn o M o r f of of of of of of of of of of o of of R T 0 OI QI QI ¢1 ml ml ml UI QI ¢1 ml QI QI QI J Y N ZE C5f of of of of of of of of of of of of til ml ml m1 MI m1 m1 mI m1 m1 MI m1 m1 L L ci 65 O O y m m m m O m C � N N N Q Q Q m m m d 2 m m 0 0 o O o a m E E E E iy 21 E �_ E U U Z U U m CO m ? N NI N M MI M M MI M M MI M M M M a • n q z 0 v �i ti W ti +a 0 z N 0 T a T L6 d I,, N O a� O ' N ' N U M d H a Z r 3 N 0 c 0 U A 3 j u co O N L m M ti O N w U Q a U 0., m h • M M a $ a w C cn % E a� of of of c m U QI of of of Q y � of ml ml ml o 2 m �o C y 0 0 0 = Ca o a L_ OI ml ml ml ¢1 O � S m � o m �I �I Q o 0 0 = cj h oO OI of ml ml S m C m I C = of of ,aVi R T 0 L cz of m1 ml ¢1 m `O a of of of �I cj �I tii ml ml 0 0 in o N C R ¢ � m N a U_ U o] M ti O N w U Q a U 0., m h • M M a W 0 .a o� a m v r N m F a 0 co a v u'i d rn m CL m. a y 2 v W a 5 �8 m. a y 2 v W a 5 W ' N ' N a M 0 w v Q i fi 0. • O ^'l MENNEN 0 w v Q i fi 0. • O ^'l W N 0 .y n M tl a • m z 0 v w w 0 z 5 m� M tl a • m z 0 v w w 0 z 5 yV ' N ' N a J M M ti O N W U Q a y U LnV l • M a colon 1 colon Olson ONION M ti O N W U Q a y U LnV l • M a �G W 0 .y N N n M T a T LO v M tl a • N q z 0 v W O N � zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl G z y of UI DI wl wl QI QI wl UI ml QI wl wl O 2 a � � p � U O O O O O OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 o y L OI ml of ml ml ml ¢I ml of wl al ¢I o1 UI m � m of of of of of of of of of of of of of C Q = M 3 N OI pC of UI of wl wl 41 QI wl UI ml ¢I wl wl a = O �o � Ql V M tD M N V M O M V m rn rn �I u'il 6I rl ml oil 1 l jO a O O O O O o o O O o o i C� ' m E o nl E � � O ml UI ml ml ml QI ml UI w1 QI QI of UI u a`O, tO n1. 0— 0 N O ml O A [� M OJ O -I � ¢ = O O OI O OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI cj d IzzUI rnl ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml y y N Q E A_ m m Z m m O y y _ _ m d i (n y m y y � m m m m m m m m m m m C C Q ¢ ¢ Q Q Q Q Q ¢ Q Q Y Y M tl a • N q z 0 v W O N T a T LO v 'IV ' N ' N a M M O N m W `lJ ti U nV • I M a � y z� z� zI z� zI zI zI zI zI zI zI zI zI m v .0 QI z °� z� z Z� z� zI zI zI zI zI zI ZI zI y of o y al of of of of of of of of of of of of t � QI of of of of of ° of of ° of of of of y ml WI QI QI ml LLI WI WI LLI DI DI UI UI O 2 a � � 3 Q1 V M O M m O M m M O n N NI U O O of of OI OI OI OI a � avi o o y L . OI ¢I ¢I ¢I ¢I ml wl UI wl of UI of ml UI 3 '' u = m � m S 3 Z OI C51 OI �I OI OI OI OI OI OI OI M 3 N Cj OI ml wl ¢I 41 ml LLI wl wl LLI UI of cal c l J w = �o ° � d � OI OI of OI �I °I of OI �I OI OI OI OI C =o 7 OI QI ml QI QI ml wl UI wl of UI mf ml UI N Q O M O M N M m LL] N to m N V V' NI Q OI OI of OI � OI OI OI OI ail OI OI OI d T UI rnl ml �I m1 �I ml ml ml ml ml ml ml N y O v m r c o m ° A ° m G E v z vmi h ti m o E E E U m CC CL CC m m m m C E E E m m m m m m m m > Q i Q Y Y Y a a a a a a n 0 E E E E 0 o O a) a> [Ed tEV > > > r r 7 7 7 7 7 �I rI �I �I �I �I NI NI NI NI NI NI NI M O N m W `lJ ti U nV • I M a �G W 0 .y N N n M T a T LO v M tl a • q z 0 v "V W w O J � zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl G m ml6I��dd.I d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QI of of of of of 91 of of of o 91 of of y ml ml ¢I ml DI DI DI UI QI QI QI ¢I QI O 2 a � � O U avi o � a � O O O O O OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI o y L `_' • Ol ¢I ¢I ¢I ml ml ml UI ¢I ¢I ml ¢I ¢I ¢I m m � of of col of of of of of of of col of of C M Q = 3 N Cj w = C-0 J ml ml al ml of OI of UI ¢I ¢I ¢I ¢I ¢I o i o �+ a N N ° N ° n 14: n of O) of lIJ of OJ of of O> of of th of O of m of = i ' m o E Ol ¢I ¢I al ml ml ml UI ¢I al ml al QI QI N aO O � d ¢ = cj O O Ol O Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol UI rnl ml UI ml UI ml UI ml ml ml ml ml L L O O O O O U O � R r d y N N N M Ch MI ChI MI thI thI t"'>I MI MI M tl a • q z 0 v "V W w O J LO ! a � 2 q \ .\ a cr� % \ b A A A G % a $ \ 0 CIS % � / \ / \m \� \) § ] } / E2 - § 2� r \ \ $ \�� \ § § | % k § » a = § { \» m > « / \ ct ) I \ / 7 v m 7 % / ¥ % 0 CIS % / / E2 - \�� \ W N 0 .y n M (Ni O W a v L; cm m a M tl a • z 0 v w w 0 z 5 all 00� M tl a • z 0 v w w 0 z 5 W m 0 ' N ' N a M 0 5 v q v a • ai ^'l ��00000 �III� VIII 0 5 v q v a • ai ^'l W N iv O .a N M a • y 2 0 i U W 0 J III m�iiii III IIII III M a • y 2 0 i U W 0 J III yV ' N ' N U M M ti O N m W W Q ti U nV LN l • O M m a �i W N O .y N n rrl N V) N N O C n p Q � O n V L6 a a i ~ Ol co C � (C .D4 m b. m ! i M tl a • n q z 0 V �i W tl 0 z J �.�iooa000000aaoo z z z z z z z 0 i� of of of of of of � � of of of of of c U oo QI of of of of of 0 0 0 0 of ° of h � cal cal cal wl of ¢I QI cal QI ml ¢I of wl o 2 Y 0 2 S O G CI G G CI O CI CI OI OI a � o i a 3 OI ai cal mi mi mi ai ai mi of ai Qi of mi � 0 2 d o U ¢ = oI oI oI oI oI oI oI oI oI oI o o U CI cal cal cal wl of al QI cal QI ml al mi of Z Y m � m m m m y= o c o c c o o o o o a °c C� I ¢I cal ml ml ml QI QI ml of al al of ml o 2 d m m61 m61 oI o o o oI o o o o U �nl VJI ml VJI VJI ml ml ml ml ml ml vJl VJI � D N a`x y c c E c m � c E C m m a A 2 h _ _� v v o a U Fn ii Z fmn a a m > m > c > > > > > > > > > > > ¢ ¢ _ m m m m m m m m m m m L E E L L L L L L L L L L Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Y Y Ytl N N N N N N tVd tVd tVd tVE O O mi -i I mi I mi j �I i i r1 1 i M tl a • n q z 0 V �i W tl 0 z J N V) N N O C n p Q � O n V L6 a a i ~ QOl CO C : n � N o m b. m ! 'IV ' N ' N a M M O N w W ti U Qr h • N M a �.�i000000aa000000 0 G a� of of � of of of of of of of of of of a' � U ¢I Cd °d of of o of of o of of of of oI oI h � ml of ¢1 ¢1 ml wl wl wl wl cj 01 ml UI ¢I o 2 Y °I OI OI OI OI �I OI OI �I OI OI OI OI OI a � o i a 3 OI ¢I ml ¢I ¢I ml wl UI of of UI UI ¢I UI ¢I ? 0 2 d � NI Q OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI U OI ml o1 ¢l ¢I ml wl wl wl wl UI OI ml UI ¢I Z Y m � "' m y= o o o o o o o o oI oI oI a °c pI ¢I ml ¢I ¢I ml wl UI of of UI UI ¢I ml QI 3 C 2 d w N Q O O O O O O O O O O OI OI OI �l ml wl W =I W ml ml [ l �l �l �I �l �I N N E E O O C - L O O U m to _C m m O N E E y N > > > V V = t C ¢ ¢ ¢ a a m m m m m m m ` 0 a a E E E E E E E E E � r r r rw � N N N N N NI NI NI M O N w W ti U Qr h • N M a �i W N O .y N n r'rl N N N O C T O Q � O n V L6 a a i ~ QOl CO n C � N o m b. m ! M M i M tl a • n q z 0 V �i ti W ti 0 z J a zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl zl 0 G a� zl ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI �, of of of of of of of c U QI of of ° of of of 0 0 0 0l of � o 2 Y 0 O C O C C C C C C O O C of a � o i a 0 2 d � U CI QI ¢1 ¢I °I °1 °1 UI ¢I ¢I ¢I QI QI pl Z Y IT o o o o o o o o o o of of a Ol Qi ¢i mi mi mi c>I ai ai mi ¢i ¢i ai pl 3 0 2 d w ro o o o o o o o o o o of of �I NI ml hl hl hl hl hl �I ml ml ml ml �a c � m m ° h y U C 2 U M m o m o o 'E m 2 VJ y ¢ h O O O p p t0 EEE U U 2 U m U m m ? p NI NI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI e I M M i M tl a • n q z 0 V �i ti W ti 0 z J N T a T ui v a yV ' N ' N a N I1� 01 101 1 01 zl I ZI 1 ZI of of o 0 0 of of o N O ��Mm OI I OI I rl � MMA OI I OI I `°i O m�Mmf OI I OI 171 � MMA of I of I �i �I I �I I �I 0 � y N 7 � C � m � > N N � � O y O U � U m RI RI RI d Z N C II 9 C M ti O N W W q ti U nV LN l • M Qr w 0 .a a Lfi 19 a r LL7 N cc IL a j 0 J 0 5 I IIIIII milli ESSEN IIIIII MINSO 11111 IIMIIMESON II mao a j 0 J 0 5 M T a T ui d a 'IV O ' N ' N N U M T d N m a v 3 i _m 3 U co T O N m m M ti O a N V m W o N y gl N �J U Q nV m E E O d M O m al y of of of oI AE V RI of of of oI h � O ml UI ml UI O m N M O L y L 0 UI of ml UI 3 c 2 N N N O h � O ml UI ml UI 2 m 42 m m m c3i 6 N rl M� O L a 5 L OI UI UI ml UI m m Q N N ml ml ml til In N y N L. lCJ LL'J Z VJ m O L m m ai m m Q Q a a N M N NI M ti O N m W N y N �J Q nV m E E O d M m y W N O 0 .y n M of a L; m a M tl a • m z 0 v w w 0 z 5 ,,,goal man M tl a • m z 0 v w w 0 z 5 d' r Q H N Q 12 yV O N N N a M M O �� ZI ZI ZI ZI v m W 0 0 0 U_ 0 � m y Q� zl Z ZI ZI tC .h a N o y � 0 0 0 m 0.I To o o o m ° o o r m o - � x o � H R a v 3 y 9 V] Z IA Cf � nV CI O N O O O O 9 c JI UI UI ml of x Y �O VI Q 3 c OI UI UI ml UI Y d � OI UI UI ml DI J Y �O a V VI O c OI UI UI ml UI .+_. 3 x Y m �I NI N NI NI yl til �I N N Vl N Z V m m C L() L1'i Z Cn O O IZ Q Q a E � m E E NI [7I NI NI M O N m W 0 0 0 U_ 0 � m o - J a .h a N o y � U N H m o - � x o � H R a v 3 y 9 V] Z IA Cf � nV 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.5 REVISED AND NEW FIGURES The report figures that follow are revisions of figures that already appear in the DEIR (as indicated) or new figures provided for clarification to respond to comments. CO Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -59 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -60 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 V 1 cr�I N v� V 21 N O LN C E E < c = a of z a ¢ o .II II II II II III IIIL IL'IIIIIII�I�CI D _ III � rnT 11 III- II N n 0 oeo 00o fl l� O r (" 0 N U N ri (Tf a 0 m I N O N m a m U h C-1 I ILI Q z r1. 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -62 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 V 1 "1I N v� r E E �n N O LN p d o O Y N 1 JIIIIIII i II I IL IL'lIL'lll�lll�l p uIIIIIIIII I IIIIII II f F= SO Floor �z �r qmwQ 0 N v N U v � 0 z� � N a c � 0 m m a M Y Q V C C-1 w ILI Q 0 s a A O1 L.. Y .q.. 1 1 JIIIIIII i II I IL IL'lIL'lll�lll�l p uIIIIIIIII I IIIIII II f F= SO Floor �z �r qmwQ 0 N v N U v � 0 z� � N a c � 0 m m a M Y Q V C C-1 w ILI Q 0 s a 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -64 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 O Zt .1� V q Z cr�I 7� V a `UWc �wV) a 0 w c� C� V ti +v Z V O U W �egeg� 8 8 8 8 8 O O N 6 ^ IIIQI Wa z} J H r " H w W a- 0 o[ a n C� Lb o q a LL � d � U FO O w w [c O m w Q a z 1 � L h 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -66 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 0 Zt Q cr�I a 0 ti 'N V W a 0 ooa o0o fl i r �� , ------------ J-- R�fiTT"t � v w W4; �� g N LL m U O o f x V � C L Si V o ;LL 3 II L `o p � q q � d Z V p c F O C A pi i. J C9 O N U G i i N a m e q C S ti w Q z s a 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -68 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 0 Zt Q cr�I a 0 'N V N o� h .1111717 1111 =,L IIIIICIII�I;I�I b __ I❑IIIII II -r- II•111 n_' � I 31; c f C: i r v� Q O 0 ooa oo> fl ------------ - - - - -o - - - - - E CPII I.uxrML r, i� m f 0 0 c 1O 3 ' n` � A N V d A L L d 6 1 I ■ LL m U a e 0 Z A c � o `a � A N .�.. d d �a L d ja 0 v c c m a m U O h a W Q r1. 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -70 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 0 zt Q CrII h a W 1 .Iiillil101Rll M1M111L '� <<Illilhl�ii J - C� - � tnnrnrttrt.r -- �`Nyl I+ rr w� vJ r i - r J 1 rm -_ Itrm,1t1fril r tuui 'Ta1�1J il1ll . uuut �� 0 N N LL d U O JU a d I 0 a m U h 0 M Of q N U a a w Q 0 z r1. 0 o0 �v t E E$ ! E I I F< I 0 a m U h 0 M Of q N U a a w Q 0 z r1. 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -72 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 0 Zt q Z cr�I N 0 - - ° gym- r h r• c V/ Q I I I J'i LiD -- R&OB, a oq N N N V LL m � � v C o F 44 Z P \8 = 0 � C o _a ai a II 3 3 - n o a o oa N ti U w G i Q a m z U 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -74 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 e� O V Ml v h a 0 I N y L a 3 m n a` a N N N a 3 d m a W W co 0 N %A M (V— i A O n^ N � d m U y o� M O C U C y C E N � O z U p 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -76 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 0 V N .o N N� P ti N �N Y.. y ti ti ti MWAF 8 ol� R 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -78 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 4. Environmental Setting Cumulative Projects Location Map 1 Newport Beach Country Club. 1600 E Coast Highway Mariner's Medical Arts 1901 W. Westcliff Drive Banning Ranch 4520 W. Coast Highway Sunset Ridge Park 4850 W. Coast Highway (� Marina Park y 1700 Balboa Boulevard Koll Center 1� 4343 Von Karmen Avenue C AERIE 201 Carnation Avenue /1. Newport Coast Planned Community V Newport Coast Drive 4 Element Hotel 17662 Armstrong 10 Diamond Jamboree Southwest Corner of Millikan /Alton 11 Irving Crossing 17836 Gillette and 17871 Von Karmen Uptown Newport Initial Study Central Park 12 NW Corner of Jamboree Road/ g Michelson Drive 13 Metlife 2567 Main Street 14 Essex 2552 Kelvin Avenue 15 The Lofts 2300 Dupont Drive 16 Avalon 1 2701 Alton Parkway 17 2801 Alton Parkway 18 Plaza III & IV 3000 Scholarship 79 Carlyle 2201 Martin Court 20 Granite Court 17421 Murphy Avenue (21) 2801 Kelvin Avenue 22 17352 Von Kerman 23 Metropolis 2500 Main and 17872 Cartwright Aloft Extended Stay Hotel 2320 Main Street p� HINES V 18582 Teller and 2722 Michelson Park Place 26 NE Corner of Jamboree Road/ Michelson Drive 2851 Alton OMartin Street Residential 28 18831 Von Karmen and 2301 Martin 29 UCI Long Range Development Plan Irvine Technology Center 30 NW Corner of Jamboree Road/ Campus Drive 31 Scholle Building 0 2 LiScale (Mlles) The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 4 -4 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -80 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 0 Zt v q . A ^^� cr�I N a W N 'NN �I O c a o_ h = N '2 s t � f0 2 = _ �� IMII IMMWAI 0 m m �n 0 r m a m e C W Q z s a 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -82 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 0 Zt 1 . A Z cr�I O (O W �l 'N V O N ti 4� O I m of 1` 1 m llli m1J IIIIIIIIIIIIU ;II ro El m p 0 I 'I U � 0 �NNI L � a U LL J x Q >. g o o N g � � E Q N N co o c b L p�p p Q ro C t ,; U _ N U lAq yi G{p g co , <. A E A n � e O I m of 1` 1 m llli m1J IIIIIIIIIIIIU ;II ro El m p 0 I 'I U � 0 �NNI L � a U LL i ,I-- fi —IF . 1 V C" y L O N N N bo co �n a H 0 m a C 0 O CD N 3 aj m L rL 1 1 1 1 1 1 C _ � O a - c � c Q 0] n o d co z U I � � J OL Q >. o cc C � � E Q N co o c ca p Q ro C t ,; U _ N U lAq co , <. i ,I-- fi —IF . 1 V C" y L O N N N bo co �n a H 0 m a C 0 O CD N 3 aj m L rL 1 1 1 1 1 1 C _ � O a - c � c Q 0] n o d co z U I � � 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -84 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 N ti yv eC' • N NN W 'n l 0 'N 4� a ,1111111111, 11U a u11n I rmmr r- ?MTMTm 7k F F 7nmru HE t g111ff� m 717J _ I � IittitffTt� `1 l`1 I - L � �12 S d LL d U 0 0 a m a U h ►l co ui t o� V Q d fi H C w Q 0 z 0 r1. N d A A a i E E$ c c p p c 0 0 o w ac E E ° ua p m I I wa I ,1111111111, 11U a u11n I rmmr r- ?MTMTm 7k F F 7nmru HE t g111ff� m 717J _ I � IittitffTt� `1 l`1 I - L � �12 S d LL d U 0 0 a m a U h ►l co ui t o� V Q d fi H C w Q 0 z 0 r1. 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -86 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 C W w a a 1; 1 tuo Lu p J t J � 0 � i- u z i 1 R z p K EI R _ � II d i! F ia8 F i xy m e I I C t_ r Y! cl L�^ I I U� Km _. _ m B 0 I I I g � f I 1 ? o �E I I SC I gb� S I y a I 5 5 _ YS __ < p •x! I ; W W m e I I C t_ r Y! cl L�^ E S ON wz 6 R m gw gee • • ° a� i o m I � _ _. _ m B 0 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -88 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 / } ( \ .2 $ \ \ \ \ � \ @ \ Q \ $ , .\ � \ \ ■ j � � � { \ ) � } { \ r A4�aA44j9A � � { \ ) � } { 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -90 • The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Appendices Appendix A. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan CO Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Appendices Appendix B. Uptown Newport Phase 1 RWQCB NFA Letter CO Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Appendices Appendix C1. I- Shuttle Route A CO Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Appendices Appendix C2 I- Shuttle Route B CO Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Appendices Appendix D ALUC Hearing Finding Letter CO Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Appendices Appendix E Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (bound separately) CO Uptown Newport Final EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC &E February 2013 Attachment No. CC 18 MM &RP (November 2012) This document is not included in the staff report package due to its size and bulk. It is available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at htti): / /newi)ortbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2029 -421 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR. UPTOWN NEWPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2010051094 prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner prepared b): THE PLANNING CENTER I DC &E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Principal, Environmental Services NOVEMBER 2012 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Tel: 949.644.3208 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 E -mail: information @planningcenter.cam Website: www.planningcenter.com MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR: UPTOWN NEWPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2010051094 eQN4, 0a Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Prepared by. THE PLANNING CENTER I DC &E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Principal, Environmental Services CNB -13.OE NOVEMBER 2012 Table of Contents Section Page MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM ........................... 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................... ............................... 2 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY ...................................................................... ............................... 2 Table Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements E(NO 08 Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page i Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Page ii • The Planning Center I DC&E November 2012 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2010051094. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the City of Newport Beach monitoring requirements. Section 21081.6 states: a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: 1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. 2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for Uptown Newport and is therefore responsible for implementing the MMRP. The MMRP is comprised of the mitigation measures, which serve to avoid, reduce, and /or fully mitigate potential environmental impacts. The MMRP has been identified and recommended through preparation of the DEIR with additional mitigation measures and modified measures resulting from a Responsible Agency proposing an alternative or an additional method to mitigate an impact. These additional measures have been analyzed and would not create any additional significant impacts, but will further lessen impacts anticipated to occur with implementation of the proposed project. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, as fully enforceable monitoring programs. Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 1 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The MMRP is comprised of the mitigation program and includes measures to implement and monitor the mitigation program. The MMRP defines the following for each mitigation measure outlined in Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Requirements: Definition of Mitigation. In each case, the mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation. • Phasing. As described below in Section 1.3, Project Summary, the proposed project will be developed in two phases (Phase 1 and 2). In each case, it is noted whether the mitigation measure is applicable to Phase 1 or 2, or both phases. Responsible Party or Designated Representative. In each case, unless where otherwise indicated, the project applicant is the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, while the City of Newport Beach or a designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. Timeframe. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact- related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, state, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. The numbering system provided in Table 3 -1 corresponds with the numbering system used in the DEIR. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Newport Beach. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The 25.05 -acre project site is within the Airport Business Area of the City of Newport Beach. It is bounded by Jamboree Road on the east and is within an area bounded by Birch Street on the north, and Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard on the west. The site is currently developed with light industrial /manufacturing uses and associated surface parking lots. 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed Uptown Newport project would consist of mixed uses with up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving retail space, and approximately two acres of park space. Residential product types would be for -sale and rent with a mix of townhomes, mid- and high -rise condominiums, and affordable housing. Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet in height; with residential towers up to 150 feet high. Of the 1,224 housing units, 184 units would be set aside for affordable housing. Two parks totaling approximately two acres would be developed and accessible to the public. Vehicular access to the site would be from Jamboree Road, Birch Street, and Von Kerman Avenue. Page 2 • The Planning Center I DC&E November 2012 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would involve demolition of the existing single - story office building at 4311 Jamboree Road to accommodate approximately 680 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood - serving commercial development, and a one -acre park. The TowerJazz Semiconductor facility (4321 Jamboree Road) would continue operating during construction and initial operation of Phase 1. Development of Phase 1 is projected to start in 2013 and be completed in 2018. Phase 2 would include demolition of the TowerJazz facility and construction of the remaining 564 residential units and a one -acre park. 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 DEIR conservatively assumed that Phase 2 could commence as early as spring 2017 with buildout through 2021. The project approvals required from the City include: Planned Community Development Plan amendment and adoption, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, Traffic Study, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, Phasing Plan, and Design Guidelines. Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 3 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 • The Planning Center I DC&E November 2012 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 5 Responsibility for Monitor Applies to Applies to Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Phase 2 Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 5.2 Air Duality 2 -1 The construction contractor shall use construction equipment rated by YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or Construction Contractor construction Community Development higher exhaust emission limits for nonemergency equipment over 50 Department— Building horsepower. Tier 3 engines between 50 and 750 horsepower are Division available for 2006 to 2008 model years. After January 1, 2015, nonemergency equipment over 50 horsepower 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, the construction contractor 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. 2 -2 The construction contractor shall implement the following measures or YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach that implementation Construction Contractor construction Community Development would not be feasible: Department— Building Division • 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. 2 -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the construction contractor shall YES YES Project Applicant and Prior to issuance of City of Newport Beach provide a statement to the City of Newport Beach that the construction Construction Contractor grading permits Community and Public contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit Works Departments incentives for the construction crew, such as carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes, or secured bicycle parking for construction workers. Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 5 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measures Applies to Phase 1 Applies to Phase 2 Responsibility for Implementation and Reporting Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) (Date of Compliance) 2 -4 The construction contractor shall prepare a dust control plan and YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach implement the following measures during ground- disturbing activities for Construction Contractor construction Community Development fugitive dust control in addition to South Coast Air Quality Management Department — Building District Rule 403 to reduce particulate matter emissions. The City of Division Newport Beach shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. • 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 overto 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 coverthat 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 84eet 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. 2 -5 The construction contractor during Phase 2 activities shall adhere to one NO YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach of the following if construction of Phase 1 overlaps with construction of Construction Contractor construction Community Development Phase 2: Department — Building Division • The construction contractor 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. The City of Newport Beach shall verify compliance that one of these measures has been implemented during normal construction site inspections. Page 6 • The Planning Center I DC &E November 2012 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 7 Responsibility for Monitor Applies to Applies to Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Phase 2 Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 2 -6 The construction contractor shall post a sign at the entrance to the YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach construction site. The sign shall identify the designated contact person, Construction Contractor construction Community Development telephone number, and email address for construction - related Department— Building complaints. Upon receipt of a compliant, the complaint shall be Division 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. 2 -7 The construction contractor shall use haul trucks and/or require YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach subcontractors to use haul trucks that are 2010 or newer haul trucks for Construction Contractor construction Community Development demolition and construction (C &D) debris removal offsite and soil haul, Department— Building unless evidence is provided by the contractor /subcontractor that such Division trucks are not readily available at the time of issuance of a demolition and /or grading permit. 5.3 Biological Resources 3 -1 Prior to any proposed actions during the breeding season, January 31 st YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach through September 15th, the monitoring biologist shall conduct a pre- Monitoring Biologist construction Community Development construction survey(s) to identify any active nests in and near the Department — Planning project area no more than three days prior to project initiation. If the Division biologist does not find any active nests that would be potentially impacted, the 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. 5.4 Cultural Resources 4 -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall YES YES Project Applicant, Certified Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach demonstrate to the Community Development Department that an Orange Paleontologist, and grading permits Community Development County —cerli ied professional archaeologist has been retained to monitor Construction Contractor Department— Planning any potential impacts to archaeological or historic resources throughout Division 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 Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 7 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Page 8 • The Planning Center I DC &E November 2012 Responsibility for Monitor Applies to Applies to Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Phase 2 Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 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, pursuantto the California Environmental Quality Act. 4 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall YES YES Project Applicant, Certified Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach demonstrate to the Community Development Departmentthat an Orange Paleontologist, and grading permits Community Development County— certified professional paleontologist has been retained to Construction Contractor Department— Planning monitor any potential impacts to paleontological resources throughout Division the duration of any ground - disturbing activities atthe 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. • 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. 5.6 Geology and Soils 6 -1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits for the project, the project YES YES Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach applicant shall have soil testing for expansion potential conducted by a Project Engineer grading permits Community Development professional engineering geologist or registered geotechnical engineer. Department— Building The geologist or engineer shall prepare a report describing the sampling Division 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. Page 8 • The Planning Center I DC &E November 2012 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 9 Responsibility for Monitor Applies to Applies to Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Phase 2 Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 7 -1 In compliance with CFC Section 381.1 (Amendment), prior to issuance YES NO Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach of building permits for Phase 1, the project applicant shall submit a Project Engineer building permits Fire Department — geologic study from a state - licensed and department- approved Fire Prevention Division 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). 7 -2 Prior to issuance of any building permit for Phase 1, the applicant shall YES NO Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach demonstrate compliance with CFC Section 27041.1 (Amendment), TowerJazz Personnel building permits Fire Department — which prohibits the storage of any amount of extremely hazardous Fire Prevention Division substances equal to or greater than the disclosable amounts listed in Appendix A, Part 355, Titie 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 (bid). 7 -3 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall YES NO Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire occupancy permits Fire Department — Department that the following disclosures and emergency notification Fire Prevenfon Division 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. • 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 Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 9 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Page 10 • The Planning Center I DC &E November 2012 Responsibility for Monitor Applies to Applies to Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Phase 2 Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) and TowerJazz to assure proper action in the event of an accident atthe facility (shelter in place and/or evacuation routes). • Upgrade Towedazz 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. 7 -4 Prior to the introduction of a new extremely hazardous substance (EHS) YES NO Project Applicant and Prior to the introduction of City of Newport Beach or increase in quantity of any existing EHS at TowerJazz, an updated TowerJazz Personnel a new extremely hazardous Fire Department — OCA shall be prepared and reviewed and authorized by the City of substance (EHS) or Fire Prevention Division Newport Beach Fire Department. Any new EHS shall be appropriately increase in quantity of any located and the installation designed with all necessary mitigation existing EHS at TowerJazz safeguards specified by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. 7 -5 Priorto the issuance of building permits for development within Phase 1, YES NO Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach the project applicant shall obtain a "No Further Action" declaration or Project Engineer building permits Fire Department — Letter of Allowance for residential construction for Phase 1 from the Fire Prevention Division Regional Water Quality Control Board. 7 -6 The project applicant shall submit copies of applicable reports and plans NO YES Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach as submitted to the RWQCB for remedial activities within the Phase 2 grading permits Community Development portion of the project site to the City of Newport Beach Community Department— Building Development Department. Such copies shall include remediation action Division plans and annual soil and groundwater remediation progress reports. 7 -7 Prior to the issuance of building permits for development within Phase 2, NO YES Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach the project applicant shall obtain a `No Further Action" declaration or building permits Community Development Letter of Allowance for residential construction for Phase 2 from the Department — Building Regional Water Quality Control Board. Division 7 -8 Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the project applicant shall have YES YES Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach the fallowing inspections and assessments conducted for the Half Dome Construction Contractor demolition permits Community Development building (Phase 1) and TowerJazz building (Phase 2) and shall provide Department— Building the Community Development Department with a copy of the report of Division each investigation or assessment. • The applicant shall retain a certified lead inspector /assessorto inspect buildings onsite 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 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. 7 -9 Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the project NO YES Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach applicant shall retain a registered environmental assessor or other Registered Environmental building permits Community Development professional qualified to conduct a human health risk assessment Assessor or Other Department— Building (HHRA) of potential volatile organic compound contamination. The Professional Division 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. Page 10 • The Planning Center I DC &E November 2012 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 11 Responsibility for Monitor Applies to Applies to Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Phase 2 Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 7 -10 Prior to issuance of a building permits for Phase 2 development, the NO YES Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach project applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Project Engineer building permits Community Development Departmentthat contamination in sail and groundwater on Phase 2 has Department— Building been remediated to meet the cleanup goal for the site for total volatile Division 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. 7 -11 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for Phase 2, the construction NO YES Project Applicant, Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach dates for the SCE Substation shall be confirmed. If the facility was Construction Contractor, demolition permits Community Development constructed priorto the 1980's, a certified inspector approved by the and Certified Inspector Department and Fire City of Newport Beach Fire Department shall be retained to test for PCBs Department 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 priorto the issuance of Phase 2 building permits. 5.10 Noise and Vibration 10 -1 The parking lot surface of all parking garages shall be textured to YES YES Project Applicant, Project During construction City of Newport Beach eliminate tire squeal noise. Ventilation equipmentforthe parking garages Engineer, and Construction Community Development shall be designed to meet the City's noise limits for Zone III, not exceed Contractor Department— Building a daytime maximum of 60 dBA Leq (or 80 dBA Lmax) and a nighttime Division maximum of 50 dBA Leq (or 70 dBA Lmax). This can be accomplished by selecting quieter equipment or by enclosing ventilation equipment. 10 -2 Truck deliveries shall be restricted to the daytime hours between 7 AM YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach and 10 PM. Construction Contractor construction Community Development Department 10 -3 Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1, a detailed acoustical YES NO Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical building permits Community Development acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development Engineer /Consultant Department— Planning Department for review and approval. The study shall demonstrate that all Division 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: • 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. Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 11 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measures Applies to Phase 1 Applies to Phase 2 Responsibility for Implementation and Reporting Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) (Date of Compliance) • 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. • Screen: The performance of the existing sheet metal parapet wall/screen can be enhanced by treating the upper 8 feet of the screen with acoustical absorption. • Cooling Towers Noise Control • Relocation: Moving the cooling towers away from the Phase 1 development would be an effective approach to noise control. • Replacement: Replacement of the existing cooling towers can be considered, as new towers would have new coils with improved airflow and eff iciency. • Additional Cooling Towers: Additional cooling towers would reduce the cooling demand on individual units, allowing the fans to operate at lower speed. • 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 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 Towedazz 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. Page 12 • The Planning Center I DC &E November 2012 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 13 Responsibility for Monitor Applies to Applies to Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Phase 2 Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 10 -4 Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, a detailed acoustical NO YES Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach study based an architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified Acoustical building permits Community Development acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development Engineer /Consultant Department— Planning Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 65 Division 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. 10 -5 Prior to issuance of building permits for each residential structure YES NO Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach located within Phase 1, a detailed acoustical study based on Acoustical building permits Community Development architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant Engineer /Consultant Department— Planning and submitted to the Community Development Department to Division 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. 10 -6 Prior to issuance of building permits for each residential structure NO YES Project Applicant and Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach located within Phase 2, a detailed acoustical study based on Acoustical building permits Community Development architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant Engineer /Consultant Department — Planning and submitted to the Community Development Department to Division demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards 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. Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 13 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measures Applies to Phase 1 Applies to Phase 2 Responsibility for Implementation and Reporting Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) (Date of Compliance) 10 -7 During Phase 1 construction, the construction contractor shall YES NO Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach implement a vibration control program to reduce vibration levels at the Construction Contractor construction Community Development TowerJazz facility. The Technical Memorandum prepared by Wilson Ihrig Department 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: • 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. • 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. • 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 staring 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 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: Page 14 • The Planning Center I DC &E November 2012 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 15 Responsibility for Monitor Applies to Applies to Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measures Phase 1 Phase 2 Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) • A vibration level of 0.125 in /sec will trigger a warning thatwill notify the construction operator and TowerJazz; • A vibration level of 0.250 in /sec will trigger a warning thatwill notify the construction operator and TowerJazz of excessive vibration and thatthe construction activity that is causing the excessive vibration should be stopped. • Construction activity may recommence upon satisfactory assessment thatthe continued construction activity will not substantially affect the use of vibration- sensitive equipment or interfere with operations atthe 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. 10 -8 Augured piles shall be employed to the extent possible. Impact and YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach vibratory pile drivers shall not be used during construction within 75 feet Construction Contractor construction Community Development of any building. Department — Building Division 10 -9 The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach onsite is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. Construction Contractor construction Community Development Department — Building Division 10 -10 The construction contractor shall ensure that construction equipment is YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine Construction Contractor construction Community Development shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the Department— Building manufacturer. Division 10 -11 The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential Construction Contractor construction Community Development and recreational receptor locations as is feasible. Department— Building Division 10 -12 Material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction YES YES Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Construction Contractor construction Community Development Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Department — Building Division Uptown Newport Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach • Page 15 4. Mitigation Monitoring Reports This page intentionally left blank. Page 16 • The Planning Center I DC &E November 2012 Attachment No. CC 19 Koll Center Newport PCDP 423 424 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For Kell Center Newport Ordinance No. 1449, adopted by the City of Newport Beach August 14, 1972 (Amendment No. 313) Original draft May 5, 1972 Amendment (1) August 14, 1972 Amendment (2) August 14, 1972 Amendment (3) August 2, 1973 Amendment (4) February 7, 1974 Amendment (5) June 10, 1974 Amendment (6) May 15, 1975 Amendment (7) September 8, 1975 Amendment (8) June 28, 1976 Amendment (9) January 10, 1977 Amendment (10) July 11, 1978 Amendment (11) August 28, 1978 Amendment (12) October 19, 1978 Amendment (13) November 10, 1980 Amendment (14) March 23, 1981 Amendment(15) October 24, 1984 Amendment (16) May 14, 1984 Amendment (17) December 9, 1985 Amendment (18) July 14, 1986 Amendment (19) March 23, 1987 Amendment (20) July 27, 1987 Amendment (21) June 12, 1989 Amendment (22) April 25, 1994 Amendment (23) October 9, 1995 Amendment (24) February 23, 1998 Amendment (25) August 10, 1998 Amendment (26) January 11, 2000 Amendment (27) January 25, 2000 Amendment (28) August 9, 2005 Ordinance No. 2006 -19 (29) July 25, 2006 Ordinance No. 2006 -21 (30) October 24, 2006 Ordinance No. 2011 -3 (3 1) January 25, 2011 Ordinance No. 2011 -8(32) March 8, 201 I Amendment (33) .2013 NOTE: See Footnotes beginning on Page 47 for description of amendments. 425 CONTENTS i�� PAGE NO. PREFACE 1 DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 2 GENERAL NOTES 7 DEFINITIONS 8 PARTI. INDUSTRIAL e..,.. en4 Statistioalz4 s 4A Seel:__ 11 44 Secmm4IL 12 eeet�_ w 42 PART II. COMMERCIAL Section I. 15 Site Area and Building Area Section II. 26 Permitted Uses Section III. 30 General Development Standards for Commercial Land PART III. GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Section I. 34 PART IV. GENERAL SIGN REQUIREMENTS Section 1. 37 Sign Standards Section II. 40 Sign Area i�� PART V PART VI. PART VII. PAGE NO. Section III. 41 Maintenance GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS Section 1. 42 General Statement FOOTNOTES 47 Composite ........................... Exhibit A ............................ Exhibit B ............................. Exhibit C ............................. Exhibit D ............................ Exhibit E ............................. ... For Information Only ... Land Use ... Grading and Roads ... Storm Drain ... Water & Sewer ... Boundary and Topography 427 PREFACE It is the intent of this Planned Community Development to provide comprehensive zoning for what is now the Collins Radio property. Planned within this development are a hotel with banquet and convention facilities, a small retail and service center, service stations, restaurants, bars and theater /nightclubs, a site for the proposed Orange County Courthouse with the balance of the acreage developed as a business and professional office park emphasizing open space. 13��iniag within the pw4E will be the existing Collins Radie faoility. it will be ineafpaFa4ed into Pq a DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS (1) This Planned Community Development is a project of The Kell Company. This area is most appropriate for commercial and light industrial uses, and therefore we submit the enclosed air traffic analysis, vehicular analysis, land use analysis and market analysis to substantiate this document. Attached drawings indicate land use, grading and roads, storm drains, water and sewer, topography and traffic analysis. The site is comprised of approximately - 17119154.0 acres and is generally bounded on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard. (10) (33) In order to insure development consistent with the master plan concept, a review shall be required. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a precise development plan shall be submitted by the developer to the Planning Director for review. This precise plan shall conform to the requirements of this Planned Community text and all other applicable codes and regulations and shall be approved prior to submission by The Kell Company. Included in the plan review material shall be: Building Criteria a. size b. location c. height d, materials 2. Parking Criteri a a. areas, including drives and accesses b. quantity c. size 3. Landscaped Areas a. setbacks b. walls c. plazas d. pools, fountains and/or other amenities 4. Signing Criteri a a. location b. size c. quantity 5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director and as recommended below. Items 5a through 5e inclusive. E 42J Sewaae System Criteri a The sewer system in the vicinity of the lake should be revised to conform to the following criteria: All sewer lines should be located such that they will not be under water even when the lake is at its maximum level. 2. Sewer lines shall be located in 15 -foot wide (minimum) easements and must be accessible to maintenance vehicles at all times. The depth of sewer lines should not exceed 15 feet, with the possible exception of joining the existing system at MacArthur Boulevard. b. Pedestrian Circulation A pedestrian sidewalk system along the public streets shall be constructed throughout the development. The adequacy of such system shall be analyzed independently of any on -site pedestrian walkway system proposed for a particular portion of the development. Bicycle Circulation A system of bicycle paths coordinated with the City's Master Plan of Bicycle Trails and meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation shall be developed and maintained within the planned community. d. Erosion Control Landscaping plans shall incorporate provisions for Erosion Control on all graded sites which will remain vacant for a considerable period of time prior to commencement of building construction. Traffic Considerations Both MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road shall be widened to provide for 6 through lanes, double left turn lanes at all intersections, and free right taming lanes at all intersections. ii. Von Karman shall be widened at the intersection with MacArthur Boulevard to provide 6 lanes. 161E iii. All streets on the site except for Von Karman shall be flared to provide at least 5 lanes at intersections with peripheral streets. iv. Birch Street shall be flared to 5 lanes at the intersection with Von Karman. V. Campus Drive shall be widened to provide dual left turn Imes at Von Karman. vi. Von Karman shall be improved for its full length from MacArthur Boulevard to Campus Drive in conjunction with initial development of areas which do not take primary access from Campus Drive or Jamboree Road. vii. Access rights to MacArthur Boulevard shall be dedicated to the City except for the Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue intersections. Consideration may be given to providing additional access points at a later date if more detailed traffic studies demonstrate the desirability of such additional access points. Consideration shall be limited to right turn egress and right and left turn ingress. (11) viii. Traffic signals shall be constructed at the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard with Birch Street and with Von Kansan Avenue when the latter two streets are opened. The developer shall be responsible for 50% of the cost of the signal at Von Karman and 50% of the cost of the signal at Birch Street. ix. A traffic signal shall be constructed at the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road in conjunction with the initial stages of development. The developer shall be responsible for 25% of the cost of the signal. X. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Von Karman and Birch Street, with the developer to be responsible for 100% of the cost. Construction shall be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than June 30, 1977. (8) Ni. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Von Kannan and Campus Drive, with the developer to be responsible for 50% of the cost. Construction shall be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than December 30, 1976. (8) A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street, with the developer to be responsible for 5001. of the cost. Construction shall 4 '4 s1 be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than June 30, 1977. (8) In order to accomplish the schedule for construction of these two signals, a cooperative agreement may be entered into between the developer and the City. The agreement shall provide for the developer to advance the nondeveloper share of the funding, if necessary; with provisions for reimbursement by the City. The agreement may also provide for a credit to the developer for funds advanced for the City's share of construction costs for signals constructed elsewhere in the project. (8) xii. Provision for other traffic signals shall be investigated in conjunction with the process of development at a later date. xiii. Phasing of Development. 1,651,757 sq. ft. of develop- ment was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,058,863 sq.ft. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 317,658 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. (12) Aimort (2) The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall be included in all leases or subleases for space in the Planned Community Development and shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement (2) The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; ii. When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; -432 iii. The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansion at the Orange County Airport; iv. Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the Orange County Airport. 433 GENERAL NOTES Water within the planned community area will be furnished by the Irvine Ranch Water District Prior to or coincidental with the filing of any tentative map or use permit, the developer shall submit a master plan of drainage to the Director of Public Works. The height of all buildings and structures shall comply with Federal Aviation Authority criteria. Except as otherwise stated in this ordinance, the requirements of the zoning code, City of Newport Beach, shall apply. The contents of this supplemental text notwithstanding, no construction shall be proposed within the boundaries of this planned community district except that which shall comply with all provisions of the Building Code and the various mechanical and electrical codes related thereto. G'X39 DEFINITIONS Advertising Surface: The total area of the face of the structure, excluding supports. Area of Elevation: Total height and length of a building as projected to a vertical plane. Building Line: An imaginary line parallel to the street right -of -way line specifying the closest point from this street right -of -way that a building structure may be located (except for overhangs, stairs and sunscreens). Right -of -Way Line: When reference is made to right -of -way line it shall mean the line which is then established on either the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways or the filed Tract Map for Minor Roads as the ultimate right -of -way line for roads or streets. Side and Front of Comer Lots: For the purpose of this ordinance, the narrowest frontage of a lot facing the street is the front, and the longest frontage facing the intersecting street is the side, irrespective of the direction in which the structures face. Sign: Any structure, device or contrivance, electric or non - electric and all parts thereof which are erected or used for advertising purposes upon or within which any poster, bill, bulletin, printing, lettering, painting, device or other advertising of any kind whatsoever is used, placed, posted, tacked, nailed, pasted or otherwise fastened or affixed. Commerce: All those permitted uses as specified in Section II, Group I through VII, inclusive, in this text. Commercial Land: The site area upon which any or all commercial permitted uses would exist. Site Area: (3) The total land area of the land described in the use or other permit, including footprint lots. Special Landscaped Street: -435 Special landscaped streets are designated as MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Boulevard and Campus Drive. The landscaping requirements for special landscaped streets and for the remaining streets are described in the following text. Streets - Dedicated and Private: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of -way. In the case of private or non - dedicated streets, a minimum setback from the right - of -way line of said streets of ten (10) feet shall be required for all structures. Except for sidewalks or access drives, this area shall be landscaped according to the setback area standards from dedicated streets contained herein. Driveway: Vehicular access ways onto or within private property exclusive of streets, dedicated or private A minimum separation of five (5) feet shall be maintained between all driveways and buildings. Footprint Lot: (3) The area of land required for the building pad, encompassing the peripheral area of the building. Appurtenant and contiguous to the footprint lot shall be all parking, landscape, setbacks and other areas as described and required by this text. Landscape Area: (4) The landscape area shall include walks, plazas, water and all other areas not devoted to building footprints or vehicular parking and drive surfaces. In calculating area of required landscaping any off -site landscaping such as landscaped medians or parkways in street rights -of -way shall not be included. iW_ PART I. INDUSTRIAL — Deleted. (33) A. Budd, .�i.... c .e� setbacks, within pfopeFty lines. (4) (8)(21 Site Zcnea., Z5 e Site 1 4922 A 10.16 aeres 10 -x-37 A. T.. ..I1 .... ............:.......:1. .............] :....,...........1. D ....t:..:t:e.. P..e..:ded that ..Ueh excess .1:.... , Staff dust, smoke, vibiation, .. ,. eantain ...J...Je but shall t be lifflited de. elepme..t..l 1..6......t...te.q ...d m.. ufaet....:ng Fel..ted t.. the 1'..11....:..g D of buildings �d do not conmbute tome to odef, or noxious mattef the .. high 1..........1 :..1 .1 te the p to labomtenes ....d F..." :t: es feseuch 6...:1:t:,... ....d 1:.1.t eafWatible list eC..xawyle... 11 pa r 4 sj 13 Mcl� ..6.. All I be edified :...6e General c:.... De....:fe.. is Pa signing Fi. PedestEifnriEcBSST as -., a... ele.....e...S ...6e :..a.......:,.1 ... .r f, ea:...... r.. 11 iS Fe....:....a Of of e r.vae.....:.... e all Oa Said r building 11 detail peflnit. pin w considemoofl 18 .ue .. l.:ve. e..d . va:vee..r J3FOJ30F68S. e..a shall r...u:O Filth. Of .. and all and e. 4S vl... vu .. a5,. e_e.._e..e,.va Of HOee..,.e... e 6e 1 be A11 .. in the Ge..e..el D..d:.... �. hand.ee « «e pafl:..a as speoified be in the Cienefal Landseap e All landscaping Dee..:..eme..r.. �T shall as specified De.n l) 14 60,9JM PART II Section I. Group I COMMERCIAL Site Area and Building Area PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES. Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) A. Building Sites (4) Total Acreage Site A 30.939 acres * (29) Site B 43.703 acres (11) Site C 18.806 acres (10) Site D 19.673 acres Site E 2.371 acres Site F 1.765 acres Site G 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres ®(10)(1 I) B. Allowable Building Area Office Acreage 30.939 acres *(29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres(8)(16)(11) Site 366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30) Site B 977,720 square feet (13)(16)(28)(30)(32) Site C 674,800 square feet (10)(15) Site D 240,149 square feet (8)(13) Site E 32,500 square feet (4) Site F 42,646 square feet (4)(3 1) Site G 45,000 square feet (8) 2,378.962 square feet_(15)( *)(31) C. Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking Criteria: One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites C, D, E, F and G. *(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) 15 221 b. One (I) space per 300 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites A, B and C. (11) Site A Allowable Building Area ....... 366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30) Site Area ...... 19.399 acres *(3)(4)(16) a. Building Height Land Coverage (16)(29)(30) Two story development ............... 4.20 acres Three story development ............... 2.80 acres Four story development ............... 2.10 acres Five story development ............... 1.68 acres Six story development ............... 1.40 acres Seven story development ............... 1.20 acres Eight story development ............... 1.05 acres Nine story development ............... 0.93 acres Ten story development ............... 0.84 acres Eleven story development ............... 0.76 acres Twelve story development ............... 0.70 acres b. Parking Land Coverage 1,221 cars .............. 10.18 acres (11, 16,29,30) Landscaped Open Space (4, 11,16) Land Coverage (29,30) Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development 2. Site B Allowable Building Area Site Area 16 5.02 acres 6.42 acres 7.12 acres 7.54 acres 7.80 acres 8.02 acres 8.17 acres 8.29 acres 8.38 acres 8.46 acres 8.52 acres ......... 977,720 square feet (13,16,28,30) ......... 43.703 acres (4) (11) MKIM a. Building Height Land Coverage (16,28,30,32)) Two story development ............... 11.22 acres Three story development ............... 7.48 acres Four story development ............... 5.61 acres Five story development ............... 4.49 acres Six story development ............... 3.74 acres Seven story development ............... 3.21 acres Eight story development ............... 2.81 acres Nine story development ............... 2.49 acres Ten story development ............... 2.24 acres Eleven story development ............... 2.04 acres Twelve story development ............... 1.87 acres b. Parking Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30,32)) 3,259 cars ............... 27.16 acres C. Landscaped Open Space (11) Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30,32)) Two story development .... I.......... 5.32 acres Three story development .......... I.... 9.06 acres Four story development ............... 10.93 acres Five story development ............... 12.05 acres Six story development ............... 12.80 acres Seven story development ............... 13.33 acres Eight story development ............... 13.73 acres Nine story development ............... 14.05 acres Ten story development ............... 14.30 acres Eleven story development ............... 14.50 acres Twelve story development ............... 14.67 acres 3. Site C(10) Allowable Building Area Site Area Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development 17 ......... 674,800 square feet (15) (17)* ......... 18.806 acres (4) Land Coverage (15) ......... 7.75 acres ......... 5.16 acres ......... 3.87 acres ......... 3.10 acres ......... 2.58 acres ......... 2.21 acres ......... 1.94 acres ......... 1.72 acres ......... 1.55 acres ......... 1.41 acres ......... 1.29 acres INKII, b. Parking 2,249 cars Land Coverage (15) ......... 18.74 acres * The square footage includes a maximum of 3,250 square feet for up to two (2) restaurants, bars, or theater /nightclubs. Any portion or all of the floor area not utilized for the purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. (17) Landscaped Oven Space Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development 4. Site D Allowable Building Area Site Area Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking 1,067 cars 16 Land Coverage (4)(15) ............... -7.68 acres ............... -5.09 acres ............... -3.80 acres ............... -3.03 acres ............... -2.51 acres ............... -2.14 acres ............... -1.87 acres ............... -1.65 acres ............... -1.48 acres ............... -1.34 acres ............... -1.24 acres ......... 240, 149 square feet (8)(13) ......... 19.673 acres (4) Land Covers (8) (13) ......... 2.75 acres ......... 1.84 acres ......... 1.38 acres ......... 1.10 acres ......... 0.92 acres ......... 0.79 acres ......... 0.69 acres ......... 0.61 acres ......... 0.55 acres ......... 0.50 acres ......... 0.46 acres Land Coverage (8) (13) ......... 8.89 acres G'MM Landscaped Oven Space Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development 5. Site E Allowable Building Area Site Area Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking 144 cars Landscaped Open Space (4) Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development 19 Land Coverage (4) (8) (13) ............... 8.03 acres ............... 8.94 acres ............... 9.40 acres ............... 9.68 acres ............... 9.86 acres ............... 9.99 acres ............... 10.09 acres ............... 10.17 acres ............... 10.23 acres ............... 10.28 acres ............... 10.32 acres ......... 32,500 square feet (4) ......... 2.371 acres (4) Land Coverage (4) ......... 0.37 acres ......... 0.25 acres ......... 0.19 acres ......... 0.15 acres ......... 0.12 acres ......... 0.11 acres ......... 0.10 acres ......... 0.09 acres ......... 0.08 acres ......... 0.07 acres ......... 0.06 acres Land Coverage (4) ......... 1.20 acres Land Coverage ............... 0.80 acres ............... 0.92 acres ............... 0.98 acres .... I.......... 1.02 acres ............... 1.05 acres ............... 1.06 acres ............... 1.07 acres .......... I.... 1.08 acres ............... 1.09 acres .... I ..... ..... 1.10 acres ............... 1.11 acres 6. 7. Site F (4)(3 1) Allowable Building Area Site Area Building g eight One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development b. Parking 190 cars Landscaped Open Space One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Site G (8) Allowable Building Area Site Area Building Height One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development b. Parking 200 cars Landscaped Open Space One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development ......... 42,646 square feet ......... 1.765 acres Land Coveraee ............... 0.98 acres ............... 0.49 acres ............... 0.33 acres ............... 0.24 acres ...........0.20 acres ............0.16 acres Land Coverage ......... 1.58 acres Land Coverage ............... <0.80> acres ............... <0.31> acres ............... <0.15> acres ............... <0.06> acres ................ <0.02> acres .............. <0.03> acres ......... 45,000 square feet ......... 5.317 acres Land Coverage 1.03 acres 0.52 acres 0.34 acres 0.26 acres Land Coverage ......... 1.67 acres Land Coverage 2.62 acres 3.13 acres 3.31 acres 3.39 acres Building g eight Maximum building height shall not exceed twelve (12) stones above ground level, and shall in no way exceed the height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. Conclusions 20 447 The preceding figures indicate that within a fixed maximum density as the height of the building increases the resulting open landscaped area also increases. Group II. HOTEL & MOTEL (1) A. Building Sites For the purposes of this statistical analysis, 9.54 acres have been allotted for hotel and motel development. This acreage is for statistical purposes only. It is necessary to allot a specific acreage within this analysis to secure office building densities within their specific parcels. Development may include but shall not be limited to this acreage. The hotel and motel site size shall be determined at the time a use permit is secured. B. Building Height Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. Group III. COURT HOUSE A. Building Site Site 1: 7.80 acres ....... ............................... 7.80 acres B. Building Area Site 1: 90,000 square feet ........................ 90,000 square feet The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Parking 400 Cars ................................ ............................... 3.33 acres D. Landscaped Open Space Land Coverage Two story development ......... ............................... 3.44 acres Three story development ....... ............................... 3.78 acres Four story development ......... ............................... 3.95 acres Five story development .......... ............................... 4.06 acres Six story development ............ ............................... 4.13 acres E. Building Height Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. 21 442 Group IV. SERVICE STATIONS A. Building Sites (4) (5) (I 1) Site 3: 1.765 acres .... ............................... 1.765 acres Service station site 3 shall be located within Office Site F and shall not exceed 1.765 acres in size. Any portion or all of Site 3 not utilized for service station use shall revert to either professional and business office use or restaurant use. (4) Group V. RESTAURANTS (1) (4) A. Building Sites Maximum acreages for Site 2 shall not exceed 1.25 (18) acres. Maximum acreage for Site 3: 1.765 acres. Maximum acreages for Sites 4 and 5 shall not exceed 3.0 acres. Maximum acreage for Sites 6 and 7 shall not exceed 2.2 acres. (S) (The following acreages are for information only.) Site 1 Deleted see Group VII. ......... I.... (18) Site 2 ..................... ............................... 1.25 acres Site 3 ..................... ............................... 1.765 acres SiteDeleted ........................... ...........................(30) Site 5 Deleted ..................... ............................... (30) Site 6 ..................... ............................... 1.50 acres (8) Site 7 ..................... ............................... 0.70 acres (8) 5.215 acres ............215 acres t301 Site 1 Deleted see Group VII Private Club (18) Site 2 (4101 Jamboree — Taco Bell) located within Office Site `B" (4)(16)(30) Site 3 located within Office Site "F ". (4) Site 4 (4300 Von Karman Avenue — Kom Restaurant) deleted and revered to Site B Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area. (30) Site 5 deleted from Office Site `B" and transferred to Office Site "A" as Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area (30) Sites 6 and 7 located within Office Site "G ". (8) Any portion or all of the restaurant, bar, theater /nightclub acreage for Sites 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. Any portion or all of the restaurant acreage for Site 3 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to either professional and business office use or service station use. (4) (8) (18) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. +tea 4 01 C�' B. Building Area (4)(8) (30) Site 2 ................ 2,397sq. ft. ...... 0.06 acres (30) Site 3 ................ 10,000 sq. ft. ...... 0.22 acres Site 4 ................ Deleted Site 5 ................ Deleted Site 6 (8) .......... 7,000 sq. ft. ...... 0.16 acres Site 7 (8) .......... 3,000 sc. ft. ...... 0.07 acres 22.397 sp. ft. ...... 0.51 acres .......0 51 acres (8, 18, 30) C. Parking Criteria: 300 occupants/10,000 sq. ft. I space /3 occupants and 120 cars per acre. Site 2 .......... 24 cars ............. 0.20 acres (30) Site 3 .......... 100 cars ............... 0.84 acres Site 4 .......... Deleted Site 5 .......... Deleted Site 6 (8) ... 70 cars ............... 0.58 acres Site 7 (8) ... 30 cars ............... 0.25 acres 224 cars ............... 1.87 acres ....... 1.87 acres (8) (18)(30) D. Landscaped Open Space (4) (30) Site 2 .......... 0.99 acres (30) Site 3 .......... 0.70 acres Site 4 .......... Deleted Site 5 .......... Deleted Site 6 (8) .... 0.76 acres Site 7 (8) .... 0.38 acres 2�a .......... ............................... 2.83 acres (8) (18)(30) E. Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty -five (35) feet. 23 9JU I Group VI. RETAIL & SERVICE CENTER A. Building Site (4) (5) Site 1 .......... 5.026 acres Site 2 Deleted (30) 5.026 acres .......... ............................... 5.026 acres (30) Site 2 shall be located within Office Site `B." Any portion or all of the retail and service Site 2 acreage not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. (4) (16) Site 2 deleted from Office Site `B" and transferred to Office Site "A" as Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area. (30) B. Allowable Building Area (5) * Retail Site No. 1 .......... 120,000 sq. ft. (14)(27) Retail Site No. 2 Deleted (30) * Retail Site No. I (sq. Ft.) Parcel Existing Total Parcel 1, R/S 588 (H) (H) 70.630 Parcel 3, R/S 506 (R) (R) 0 Parcel 4, R/S 506 (R) 4,115 (R) 21,896 (0) 0 (0) 5.474 Subtotal (R) 12,315 (R) 21,896 (0) 0 (0) 27,474 (H) 70,630 Total 120.000 (141(271 (R) = Retail (0) = Office (H) = I lotel C. Landscape Area (5) Twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. 1 shall be developed as landscape area. If twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. I is not developed as landscape area, a specific site plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuing of a building permit. D. Statistical Analysis (5) 24 '4'151 E. The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. Assumed parking criteria: One (l) space per 200 square feet of net building area at 120 cars per acre. 1. Site I Allowable Building Area ..... ............................... 120,000 sq. ft. (14)(27) Site Area .............................................. ............................... 5.026 acres a. Building g eight (14) Two story development ........... ............................... 1.17 acres Three story development ......... ............................... 0.78 acres Four story development ........... ............................... 0.59 acres Five story development ............ ............................... 0.47 acres b. Parking (14) 460 cars .................................... ............................... 3.83 acres C. Landscaped Open Space (14) Two story development ........... ............................... 0.03 acres Three story development ......... ............................... 0.87 acres Four story development .......... ............................... 0.61 acres Five story development .......................................... 0.73 acres 2. Site 2 Deleted (30) Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35) feet above mean existing grade as shown on Exhibit `B." (5) Building height of structures for Service Site 1 shall be limited to a height of sixty feet (27) 25 4152 Group VII. PRIVATE CLUB (18) A. Building Site Site 1 .......................... 2.0 acres ........ ............................... 2.0 acres Site 1 shall be located within Office Site "A." Any portion or all of the private club acreage not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. 1. Site I Allowable Building Area ............... .........................45,000 square feet (26) B. Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of fifty (50) feet. Section II. Permitted Uses Group I. PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICES To allow the location of commercial activities engaged in the sale of products or services relating to and supporting the Development Plan, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings. A. Professional Offices similar in nature to but not limited to the following: (6) 1. Accountants 2. Attorneys 3. Doctors, dentists, optometrists, oculists, chiropractors and others licensed by the State of California to practice the healing arts. 4. Engineers, architects, surveyors and planners. B. Business Offices similar in nature to but not limited to the following: (6) 1. Advertising agencies 2. Banks 3. Economic consultants 4. Employment agencies 5. Escrow offices 6. Insurance agencies 7. Laboratories a. Dental b. Medical c. X -Ray d. Bio- chemical e. Film, wholesale only f. Optometrical 8. Stockbrokers 26 4153 9. Studios for interior decorators, photographers, artists and draftsmen. 10. Telephone answering services 11. Tourist information and travel agencies C. Hotel and Motel (1) To allow for the location within Office Site "A" of a hotel or motel development, subject to a use permit. D. Restaurants, bars and theater/nightclub s subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (1) (3) (4) (7) (25) 1. Deleted(18) *2. To allow within the 43.703 acres of Office Site `B" three (3) restaurant, but or theater /nightclub sites. (16) 3. To allow within the 18.806 acres of Office Site "C" up to two (2) restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub sites with a total area not to exceed 3,250 square feet. Specific location of these restaurants, bars or theater /nightclubs to be determined at a later date. The permitted professional and business offices' allowable building area for the site will be reduced accordingly. (17) 4. To allow within the 1.765 acres of Office Site "F" two (2) restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub sites. Specific location of these sites to be determined at a later date. All other acreage shall be adjusted and shall not increase or decrease the professional and business offices allowable building area for the site. 5. To allow within the 5.317 acres of Office Site "G" three (3) restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub sites. Specific location of these sites to be determined at a later date. All other acreage shall not increase or decrease the professional and business offices' allowable building area for the site. (8) (25) * E, Private Club (4) (18) (26) To allow within Office Site "A" one (1) private club site at 4110 MacArthur Boulevard. F. Service Station (4) To allow within Office Site "F" one (1) service station site. Specific location to be determined at a later date. All other acreages shall be adjusted and shall not increase or decrease the professional and business office allowable building area for the site. 27 G'i�Z': ' (4) If restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub, or private club uses are developed, the allowable building area for Office Site `B" shall be restricted by one of the following conditions: 1. The 963,849 square feet of allowable building area shall not increase or decrease so long as twenty-five (25) percent of the 41.969 acres constituting Office Site `B" is developed as landscaped area. (16) 2. If twenty-five (25) percent of the 42.709 acres constituting Office Site `B" is not developed as landscape area, the 963,849 square feet of allowable building area shall be reduced by the gross building area of the restaurants, bars or theater /nightelubs and/or private club. The allowable building area shall be further reduced by the number of additional parking spaces required to support a restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub, or a private club beyond what would be required for an equivalent area of office use. The reduction shall be 225 square feet per additional space. (16) G. Support Commercial (20) The uses permitted under this section are of a convenience nature ancillary to the operation and use of office facilities. These uses shall be in addition to those sites permitted under Part II. Section II. Group V (Restaurants). These uses shall not increase the allowable building area for Professional and Business Office. Retail sales and services including tobacco stores, card shops, confectionery and newspaper stands, and other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Director, are of a similar nature. Retail uses shall be located in the basement or on the first floor of a building. Storage for such uses shall be within a building. 2. Restaurants, including outdoor restaurants and take -out restaurants, has or theater /nightclubs shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (25) Group 11. HOTEL &MOTEL (1) Subject to a use permit. Group III. COURT HOUSE State, County and/or City Facilities. Group IV. SERVICE STATIONS & MECHANICAL CAR WASH (4) A. Service stations subject to the City of Newport Beach service station standards. 28 4155 B. Mechanical car wash, subject to a use permit. Mechanical car wash shall only be allowed in conjunction with or in lieu of a permitted service station use. Group V. RESTAURANTS (7) A. Restaurants, including outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, has and theater /nightclubs, shall be subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. Facilities other than indoor dining establishments or those that qualify as outdoor, drive -in or take -out establishments shall be subject to the City of Newport Beach regulations covering drive -in and outdoor establishments. (25) Group VI. RETAIL & SERVICE CENTER (1) A. Permitted Uses 1. Restaurants, including outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, bars and theater /nightclubs, shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case, except as noted under "a" and "b" below. (7) (25) a. Restaurants, other than outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (25) b. Outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants shall be subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, . in each case. (25) 2. Barber shop and beauty parlor 3. Book and stationery store 4. Blueprinting and photostatics 5. Camera Shop 6. Delicatessen store 7. Florist 8. Shoe store or repair shop 9. Tailor 10. Tobacco store WIT' . W_ 11. Office equipment rentable and repair 12. Pharmacies 13. Tourist information, travel agencies, and ticket reservation services, but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage, or freight. (1) 14. Athletic club or health clubs (5) * 15. Professional and Business Offices (5) 16. Other uses similar to the above listed 17. Hotel subject to approval of a Use Permit (27) Group VII. LODGE HALLS, PRIVATE CLUBS, ATHLETIC CLUBS, UNION HEADUARTERS (1) (4) (18) Subject to use permit. Group VIII. AUTO DETAILING (19) A. All drainage shall be into the sanitary sewer system. B. That all car wash and auto detailing operations shall be conducted within a covered area. C. This service shall be designed to serve building tenants and their patrons and guests, and shall be ancillary to the primary use. Section III. General Development Standards for Commercial Land A. Site Area Minimum site area shall not be less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. Footprint lots shall have all required appurtenant areas contiguous thereto and the sum of these areas shall not be less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. (3) * To allow, in addition to the 2,320,600 square feet of professional and business office use permitted elsewhere in the text, a maximum of 38,022 net square feet of professional and business office use within Retail and Service Center Site 1. (5) (14) Exception: (9) The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to the minimum site area. Application for any such exception shall be made at the time of the filing of a tentative map by the applicant. In order for an exception to be granted, the Planning Commission shall find the following facts with respect thereto: 30 457 1. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. 2. That the Development Considerations and intent of this planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. B. Building Area Maximum building area for professional and business offices shall be as noted in Site Area and Building Area, Part II, Section 1, Group I.B. Parking basements or parking structures shall not be calculated as building area; however, said structures shall be used only for the parking of company vehicles, employee vehicles, or vehicles belonging to persons visiting the subject firm. (4) C. Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a street side property line is that he created by the ultimate right -of -way of the frontage street. Front Yard Setback (10) Thirty (30) feet minimum; except that unsupported roofs or sunscreens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. The setback for Site C from MacArthur Boulevard would be at least thirty-six (36) feet except that unsupported roofs or sun - screens any project six (6) feet into the setback. 2. Side Yard Side yard setbacks will be required only when any one of the following conditions exist: a. Comer Lot: Thirty (30) feet (street side setback only), except that unsupported roofs and sunscreens may project three (3) feet into setback area. b. Where property abuts other than commercially zoned property, a ten (10) foot setback is required. Unsupported roofs and sunscreens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. Rear Yard None required except on a through -lot in which case the required front yard setback shall be observed. 31 ■ + 4. Footprint Lots (6) Except as required by the Uniform Building Code, there shall be no additional setback requirements for buildings within footprint lots. Provided, however, that buildings within footprint lots shall be so located as to observe the setbacks from streets and existing lot lines required under Part II, Section 11I, C.1, 2 and 3. D. Loading Areas 1. Street side loading on other than special landscaped streets shall be allowed providing the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right -of- way line, or one hundred ten (110) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. E. Storage Areas 1. All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height, but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. Refuse Collection Areas 1. All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. 2. No refuse collection area shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. G. Telephone and Electrical Service All `on- site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. H. Pedestrian Access (t) 32 .4 ,5j It is required of all developments in the commercial areas to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plan will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right -of- way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. I. ParkinE All parking shall be as specified in the General Parking Requirements, Part III. J. Sims All signing shall be as specified in the General Sign Requirements, Part IV. K. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V. 33 O WN PART III. GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Section I A. Adequate off - street parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for the site. The intent is to eliminate the need for any on- street parking. Required off - street parking shall be provided on the site of the use served, or on a contiguous site, or within three hundred (300) feet of the subject site. Where parking is provided on other than the site concerned, a recorded document shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Building and Planning Departments and signed by the owners of the alternate site stipulating to the permanent reservation of use of the site for said parking. B. Parking requirements for specific sites shall be based upon the following parking criteria. All parking shall be determined based upon building type and the area within allotted to the following functions: 1. Business & Professional Offices One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee. Company parking stalls shall not exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the total number of required parking spaces. The number and design of compact parking stalls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. (11) Exception: (11) Parking Requirement for Business and Professional Office Buildings based on Parking Pool. The parking requirements for office buildings within a contiguous office site may be modified in accordance with the following schedule when the net building area or areas served exceeds 100,000 square feet. a. For the first 125,000 square feet, parking shall be provided at one space per 250 square feet of net floor area. b. For the next 300,000 square feet, parking shall be provided at one space per 300 square feet of net floor area. C. Any additional floor area, parking shall be provided at one space per 350 square feet of net floor area. d. For pools based on more than 425,000 square feet of net floor area, the Planning Commission may modify the parking formula by use permit, based on a demonstrated formula. 34 904M 2. Medical & Dental Offices Five (5) spaces for each doctor or one (1) space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. 3. nnanafaet.._., n........_ h _ad e....,.....ai. Deleted. (33) 4. Viafe euse Deleted. (33) 5. Lodge Halls, Private Clubs, Athletic Clubs, Union Headquarters (1) (4) (5) a. One (1) space for each 75 square feet of gross floor area plus one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross office floor area. b. Specific parking requirements shall be developed for private clubs or athletic clubs based upon functions and occupancies within this use. Parking shall be in conformance to existing City of Newport Beach requirements for said occupancies or at a demonstrated formula agreeable to the Planning Director. (4) In the event that private clubs or athletic clubs are converted to another use, parking requirements for the new use shall be subject to review by the Planning Director. (5) 6. Restaurants. Bars or Theater/Nightclubs, Outdoor. Drive -In and Take - Out Restaurants (7) a. Restaurant, bar or theater /nightclub parking shall be in accordance with Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, except as noted under "b" and `b" below. 35 i W- - b. Restaurants, other than outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, within retail and service centers shall provide one (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area and one (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, to the extent that the net floor area of all restaurants does not exceed twenty (20) percent of the net floor area of the retail and service center. In the event that any restaurant causes the total of all restaurant uses in the retail and service center to exceed the twenty (20) percent limitation noted above, that entire restaurant and any subsequent restaurants shall provide parking as noted under 'Y above. C. Parking for outdoor, drive -in and take -out restaurants shall be provided in accordance with Section 20.53.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. Commercial Retail and Service Center (5) One (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area. One (I ) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Professional and business office parking shall be provided per Part III, Section I.B.I. Athletic or health club parking shall be provided per Part III, Section I.B.5b. 8. Hotels and Motels One (1) space for each guest unit plus employees' parking on a demonstrated formula. Parking for restaurants, bars, banquet rooms, retail shops or service stores shall be as specified in the above applicable section or on a demonstrated formula acceptable to the Planning Director. Professional and business office net floor area shall be included in this provision. Athletic and health club net floor area shall be excluded from this provision. (5) 9. Court House Specific parking requirements shall be developed based upon functions and occupancies within this zone. Parking shall be in conformance to existing City of Newport Beach requirements for said occupancies, or at a demonstrated formula agreeable to the Planning Director. 36 . WE PART IV. GENERAL SIGN REQUIREMENTS Section I. Sign Standards A. Signs visible from the exterior of any building may be lighted, but no signs or any other contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. B. Signs shall be restricted to advertising only the person, firm, company or corporation operating the use conducted on the site or the products sold thereon. C. A wall sign with the individual letters applied directly shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol and calculating the area enclosed by such line. D. All signs attached to the building shall be surface mounted. Group I. PERMANENT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. Ground Signs Ground signs shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height. Also, ground signs in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area (double face) shall not be erected in the first twenty (20) feet, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of two hundred (200) square feet. B. Wall Signs In no event shall an identification sign placed on a wall comprise more than ten (10) percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be fixture signs. Signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted. The following exceptions apply to industrial zoning only. In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual industry may have a wall sign over the entrance to identify the tenant. Said sign shall give only the name of the company and shall be limited to six (6) inch high letters. Said signs must be oriented toward the parking or pedestrian area for that building and shall not exceed a maximum area of five (5) square feet. 2. Fascia mounted identification signs limited to two (2) facades for each building and structure. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one -half (1 1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal 37 92M, " IM frontage of the building or store. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. The following exceptions apply to Professional and Business Offices and Retail and Service Center uses only. In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual ground floor business may have signing in addition to permitted Building Identification signs. (6) Each individual ground floor business shall be limited to one (1) sign per frontage not to exceed two (2) signs per business. Said signs shall not be located above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed an area equal to ten (10) percent of the business face upon which it is located. However, no sign shall exceed thirty -five (35) square feet in area. (6). In no event shall there be more than three (3) permitted ground floor wall signs per building for Professional and Business Offices. (6) C. Pole signs One (1) identification pole sign per site will be allowed for the following commercial businesses only: a. Restaurant b. Cocktail lounge and/or bar C. Hotel If a pole sign is utilized, it shall be in lieu of other identification signs allowed by ordinance. Pole signs shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet and a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet per face, double faced. Group Il. TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. The following signs shall conform to all requirements for "Ground Signs," Section I, Group 1, Item A with General Sign standards above unless specifically limited below. 38 i7 Sale or Lease Sim A sign, advertising the sale, lease or hive of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs listed in this section. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 2. Construction Sinn One (1) construction sign denoting the architects, engineers, contractor, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of construction. Said sign shall be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy, or the tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. Future Tenant Identification Sim A sign listing the name of future tenant, responsible agent or realtor, and identification of the industrial complex shall be permitted. Said sign will be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy or tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 4. Directional Sims Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians or give instructions as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square feet (double face) in area and shall be permitted in addition to the other signs in this section. Exceptions Group II.A.1, 2 and 3: this information may be grouped on a single sign when the aggregate surface area does exceed the summation of the individual areas for each use. This area may be distributed on all surfaces of the sign. This sign may not exceed four (4) feet above grade. Group III. SPECIAL PURPOSE SIGNS A. The following permanent signs shall be permitted. Permanent Directional Sim Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square 39 feet in area per face, double faced and shall be permitted in addition to other signs permitted in these standards. 2. Community Directional and/or Identification Sign Permanent directional and identification signs, not exceeding two hundred fifty (250) square feet (per face), shall be permitted but subject to use permit. Section It. Sign Area A. Deleted. (33Ila4asa4a1 The 0.. lowing '6a'T°pF"7`'° PeFm' "ed Uses, Part � Section Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", Hanging: 2.5 ", Tab stops: 2.5 ", Left B. Business and Professional Offices (33) The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part I, Section III. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one -half (I 1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. C. Commercial The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part 11, Section 11, Groups H, 111, V and VI. Building identification shall be limited to a single entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed one and one- half (1 1/2) square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. D. Business and Professional Offices The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part 11, Section B, Group I. 40 407 Building identification shall be limited to a single entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed one and one- half (1 1/2) square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. Section 111. Maintenance All signs indicated in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Periodic inspection shall be made as directed by the Planning Director, City of Newport Beach or his designated agent. 41 IM PART V. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS Section 1. General Statement (1) Detailed landscape and irrigation plans, prepared by a registered Architect or under the direction of a Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation prior to issuance of a building permit and installed prior to issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. Landscape in the public right -of -way shall be installed per plans and specifications approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director and in accordance with Parks, Beaches and Recreation Standards. All landscaping in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Periodic inspections will be made as directed by the Planning Director and reports submitted with regard to the condition of maintenance. If suggestions of improvement are made, and are in the realm of the Maintenance Standards, the work shall be corrected within thirty (30) days of receipt of the report. A. Maintenance 1. All planting areas to be kept free of weeds and debris. 2. Lawn and ground covers to be kept trimmed and/or mowed regularly. 3. All plantings to be kept in a healthy and growing condition. Fertilization, cultivation and tree pruning are to be carried out as part of regular maintenance. 4. Irrigation systems are to be kept in working condition. Adjustment and cleaning of system should be a part of regular maintenance. 5. Stakes, guys and ties on trees should be checked regularly for correct function; ties to be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling to the stems. 6. Damage to plantings created by vandalism, automobile or acts of nature shall be corrected within thirty (30) days. 42 4 O B. Front Yard Setback Area General Statement Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover and shrubbery. All unpaved areas not utilized for parking shall be landscaped in a similar manner. Full coverage of ground cover to be expected in a minimum of three (3) months. 2. Special Landscaped Street The entire area between the curb and the building setback line shall be landscaped, except for any driveway in said area. Tree size to be no less than 24 -inch box. 3. Other Streets The entire area between the curb and a point ten (10) feet back in the front property line shall be landscaped except for any driveway in said area. Tree size to be no less than 24 inch box. C. Side Yard and Rear Yard General Statement All unpaved areas not utilized for parking and storage, shall be landscaped utilizing ground cover and/or shrub and tree materials. 2. Undeveloped Areas Undeveloped areas proposed for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed free condition, but need not be landscaped. Screenine Areas used for parking shall be screened from view or have the view interrupted by landscaping and/or fencing from access streets, freeways and adjacent properties. Plant materials used for screening purposes shall consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and /or trees of a sufficient size and height to meet this requirement when initially installed. 4. Boundary Areas 43 470 Boundary landscaping is required on all interior property lines. Said areas shall be placed along the entire length of these property lines or be of sufficient length to accommodate the number of required trees. Trees, equal in number to one (l) tree per twenty -five (25) lineal feet of each property line, shall be planted in the above defined areas in addition to required ground cover and shrub material. Minimum width of property line landscaping shall be three (3) feet. All landscaped areas shall be separated from adjacent vehicular areas by a wall or curb, at least six (6) inches higher than the adjacent vehicular area. D. Parkin Areas Trees, equal in number to one (1) per each five (5) parking stalls, shall be provided in the parking area. Planting area around building shall not be included in parking area. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing. E. Sloped Banks All sloped banks greater than 5 to 1, or six (6) feet in vertical height and adjacent to public right -of -way shall be stabilized, planted and irrigated with full coverage in accordance with plans submitted and approved by Planning Director. Loading Areas Street side loading on other than special landscaped streets, shall be allowed providing the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right - of -way line or one hundred ten (110) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. G. Storage Areas All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. 44 -471 H. Refuse Collection Areas All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. 2. No refuse collection area shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. Minimum width for landscaping shall be three (3) feet around refuse collection areas. Telephone and Electrical Service All `on- site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12 KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties, or an approved method of display. Pedestrian Access (1) It is required of all developments in the commercial areas to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plan will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties, and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right -of -way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. K. Landscape Plant Vocabulary (1) It is the intent of this standard to provide flexibility and diversity in plant selection yet maintain a limited variety to give greater unity to the development. At the direction of the Director of Community Development and the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, material lists and a street tree master plan shall be developed to aid in this development. All trees occurring in the ten (10) foot setback shall be no less than 24 inch box. The parking lot trees shall be no less than fifteen (15) gallon size. Shrubs to be planted in containers shall not be less than one (1) gallon size. Ground covers will be planted from one (1) gallon containers or from root cuttings. 45 472 Every effort should be made to avoid using plants with invasive and shallow root systems with fruit that would stain paving or automobiles. L. Earth berms shall be rounded and natural in character, designed to obscure automobiles and to add interest to the site. In cases where the ratio of width and height of berm creates a bank greater than 3 to 1, shrubs or walls can be used as shown in illustration (b) (c). Wheel stops shall be so placed that damage to trees, irrigation units and shrubs is avoided. A Trees in parking lots should be limited in variety. Selection should be repeated to give continuity. Regular spacing is not required and irregular groupings may add interest. Care should be exercised to allow plants to grow and maintain their ultimate size without restriction. N. Storage areas are to be provided with an opaque screen up to a point of eight (S) feet in vertical height. Combination of plantings can be used to further soften hard materials and give continuity to planting. 46 4y s PART VI. FOOTNOTES (1) Planned Community text revision incorporating Planning Commission revisions and conditions of approval. (2) Planned Community Text revision incorporating City Council conditions of approval as adopted by the city of Newport Beach. (Amendment No. 313, adopted August 14, 1972). (3) Planned Community Text revision July 6, 1973 incorporating the addition of footprint lots and the addition of two (2) restaurant sites within Office Site "A ". (Amendment No. 381, adopted August 2, 1973). (4) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 420, adopted February 7, 1974) incorporating the following changes: a. Revised Planned Community Text site acreage figures to conform to the recorded tract map. b. Revised Exhibit "A" (land use map) to conform to recorded tract map. C. Changed the size of Office Site "E" and created one parcel of land comprised of Restaurant Site No. 3, Service Station Site No. 3 and the residual of Office Site "C ". This new site is designated as Office Site ,.F„ d. Revised Retail and Service Site No. 2 from a specific location to a floating location within Office Site "A ". e. Added mechanical car wash subject to a use permit as a permitted use on the service station sites. f Added private clubs or athletic clubs as a permitted use on Office Site „B„ g. Made provisions for three (3) additional restaurant sites, two sites within Office Site `B: and one site within Office Site "F ". (5) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 430, adopted June 10, 1974) incorporating the following changes: a. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 2. b. Added health or athletic club as a permitted use within the Retail and Service Center sites. C. Added Professional and Business Office as a permitted use within the Retail and Service Center sites. d. Added a minimum twenty-five (25) percent landscape requirements or site plan approval by the Planning commission to the development requirements of retail Site No. 1. (6) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 444, adopted May 15, 1975) incorporating the following changes: a. Clarified the setback requirements for buildings within footprint lots. b. Clarified Professional and Business Office permitted uses. C. Added signing provision for ground floor businesses in multi-tenant building. 47 474 (7) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 451, adopted September 8, 1975) incorporating the following changes: a. Added the requirement that all restaurants shall be subject to the securing of a use permit with the exception of certain restaurant uses within Retail and Service Centers. (8) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 466, adopted June 28, 1976) incorporating the Following changes: a. Changed the size of Light Industrial Site No. 2. b. Created Professional and Business Office Site "G ". C. Made provisions for two (2) restaurant sites within Office Site "G". d. Reduced the allowable building area of Office Site "D ". e. Amended the construction timetable for traffic signals. (9) Planned community Text revision (Amendment No. 475, adopted January 10, 1977) incorporating the following changes: a. Established guidelines for an exception to the minimum site area. (10) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 505, adopted July 11, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Increased the site area of Professional and Business Office Site „C„ b. Increased the allowable building area of Professional and Business Office Site "C ". (11) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 508, adopted August 28, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Made provision for consideration of additional left turn ingress from MacArthur Boulevard. b. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 1 and added the land area to Professional and Business Office Site `B ". C. Reviewed the parking requirement for office buildings within Professional and Business Office sites. (12) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 514, adopted October 19, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Established existing and additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978. b. Established the requirement and criteria for phasing plan approval of development beyond thirty (30) percent of the additional (13) Planned Community text revision incorporating the transfer to allowable building area from Professional and business Office Site "D: to Professional and Business Office Site "B ". (Amendment No. 550, adopted November 10, 1980). 48 475 (14) Planned Community Text revision for Retail and Service Site No. 1, which allocates existing and permitted development. (Amendment No. 558 adopted March 23, 1981). (15) Planned community Text revision increasing the allowable building area in Site C (MacArthur Court). (Amendment No. 593, adopted October 24, 1983). (16) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer of allowable office, restaurant and retail building area from Professional and Business Office Site "A" to Professional and Business Office Site `B ". (Amendment No. 606, adopted May 14, 1984). (17) Planned Community Text revision to allow up to two restaurants with a total floor area not to exceed 3,250 square feet within "Office Site C (Amendment No. 626, adopted December 9, 1985). (18) Planned Community Text revision deleting restaurant Site 1 and substituting a private club with a total floor area not to exceed 30,000 square feet within Office Site "A ". (Amendment No. 635, adopted July 14, 1986). (19) Planned Community Text revision to allow auto detailing as a permitted use. (Amendment No. 647, adopted March 23, 1987). (20) Planned Community Text revision adding support commercial uses to the permitted uses under Professional and Business Office permitted uses. (Amendment No. 649, adopted July 27, 1987). (21) Planned Community text revision combining Light Industrial Sites I and 2 into Light Industrial Site 1, increasing the allowable building area for the combined site by 39,000 square feet, and increasing the permitted building height from 35 feet to 55 feet. (Amendment No. 677, adopted June 12, 1989). (22) Planned Community Text revision increasing the permitted building height in Light Industrial Site I from 55 feet to 75 feet. (Amendment No. 799, adopted April 25, 1994). (23) Title 20 amendment to reinstate notice and appeal procedures for specialty food service applications. (Amendment No. 829, adopted September 11, 1995, Ordinance 95 -39) (24) Planned Community Text revision to increase the permitted height within "Light Industrial Site I" from 75 feet to 90 feet for a single vertical column. (Amendment No. 867, adopted February 23, 1998, Ordinance 98 -3). (25) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 876, adopted August 10, 1998, Ordinance 98 -20) to allow the following changes: a. Additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the current limited of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites), and; b. Permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 49 470 (26) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 890, adopted 01/11/2000, Ordinance 99 -28) to allow the following changes: a. Increase the permitted level of development for Office Site A by 15,000 square feet (4110 MacArthur Boulevard) and; b. Establish the permitted level of development for Koll Center Newport Office Site A at 418,346 gross square feet. (27) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 897, adopted January 25, 2000, Ordinance 2000 -3) to allow the following changes: a. Designate Parcel 1 of Kell Center Newport Retail and Service Site I for Hotel Use, and; b. Establish the permitted Gross Floor Area for Koll Center Newport Retail and Service Site 1 at 120,000 square feet, and C. Establish the permitted height for the site at 60 feet. (28) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance. No. 2005 -014, adopted August 9, 2005) to allow the following changes: Office expansion of 1,367 net square feet in the Kell Center Office Site B at 4200 Von Karman Avenue. (29) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2006 -19), adopted July 25, 2006 to allow the following changes: To increase the development allocation for Professional and Business Offices of Site A by 2,129 net square feet. (PA2005 -293) (30) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2006 -21), adopted October 24, 2006 to allow the following changes: a. To allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A resulting in the elimination of the entire Retail Site #1, an undeveloped portion of Restaurant Site #2 and the entire Restaurant Site #5. (31) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2011 -3), adopted January 25, 2011 to allow the following changes: a. To allow building area for Professional & Business Site F to increase by 18, 346 net square feet. (32) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2011 -8), adopted March 8, 2011 to allow the following changes: a. To allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Site B by 9,917 net square feet 50 477 (33) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2013- , adopted - - Formatted: Tab stop:: 0.38 ^, Wft .2013 to allow the following changes: a. To delete Light Industrial Sites 1 and 2 from PC -11. For Information Only -33) Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + b. To delete Part 1. Industrial uses in its entirety as an allowed use. Exhibit B ....................... ........................ Numbering style: a, b, e, ... + start at. I + c. To revise the total acreage within PC -11 to 154.0 acres to reflect the deletion Storm Drain 3 Alignment: Left+ Aligned at: 1" +indent at: 1.25 ", Tab stops: Not at -P + -0.5" of Light Industrial Sites 1 and 2 from PC-11. Exhibit E ................ ............................... d. To update the Composite exhibit and Exhibits A through E to reflect the deletion of Light Industrial Sites 1 and 2 from PC -11. Insert exhibits: Composite .............. ............................... For Information Only -33) Exhibit A ................... ........................... Land Use-(33) Exhibit B ....................... ........................ Grading and Roads 333) Exhibit C............................................... Storm Drain 3 Exhibit D ............... ............................... Water & Sewer 3 Exhibit E ................ ............................... Boundary and Topography S 1 51 472 Attachment No. CC 20 Uptown Newport PCDP — Land Use Development Standards & Procedures This document is not included in the staff report package due to its size and bulk. It is available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at http:// newr)ortbeachca .gov /index.asl)x ?l)age -2 029 420 UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan Land Uses Development Standards & Procedures Uptown Newport LP February 14, 2013 UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Applicant: Uptown Newport LP c/o Shopoff Management Inc. 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700, Irvine, CA 92614 949.417.1396 www.shopoff.com Applicant Contact: Brian Rupp 949.231.5068 (Direct) brupp @shopoff.com Prepared By: MVE & Partners, Inc. Architecture + Planning + Interiors 1900 Main Street, Suite 800, Irvine, California 92614 -7318 949.809.3388 www.mve-architects.com Valley Crest Landscape Architecture 3242 Halladay, Suite 203, Santa Ana, CA 92705 714.546.7975 www.valleycrest.com 2. Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................ ..............................1 1.2 Airport Area Context ............................ ..............................2 1.3 Immediate Context .............................. ..............................3 1.4 Purpose ...................................................... ..............................4 1.5 Relationship to Municipal Code ...... ..............................4 1.6 Relationship to Airport Area Conceptual Parking Requirements ......................... .............................17 Development Plan ................................ ..............................4 1.7 Relationship to the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan ................................ ..............................4 1.8 Relationship to Design Guidelines 3.7 andPhasing Plan ................................... ..............................5 Land Use Development Regulations ..........................7 2.1 Land Use ................................................... ..............................7 2.2 Development Program ....................... ..............................8 2.3 Transfer of Development Rights ...... » ............... _ ............ 8 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. Site Development Standards ...... .............................11 3.1 Permitted Height of Structures ....... .............................11 3.2 Building Setback Requirements ...... .............................12 3.3 On -Site Circulation ............................... .............................15 3.4 Parking Requirements ......................... .............................17 3.5 Landscaping ........................................... .............................17 3.6 Lighting ................................................... .............................17 3.7 Public Parks, On -Site Recreational Amenities & Open Space ........................................ .............................17 3.8 Perimeter Walls and Fences ............ ............................... 18 3.9 Infrastructure ......................................... .............................18 4. Planned Community Development Plan Implementation ......................... ............................... 19 4.1 Master Site Development Plan Review .....................1 S 4.2 Site Development Review ................. .............................21 S. Definitions .................................. ............................... 23 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Introduction and Purpose of WSBAve Btle c L r� tN7 S Ave C�/°j�Fyjs�' Development Plan tv'rhM &ae acAdhm Blvd $ u. Corys AY Smuon C�¢ WMmAnhur Blvd t� .v Ave Sunlbwer Ave D�gP an`a y �a n ,ta�9`p e 1.1 INTRODUCTION sw,rn ee' _ d' Cnai rbza 9aa o�g' �N (, of The Uptown Newport Planned Community Development ,eyn, — Irvine Plan, hereinafter referred to as "the Uptown Newport PC," - 65 ^ Jo r���nta °5- e.a o want -.,.. upon a� is located within the City of Newport Beach Airport Area. �N s, P "n 4 Regional access to the 25 -acre project site (also referred to b Bakers) n m aP +e � Main Y as "Subject Property ") is provided by Jamboree Road, Birch ; SS Sr Street, Von Karman Avenue, and MacArthur Boulevard. ° peams W Q It !n'P'F Y Mibellon �Jr A The Uptown Newport PC is located in close proximity to �� m % ? the 405, 73 and 55 Freeways via MacArthur Boulevard and UPTOWN NEWPORT�sa Jamboree Road as shown on Figure 1 -1. Uptown Newport 2 Fair Costa Mesa 0r oo PLANNED COMMUNITY yt is located near regional open space areas, including Upper .2 - N Newport Bay, Mason Regional Park in Irvine and the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh. Itisalsolocated nearthe University ofCalifornia - Irvine( UCpwithimmediateadjacencytotheUCI + vicmria St North Campus opposite the Subject Property on Jamboree �`'� Road. al�� VM s camaysor The Uptown Newport PC site was originally developed w r9lhSS as part of the Koll Center Newport, and has been used D for manufacturing telecommunications equipment and o `"'9rys S ( q \ �s6 computer chips since the 1970's. The City's General Plan calls 17rhSt ; e \\ for infill development and redevelopment of the Airport Canyon On Business Area. The General Plan allows for up to 2,200 F ,"'a d �� "c residential units to be developed in the Airport Business 1 Rd 3\ Area. In September of 2010, the City approved the Integrated ss s � Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) to provide a framework o° °l, ay cns.>n ca nw a t ni EV,rm FT ?D for residential development on both the Koll Center Newport and Uptown Newport PC properties (the Uptown Newport Beach[ .I PC site was referred to as the "Conexant Site" in the ICDP). ,r o'SLE _ e `'� r` "nd y90 o°s� s.P sA The ICDP allocated 1,244 residential units and up to 11,500 ueo i� - "asr Hwr San n5`9 903 SCALP. t" =6,00= square feet of retail to be developed on the Uptown Newport .. 0 3,000' 6,000' PC property and up to 260 residential units to be developed - sAr'aossi u on the Koll property. The Uptown Newport PC provides the wem regulatory framework for redevelopment of the Subject Property into a high- density mixed use residential project. Figure 1 -1: Regional Location Map Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 1 Figure 1 -2: The Airport Area and the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Area Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1.2 AIRPORT AREA CONTEXT Uptown Newport is located within the Conceptual Development Plan Area of the City's Airport Area, as defined by the City's General Plan. The Airport Area encompasses approximately 360 acres of land located southeast of the John Wayne Airport (JWA), and is bound by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive, and Bristol Street. The ICDP area includes a portion of the 75 -acre Koll property, and the 25 -acre Uptown Newport property. These two properties are part of the larger Koll Center, which was developed as a master planned campus office park, governed by the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15 - Koll Center) adopted by the City of Newport Beach on August 14, 1972 (Ordinance No. 1449). The Koll Center Planned Community extends northeast from the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road to Campus Drive. Refer to Figure 1 -2 for the location of the project site within the City of Newport Beach and in the context of the Airport Area. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN Figure 1 -3: Aerial photo of the future Uptown Newport project site. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 1.3 IMMEDIATE CONTEXT As illustrated in Figure 1 -3, the Uptown Newport PC site is developed with two buildings aligned along the northwestern perimeter of the site. The northernmost building located at 4321 Jamboree ranges from approximately 40 -50 feet in height. The building is approximately 311,452 square feet in size, and includes both industrial and supporting office uses. The southernmost building located at 4311 Jamboree is approximately 25 feet in height and approximately 126,675 square feet in size, and includes office uses, lab space, a data center, and cafe uses. Parking for both buildings is provided in adjacent surface parking lots. The site is immediately bounded by Jamboree Road to the southeast, fast food restaurants to the northeast, and by existing office development within the Koll Center Newport to the northwest and southwest. Refer to Figure 1 -3 for an illustration of the project site's orientation to nearby streets and surrounding land uses. Direct access to the Uptown Newport PC is currently provided by two entries on Jamboree Road, one of which is signalized, and one entry on Birch Street. Von Karman Avenue to the northwest and MacArthur Boulevard to the west do not provide direct vehicular access to the Uptown Newport PC due to existing development within Koll Center Newport. An access drive easement is located at the western -most corner of the site and provides emergency access through the Koll Center Newport to Von Karman Avenue from the Uptown Newport PC. The Uptown Newport Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures coordinates and regulates development of the residential, commercial, open space, circulation and other land uses that may be developed within the Uptown Newport site. It also serves as the implementing zoning document for the property and implements the Newport Beach 2006 General Plan and the approved Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The ICDP encourages the development of coordinated, cohesive and environmentally - friendly residential and mixed use projects in the Airport Area, designed to create new urban villages with a distinctive sense of place. The Uptown Newport PC provides a framework for converting the existing industrial uses at the project site into a new village within the Airport Area, with a mix of uses, densities and amenities. The proposed land use intensity is compatible with existing and anticipated development planned in the Airport Area. It also permits the existing industrial development as an allowed interim use until the existing TowerJazz lease expires, or until March 2027, whichever occurs first, and ensures an orderly transition to new residential mixed -use village land uses. The Uptown Newport PC allows for the demolition and replacement of 438,127 square feet of existing industrial and office uses allocated to the Uptown Newport site with a residential and mixed -use development. The location of proposed land uses are illustrated on Figure 2 -1. A new street system will be developed to provide appropriate circulation throughout the project site for both pedestrians and vehicles, breaking up the project site into multiple development areas. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO MUNICIPAL CODE Except as otherwise noted in the Uptown Newport PC, whenever the development regulations of this plan conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained herein shall prevail. The Municipal Code shall regulate the Uptown Newport PC whenever regulations are not provided within these district regulations. All words and phrases used in the Uptown Newport PC shall have the same meaning and definition as used in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code unless defined differently in this document. 1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO AIRPORT AREA CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In 2006 the City of Newport Beach adopted a voter - approved comprehensive update to its General Plan, which includes a plan for infill development within the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4), located immediately east of John Wayne Airport and bounded by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive and Bristol Street. The policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed -use development within the airport area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian- oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. The General Plan policies allow for a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no KOLL/ UPTOWN NEWPORT CONEXANT NEWPORT BEACH INTEGRATED � PLANNED GENERAL PLAN CONCEPTUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLAN Figure 1 -4: Regulatory Hierarchy. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 net gain of vehicular trips; the 550 "additive" units may be constructed on existing surface parking lots or areas not used for occupiable buildings located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area, referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area (depicted on Figure LU22 of the General Plan Land Use Element), has strong potential for the introduction of new residential development, as it includes two large tracts of assembled property, including the 75 -acre Koll Center Newport property and the Uptown Newport site. The Koll Center Newport and Uptown Newport properties require the adoption of a conceptual plan in accordance with the General Plan. 1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO THE INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In September of 2010, the City approved the Koll - Conexant ICDP, which provides a framework for residential development on both the Koll and Conexant properties within the Airport Business Area. The ICDP is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways. In the ICDP, the Uptown Newport PC property was referred to as the " Conexant Site ". The ICDP establishes a framework for development of individual projects within the site area, including goals and guidelines for land uses, height and bulk of buildings, sustainable development practices, unifying landscape, lighting and signage themes, streets and pedestrian circulation, recreation and open space. The ICDP provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Uptown Newport site and for the redevelopment of a 12.7 - acre portion of the Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain on the Koll Center Newport site. Connectivity within and between a U Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN the two properties will be provided with existing and new pedestrian ways improved with parking lot screening, planting and /or enhanced pavings which are compatible between the Koll and Conexant properties. The ICDP permits a total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned and could be developed on the fw: •ai _ � Y KOLL CENTER NEWPORT R � y g x UPTOWN NEWPORT � IL F4 (SUBJECT PROPERM t it Figure 1 -5: ICDP Conceptual Plan IL • Uptown Newport site and the remaining 260 units on the Koll property (refer to Figure 1 -5 and Table 1 -1). Within the Uptown Newport PC, up to 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses that are planned to be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be additive. The Uptown Newport PC includes the ability to construct up to 322 density bonus units on -site as an incentive to provide affordable housing in addition to that needed to satisfy the City's affordable housing requirements. The Uptown Newport PC was prepared based upon the goals, guidelines and principles of the ICDP, and is designed to implement in greater detail and specificity those goals, guidelines and principles. 1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PHASING PLAN This document sets forth the zoning regulations and land use standards for development within the Uptown Newport project. It is intended to be used in conjunction with the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines and Phasing Plan for development within the Uptown Newport PC. The Design Guidelines provide additional standards, policies, and goals including; site planning, architectural, site development, landscape, and signage design guidelines that are intended to be used as a guide during the review process for implementing projects. The Phasing Plan outlines the phasing for the Uptown Newport PC, and is intended to be used as a general guide for the phasing of development within the Uptown Newport PC, including interim conditions between Phase 1 and Phase 2. I� TABLE 1 -1: ICDP UNIT ALLOCATION SUMMARY iR- Additive Replacement Density Total Bonus Colle" 260 ,24 Conexant Site" 290 632 322 1,244 Totals 550 632 322 1,504 'The Subject Property was referred to as the "Conexant Site "in the ICDP Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 5 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN Figure 1 -6: Master Site Plan Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 2. Land Use Regulations The Uptown Newport PC is intended to be a multi - family residential community with neighborhood-serving retail uses. Permitted uses are described in Section 2.1.2 and Table 2 -2. Prior to adoption of the Uptown Newport PC, development on the Uptown Newport property has been controlled by the Koll Center PC -15. The Uptown Newport PC replaces the Koll Center PC with respect to the development of the Uptown Newport site. It is recognized, however, that development and absorption of these elements within the Uptown Newport PC may require a span of several years to commence and complete, and that in the interim, industrial and commercial uses of the site will continue. Existing light industrial and office uses will be phased out as development is implemented. Prior to March 12, 2027 existing uses will continue to be allowed pursuant to the Uptown Newport PC and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) relating to non - conforming uses and structures. The conditions, standards, and other provisions of Uptown Newport PC are in no way intended to discourage or prohibit the continued uses of the existing industrial uses on the site as development of the urban village concept proceeds. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 2.1.1 Existing Uses Any use within the Uptown Newport PC lawfully existing at the time of the effective date of this PC may continue as an interim use and is subject to the NBMC. Provided, however, existing light industrial uses including their ancillary commercial/ office related uses will cease when the existing TowerJazz lease expires, or until March 12, 2027, whichever comes first. Permitted existing uses consist of the following: 1. Existing Light Industrial Uses A. To allow uses primarily engaged in research activities, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings and do not contribute excess noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential, due to the matter of the product material or processes involved. Such activities may include but shall not be limited to research laboratories and facilities, developmental laboratories and facilities and compatible light manufacturing related to the following list of examples: 1. Bio- Chemical Chemical Film and Photography Medical and Dental Metallurgy Pharmaceutical X -Ray 2. Manufacture, research assembly, testing components, devices, equipment and systems and parts and components such as but not limited to the following list of examples: Coils, Tubes, Semi- Conductors Communication, Navigation Control, Transmission and Reception Equipment, Control Equipment and Systems Guidance Equipment and Systems Glass Edging, Beveling, and Silvering Data Processing Equipment and Systems Graphics, Art Equipment Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 2. LAND USE REGULATIONS Metering Instruments Optical Devices, Equipment and Systems Phonographs, Audio Units, Radio Equipment and Systems Scientific and Mechanical Instruments Testing Equipment B. To allow the location of offices and areas associated with and accessory to the permitted light industrial uses listed under IA: 1. Administrative, professional and business offices 2. Regional or home offices of industries which are limited to a single use 3. Blueprinting, photostating, photo engraving, printing, publishing and bookbinding, provided that no on -site commercial service is associated with said uses 4. Cafeteria, cafe, restaurant, bar, theater /nightclub or auditorium su bject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code H. Industrial Service and Support Facilities Permitted Uses A. To allow a combination of general industry, business and professional offices, and industrial support activities, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings, and do not contribute excessive noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, materials or processes involved. 1. All uses permitted under Part I a. Business and professional offices b. Industrial Support Facilities, to include activities limited to the sale of products or services c. Distribution and warehousing plants 2.1.2 Permitted Uses Permitted uses are those uses set forth in Table 2 -2. Accessory Uses as defined herein are also permitted. Land uses that are not listed in the table herein are not allowed, except as otherwise provided by Chapter 20.12 (Interpretation of Zoning Code Provisions) of the NBMC. Interface between retail and residential uses will incorporate mitigation features as outlined in Chapter 3 of the Design Guidelines document to limit nuisances such as odors and noise generated by the retail uses. The residential use interior sound attenuation requirement shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dB. Additional commercial /retail uses in excess of 11,500 square feet is permitted through conversion of residential units in accordance with the City's traffic neutral policy or through a transfer of development intensity consistent with the General Plan. Retail uses are permitted throughout the Uptown New- port PC. Appropriate written notifications shall be provided to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within the Uptown Newport PC notifying them that the area 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 the airport. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 2.1.3 Special Events The mixed -use and open character of Uptown Newport may be conducive to the hosting of a variety of Special Events (as defined in NBMC) throughout the year. Special Events must comply with NBMC. 2.2 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The development program in the Uptown Newport PC is consistent with those established by the ICDP and are identified in Table 2 -1. The development program may be modified through amendments to the Uptown Newport PC or the approval of a transfer of development rights. Carts, kiosks, temporary, and Accessory Uses are permitted and are not counted towards development units or square footage allocated in the Uptown Newport PC. 2.3 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS The transfer of development rights within this Planned Community to areas in the Airport Area Conceptual Development Plan identified in the General Plan is allowed in accordance with the permitted densities, the General Plan and NBMC. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 2. LAND USE REGULATIONS TABLE 2 -1: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM LAND USE Residential 922 units Residential Density Bonus' 322 units Total Residential 1,244 units Commercial (Retail) 11,500 sq. ft. 'Density bonus units pursuant to state law & NBMC TABLE 2 -2: PERMITTED LAND USE REGULATION TABLE RESIDENTIAL (4) Multi -Unit Dwellii Live Work Units Son lor Citizen H CARE USES Adult Day Care -Small (6 orfewer, In home) P Child Day Care: Small (B or fewer, In home) P Day Care, General (commercial) CUP (3) Congregate Care Home CUP Convalescent Facility CUP RETAIL USES (1) Alcohol Sales(off -sale) MUP Alcohol Sales (off sale) Accessory Only MUP Antiques P Artists supplies P Bakeries P Bicycles P Books P Boutique shops P Clothing and accessories P Cameras and photographic supplies P Convenience markets /stores /food and beverages P Handcrafted Items P Jewelry P Luggage and leather goods P Musical instruments, parts and accessories P Office supplies P Pharmacies P Real estate Information Center P Shoe stores P Sporting goods and equipment P Tobacco P Toys and games P SERVICE USES- BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL (1) ATM's P Fl tans iRl Institutions and Related Services P Offices - Medical and Dental P Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 SERVICE USES - GENERAL (1) P Animal Grcoming/Veterinary Services (no boaNing) P Artists Studios P Eating and Drinking Establishments P Accessory food service (open to public) P (2) Fast Food (no late hours) P Fast Food (with late hours) MUP (2) Food Service (no late hours) P Food Service (with late hours) MUP (2) Take Out Service, Limned P Health Fitness Facilities Small -2,000 sq. ft. or less P Large Over 2,000 so - If CUP Medical Retail/ Services Body scanning P Dental enhancement treatments P Eye exam, eyeglass/contact lens sales P Skin treatments P Personal Services Clothing Rental Shops P Dry Cleaners - Agent Only P Heir Salons/ Barber Shops P Home electronics and small appliance repair P Locksmiths P Massage Establishments MUP Massage Establishments, Accessory MUP Nail Salons/ Beauty Shops P Spas P Tallorsand seamstresses P Tanning salons P Travel agencies /services P Postal Services P Printing and Duplicating Services P TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE USES Wireless Tel ecommunleatlon Facilities MUP OTHER USES Accessory Structures. and Uses P Personal Property Sates P Temporary Uses LTP Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 2. LAND USE REGULATIONS LEGEND P = Permitted By -Right CUP = Conditional Use Permit MUP = Minor Use Permit LTP = Limited Term Permit - -- Not Allowed (1) Uses permitted on the first floor only. (2) Late hours. Facilities with late hours shall mean facilities that offer service and are open to the public after 11:00 p.m. any day of the week. A Minor Use Permit shall be required for any use that maintains late hours. (3) Child day care that principally serves on -site residential uses shall not be counted against the 11,500 square feet of allowable commercial space. (4) Includes affordable housing in accordance with the Uptown Newport affordable housing implementation plan. Note: Land uses that are not listed in the table above, or are not shown are not allowed, except as otherwise provided by NBMC (Rules of Interpretation). If such uses are Accessory Uses to a Residential Development, such uses shall not be counted against the 11,500 s.f. of allowable commercial space. 1 Q:7 , tnlnununmuuumi a imimi uuwnumnmuuuunuuuum INLY r1 E I r 1 r r !. ar to 0 o. Figure 2 -1: Uptown Newport Land Use Plan Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 2. LAND USE REGULATIONS PC BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY and sidewalk ightof ay and park area) street I DEVELOPABLE iAREA(way and park area) N'� Ulu _ PARK SPACE ACCESS EASEMENT 1111111111RA1111111 11 IF Acreage Summary Developable Area: 18.46 ac Park Area: 2.05 ac Right of Way 05 ac .54 ac Total Site: 25.05 ac '--� 4-F 4 U-11-11111111111 I 0 100• 200' 400' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 10 3. Site Development Standards 3.1 PERMITTED HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES The maximum height for low -rise and mid -rise buildings shall be 75 feet. The maximum building height for high -rise (as defined herein) portions of buildings is 150 feet. Portions of the site feature a maximum building height limit of 55 feet (see Figure 3 -2). High -rise portions of buildings shall be set back an additional 15' beyond the required setback from property line. High -rise elements may be wholly or partially surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures. The distance between the high -rise portions of buildings shall be a minimum of 75 feet. All building heights are measured at Finished Grade as shown on grading plan or final subdivision map. The maximum Floor Plate of any high -rise portion of a building shall not exceed 25,000 square feet. The number of high -rise structures in each "high -rise zone" shall not exceed the maximum number shown in Figure 3 -2. All development must be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the height restrictions set forth by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). It should be noted that the current aviation easement for 1WA as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors restricts the construction of buildings to a maximum height of 206 feet (NAVD 88), including all rooftop appurtenances. Architectural Features are permitted and may exceed the maximum building height by up to 20 feet, provided that the maximum height of the building, including architectural features does not exceed 206 feet (NAVD 88), including all rooftop appurtenances. Such features must be an extension or complement of the architectural style of the building in terms of materials, design and color. Applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA (Form 7460 -1) for any construction cranes that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 J 20' MAX. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ROOFTOP APPURTENANCE OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE, MAXIMUM ELEVATION —206 FEET (NAVD 88) (SUBJECTTO FAA REGULATIONS) HIGH -RISE 150' MAX. 1 S' 20'(v 75'Mi X. LOW -AND MID -RISE BASE 1 ' 1 ' 1 Building Setback Figure 3 -1 Building /Structure Height Limits 7(PARk 35:' 100' ti HIGH-RISEZONE - (NOT TO EXCEED 2 HIGH- RI5E� STRUCTURES) 1 E fl E) Ri (PARK) HIGH- RISEZONE MOTTO EXCEED 1 HIGH -RI STRUCTURE) Figure 3 -2 Building Height Limit Plan HIGH -RISE ZONE (NOT TO EXCEED 1 HIGH -RISE STRUCTURE) Ana B -0 IZE E- RO A D Grade (varies per site plan) Legend: O"High -Rise Zone" (High -rise portions arbuildlngs haven 150' height limit) O 55' Height Limit O 75'Height Limit HIGH -RISE ZONE (NO! TO EXCEED 2 HIGH -RISE STRUCI'URE51 11 3.2 BUILDINGS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 3.2.1 Perimeter The building setbacks to the perimeter property line shall be 15: Exceptions include a 34' setback along the property line adjacent to Jamboree Road, a 10'setback along the southwest property edge, and a 30' setback along two portions of the northern property line (see Figure 3 -4). 3.2.2 Interior Streets Along the Spine Street building setbacks shall be 27' from property line. Along all other streets building setbacks shall be 17'from property line. Exceptions include a 22'setback on the northeast edge of the secondary Jamboree Road Entry Drive. N 3.2.3 Subterranean Setbacks Subterranean parking structures or other underground structures (including foundations and footings) may project into required building setbacks and shall be covered with a minimum 2' depth of soil for planting (see Figure 3 -3). Subterranean parking structures may encroach into or extend underneath private or public paseos provided that they are covered with pavers and raised planters. The maximum distance a subterranean structure may encroach into the building setback is as follows: • Spine Street: 10' • Neighborhood Streets: 5' • Entry Drives: 5' • Perimeter property lines: 5' • Jamboree frontage: not permitted ALLOWED Figure 3 -3 Subterranean Structure Conditions a NOT ALLOWED Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 12 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PC BOUNDARY • —•— PARK SPACE BOUNDARY J' X 11 PUILDIN CE /I BUILDING SETBACK '�I'11I1111111LJ \�\oC 6d _- ACCESS EASEMENT - - �L� . 011lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll����n������ I I In._....,.,, �.... —� - — __ PERMITTED BUILDABLE o - AREA AEMEBGENCY(- .—.—.—.—. —. —. —.—.—.—.—. — . 15' - Acces "s ONLY 30_ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __ _____5, 15' i o f 1 , - �IIIII Ilr o %I' 30" I 17' r 15-------------------------' U 111111 II III II IIIU -- -- ------------------ 15r--, 1T -; F 15' 15' 8 17, o 7' g 117' 5- - 1 z ` 27, i , -- SPINE STREET __ - -` v __-- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- ' 27, +10' St 20' 1 _ z 'f0' I 17' :34' Sb C------ ---------------------34-------- I `-------------------- ! 1 II I I Figure 3-4: Plan of Setback Requirements -- ----- --- ----- ---- 15 - - - -- , I r - 22' 15'j- 415' 1 ; 17' NEIGHBORHOOD STREET ------- - - - - -- 17 L71`14 C r 8 108' 280' 488' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 13 3.2.4 Stairways, Ramps and Patios On Neighborhood Streets, stairways, front stoops, and ramps are permitted within the front setback and may extend to the back of walk (Figure 3 -5). Street -level private patios on Neighborhood Streets may extend 3 feet into the required building setback (Figure 3 -6). On the Spine Street, stairways, front stoops, and ramps are permitted within the front setback and may extend a maximum of 8 feet (Figure 3 -7). Street -level patios on the Spine Street may encroach a maximum of 4 feet into the required setback. Patio encroachments into the Jamboree Road setback are not permitted (Figure 3 -8). Figure 3 -5 Neighborhood Street: Stairways, Front Stoops, & Ramps Setback Figure 3 -7 Spine Street: Stairways, Front Stoops, & Ramps Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Ramps needed for accessibility may be placed into the street setback and shall be set back a minimum of 2 feet from the public sidewalk. Figure 3 -6 Neighborhood Street: Patios R Building Setback R AN 1 1 1 1 Figure 3 -8 Spine Street: Patios Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 14 R R - 66' - --- ----------------- ------- Public Access Easement 27' 36' 27" a Right of Way �/ — � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parallel ravel ravel PaaIll 1 Walk Unduapel Palling Lane Lane Faking Itantlsape Walk 12' S' 10' 8' 10' 10' 8' 10' S' 12' Figure 3 -9: Section A- Spine Street (without diagonal parking) Figure 3 -10: Section B - Spine Street (with diagonal parking) Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.3 ON -SITE CIRCULATION 3.3.1 Street Hierarchy Uptown Newport will feature a network of streets which are privately owned, built, and maintained, but accessible to the public. The street network is centered around the internal Spine Street and traffic roundabout, which includes a 36' paved section with the option of adjacent diagonal parking in certain locations (see Figures 3 -9 and 3 -10). The street network also features two Entry Drives (Figures 3 -11 and 3 -12) intersecting Jamboree Road, which also may feature diagonal parking. Neighborhood Streets (Figure 3 -13) feature reduced building setbacks and landscape dimensions than the Spine Street and Entry Drives. The Neighborhood Street along the southwesterly boundary will be gated for emergency access, but will allow for future connection to Von Karman Avenue upon future development of the Koll Center Newport (Figure 3 -14). In Phase 2, the central Neighborhood Street will be extended to the northerly property line to allow for future connection to Von Karman Avenue upon future development of the Koll Center Newport. 3.3.2 Sidewalks Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all internal streets and shall be a minimum of five feet in width, however, wider sidewalks are permitted. In cases where project streets are constructed adjacent to future phases, such streets may be allowed to have a sidewalk on one side only until such time that build -out occurs. The installation of parkway landscaping and street trees is required in such instances. All parkways are publicly accessible up to the back -of -walk. Walkways are not required adjacent to private drives, basement access drives or alleys. Streets shall be privately owned and maintained, but open to the public. Outdoor dining is permitted adjacent to retail uses as long as a minimum sidewalk width of five feet is maintained at all times. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 15 R R - -- Public Access FZSement -- y5'/ 36' 35' Public Park Right of Way / 1 k 1 k Diagonal 1 Tang Tavel k Diagonal Pad Walk PA" I Lane We I Palo., S06ak 12' 18' 18' 18' 18' 17' Figure 3 -10: Section B - Spine Street (with diagonal parking) Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.3 ON -SITE CIRCULATION 3.3.1 Street Hierarchy Uptown Newport will feature a network of streets which are privately owned, built, and maintained, but accessible to the public. The street network is centered around the internal Spine Street and traffic roundabout, which includes a 36' paved section with the option of adjacent diagonal parking in certain locations (see Figures 3 -9 and 3 -10). The street network also features two Entry Drives (Figures 3 -11 and 3 -12) intersecting Jamboree Road, which also may feature diagonal parking. Neighborhood Streets (Figure 3 -13) feature reduced building setbacks and landscape dimensions than the Spine Street and Entry Drives. The Neighborhood Street along the southwesterly boundary will be gated for emergency access, but will allow for future connection to Von Karman Avenue upon future development of the Koll Center Newport (Figure 3 -14). In Phase 2, the central Neighborhood Street will be extended to the northerly property line to allow for future connection to Von Karman Avenue upon future development of the Koll Center Newport. 3.3.2 Sidewalks Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all internal streets and shall be a minimum of five feet in width, however, wider sidewalks are permitted. In cases where project streets are constructed adjacent to future phases, such streets may be allowed to have a sidewalk on one side only until such time that build -out occurs. The installation of parkway landscaping and street trees is required in such instances. All parkways are publicly accessible up to the back -of -walk. Walkways are not required adjacent to private drives, basement access drives or alleys. Streets shall be privately owned and maintained, but open to the public. Outdoor dining is permitted adjacent to retail uses as long as a minimum sidewalk width of five feet is maintained at all times. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 15 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Figure 3 -11: Section C - Entry Drive (without diagonal parking) R R 1 � 87' S _ Public F�semem 20' 42' Public Access Easement 35' f— ry Public Access Easement ' 18' S4' 78" r r r ' 1 Right of Way r 1T 36' 17'1 1 1 r Right of Way L 01 ELI1 1 1 1 1 Lantl- ,cape, Walk Landsape� 1 miyoizl � FALw 1 I 1 land -. Iona- Travel /Turn iaape1Walk' sage I Lane NMl . Lane Travellane Travel Lane 1 Lana- Land- I u,, _ Walk_�pei Iona- Lana -1 Parallel scope Walk nape Park'mg I Tavel Tavel Pmallel l b,d- land - Lone lace PaMng Lpe. WA.unpe -- i - -J— ' � 5' S' 8' 14' 12' 12' 16' 8' S' S' 5' S' 7' 8' 10' 10' 8' 7' 5' 5' Figure 3 -11: Section C - Entry Drive (without diagonal parking) R R 1 � 87' S _ Public F�semem 20' 42' 35' a R"I tofWay 1 1 1 1 L 01 1 1 1 1 Lantl- ,cape, Walk Landsape� travel Lane Travel Lane miyoizl � FALw Seibad 5' S' 10' 21' 21' 18' 17' Figure 3 -12: Section D - Entry Drive (with diagonal parking) Figure 3 -13: Section E - Neighborhood Street R R R 44, r Publi<ACCess Easement —� Right of Way 1 1 1 ' —SQQQ 1 1 I iland- 1 TUne avel travel lane Parallel I Land Land Safe I Parkln9 IsaPe Walk,uape 10' 12' 12' 8' 7' -5 ~ 5' Figure 3 -14: Section F - Neighborhood Street Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 16 3.4 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking within the Uptown Newport PC shall be provided along internal streets and within structured parking that is integrated with residential and retail buildings. On- street parallel and diagonal parking for visitors, public parks and short -term resident parking shall be provided along internal streets. Structured parking shall be provided for residential and retail uses, and may consist of subterranean or above - grade parking structures. Above -grade parking structures shall be encapsulated or lined with residential units or retail space. Refer to Sections 2.4 and 3.4.11 of the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines for parking design standards and considerations. Parking requirements for implementing projects within the Uptown Newport PC shall be based on the standards set forth herein as part of the site development review process (see Section 4.2). Parking requirements are based on gross floor area for retail/ office/ commercial uses and unit counts for residential units. Carts and kiosksfor retail sales, covered or uncovered, shall not be included in the calculation of required parking. Accessory TABLE 3 -1: UPTOWN NEWPORT PARKING REQUIREMENTS LAND USE PARKING REQUIREMENT Residential Studio: 1.1 spaces per dwelling unit (Rental) 1 Bedroom: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit 2 Bedroom: 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit 3 Bedroom: 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit Visitor Parking: 0.3 spaces per dwelling unit Residential Studio: 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit (Ownership) 1 Bedroom: 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit 2 Bedroom: 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit 3 Bedroom: 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit Visitor Parking: 0.3 spaces per dwelling unit uses for residential developments shall not be included in the calculation of required parking. Residential parking requirements for Uptown Newport are shown in Table 3 -1. Parking for retail, restaurant, commercial, and all other uses not included in Table 3 -1, and the dimensions of parking spaces, shall not be less than required by NBMC. Parallel and diagonal on- street parking is permitted on all internal streets and may be credited toward parking requirements for adjoining retail uses and guest parking requirements for adjoining residential uses. Parallel parking stall sizes shall conform to City of Newport Beach standards and will be permitted on one side of 32' -wide streets (paved section to face of curb) and both sides of a 36' -wide street (paved section to face of curb). 3.S LANDSCAPING Refer to NBMC for general landscape and irrigation plans and standards. Refer to Chapter 5 of the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines for landscape and hardscape design guidelines. 3.6 LIGHTING Refer to NBMC for general exterior lighting standards. Refer to Chapter 5 and Section 3.4.9 of the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines for exterior lighting design guidelines. 3.7 PUBLIC PARKS, ON-SITE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES & OPEN SPACE 3.7.1 Public Neighborhood Parks Two (2) neighborhood parks shall be provided within Uptown Newport. The neighborhood parks shall be improved, maintained, and accessible to the public at times. Each neighborhood park shall comply with the following standards: Senior Housing 1per unit Affordable Housing 0 -1 Bedroom: 1.0 spaces per dwelling unit 1. 1.0 acre minimum in size, exclusive of adjacent 2+ Bedroom; 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit parking spaces (cumulative total of at least 2.00 (indusNeofhand)capandguestparkm9) acres shall be provided); Refer to Newport Beach Municipal Code for all uses not listed above Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 2. 150 feet or more in dimension; 3. Surrounded by streets on at least two sides; 4. Linked to surrounding residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets and pedestrian ways; and 5. Contains recreational amenities, which may include: a. Active lawn area b. Barbecue courtyard C. Children's play area d. Other amenities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director 6. Have posted a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and related aircraft overflight and noise. 3.7.2 Recreational Amenities On -site private recreational amenities shall be provided in each building phase, individual residential building or complex. A total of 44 square feet of private recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit.These areas may include the following amenities: 1. Swimming pools /spas 2. Exercise facilities 3. Tennis courts 4. Basketball courts 5. Clubhouse rooms 6. Roof deck recreation areas 7. Community gardens 8. Barbecue courtyards 9. Passive gathering spaces 10. Other amenities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director 3.7.3 Private Balconies Private balconies may be provided for residential units. Balconies above the ground level may encroach into required building setback areas by a maximum of two (2) feet into the Neighborhood Streets and four (4) feet into the Spine Street. Balcony encroachments into the Jamboree Road setback are not permitted. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 17 Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.7.4 Recreational Open Space In addition to the public neighborhood parks, recreational open space shall be provided and shall be improved and maintained as common walkways or "paseos." These areas shall be provided with recreational amenities that may include the following: 1. Sitting and social gathering spaces with outdoor furniture 2. Exercise stations 3. Water fountains, ponds and other such elements 4. Other amenities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director 3.8 PERIMETER WALLS AND FENCES Walls and fences shall be provided along the perimeter of the Uptown Newport PC with the exception of along Jamboree Road. Perimeter walls and fences shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Interim walls built for the purposes of sound attention may exceed the 6 foot height limit, but shall be buffered by low walls and /or landscaping. Refer to the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines and Phasing Plan for design standards for interim walls and fences. 3.9 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.9.1 Grading Grading will be conducted and undertaken in a manner consistent with the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines and Phasing Plan as well as applicable grading standards and ordinances of the City of Newport Beach. 3.9.2 Drainage Drainage will be in accordance with the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines and Phasing Plan as well as applicable standards and ordinances of the City of Newport Beach. This will include approval and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan that will incorporate Low Impact Development principles. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 is 4. Planned Community Development Plan Implementation Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 4. PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 MASTER SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW A Master Developer will develop the Master Site Improvements as described in this Section 4 or depicted on Figure 4 -1. The Master Site Improvements will be developed in two primary phases to coincide with the Uptown Newport Phasing Plan, and will provide for the cohesive development within the Uptown Newport PC. All Master Site Improvements in a phase shall be bonded for at the time of the grading permit for that phase. Individual building parcels will be developed by merchant builders, with development of individual building sites subject to the Site Development Review process outlined in Section 4.2 herein. Except as otherwise maintained by a public utility or agency, a Master Association for Uptown Newport shall be created and responsible for maintaining the Master Site Improvements upon acceptance of the completed improvements from the Master Developer. The Master Site Improvements will be maintained by the Master Developer until such time as the Master Site Improvements are accepted by either a public utility, public agency, or the Master Association. Figure 4 -1: Master Site Improvements L L Y n J Y Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 19 Master Site Improvements includethefollowing: 4.1.1 Application 1. Demolition, site preparation and rough grading; 2. Backbone storm drain system within the streets; 3. Sanitary sewer system within the streets; 4. Water distribution system within the streets; 5. Reclaimed water distribution system within the streets; 6. Street improvements, including street paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, parkway improvements to the back of sidewalk; 7. Common area fencing and walls; 8. Neighborhood Park improvements for the two (2) public parks; 9. Landscape improvements within common areas, including: public street parkways to the back of sidewalk; project entries; Jamboree Road parkway and Class 1 and multi -use trail; Neighborhood Park landscape improvements; paseo landscape improvements; 10. Master street light and common area lighting improvements; 11. Dry utilities; 12. Master community signage. A Master Site Development Plan shall be prepared to implement the Master Site Improvements within the Uptown Newport PC. The purpose of the Master Site Development Plan review is to ensure that the Uptown Newport site is developed consistent with the Uptown Newport Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures, Design Guidelines, Phasing Plan, Development Agreement, applicable environmental mitigation measures, and applicable City Codes and standards, as well as to ensure that the Master Site Improvements are constructed and completed in a manner that provides for a complete and cohesive master plan. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 4. PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Review and approval of the Master Site Development Plan application shall be conducted by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures for a Major Site Review application outlined in NBMC, with the exception of proposed buildings. Proposed buildings within the Uptown Newport PC shall be evaluated in accordance with the Site Development Review process outlined in Section 4.2 herein. Plans shall be prepared for the public and common area elements within the Uptown Newport PC, including streets. The Master Site Development Plan application shall include the following plans for the Uptown Newport project, with separate Master Site Plans prepared for both Phase 1 and Phase 2: 1. Preliminary grading plans; 2. Preliminary street improvement plans; 3. Preliminary master landscape plans and plant palette; 4. Preliminary public parks and paseo plans; 5. Preliminary master wall /fence plans; 6. Preliminary master lighting plan (street lights and common area lighting); 7. Preliminary master sign plan. 8. Prototypical building elevations that clearly demonstrate the architectural style of all structures, illustrate exterior materials, exterior colors and building heights. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 20 4.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The purpose of the Site Development Review process is to ensure projects within the Uptown Newport PC are implemented consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, provisions of this document, plans approved as part of the Master Site Development Plan review, Uptown Newport Design Guidelines, Uptown Newport Phasing Plan, Tentative Tract Map, the Development Agreement, applicable environmental mitigation measures, and consistent with the findings set forth in sub - section 4.2.2. Only after first making the findings that the development is in compliance with the Planned Community Development Plan - Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures, is in compliance with the Design Guidelines and in substantial conformance with the Master Site Development Plan application. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans and prototypical building elevations approved as part of the Master Site Development Plan application. 4.2.1 Application Approval of Site Development Review application by the Community Development Director shall be required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for the following: 1. New buildings 2. Neighborhood parks and paseos 3. On -site recreational amenities Retail identification signs, tenant improvements to permitted buildings, kiosks, and temporary structures are exempt from the Site Development Review process and are subject to the applicable ministerial permits required by the NBMC. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 4. PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION No public hearing shall be required for a Site Development 5. Review application; however, a public hearing shall be conducted prior to any decision on an application that includes a requestfora Minor Use Permit ora Conditional Use Permit, or to adjust development standards. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided, and the hearing shall be conducted, in compliance with Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings). 4.2.2 Findings Consistent with the general purposes set forth in section 4.2, the Community Development Director may approve or conditionally approve a Site Development Review application, only after first making the following findings: 1. The development shall be in compliance with all provisions of the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures; 2. The development shall be consistent with the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines, Phasing Plan, and Master Site Development Plan; 3. Substantial Conformance with the Master Site Development Plans approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 4.1; 4. On -site landscaping that is not part of the Master Site Improvements shall be consistent with the master landscape plant palette; The following criteria shall be considered during the review of a Site Development Review application: a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; c. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; d. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; e. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 21 4.2.3 Contents The Site Development Review application shall be filed with the Community Development Department on the appropriate City application form, together with all required fees and /or deposit and all other information and materials specified by the Community Development Director for the specific type of application. The following plans or exhibits shall be required unless waived by the Community Development Director: 1. Site Plan clearly depicting existing conditions including adjacent structures and proposed improvements 2. Floor Plans 3. Elevations that clearly demonstrate the architectural theme of each face of all structures, including walls and signs, illustrating the following: Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures 4. PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION An analysis, including any supporting documentation, of 4.3 PLAN CHECK REVIEW the project's consistency with the General Plan, Planned Community Development Plan Land Uses Development Working drawings for building permit issuances will be Standards & Procedures, Design Guidelines, and Phasing conducted by plan check review by City Staff in accordance Plan with the procedures set forth by the Community Development Department. 8. Any additional information, studies or materials that the Community Development Director deems necessary 4.2.4 Expiration Any site development review approved in accordance with the terms of this planned community development plan shall expire within twenty -four (24) months from the effective date of final approval, as specified in Chapter 20.54 of the NBMC, unless at the time of approval the Community Development Director has specified a different period of time or an extension is otherwise granted. 4.2.5 Fees a. All exterior materials and manner of application The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution b. All exterior colors of the Newport Beach City Council for each application for c. Building heights Site Development Review under this Planned Community Development Plan. 4. Plans and description of improvements for any on -site public and private recreational amenities and /or open space areas, including furnishings and signage. 5. Preliminary Landscape Plan, illustrating: a. General location of all plant materials, by common and botanical names with photographs b. Size of plant materials c. Irrigation concept 6. Lighting Plan, including the location, fixture height lighting fixture product type and technical specifications 4.3.1 Application Application forms, plans, fees, and supporting application materials shall be submitted to the Community Development Department Building Division in accordance with the applicable submittal requirements of the Building Division. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 22 5. Definitions All words and phrases used in this Uptown Newport PC, as well as the supporting Design Guidelines and Phasing Plan, shall have the same meaning and definition as used in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code unless defined differently in this section. Accessory Use: A supporting use to a permitted use, also includes residential support uses such as leasing /sales /property management offices, fitness and recreation facilities, etc. Such supporting uses do not require a conditional use permit approval, are permitted by right and do not count towards the allowable 11,500 square feet of commercial space. Architectural Features: A prominent or significant part or element of the design of a building, structure, or site. Such features must be an extension of the architectural style of the building in terms of materials, design and color. Examples may include, but are not limited to, turrets, towers, cupolas, etc. Building Elevation: The exterior wall surface formed by one (1) side of the building Building Height: Building height is measured from the corresponding point on the roof to the exterior finished grade. If the building is on a sloping surface, the height measurement is taken from the building entrance. Exceptions include but are not limited to below grade parking structures, motor courts, and retaining walls. Developable Area: The total area of a site less the following: a. Publicly dedicated Rights of Way; and In. Any dedicated public Park areas. Effective Date of the Uptown Newport PC: The date on which the Uptown Newport PC is approved by the Newport Beach City Council. Eye Level: The height of 5 feet measured from grade. Floor Plate: A floor of a building, as depicted by a floor plan, encompassing all building elements on the floor as defined by the exterior enclosing walls. High -Rise: Any structure with a building height above 75 feet. Kiosks: Carts and kiosks are small (75 square feet or less), freestanding facilities used for retail sales and services. Generally mobile in terms of ease of relocation, the structures can be seasonal, temporary or for a more permanent use. Master Association: A California nonprofit public benefit corporation, formed pursuant to the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law to manage and operate community and public property within Uptown Newport. The Master Association is an "association" as defined in Section 1351(a) of the California Civil Code. The Master Association is an association of all the member associations to manage the common elements within Uptown Newport shared by member associations. Master Site Improvements: Any structure or other work of improvement within the public or common areas within the Uptown Newport Planned Community, and any appurtenance thereto, including streets, parks, landscaping, irrigation equipment, paved areas, surface finishes, signs, light fixtures, driveways, walkways, walls, utilities, public services, drainage facilities, and all other fixtures attached to the land and work required in orderto install such facilities. The Design Guidelines may, but are not required to, identify additional items that are Improvements. Master Developer. The Master Developer is responsible for managing the development and disposition of the site from initiation to final build -out, overseeing site preparation and infrastructure development, and asset management. The master developer may or may not be involved in construction of buildings. Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures Master Site Development Plan: Master Site Plan means the Master Site Development as depicted in Figure 2 -2 of the Uptown Newport Design Guidelines and described in Section 4 of this document. NBMC: Newport Beach Municipal Code Neighborhood Park: A lot or area of land set aside, designated, dedicated, or reserved for public use or enjoyment designed and accessible for outdoor living, active or passive recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping. Parking Structure: Structures containing more than one story principally dedicated to parking. Parking structures may contain Accessory Uses. Pedestrian Ways: Any walkway, path, plaza, arcade or corridor, either covered or open to the sky, which is primarily for use by people on foot. Podium: A superposed terrace conforming to a building's plan, a continuous pedestal. Rooftop Appurtenance: Rooftop appurtenances include, but are not limited to, non - habitable mechanical equipment, stairwell and elevator shaft housing, antennae, window washing equipment, and wireless communication facilities. Streets: Those areas designated for vehicular circulation including public access easements within Uptown Newport as specified in Section 3.3.1 of this document. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 23 Attachment No. CC 21 Uptown Newport PCDP — Phasing Plan This document is not included in the staff report package due to its size and bulk. It is available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at http://newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=202 9 4 Rl 422 UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan Phasing Plan Uptown Newport LP February 14, 2013 Chapter1: Introduction ....................... ............................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Intent ....................... ..............................2 1.2 Phasing Summary ........................ ..............................2 Chapter 2: Phase 1 Demolition ............ ..............................4 2.1 Demolition ..................................... ..............................5 2.2 Site Preparation ............................ ..............................5 Chapter 3: Phase 1 On -Site Improvements ........................ 6 3.1 Grading and Earthwork ............... ..............................7 3.2 Utilities and Drainage .................. ..............................9 Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 5: Phase 2 Demolition & Remediation ............... 21 5.1 Demolition .................................. ............................... 22 5.2 Site Preparation ........................... ............................. 22 Chapter 6: Phase 2 On -Site Improvements ...................... 23 6.1 Grading and Earthwork ............ ............................... 24 6.2 Utilities and Drainage ............... ............................... 26 3.2.1 Water .............................................. ............................... 9 6.2.1 Water ........................................................................... 26 3.2.2 Sewer ........................................... ............................... 10 6.2.2 Sewer .......................................................................... 27 3.2.3 Drainage & Water Quality ..... ............................... 11 6.2.3 Drainage & Water Quality .................................... 28 3.2.4 Dry Utilities ................................ ............................... 12 6.2.4 Dry Utilities ............................................................... 29 3.3 Vehicular Circulation ................... ............................. 13 6.3 Vehicular Circulation................... ............................. 30 3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ........................ 13 6.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ........................ 30 3.5 Phase 1 Conceptual Landscape Master Plan....... 14 6.5 Phase 2 Conceptual Landscape Master Plan ....... 31 3.5.1 Entry Drives ................................ ............................... 15 6.5.1 Jamboree Road Entry Drive ................................ 32 3.5.2 Spine Street ............................... ............................... 16 6.5.2 Birch Street Entry Drive ........................................ 33 3.5.3 Community Buffers/ Edges ... ............................... 17 6.5.3 Spine Street .............................................................. 34 3.5.4 Walls and Fencing .................... ............................... 18 6.5.4 Paseo Landscape .................................................... 35 Chapter 4: Phase 1 Off -Site Improvements ..................... 19 Chapter 7: Phase 2 Off -Site Improvements ..................... 36 4.1 Jamboree Striping ..................... ............................... 20 7.1 Birch Street Infrastructure....... ............................... 37 4.2 Jamboree Water ......................... ............................... 20 7.2 Koll Property............................... ............................... 37 UPTOWN NEWPORT Punned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 1 Introduction Phasing Plan Plan iAli!111 61111111[i l 1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 1.2 PHASING SUMMARY The Uptown Newport Phasing Plan outlines the phasing of the proposed development within the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan (Uptown Newport PC), and is intended to be used as a general guide for the planning and implementation of the phased development within the Uptown Newport PC. New residential and commercial development within the subject property shall be subject to the Uptown Newport PC Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures and Design Guidelines. Existing on -site land uses are allowed to continue as nonconforming uses in compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 20.38 and the Uptown Newport PC. The Uptown Newport project will include redevelopment of the 25 -acre property into a high - density mixed -use residential project. Up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail, and 2 acres of park space are planned as part of the project. The plan calls for the approximate 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of streets and development areas that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial /office areas. The project is anticipated to be developed in two primary phases. Phase 1 will include demolition of the existing single -story office building at 4311 Jamboree (the "Half Dome Building "), and development of the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 2 rmrr lJ Phase 2 „Phase T- Qnm Phase Phase ToUl Number of Units: 680 564 1,244 1 I1 Developable Area (ac): 8.74 912 18.46 Park Area (ac): 1.03 1.02 2.05 _ Retail (sf): 11,500 0 11,500 O R E E ROAD — — Right of way Area (ac): 3.24 1.30 4.54 IA7K$ � Total Area (ac): 13.01 12.04 25.05 Figure 1 -1: Phasing Diagram 0 1M 200' 4DO' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 2 westerly portion of the property, including the frontage along Jamboree Road. Phase 1 development will include approximately 680 units and 11,500 square feet of retail, and is projected to commence in 2014 with build -out of Phase 1 through 2017. The number of units developed within Phase 1 or Phase 2 may be less than or greater than the number of units specified herein provided that the units are allocated to the site through replacement of existing office or industrial uses, additive units, affordable housing units, or affordable housing density bonus units. The minimum number of units at build -out of the project shall not be less than 30 dwelling units per acre based on the net developable acreage shown on the final map. Units not developed as part of Phase 1 will be available for Phase 2 development. The minimum and maximum number of units by phase is shown on Table 1 -1. Table 1 -1: Units by Phase Minimum Maximum Phase 1 350 680 Phase 350 564 Total 700 1,244 Figure 1 -2: Phase 1 Spine Street with TowerJazz building Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 Plan j K1ft ii711iQKiW The TowerJazz semiconductor facility is an existing semiconductor chip manufacturing facility that operates on the Uptown Newport property. The operation of TowerJazz may continue as an interim use within the Uptown Newport PC. In accordance with the Uptown Newport PC, interim light industrial uses shall cease to be an allowed use after March 12, 2027. Phase 2 will include demolition of the TowerJazz building and development of approximately 564 units on the easterly portion of the property. Development of Phase 2 is anticipated to commence in the spring of 2017 with build -out through 2021. Timing for Phase 2 development is contingent on the existing lease of the TowerJazz building, which is currently set to expire in March 2017, but has the option to extend to 2027. UPTOWN NEWPORT Punned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 2 Phase 1 Demolition Phasing Plan 2.1 DEMOLITION 2.2 SITE PREPARATION Phase 1 will include demolition of the existing building at 4311 Jamboree Road (the "Half Dome" building). The Half Dome building is a 126,675 square foot single - story commercial building that is used for office, light industrial, storage, and cafe services (Figure 2 -1). The TowerJazz building and associated mechanical equipment located at 4321 Jamboree Road along the northern property boundary are planned for demolition in Phase 2 development and will remain in operation during development of Phase 1. The existing SCE substation, located at the northwest corner of Fairchild Road and Jamboree Road, will remain during Phase 1.This area will be developed as part of Phase 2. Phase 1 demolition activities involve: removing equipment, furniture and machinery from the Half Dome building; abating asbestos and lead -based paint as needed; decommissioning of utilities serving the Half Dome building; demolishing and removing the Half Dome building, removing foundations and footings; and removing above - ground storage tanks (ASTs). Utilities and piping serving the Half Dome building would also be removed, cut or capped. The asphalt parking lot, light fixtures, and landscaped islands will be removed. Asphalt, concrete, metal, and other demolition materials will be considered for recycling either on or off -site. In addition, the existing 2,200 gallon liquid ammonia tank that is currently located in between the two existing on -site buildings will be relocated at least 200 feet from residential buildings within Phase 1. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 Site preparation in Phase 1 will require the removal of any unsuitable fill material, stockpiles, vegetation, and organic or non - organic materials resulting from the demolition and clearing /grubbing operation. Based on the previous investigations, development of Phase 1 will not encroach within the area of known environmental impacts, and does not pose unacceptable health risks to future residents. A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) has been prepared for Phase 1 to evaluate the potential for environmental health risks associated with the known environmental impacts at the site. The HHRA has been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and no further remediation is required within Phase 1. Plan 2. PHASE 1 DEMOLITION Figure 2 -1: Half Dome building UPTOWN NEWPORT Punned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 3 Phase 1 On -Site Improvements Phasing Plan 3.1 GRADING AND EARTHWORK The grading operation will involve the cutting and filling of the site to establish building pads, roadway sub - grades and park areas at elevations shown on a City- approved grading plan. At the completion of site preparation, zones of loose unsuitable materials, if any, will be identified. It may be necessary to remove the soils in these localized areas to a greater depth than the overall recommendation. Areas to receive fill and those areas under buildings and roadways will require over - excavation to remove and compact existing soils prior to placing any fill, as recommended in the geotechnical report. Grading and earthwork for Phase 1 will require interim slopes and /or retaining walls along the interface with the Towedazz building and its associated mechanical equipment areas. These interim slopes and walls will subsequently be removed with the grading of Phase 2. Grading will be designed to optimize the balance of cut and fill, in both phases of the site development. The design of the grading anticipates the likelihood of subterranean parking levels beneath the proposed buildings. Material excavated to establish the subterranean pad envelopes will be used as fill to bring site grades up to elevations that are planned to be several feet above existing grades (see Figure 3 -1). Generally, the grading is designed such that the first floor elevations of the residential buildings are two to four feet above the surrounding street grades. The grading concept illustrated in Figure 3 -1 is based on one level of subterranean parking within the larger building envelopes. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 The grading plan is designed to balance cut and fill materials from the grading operation. Grades will be adjusted during final design to minimize the need to import or export soil during grading operations to the extent practical. However, final building design and grades may create the need to import or export soil from the site. An export situation could occur to the extent that these building envelopes have a second level of subterranean parking. Should all of the larger envelopes in Phase 1 have two levels of subterranean parking, then the cut volume would increase by approximately 90,000 cubic yards, much of which would have to be exported from the site. Excess cut material will be transported to locations and by routes approved by the City traffic engineer. Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Phasing Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Legend Range Beg. flange End Percent Arta(S.F) vy -15.00 -10.00 0.0 125 III III .�.� -10.00 -5.00 17.9 103,091 TT1', r. (C� \ -5.00 0.00 34.2 197,200 }. 'l r' r rI PROPER: o _ J'lJ 0.00 5.00 37A 216,087 5.00 10.00 9.3 53,710 10.00 15.00 0.3 1,769 -- - _ . ___- -__ 15.00 20.00 0.9 5,210 PHASE LIN I J Overall Earthwork OuanCt es — . _ _. 1 y. - Raw Cut: 48,1 cv — Raw Fill: 34,900 C.Y. J - I ;lid U;II 1 AMPE np I EXISTING PHASE ❑ PE =47.00 I cIAZZ L--= - - - - -- I❑ FF =59.00 t BUILDING ---- - - - - -- - - LLL PHASE 1 i �' ❑ PE.4z00 "I ITfiTT11` f ElFF - 111 L w t n lllllllhll -1' �• �i ILI`L1LI1 III�IIIILr JAM 30HL-E ROAD Figure 3 -1: Phase 1 Earthwork with 1 Subterranean Parking Level Note: some building typologies may require 0 or subterranean parking levels, in which case overall earthwork quantities will be impacted I 0' 60 100' 20e' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 8 3.2 UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE 3.2.1 Water The proposed on -site water system will consist of a network of underground mains that in Phase 1 will have at least two connections to an existing Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) line in Jamboree Road. The Phase 1 system will include connections to supply both domestic and fire protection water service to the TowerJazz facility (see Figure 3 -2). The on -site water system will be designed and installed in accordance with IRWD standards so that upon completion of construction it may be turned over to IRWD for operation and maintenance. Appropriate easements will be granted to IRWD for these facilities. Figure 3 -2: Phase 1 Water Concept o ioo' 2ao' ono' Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Legend Proposed Water Phase 1 Existing Water _ Existing Fire Service to be Abe hdoned y Proposed Fire Hydrant Y Existing Fire Hydrant Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 9 3.2.2 Sewer The sewer system has been designed to take advantage of existing City and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) facilities that currently serve the site. To the extent possible, the proposed on -site sewer system will be located within the site roadway system. The design of the sewer system for Phase 1 must take into account the need to provide continued service to the existing TowerJazz building. In that regard, it is anticipated that elements of the Phase 1 sewer system will connect on an interim basis to existing lines within the TowerJazz area (See Figure 3 -3). Because the TowerJazz facility produces a significant daily discharge (up to 1.0 mgd) to the public sewer system, it is important that the design of the Phase 1 sewer system include an evaluation of the capacities of the downstream City and OCSD facilities. Since multiple options are available for connecting to the public system, the choice of which connection(s) to tie into should be based on available downstream capacity as well as the physical location and elevation of the point of connection. Figure 3 -3: Phase 1 Sewer Concept 90 100 200 40 0 Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Legend .Proposed Sewer Phase 1 � Existing Sewer Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 10 3.2.3 Drainage & Water Quality Runoff from the site is currently conveyed by underground storm drains to the existing drainage ponds along Von Karman Avenue to the northwest of the property. The proposed on site storm drain system will consist of a system of underground pipes that will convey storm water runoff to the existing downstream off -site system using several points of connection along the northwest side of the site. Since the existing on- site underground storm drain system conflicts with locations of the proposed buildings, this system will be sequentially removed and replaced with the new system. Because the proposed project will have more vegetated open space areas than currently exists on the site, the amount of post - development runoff will be less than existing. Within the Phase 1 development area, existing underground lines will be removed during site preparation and grading. A new underground system will be installed to serve the proposed development. The proposed storm drain system for Phase 1 will tie into existing storm drain lines within the TowerJazz mechanical equipment area. The conceptual Phase 1 storm drain system is illustrated in Figure 3 -4. Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS The proposed project is designed to comply with the requirements of the adopted North Orange County MS4 Permit that regulates storm water discharges pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Uptown Newport. A final WQMP will be prepared during final design. The WQMP identifies the measures to be implemented in each of the two phases of development to minimize the effects of urbanization on stormwater runoff quality and quantity. Figure 3 -4: Phase 1 Storm Drain Concept �l o 100 2W' ago' Legend Storm Drain Phase 1 Temporary Storm Drain (Phase 1 Only) — &isting Storm Drain to Remain &isting Storm Drain to be Abandoned Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 11 The implementation of the WQMP will be sequenced by phase such that in Phase 1, the BMP's will be sufficient to adequately treat the area developed in that phase. When the balance of the site is developed in Phase 2, the remainder of the BMP's will be installed to treat the additional area of development. To the extent possible, the master developer should provide BMP's for the design capture volume for the site. However, it may be necessary for merchant builders to treat runoff from their respective pad areas. For the construction phase of the project, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared prior to grading activities. This plan will specify the BMP's to be deployed during grading and construction of the project to minimize deleterious effects on the quality of stormwater runoff from the project. Best Management Practices (BMP's) will include infiltration with bioretention in landscape and park areas, planter boxes with underdrains, vegetated filter strips, and proprietary treatment systems. The downstream ponds in Koll Center Newport will provide further water quality treatment through aeration and settlement of silt and sediments. 3.2.4 Dry Utilities The site is currently served by existing 66kV electric lines that run along the northerly side of Jamboree Road and the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) substation located at the southwesterly corner of the site at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Fairchild Road. The 66kV electric service is stepped down to 12kV electric service at the substation and currently serves the Half Dome and TowerJazz Buildings as well as equipment operated by TowerJazz Semiconductor. The existing 66kV electric lines will continue to serve the property for Phase 1. Electric service for the Phase 1 development will feed off of the existing 66kV distribution line along Jamboree Road and will be distributed through Phase 1 in underground distribution lines. Electric transformers serving Phase 1 are anticipated to be incorporated into the proposed building structures or buffered from view to the public. The SCE substation will also remain in service during development of Phase 1, but will only serve the TowerJazz building and TowerJazz equipment. The SCE substation will be screened with landscaping in accordance with the Uptown Newport PC and Design Guidelines. Natural gas is provided to the site by the Southern California Gas Company by an existing S" natural gas line located in Jamboree Road. Natural gas service for Phase 1 development will continue to be served from the existing gas line located in Jamboree Road. AT &T phone service and Cox Communications fiber optic service are available in Jamboree Road along the frontage of Phase 1 development. Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 12 3.3 VEHICULAR CIRCULATION The internal circulation system to serve Phase 1 will include two intersections with Jamboree Road. The southerly intersection will be located at the present location of the existing signalized entry opposite Fairchild Road. At the northerly intersection there will be both right -turn and left -turn ingress from Jamboree Road. Egress will be right- turn -only to Jamboree Road. Left turn egress will be prevented by signage and a raised median in Jamboree Road. This intersection will not be signalized. Ern—n- Vehi The on -site roadway system will be privately owned and maintained, but open to the public. Driveways off the roadways in Phase 1 will provide direct access to parking within each building envelope. Street parking will be available in designated locations. Roadway widths, turning radii, and turn - around dimensions will be designed to accommodate truck movements and fire equipment. The Phase 1 roadway system will include a gated connection to the TowerJazz parking area. In the southwest corner of the site, the Phase 1 roadway will Legend IIMUptown Newport Uptown Newport Vehicular Circulation Pedestrian Circulation Existing Towedaz Vehicular Jamboree Road Trail Pedestrian Circulation (Future Class l Bike Trail) Figure 3 -5: Phase 1 Vehicular & Pedestrian Circulation TI `�� Or 1001 2a01 a0o Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS provide gated access to the TowerJazz equipment yard and emergency vehicle access to the Koll property. The Phase 1 system will also provide vehicular access to the SCE substation at the south end of the property. The existing emergency vehicle access to and from the Koll Center Newport property in Phase 1 as depicted in Figure 3 -5 and 6 -5 shall be preserved in perpetuity. This connection through Koll Center Newport to Von Karman Avenue may be expanded to allow for future public access for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in the future. 3.4 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE CIRCULATION Phase 1 pedestrian circulation will be provided through a sidewalk system on each side of the Spine Street and Neighborhood Streets. These paths, as well as paseos between buildings and around the park, will connect the residential buildings with the on -site retail, the park, and all off -site adjacencies. Bicycles will be permitted on all streets and paseos within the Uptown Newport PC. The TowerJazz facility will maintain its northwest building entrance and will be accessible from the Uptown Newport pedestrian circulation system. The Class I pedestrian and bicycle trail will be constructed along the project frontage on Jamboree Road as part of the master site improvements for Phase I. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 13 3.5 PHASE I CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN The Phase 1 Conceptual Landscape Master Plan will implement the master landscape improvements within the Uptown Newport PC, including: Jamboree median and parkway landscaping; entry landscaping and monumentation; landscaping along Phase 1 project streets to the back of sidewalk; electric substation landscape screening; Phase 1 park landscaping and improvements; paseo improvements within Phase 1; perimeter walls and fences within Phase 1, and; interim landscaping and walls /fences associated with interim slopes and edge conditions. Refer to Figure 3 -6 for the Phase 1 Conceptual Landscape Master Plan. Construction phasing from Phase 1 to Phase 2 will include interim edge conditions such as interim slopes, interim landscaping, and interim walls and fences. These interim improvements have been designed to integrate and be consistent with the design of the overall Master Site Development Plan for the Uptown Newport PC, Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS and will be designed to reflect the quality and character that is reflective of permanent improvements. Careful attention to these conditions during the design stage of the Uptown Newport project will insure a successfully phased community. Proper studies of temporary walls and fencing, landscape hedge treatments, walks and lighting with a vision for the ultimate finished condition at build out, and minimizing hardscape demolition of Phase 1 improvements will be implemented during the design phase. Figure 3 -6: Phase 1 Conceptual Landscape Master Plan !' 6 .. P --- 6 ...... P Sp 10, 200' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 14 3.5.1 Entry Drives The transitional landscape along the entry drive adjacent to the existing electrical substation will be planted with dense evergreen trees and a screen wall in order to block views of the existing substation from the entry drive experience. Additional green areas in front of and behind the substation will be incorporated into the entry landscape design as open spaces, featuring passive turf lawns and trees located in- between the screen trees and the back of walk will enhance the area immediately surrounding the substation. Within the parkway, Date palm trees with colorful vines and ground covers will be used to enhance the project entry experience. Buildings are designed to be approximately 2' -3' above the Jamboree Road center line elevation. Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Figure 3 -7: Existing SCE Substation Figure d -a: �)ectlon A I - t:ntry urive Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 15 3.5.2 Spine Street The transitional landscape adjacent to the existing TowerJazz building will be planted with low shrubs and a screen wall or fence in order to screen and soften views of the existing Towedazz building from the street experience. The narrow landscape area between the back of walk and the retaining wall will provide opportunities to add pockets of green space and enhance the landscaping in front of the TowerJazz building on one side. Within the Spine Street parkway, the street tree pattern is formal with alternating skyline palms and large evergreen canopy trees. Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Figure 3 -9: Section G - Spine Street Figure 3 -10: Existing TowerJazz Building Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 16 3.5.3 Community Buffers / Edges The interim landscape in- between the neighborhood street and the existing TowerJazz building will feature a screen wall or fence in order to screen views of the existing TowerJazz building from the street experience. Within the neighborhood street parkway, the street tree pattern is formal with canopy trees. The interim landscape within the paseo adjacent to the existing TowerJazz Mechanical Equipment Area will be constructed with walkway access in the center of the 30 foot landscape setback area. This walk will be utilized for pedestrian circulation and emergency access. The paseo trees in this area will be formal evergreen trees. An interim screen wall with evergreen screen trees will be included in order to buffer views and transition grade to the existing TowerJazz site. Existing Tower Jazz Mechanical Equipme Existing Tower Jazz Drive wt� .V %Ipl F =g P, I K.% Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Figure 3 -11: Section H - Buffer at Property Line Figure 3 -12: Section F - Buffer at Phase Line Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 17 3.5.4 Walls and Fencing Phasing of the project will influence the interim wall and fencing solutions at adjacent existing land uses. Phased grading transitions that tie into existing land uses will be utilized and would be reconstructed during the project build -out phase. Monument walls will be located at the two entries to the project with signage identification. Wall character will be consistent with the adjacent architectural style. The project will have one fence design used throughout all parcel areas. Vehicular gates will be located at access points to the TowerJazz site. The wall along the TowerJazz building will reduce noise and screen views from the adjacent first levels of the residential development. Additionally, walls and sound attenuating materials will be installed in between the TowerJazz site and the Phase 1 development to reduce noise from the TowerJazz operation. Screen wall materials are to be made of concrete masonry units with a split face or enhanced finish to match the adjacent buildings. Interim retaining walls in between existing structures and the Phase 1 III L�} Figure 3 -13: Walls and Fencing Concept ff,Y G" Yr Yr f Plan 3. PHASE 1 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS development are to be constructed utilizing a retaining wall system and are to be removed during the project build -out phase, where applicable. Security fencing is to be tubular steel with a painted metal finish. Wall and fence locations are shown on Figure 3 -13. Final heights and locations for the Walls and Fencing will be refined in the master development design. Primary Community Gateway y Pedestrian Gateway Barrier Fence 0 Pilasters Community Perimeter Fencing Screen / Sound Wall Tubular Steel Fence Interim Gate to Jazz facility • 0. W -20o. Im Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 Is UPTOWN NEWPORT Punned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 4 Phase 1 Off -Site Improvements Phasing Plan 4.1 JAMBOREE STRIPING 4.2 JAMBOREE WATER The project proposes to maintain the same lane widths and overall pavement width along Jamboree Road in the westbound (or southbound) direction along the project's frontage as currently exists immediately west of Birch Street. This would result in a 14 foot #1 travel lane (or outside lane adjacent to the raised median), two 12 foot travel lanes, and a 14 foot #4 travel lane. In order for the #4 travel lane to align with the #4 receiving lane west (or south) of Fairchild Road, a transition distance of 350 feet would need to occur based on the posted speed to widen the outside travel lane to the requisite 21 feet at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Fairchild Road. This re- striping concept would not reduce the number of through travel lanes along Jamboree Road in the westbound (or southbound) direction, and would allow for a longer and wider landscaped median area along the project's frontage. The water system improvements beyond the project property line will consist of connections to the existing IRWD water main in Jamboree Road. There will be two such connections that will enable the IRWD system to be extended into the site. The off -site work may also include the service connections for the buildings that will front on Jamboree Road. Plan 4. PHASE 1 OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Figure 4 -1: Existing Striping on Jamboree Road �1AMBOREE ROAD s > � s Figure 4 -2: Jamboree Striping Plan Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 20 UPTOWN NEWPORT Punned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 5 Phase 2 Demolition & Remediation Phasing Plan 5.1 DEMOLITION 5.2 SITE PREPARATION Phase 2 will include demolition of the TowerJazz building at 4321 Jamboree Road and associated mechanical equipment located along the northern property boundary. The TowerJazz building was built in the 1960's and is two and three story building that is approximately 311,452 square feet in size, and includes both industrial and supporting office uses. The TowerJazz facility is currently in operation as a semiconductor chip manufacturing plant. The TowerJazz building underwent a seismic retrofit base isolation improvement project that included underpinning of building footings, excavation of soils beneath the building, and installation of base isolation devices below the existing footings. Phase 2 demolition activities involve removing equipment, furniture and machinery from the TowerJazz building; abating asbestos and lead -based paint as needed; decommissioning of utilities serving the TowerJazz Building, including the SCE substation and mechanical equipment along the northern property boundary; demolishing and removing the TowerJazz Building, removing foundations and footings; and removing above - ground storage tanks (ASTs). Seismic base isolation foundations may be removed, cut, or left in place in accordance with geotechnical recommendations and architectural specifications for buildings to be constructed in the area. Mechanical equipment, utilities and piping serving the TowerJazz building would also be removed, cut or capped. The asphalt parking lot on the east side of the property off of Birch Street, light fixtures, and landscaped islands will be removed. Demolition materials will be considered for recycling either on- or off -site. Site preparation in the second phase of the project will involve the removal of any undocumented fill, stockpiles, vegetation, and organic or non - organic materials resulting from the demolition and clearing/ grubbing operation. The interim retaining walls and slopes constructed during Phase 1 will be removed to allow the grading of the Phase 2 area to be blended seamlessly with the grades established in Phase 1. Based on the previous investigations, soil and groundwater remediation will be necessary to facilitate the development of Phase 2. Impacted soils will be excavated and characterized for disposal. Soil and groundwater cleanup levels and criteria will be established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A soil removal quantity of approximately 29,000 tons is anticipated for this portion of the site. This would include an area of approximately 22,160 square feet to depths of 5 to 30 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Groundwater remediation of the upper groundwater aquifer zone is currently underway under the oversight of the RWQCB. An estimated time frame of 1 to 3 years is anticipated for the additional groundwater remediation, with an additional 2 to 3 years of groundwater monitoring. Plan 5. PHASE 2 DEMOLITION & REMEDIATION Upon removal of impacted soils and cleanup of the groundwater, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) will be prepared for Phase 2 to evaluate the potential for environmental health risks associated with the known environmental impacts at the site and the cleanup levels established by the RWQCB. The HHRA will be submitted to the RWQCB for their review, and development of Phase 2 will follow the requirements imposed by the RWQCB. Phase 2 residential construction will not commence without environmental clearance from RWQCB. Figure 5 -1: Existing TowerJazz Building Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 22 UPTOWN NEWPORT Punned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 6 Phase 2 On -Site Improvements Phasing Plan Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS 6.1 GRADING AND EARTHWORK The grading operation will involve the cutting and filling of the Phase 2 site to establish building pads, roadway sub - grades and park areas at elevations shown on a City- approved grading plan. At the completion of site preparation, zones of loose unsuitable materials, if any, will be identified. It may be necessary to remove the soils in these localized areas to a greater depth than the overall recommendation. Areas to receive fill and those areas under buildings and roadways will require over - excavation to remove and compact existing soils prior to placing any fill, as recommended in the geotechnical report. Grading will be designed to optimize the balance of cut and fill within the Phase 2 area. Continuing the grading theme established in thefirst phase, the Phase 2 grading will be designed such that the first floor elevations of the residential buildings are two to four feet above the surrounding site grades. The grading concept illustrated in Figure 6 -1 assumes one level of subterranean parking within the larger building envelopes. This scenario makes it possible to achieve a virtual balance of cut and fill. However, to the extent that these building envelopes have a second level of subterranean parking, then cut will exceed fill. Should all of the larger envelopes in Phase 2 have two levels of subterranean parking, then the volume of cut would exceed the volume of fill by approximately 100,000 cubic yards, much of which would have to be exported from the site. This would be additional to any export during Phase 1. Excess cut material will be transported to locations and by routes approved by City traffic engineer. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 24 r ^III 1 i ilI ;F j! Q p PE"7.00 FF.59.00 CC ai Fi F 1,i� Phasing Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS PE -43.00 FF =55.00 r 0 III III _u .. OL UU U I 1 1u!! ij 11 yyl 1 _1111111I-LA I - J IVF - AMU"__t__ HL)AU Figure 6 -1: Phase 2 Earthwork with 1 Subterranean Parking Level Note: some building typologies may require 0 or subterranean parking levels, in which case overall earthwork quantities will be impacted Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 0' 50' 1— 50' 1(0' 25 Legend Range Beg. Range End Percent Area (S.F) 91• -15.00 -10.00 0.0 125 -10.00 -5.00 27.4 299,144 -5.00 0.00 18.9 205,834 PROPERTY LINE 0.00 5.00 35.3 385,003 (TYP) IL l 5.00 10.00 13.3 144,838 li'II 10.00 15.00 2.4 25,715 ou 15.00 20.00 2.9 31,215 Overall Earthwork Ouant t es Raw Cur: 92,200 CY Raw Fill'. 101,600 CY PE -43.00 FF =55.00 r 0 III III _u .. OL UU U I 1 1u!! ij 11 yyl 1 _1111111I-LA I - J IVF - AMU"__t__ HL)AU Figure 6 -1: Phase 2 Earthwork with 1 Subterranean Parking Level Note: some building typologies may require 0 or subterranean parking levels, in which case overall earthwork quantities will be impacted Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 0' 50' 1— 50' 1(0' 25 6.2 UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE 6.2.1 Water The system installed in the first phase of development will be extended into the Phase 2 area, generally within the site roadways. (See Figure 6 -2). Remaining vestiges of the underground fire protection water system that served the TowerJazz facility will be removed. The on -site water system will be designed and installed in accordance with IRWD standards so that upon completion of construction it may be turned over to IRWD for operation and maintenance. Appropriate easements will be granted to IRWD for these facilities. Figure 6 -2: Water Concept Y � o 100 200 400' Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Legend Proposed Water Phase 1 Proposed Water Phase 2 — Existing Water _ Existing Fire Service to be Abandoned Y Proposed Fire Hydrant y Existing Fire Hydrant Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 26 6.2.2 Sewer In Phase 2 the TowerJazz manufacturing will cease, resulting in a major reduction in the volume discharged to the sewer system, even at build -out of the proposed project. Accordingly, it is not likely that it will be necessary to expand or increase the sizes of downstream off -site facilities. Demolition of the Towedazz facilities will include removal of the sewer lines to which portions of the Phase 1 system connected. It will be necessary to construct new underground sewer lines to extend those lines to the off -site system within the Koll property. The northern area of the Phase 2 site (currentlytheTowedazz parking area) will be served by a sewer system that will tie into the Phase 1 sewer lines (see Figure 6 -3). Figure 6 -3: Sewer Concept o ,00 zoo aW Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Legend � Pro posed Sewer Phase Pro posed Sewer Phase 2 ^ Existing Sewer Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 27 6.2.3 Drainage & Water Quality Upon completion of demolition of the TowerJazz facilities, the storm drain system constructed for Phase 1 will be extended to the northwestern property line to connect to the existing off -site system. Existing storm drains within the Phase 2 area will be removed and replaced with a new underground system that will tie into the off -site public storm drain system within the Koll Center Newport site, as conceptually illustrated in Figure 6 -4. The drainage system will be designed in accordance with Orange County hydrology methodology and will be coordinated with the design of the water quality treatment facilities. Because the proposed project will have more vegetated open space areas than currently exists on the site, the amount of post - development runoff will be less than existing. As described in Section 3.2.3, the proposed project will require development of a Water Quality Management Plan that will specify Low Impact Development (LID) measures to minimize the effects of urbanization on stormwater runoff quality and quantity. The LID Best Management Practices (BMP's) will include infiltration with bicretention in landscape and park areas, planter boxes with underdrains, vegetated filter strips, and proprietary treatment systems. The downstream ponds Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS will provide further water quality treatment through aeration and settlement of silt and sediments. As the site is developed in Phase 2, BMP's will be installed to treat the additional area of development. To the extent possible, the master developer should provide BMP's for the design capture volume for the site. It may be necessary for the builders to treat runoff from their pad areas, which could be accomplished by means similar to those employed by the master developer. For the construction phase of the project, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. This plan will specify the BMP's to be deployed during uction of the project to minimize deleterious S; on the quality of stormwater runoff from the Figure 6 -4: Storm Drain Concept A. 1. 200 40KY Legend Storm Drain Phase 1 Storm Drain Phase 2 Existing Storm Drain Existing Storm Drain to be Abandoned Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 28 Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS 6.2.4 Dry Utilities Electric service for the Phase 2 development will feed off of the Phase 1 infrastructure and the existing 66kV distribution line along Jamboree Road, and will be distributed through the project in underground distribution lines. Electric transformers serving the project are anticipated to be incorporated into the proposed building structures or buffered from view to the public. The SCE substation will be decommissioned by SCE after demolition of the TowerJazz in Phase 2, and the land on and around the SCE substation will be developed. Natural gas is provided to the site by the Southern California Gas Company. An existing 8 "natural gas line is located in Jamboree Road. Natural gas service for Phase 2 development will feed off of Phase 1 infrastructure and existing facilities. AT &T phone service and Cox Communications fiber optic service are available in Jamboree Road. Telecommunications service for Phase 2 development will feed off of Phase 1 infrastructure and existing facilities. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 29 6.3 VEHICULAR CIRCULATION and turn - around dimensions will be designed to City standards to accommodate truck movements and fire The Phase 2 vehicular circulation system will include a connection to Birch Street. This access is enabled by virtue of an existing easement on the off -site property. Together with the two Jamboree Road intersections, this connection to Birch Street will be the third point of public vehicular access to the project. The emergency vehicle access to the Koll property in Phase 1 will be preserved. The Phase 2 roadways will have driveways that will provide direct access to parking within each building envelope. Street parking will be available in designated locations. Roadway widths, turning radii, Emergency Connection Vehicle Access to Koll I I I I m I Jyi a , E7: equipment. The existing emergency vehicle access to and from the Koll Center Newport property in Phase I as depicted in Figure 3 -5 and 6 -5 shall be preserved in perpetuity. This connection through Koll Center Newport to Von Karman Avenue may be expanded to allow for future public access for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in the future. ____ 'I I L— . -- . —. —. —. JAMBOREE ROAD Figure 6 -5: Phase 2 Vehicular & Pedestrian Circulation Plan 6. PHASE 20N-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 6.4 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE CIRCULATION In addition to unifying the various residential districts and project open space amenities for the overall Uptown Newport project, pedestrian circulation improvements in Phase 2 will complete connectivity elements from the site to adjacent Koll properties. In addition to Phase 1 improvements, a series of four additional connections to the Koll properties pedestrian network will be established and improved. On- street improvements will also link pedestrians to the northeast corner of the project area with convenient proximity to Birch Street. Bicycles will be permitted on all streets and paseos within the Uptown Newport PC. I UW cc I ...................... ��L _U V ru L II IIII II iII1Wi. ....I- �illlll IIIIIIIII" Y - .: � � r J 0' 10v 200 400' Legend Phase 2 Uptown Newport Vehicular Circulation Phase2 Uptown Newport Pedestrian Circulation Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 30 6.5 PHASE 2 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN The common area landscape in Phase 2 consists of the areas outside of the residential product development areas. These areas will include; secondary streets, paseo landscapes, Park B, open space and community edges. The following exhibits will outline the landscape framework, hardscape and streetscape character. U — — — — — — — — — — A F 0 Phasing Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS i111tI111 � - o. — �1,�1� I l I r �UTiTTilJ � .- ....,,�.n 111I!ld;ll� l'blflbl�u�ltdllii�ll� o 440 ®le JAMBOREE ROAD _ Figure 6 -6: Phase 2 Conceptual Landscape Master Plan Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 31 6.5.1 Jamboree Road Entry Drive The landscape character at the entries will be transparent inviting and colorful. Date Palm trees are recommended to punctuate the skyline entry while providing important views into the adjacent residential buildings and parks beyond. The use of colorful vines on the palm trunks and ground covers in this area in encouraged. Vertical screen trees used at the building edges are encouraged to soften and buffer the buildingsfrom the street in this area. Hedges will be used to soften building bases and ground covers will be used when parking is not adjacent. Angled parking located along the retail edge modifies the street tree pattern with canopy trees shading the parking areas and palms hugging the walkway promenade along both the storefronts and the market park paseo alike. Upon implementation of phase two, all adjacent walkways and parkway landscapes must be protected in place, with new landscape areas installed behind the phase one sidewalks. Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Figure 6 -7: Section A - Jamboree Road Entry Drive Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 32 6.5.2 Birch Street Entry Drive The Phase 2 entry drive off of Birch Street is an existing entry drive that accesses the Uptown Newport PC through an adjoining property to the northeast via an existing easement. The Birch Street entry drive easement is 33 feet in width and is a non- exclusive easement for passage in, over and along the adjoining property, including the right to maintain driveways, roadways, sidewalks and passageways on said property (Figure 6 -8). Existing Access Roadway Existing Landscaped Island Existing Surface Parking 6-6' 1 24'-0' Figure 6 -8: Section L - Birch Street Entry Drive 51-0.1 ir.o. Existing Access Roadway Existing Landscaped Island Existing Surface Parking ' v 0 E am a Phasing Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Kali Center Newport Proposed Sidewalk J `L Exisdng Landscaped Bland Parkway Existing Surface Landscaping Parking In Public Right -of -Way N G2 a`+ Ln t W Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 33 Koll Center Newport Proposed Sidewalk Existing Landscaped Island Existing Surface Parking "+1 51-0.1 ir.o. Existing Access Roadway Existing Landscaped Island Existing Surface Parking ' v 0 E am a Phasing Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Kali Center Newport Proposed Sidewalk J `L Exisdng Landscaped Bland Parkway Existing Surface Landscaping Parking In Public Right -of -Way N G2 a`+ Ln t W Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 33 6.5.3 Spine Street The Spine Street is the core that provides the connection between the neighborhood and community amenities. Anchored by the two entries and supported by the two parks at each end, visually and physically this street is the most important link in the project. The street tree pattern is formal with alternating combinations of skyline palms and large evergreen canopy trees. Turf parkways at adjacent parallel parking areas will allow ease of access to the sidewalk. Upon implementation of Phase 2, all adjacent walkways and parkway landscapes will be protected in place, with new landscape areas installed behind the Phase 1 sidewalks. L `* Travel Travel Parkllg Lane La. 1G-0' I M a" Figure 6 -9: Section C- Spine Street 10'0' 17'-0" Plan 6. PHASE 20N-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 34 6.5.4 Paseo Landscape These landscape areas are pedestrian connections that tie the project together using garden pathways. These pathways will be lined with vertical palms or canopy trees. The beginning and end of these paseos will be enhanced with accent trees or palms to call attention to these garden areas. Colorful shrubs and ground covers will be used here as well. Vertical buffer trees and accent trees will soften the edges and transitions to the vertical building mass and hedges will be used to soften building bases. The use of large pots in these garden areas in encouraged. Upon implementation of Phase 2, all adjacent walkways and parkway landscapes will be protected in place, with new landscape areas installed behind the Phase 1 sidewalks. Figure 6 -10: Section F1- Paseo Landscape Plan 6. PHASE 2 ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS JAMBOREE R Figure 6 -11: Section F2 - Paseo Landscape Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 35 UPTOWN NEWPORT Punned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 7 Phase 2 Off -Site Improvements Phasing Plan 7.1 BIRCH STREET INFRASTRUCTURE In Phase 2, the site will have a third access drive located northeasterly from the project property across the adjacent property for approximately 200 feet to Birch Street. This access drive is the current TowerJazz access drive to Birch Street that is located within an existing easement. Outbound traffic from the site will be controlled with a stop sign before turning left or right on Birch Street. 7.2 KOLL PROPERTY The development of Phase 2 will require the relocation of a portion of an existing City of Newport Beach underground storm drain line that crosses a corner of the project site to the rear of the existing TowerJazz manufacturing building. This 66 -inch diameter storm drain line carries runoff from a tributary area that includes the project site as well as upstream properties north of Birch Street.The relocation work wilI involve constructing approximately 300 feet of replacement line within the adjacent Koll property. The relocated line is shown on the Storm Drain Concept plan, Figure 6 -4. Existing utility easements allow for the storm drain relocation within the Koll Center Newport. Concurrent with the relocation work,the existing easement documents will be modified to reflect the new alignment. Figure 7 -1: Existing Koll Property Plan 7. PHASE 2 OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 37 Attachment No. CC 22 Uptown Newport PCDP — Design Guidelines This document is not included in the staff report package due to its size and bulk. It is available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at http://newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=2029 42S 424 UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan Design Guidelines Uptown Newport LP February 14, 2013 Guidelines TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ..... ............................... 1 Chapter 3: Architectural Guidelines............... 28 1.1 Purpose and Intent ...................... .............................. 2 3.1 Introduction .............................................................. 29 1.2 Urban Design Context ............................................... 3 3.1.1 Purpose ...................................................................... 29 1.3 Vision Statement ......................... ............................... 4 3.1.2 Architectural Context ............................................ 29 3.1.3 Scale Context .............................. .............................29 Chapter 2: Site Planning Guidelines 3.2 Architectural Characterfor Uptown Newport .... 30 and Standards ....... ............................... 5 3.2.1 Theme and Character ............................................ 30 2.1 Master Plan Framework ............. ............................... 6 3.2.2 Traditional Architecture ........................................ 32 2.1.1 Framework Principles ............... .............................. 6 3.2.3 Modern /Contemporary Architecture .............. 33 2.2 Master Site Plan Concept ........... ............................... 8 3.3 Urban Design Guidelines ........................................ 34 2.2.1 Master Site Improvements .... ............................... 9 3.3.1 Building Orientation .............................................. 34 2.2.2 Project Entries .......................... ............................... 10 3.3.2 Relationships of Buildings to Streets ............... 34 2.2.3 Park Space ................................... .............................11 3.3.3 "Block' Massing ........................................................ 35 2.2.4 Private Open Space .................. .............................12 3.3.4 High -Rise Building Massing and Siting ........... 38 2.2.5 Pedestrian Friendly Environment .................... 14 3.3.5 Community Focal Points ...................................... 39 2.2.6 Mixed -Use Node ..................... ............................... 16 3.3.6 Street Activators ...................................................... 41 2.2.7 Community Markers ................. .............................17 3.3.7 Ground Floor Relationships to Streets 2.3 Roadway Circulation ................... .............................21 And Perimeter Conditions .................................. .45 2.3.1 Street Hierarchy .......................... .............................21 3.3.8 Screening Elements ............................................... 46 2.3.2 Streetscapes ................................ .............................22 3.3.9 Accessibility Ramps ............................................... 47 2.3.3 Traffic-Calming 3.4 Building Design ............................ .............................48 2.3.4 Knuckle and Cul -de -sac Conditions .................22 3.4.1 Massing and Building Form Articulation ...... AS 2.4 Parkin Parking ......................ing............. ............................... 23 3.4.2 Corner Conditions ..................... .............................49 2.4.1 On- Street Parking ...................... .............................23 3.4.3 Roofs ............................................................................ 50 2.4.2 Structured Parkin Parking ............... ..........................g.... 24 3.4.4 Fenestration ................................. .............................51 Parking 2.4.3 Parcel AccessNehicularRccess to Parkin 24 3.4.5 Balconies................ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "' " " " "•.52 2.5 Fire /Emergency Access ............... .............................25 3.4.6 Horizontal Design Treatments ...........................54 2.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ........................26 3.4.7 Building Materials ................................................... 55 2.6.1 Jamboree Road Class I Bike and 3.4.8 Colors ............................................. .............................57 Multi -Use Trail ............................. .............................26 3.4.9 Exterior Building Lighting ................................... 58 2.6.2 Internal Sidewalks ..................... .............................26 3.4.10 Architectural Enhancements ............................ 59 2.6.3 Paseos ............................................ .............................26 3.4.11 Structured Parking ................................................ 60 2.6.4 Pedestrian Circulation within Parcels ..............26 2.7 Service and Loading .................... .............................27 Chapter 4: Site Development and Infrastructure . .............................61 4.1 Grading and Earthwork .............. .............................62 4.2 Sewer ............................................. .............................62 4.3 Water .............................................. .............................63 4.4 Storm Drainage ............................ .............................63 4.5 Water Quality ................................ .............................64 4.6 Utilities ........................................... .............................64 4.7 General .......................................... .............................64 Chapter 5: Landscape and Hardscape Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 1 -25 -13 Chapter 6: Signage .......... ............................... 85 Design Guidelines .. .............................65 5.1 Introduction ................................. .............................66 5.2 Landscape Framework ........................ ................... 66 5.2.1 Framework Principles ............... .............................66 5.3 Common Area Landscape .......... .............................66 6.2.5 Size .................................................. .............................87 5.4 Planting Plan ................................ .............................69 6.3 Sign Location Plan ....................... .............................88 5.4.1 Jamboree Road .......................... .............................69 6.4 Primary Project Identification Monument ........... 89 5.4.2 Entry Monuments ...................... .............................70 6.6 Retail Tenant Identification Monument ...............91 5.4.3 Entry Drives .................................. .............................71 6.8 On- Building Retail Tenant Identification Signs 5.4.4 Spine Street at Angled Parking ..........................72 6.9 On -Site Advisory Signs ............... .............................94 5.4.5 Spine Street at Parallel Parking ..........................73 95 6.11 Amenity Identification Signs ..... .............................96 5.4.6 Neighborhood Street ............... .............................74 6.12 Parking Garage Signage ............. .............................97 5.4.7 Paseo Landscape ....................... .............................75 6.14 Park Identification Signage ..... ............................... 99 5.4.8 Community Edge Conditions .............................76 5.5 Neighborhood Parks ................... .............................77 5.5.1 Park„ A ............................................. .............................77 5.5.2 Park„ B ............................................. .............................78 5.6 Plant List ........................................ .............................79 5.7 Hardscape Plan ............................ .............................81 5.7.1 Walls and Fencing ...................... .............................81 5.7.2 Walks, Paseos and Bicycle Trails .........................82 5.7.3 Lighting Plan ............................... .............................83 5.7.4 Site Furnishings .......................... .............................84 Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 1 -25 -13 Chapter 6: Signage .......... ............................... 85 6.1 Signage and Graphics ................. .............................86 6.2 General Design Guidelines ........ .............................87 6.2.1 Legibility ....................................... .............................87 6.2.2 Typography .................................. .............................87 6.2.3 Materials and Colors ................. .............................87 6.2.4 Placement .................................... .............................87 6.2.5 Size .................................................. .............................87 6.2.6 Methods of Illumination ......... .............................87 6.3 Sign Location Plan ....................... .............................88 6.4 Primary Project Identification Monument ........... 89 6.5 Secondary Project Identification Monument...... 90 6.6 Retail Tenant Identification Monument ...............91 6.7 On- Building Project Identification Signs .............92 6.8 On- Building Retail Tenant Identification Signs ... 93 6.9 On -Site Advisory Signs ............... .............................94 6.10 Building and Unit Address Signs ........................... 95 6.11 Amenity Identification Signs ..... .............................96 6.12 Parking Garage Signage ............. .............................97 6.13 Marketing Banners ...................... .............................98 6.14 Park Identification Signage ..... ............................... 99 6.15 Park Rules /Regulations Sign ..... ............................100 6.16 Marketing Signs .......................... ............................101 Guidelines TABLE OF CONTENTS UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 1 Introduction Design Guidelines Guidelines MlINdplelf- -pWoLl 1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT The Design Guidelines expand upon the regulations set forth in the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures. The Design Guidelines are intended to guide the preparation of the Master Site Development Plan and site development review process for development within the Uptown Newport Planned Community (Uptown Newport PC). The Design Guidelines are also intended to be used as a design guide for all buildings and master site development within the Uptown Newport PC. These guidelines are intended to be used in conjunction with other applicable codes, documents, and ordinances to assess compliance of proposed projects. Development within the Uptown Newport PC shall be subject to the Uptown Newport Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures and Design Guidelines. Existing on -site land uses are allowed to continue as nonconforming uses, in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMQ Chapter 20.38, and are not required to adhere to these Guidelines. Compliance of projects under this section shall be determined by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director during the site development review process. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 2 Figure 1 -1: Bird's eye view of the site Figure 1-2: Koll Center Newport Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 1.2 URBAN DESIGN CONTEXT Existing development within the subject property and its surroundings reflects suburban commercial and industrial growth that commenced primarily in the 1960's, 70's and 80's and continued over the past two decades. This growth accommodated economic expansion of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area and established the areas surrounding the Orange County /John Wayne Airport as a significant regional center for commerce and employment. Land uses include low -rise and mid -rise office with surface parking, manufacturing, "pad " - oriented retail/ restaurants and high -rise multi- tenant office supported by structured parking. Individual projects are typically of sufficient scale to necessitate deliberate on -site vehicular circulation, though much of the way- finding takes place through the organization of circulation within parking lots. Although often in direct proximity to one another, physical connections between parcels, whether vehicular or pedestrian, have rarely been accommodated. Figure 1 -3: Koll Center Newport Guidelines MoNdplelopwoul Figure 1-4: Koll Center Newport Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 1.3 VISION STATEMENT Uptown Newport is envisioned to be a distinctive, vibrant and interconnected residential /mixed use village clustered within the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach. While acknowledging the Airport Area's role as a gateway to the City, Uptown Newport represents an evolution of land uses that continue to respond to the ever - changing economic marketplace and societal demands and preferences. The village will embody an urban quality whereby residents and visitors are joined together through a clearly defined public realm.The public realm will entail a clearly structured network of activated tree -lined streets with parkways and sidewalks connecting residents and visitors to beautifully landscaped neighborhood park spaces programmed with active recreation and passive uses. A village -scale retail core with ground -level shops and outdoor cafes will be provided to serve Uptown Newport residents as well as the local community and provide a degree of self containment for Uptown Newport. In addition to the pedestrian- oriented streets, the public realm will include a series of paseos that will connect neighborhoods together and link the village to surrounding properties. Guidelines MoNdplelopwoul The public realm will be enhanced through landscaping and framed and engaged by quality architecture expressed in a variety of building types. The village is envisioned to serve the housing needs of a range of residents who will be attracted to a quality living environment that offers convenient access to employment, education, recreation and regional transportation improvements. In summary, Uptown Newport is envisioned to be distinguished from other residential developments that have been introduced into the nearby Jamboree Corridor by combining quality architecture and urban design with a public realm that includes legible vehicular circulation, significant park space and paseos and by establishing connectivity to surrounding properties. UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 2 Site Planning Guidelines and Standards Design Guidelines 2.1 MASTER PLAN FRAMEWORK The Design Guidelines will be used to prepare a Master Site Development Plan and will govern development within the Uptown Newport PC so that the initial design framework is carried forward consistent with the Airport Area Land Use Element of the General Plan and Koll- Conexant Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.1.1 Framework Principles The following development principles are described within these Design Guidelines, and are intended to serve as the guiding principles for development within the Uptown Newport PC. 1. Create a distinct high- density, mixed -use village; 2. Create legible internal roadway circulation that will provide ample access to all portions of the site and convenient connections to and from adjacent collector and arterial roadways; 3. Establish a sequence of spaces that promotes clear way- finding for residents and visitors; 4. Incorporate neighborhood- serving ground -level retail uses to serve residents, visitors, and nearby commercial uses; Figure 2 -1: Framework Diagram Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 'eat am ��� o• ioo• sao• aaa• Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 5. Create neighborhood public park space to serve as a principal focus for the village. Park space will include meaningful gathering areas, recreational amenities and open space relief for the community; 6. Provide housing opportunities to serve the needs of a range of future residents; 7. Emphasize pedestrian orientation through the creation of pedestrian - scaled streets and greenbelts that break up large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and the surrounding community. Project streets shall include sidewalks separated from parking or travel lanes by landscaped parkways, tree grates and other such enhancements; 8. Provide on- street parking to serve the residential uses, neighborhood parks, and retail uses, visitors, and retail customers; 9. Establish architectural massing and articulation that provides variety and interest, creates a strong spatial definition along internal streets, and introduces pedestrian scale elements; 10. Provide for the establishment of a landscape character that unifies and enhances project streets, paseos, and other components of the public realm. Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.2 MASTER SITE PLAN CONCEPT A Master Site Plan for Uptown Newport (see Figure 2 -2) has been prepared that incorporates the framework principles. The Uptown Newport PC is centered on two neighborhood public parks and incorporates a mixed -use node at the primary entry that features neighborhood- serving retail uses and a network of local streets and pedestrian walkways and paseos that provide connectivity within Uptown Newport and to surrounding properties. Uptown Newport is envisioned to be a cohesive plan of high density residential apartments, condominiums and townhomes with parks, streets, landscaped parkways, and paseos that will be integrated with private amenities. The public realm of the Uptown Newport PC will be designed and implemented by a master developer pursuant to a Master Site Development Plan approved by the City to ensure that the parks, streets, and public Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS spaces will be planned and improved as a whole and will not be fragmented. A master association will be responsible for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the parks, streets, and common areas within the Uptown Newport PC. Individual projects within Uptown Newport will be regulated by the Uptown Newport PC Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures.The Design Guidelines and Phasing Plan will also be governed by the master association rules and regulations. Figure 2 -2: Master Site Plan Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 2.2.1 Master Site Improvements • Street improvements, including street paving, curb The Master Site Improvements forthe Uptown Newport and gutter, sidewalk, and parkway improvements PC include two acres of park space, street improvements, to the back of sidewalk; utilities and an interconnected walkway system which • Common area fencing and walls; links all areas of the site (see Figure 2 -3). • Neighborhood Park improvements for the two public parks; Master Site Improvements include the following: • Landscape improvements within common areas, • Demolition, site preparation and rough grading; including: public street parkways to the back of • Backbone storm drain system within the streets; sidewalk; project entries, Jamboree Road parkway • Sanitary sewer system within the streets; and Class I and multi -use trail; Neighborhood • Water distribution system within the streets; Park landscape improvements; paseo landscape • Reclaimed water distribution system within the improvements; streets; Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Master streetlight and common area lighting improvements; Dry utilities; and Master community signage. Operation and maintenance of the parks, streets, parkways, and paseos will be by the master association. Developers of each parcel will be responsible for landscape development between the back of sidewalk and building face in accordance with the guidelines. Figure 2 -3: Master Site Improvements Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 W U.1 r Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.2.2 Project Entries Two clearly identifiable site access points for Uptown Newport are located on Jamboree Road. The primary entry is located at the existing signalized intersection at Fairchild Road. A secondary access point with limited turning movements (left turn out of the site at this location will not be allowed) is located at the northeastern portion of the Jamboree frontage. A full turn - movement intersection at Birch Street provides a third access point into the site. Uptown Newport has access to convenient connections to Highway 73, the 405 Freeway, the John Wayne Airport, University of California, Irvine and to Newport Beach via Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The arrival experience for residents and visitors on each of these three tree - lined entry roads will culminate into significant park space to create a sense of arrival and community identity. Figure 2-4: Uptown Newport community entry Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 10 Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.2.3 Park Space Two one -acre public neighborhood parks within Uptown Newport will provide convenient proximity of meaningful open space and recreational amenities for project residents and visitors. The relationship of the parks to the entry roads establishes a sense of quality and amenity upon arrival, and will distinguish Uptown Newport from other residential projects in the Jamboree corridor. These parks will provide light, air and open space relief to an otherwise urbanized area. Each park has been programmed to serve the diverse recreational needs of the community and will feature such uses as fountains, seating areas, shade structures, open lawn areas, "tot -lot" barbecues, and active recreational uses. The parks are connected to each other by the project Spine Street with generous walkways, enhanced tree plantings and street furniture. The project has been designed to extend park frontage to the adjacent neighborhood streets such that open space is extended into the public realm, the perception of open space is expanded, and convenient access to the parks for the residents is provided from each of the neighborhoods. Figure 2 -5: Uptown Newport neighborhood park Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 11 2.2.4 Private Open Space In addition to the two acres of public park space, private open space will be provided in each building phase, individual building or complex. These spaces may be internal to the building complexes in courtyards or in enclosed facilities on the ground floor (see Figure 2 -13). Ground floor facilities are encouraged to be street facing to enhance the vitality of the community. Uses may include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, basketball courts, clubhouse rooms, roof decks, community gardens, barbecue courtyards, passive gathering areas, or any other amenities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director. Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Figure 2 -10: Barbecue courtyard Figure 2 -7: Pool area Figure 2-11: Roof deck Figure 2 -6: Outdoor courtyard Figure 2 -8: Passive Figure 2 -9: Outdoor Figure 2 -12: Clubhouse gathering area fireplace Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 12 JAMBOREE ROAD Figure 2 -13: Private Open Space Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 0 Private open space required in j ' these development areas W W H Or iiii N Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 13 2.2.5 Pedestrian Friendly Environment Pedestrian connections are emphasized throughout Uptown Newport. Project streets will include landscaped parkways and sidewalks that link pedestrians throughout the village. A mid -block pedestrian greenbelt will cross through the middle of the development adjacent to Jamboree Road with linkages to adjoining Koll Center Newport property to the north. Greenbelt improvements are encouraged to include visual nodes and gathering spaces to enhance activity in these areas. Pedestrian activated courtyards and recreational amenities are encouraged to link the greenbelt to further broaden connectivity and expand the open space network. Figure 2 -14: Uptown Newport streetscape with pedestrian improvements Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS In accordance with the General Plan, A twelve foot (12') wide sidewalk and Class I bike trail will be improved along the Jamboree Road parkway as part of the Uptown Newport project. The Jamboree Road trail and existing sidewalk improvements on surrounding properties will provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the existing Newport Beach and regional trail systems. In addition, the internal streets within the Uptown Newport PC are designed to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly, with traffic calming features including enhanced paving at intersections and key pedestrian crosswalks, a traffic roundabout, and curb chokers that will reduce vehicular speeds within the project. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 14 Strong pedestrian connections with adjacent properties will be provided as part of the master development as prescribed in Figure 2 -15. These connections will be reinforced by increased building setbacks and landscaping, and will link Koll Center Newport with the mixed -use core and neighborhood parks of Uptown Newport. Off site completion of this network will be subject to the re- development of Koll Center Newport. Street furniture, street trees, directional signs, trash receptacles, and exterior lighting will be incorporated into public rights -of -way and open spaces to reinforce pedestrian activity. Buildings will be configured to create a strong spatial relationship to the pedestrian walkways, and will be connected to create a cohesive pedestrian experience ��N . r�� rn,n,T - III II.It III1Lll1111llL / /�U ^\ mirlitTt— rrmmr. m 7a.�......, 4 ninunimuuttli:nmla ltgtn lgli !!I IIIIII!I1111C r —. I I F--F Figure 2 -15: Pedestrian Circulation Plan Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS throughout Uptown Newport. Mixed -use areas with retail and residential will emphasize pedestrian orientation by utilizing features such as intimate plazas, connected courtyards, trellises, planters, seating and fountains. _ +Pedestrian Connection to Koll Center Newport Pedestrian Circulation ..J F- Ilull u w W U1 nML—a fD mvi 6 -- --- I111llI1J.UIWILTI (1llLU111ll7Wlll lllllllll r Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 15 Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.2.6 Mixed -Use Node A mixed -use node will be located along the entry into Uptown Newport at Fairchild Road and adjacent to the Phase I park. This area will feature up to 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving retail integrated within the street level of residential building(s). Drawing upon traffic and visibility from Jamboree Road to enhance its commercial viability, this village center is intended to attract day -time use from both residents and the nearby workforce while continuing to serve the needs of Uptown Newport residents during evenings and weekends. With expanded street frontage paving for outdoor dining and passive seating and proximity to the neighborhood park, the village center is intended to offer a visual setting and amenity that is superior to competitive retail improvements that currently exist in the Airport Area. The village center is envisioned to include such uses as cafes, coffee house, deli /market, dry cleaner, and personal services. Parking for the village center retail will be provided within the adjoining mixed use building and in convenient on- street diagonal spaces. Figure 2 -16: Uptown Newport mixed -use node Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 16 Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.2.7 Community Markers The introduction of community markers for orientation and project identity promotes way- finding for residents and visitors, strengthens Uptown Newport's sense of place and produces a recognizable environment for residents and visitors. In addition to corner monuments and signage, building elements within the project will be designed to serve as landmarks within Uptown Newport. These elements, such as corner towers, low rise building forms, lobby entrances, distinctive colors and materials, landscaping and other such contrasting design elements will be introduced to distinguish buildings from one another, create landmarks and enhance way- finding. The use of enhanced landscaping with organized plant material patterns will provide a clear visual design structure to the outside realm as well as the interior of the Uptown Newport PC to further enhance urban legibility and way- finding. Figure 2 -17: Uptown Newport park space as focal point and way- finding element Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 17 Emergency access and potential vehicular connection location with the future re- development of Koll Center Newport Paseo connection to Koll Center Newport Fountain to serve as landmark feature to project entry Neighborhood serving retail to include such uses as a market/deli, restaurants, and services Enhanced building setbacks and expanded hardscape to promote pedestrian activity and provide space for outdoor seating and gathering Entry corner to include enhanced architectural elements, such as a tower Project entry with enhanced landscaping and monumentation Figure 2 -18: Primary Entry and Park Guidelines DELINES AND STANDARDS Paseo network to provide neighborhood connectivity and linkage to park One acre publicpark featuring an activity lawn, plaza, and various gathering places Enhanced paving with crosswalks to allow for improved pedestrian connectivity and traffic calming Diagonal parking to serve visitors to the retail and park Vehicular access to structured parking for residents, guests, retail, and park visitors (see Figure 2 -25) Activate ground Floor building frontage in this zone with resident serving uses, lobbies and stoops Pedestrian access to retail from structured parking (typical) Massing break to reduce scale of fa4ade fronting Jamboree Road Class 1 bike /multi -use trail to be provided along Jamboree Road Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 18 Neighborhood street terminating at the edge of the property at a grade that allows for potential vehicular connection with Koll Center Newport Interim cul -de -sac in Phase 1 to be converted to open space in Phase 2 "Chokers" and crosswalks provided as a traffic calming device On- street parallel parking to serve as visitor parking Gathering spaces with enhanced features such as benches and fountains will break up the paseo and reduce the scale of the buildings Paseo connection to Jamboree Road provides for passive recreation, pedestrian connectivity, and significant massing break Figure 2-19: CentralNeighb Guidelines Nbcyowsarmrar�NnflgmIM llIMbm1k111S7_1.bi7 Paseo connection to Koll Center Newport Vehicular access to residentialparking structures are encouraged to be located away from the Spine Street and parks Pedestrian scale parkway and building setback Activate ground floor building frontage in this zone with resident serving uses such as leasing offices, lobbies, fitness centers, mail rooms, and retail with special emphasis adjacent to roundabout Expanded hardscape and increased parkway and building setback to enhance the public realm and improve the connection between the two neighborhood parks Provide pedestrian connections to adjoining buildings /parcels from paseo Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 19 Paseo connections to KolI Center Newport Provide stoops, lobbies and portals to activate Neighborhood Street Parkto serve as focal point/ way- finding element from Birch Street entry Pedestrian connection to adjacent residential One acre public park featuring an activity lawn, plaza, and active recreational spaces Fountain to serve as landmark feature Park to serve as focal point/ way- finding element from Jamboree Road entry Enhanced paving with (BUILDING PAD/ ENVELOPE) 9 "� V �6 ,1 R r// `1 crosswalks to allow for (BUILDING PAD/ improved pedestrian ENVELOPE) connectivity and traffic calming Z Class I bike /multi -use J • ' _ trail to be provided along -- Jamboree Road - --. JA BOREE ROAD Figure 2 -20: Secondary Entry, Birch Street Entry and Park B Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 ,1; -1., (BUILDING PAD/ ENVELOPE) HBORHOOD STRE (BUILDING PAD/ ENVELOPE) Design Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (BLDG. PAD/ ENV.), (BUILDING PAD/ ENVELOPE) "Chokers" and crosswalks provided as a traffic calming device Pedestrian connection to Birch Street Enhanced setback to reinforce pedestrian connectivity Projectentry with enhanced landscaping and monumentation —r� 20 Figure 2 -21: Identifiable entry road 2.3 ROADWAY CIRCULATION Primary access to Uptown Newport will be from the signalized intersection at Fairchild Road, secondary access will be off Jamboree Road at the eastern edge of the project frontage, and a third access point off Birch Street in Phase 2. Project roadways within Uptown Newport have been arranged to establish clear and convenient access to individual development parcels, structured parking entrances and on- street parking within Uptown Newport. A central Neighborhood Street will allow for future connectivity to Von Karman Avenue when the Koll Center Newport develops. Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.3.1 Street Hierarchy The proposed development will provide attractive roadways that promote both safe and convenient driving practices as well as encourage street level pedestrian activity (Figure 2 -23). The two access drives off of Jamboree Road will connect via the Spine Street, which serves as the primary vehicular circulation for the site. A third Entry Drive is provided off of Birch Street on the easterly side of Uptown Newport in Phase 2. Neighborhood streets take access off the Spine Street, and provide access to individual building parcels. A Neighborhood Street on the westerly side of the property will provide an emergency vehicular connection to Von Karman Avenue through the Koll Center Newport. In addition, the central Neighborhood Street in Uptown Newport will facilitate future connectivity through the Koll Center Newport in accordance with the General Plan, including public access for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. Entry Drives _ Spine Street Figure 2 -22: Spine Street with retail node JAMBOREE Figure 2 -23: Street Hierarchy Plan w v, r. N S V K o• too• soo aoo• Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 21 Figure 2 -24: Spine Street parkway 2.3.2 Streetscapes Streetscapes within Uptown Newport are scaled according to their function within the circulation hierarchy. The Entry Drives feature large parkways and building setbacks, as well as enhanced landscaping. The Spine Street features enhanced parkways, sidewalk improvements and increased building setbacks creating an attractive, identifiable streetscape and expansion of the public realm (Figure 2 -24). At the mixed -use node, the Spine Street features increased hardscape and the option of outdoor seating and dining areas. The Neighborhood Streets also feature landscaped parkways with sidewalks separated from the curb (Figure 2 -25). These streets will feature smaller building setbacks and parkways to create an intimate pedestrian scale streetscape from which to engage front stoops and building entries. Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.3.3 Traffic - Calming The use of traffic- calming devices within Uptown Newport has been incorporated into the design of the street improvements to reduce traffic speed and encourage pedestrian activity. These traffic- calming devices include a traffic roundabout located on the Spine Street, and "chokers;' where the street width is reduced in key locations at intersections and important pedestrian crossings. Textured paving will also be used on the roadway surface to slow traffic and establish visual cues that encourage reduced travel speeds (Figures 2 -27). 2.3.4 Knuckle and Cul -de -sac Conditions The use of enhanced materials will be provided within knuckle conditions and cul -de -sacs to enhance the visual qualities of areas requiring expanded paving. These materials may include scored concrete, stamped concrete, brick or concrete pavers. Tree pockets and islands are encouraged within cul -de -sacs (subject to Fire Department approval). Figure 2 -25: Neighborhood Street parkway Figure 2 -26: Mixed -use node along Spine Street Figure 2 -27: Street choker at mid -block crossing Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 22 2.4 PARKING Uptown Newport will provide structured parking for residents and visitors, along with on- street parking along project roadways. Structured parking must be encapsulated or screened. Surface parking lots are not permitted within Uptown Newport. 2.4.1 On- Street Parking Diagonal on- street parking is provided for convenient short -term parking by visitors and residents for the retail and park areas. Parallel on- street parking is also provided throughout Uptown Newport for short -term parking by visitors and residents. On- street parking may be credited toward parking requirements for adjacent commercial and residential projects. Designated spaces will be provided for the public parks during park hours of operation. Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS On- street parallel and diagonal parking is permitted throughout the communityand encouraged in locations that are likely to attract significant visitor concentrations such as mixed use retail facilities, residential leasing offices and park amenities. On- Street parking shall be free of charge. Figure 2 -25: Parallel parking Figure 2 -29: Diagonal parking Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 23 Figure 2 -30: Entrance to at -grade structured parking Figure 2 -31: Interior of structured parking 2.4.2 Structured Parking Structured parking is anticipated to be provided within individual building parcels and will serve residents and visitors alike. Resident parking will be provided in designated areas and can be secured with walls, gates, or fencing. Visitor parking will be provided in designated areas within the parking structure. To supplement on- street parking for retail and park uses, structured parking for retail uses and the public parks will be provided in designated areas of buildings adjacent to the retail and park uses. Pedestrian access from structured parking to the retail core shall be provided in a manner similar to Figure 2 -32. RETAIL Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 2.4.3 Parcel Access /Vehicular Access to Parking To maintain the visual continuity of streetscapes, control traffic movements and enhance the pedestrian experience, vehicular access to residential parking should be avoided to the extent practical to buildings directly adjacent to the parks and along the Spine Street. Final locations will be determined during site plan review. > I I ql PEDESI AIAN ACCESS R I All P I N iO RnMLFADM GARAGE RETAIL Figure 2 -32: Conceptual retail parking configuration RESIDENTIAL Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 24 Figure 2 -33: Standpipe Figure 2 -34: Fire access pathway 2.5 FIRE /EMERGENCY ACCESS New residential and commercial development will provide efficient circulation for service and emergency vehicles. Turf -block may be used for vehicular access in landscape areas subject to Fire Department approval. The implementation of a footpath system that provides firefighting personnel with access to standpipes with clear connections to the emergency vehicular road network will be incorporated during the site plan review process to ensure adequate access for fire and Design Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS emergency crews. This is anticipated to be allowed to extend emergency access to areas that are otherwise remote by conventional standards. Figure 2 -35 provides a general depiction of master site planning measures that may be utilized in addressing fire access criteria. f• —1 Potential Stand pipe Location J ' F--7 Fire Truck Lane `i i ,. {:AA �._._._._. .................. Figure 2 -35: Fire Access Plan ,,. m / 00.`4o. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 25 Figure 2 -36: Existing Jamboree Road sidewalk 2.6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION 2.6.1 Jamboree Road Class I Bike and Multi -Use Trail Uptown Newport will include a twelve -foot (12') wide Class I bike and multi -use trail adjacent to the site along Jamboree Road. The trail will implement the General Plan master trail along the project frontage, and will allow for improved access to Uptown Newport from the surrounding region. 2.6.2 Internal Sidewalks Uptown Newport streets will feature curb - separated sidewalks for an enhanced pedestrian experience. These sidewalks will connect to the on -site network of paseos as well as the existing sidewalks and trails adjacent to the site. 2.6.3 Paseos The Uptown Newport PC includes a network of paseos that serve as pedestrian - friendly greenbelts, providing connectivity to surrounding properties as well as providing pedestrian circulation within the village. The primary paseo runs perpendicular to Jamboree Road and connects Koll Center Newport to the Jamboree Road Class I bike /multi -use trail, and provides central Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS access to the neighborhood parks and mixed use node. Public gathering spaces must be provided in this paseo. A secondary paseo running parallel to Jamboree Road provides connectivity between the parcels served by the two Neighborhood Street cul -de -sacs. Additional paseo connections from the parks and neighborhoods to the Koll Center Newport are provided to enhance connectivity and welcome visitors from surrounding properties. The paseos are designed to promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation, provide for recreational opportunities such as walking and jogging, and provide such amenities as benches, fountains, plazas and other pedestrian- oriented facilities. 2.6.4 Pedestrian Circulation within Parcels Individual residential projects within Uptown Newport should develop a comprehensive pedestrian network that connects private plazas, defined courtyards and other open space elements through clearly defined building circulation to project streets and greenbelts. Project -wide open space elements within Uptown Newport have been clearly linked to adjacent parcels. Figure 2 -37: Pedestrian circulation on internal sidewalks Figure 2 -38: Public gathering space within paseo Figure 2 -39: Pedestrian connections between buildings Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 26 Figure 2 -40: Resident loading zone 2.7 SERVICE AND LOADING Loading areas for residential moving vans and retail loading vans will be provided within the Uptown Newport street system to provide convenient proximity to lobbies, secondary elevators, or other principal circulation elements within project buildings. Figure 2 -41 shows potential areas where loading zones are encouraged to be located. Final locations for residential and retail loading zones will be determined during building plan review. r•—•—•—•—•— •— •— •— •— •— •— •— •— •— •— •— •— • —• —• -- ° i I� I f J Potential Loading Zones II L..._._._._._..._._..._._._.. JAMBOREE ROAD Figure 2 -41: Potential Service and Loading Locations 0' 100' 200' 400' Guidelines 2. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 27 UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 3 Architectural Guidelines Design Guidelines by�lyd 11 % �! % an Figure 3 -1: Koll Center Newport Figure 3 -2: Conexant property Figure 3 -3: Adjacent retail on Jamboree Road 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.1.1 Purpose The purpose of these Design Guidelines is to provide design direction and establish expectations for builders and developers of individual parcels within Uptown Newport. It will also provide the City of Newport Beach with guidelines from which to measure conformance when reviewing development applications for buildings proposed within Uptown Newport. The objective of these Guidelines is to establish Uptown Newport as a high - quality residential community that is distinguished in quality of design, materials and appearance from other high density residential projects in the surrounding vicinity. 3.1.2 Architectural Context The surrounding airport area includes a mix of commercial and light industrial uses. Varied architectural styles emerge in the surrounding properties, with many of the buildings being reflective of styles prevalent in the 1970's and 1980's time periods in which they were built. While architecturally eclectic in nature, buildings surrounding the property were predominantly designed for commercial office purposes and include high -rise glass curtain wall structures, wood -sided low rise multi- tenant facilities and "boutique" offices built for specific users. 3.1.3 Scale Context The height of buildings found in surrounding properties varies substantially, and includes small single -story, low - rise, mid -rise and high -rise (10+ story) structures. Mid - rise and high -rise residential buildings are prevalent northerly of the site along Jamboree Road and adjacent to the site along Birch Street. Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 29 Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.2 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER FOR UPTOWN NEWPORT 3.2.1 Theme and Character The theme for Uptown Newport is the creation of a dynamic urban village with diverse architecture. Buildings within Uptown Newport will incorporate one or more of traditional, modern, or contemporary styles and shall aesthetically integrate with each other in a cohesive fashion. This theme will allow for the development of residential buildings within Uptown Newport in a manner that acknowledges the urban character of the Airport Area and surrounding commercial uses. Conceptual exterior elevations will be prepared for review by the Newport Beach Planning Commission as part of the Master Site Development Plan Review process outlined in Section 4.1 of the Planned Community Development Plan Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures. These prototypical elevations will clearly demonstrate the architectural style of all structures, and will illustrate exterior materials, exterior colors and building heights. This requirement shall apply to all buildings in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. In addition, all buildings within Uptown Newport PC shall be subjectto the Site Development Review process outlined in Section 4.2 of the Planned Community Development Plan Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures priorto issuance of building permits Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 30 Figure 3-4: Straightforward geometry and expression of floor levels Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES In respecting the commercial context of the project vicinity and the hierarchy and development patterns established in the master plan, buildings should evoke an urban character in form and function, reflect straightforward geometry and show an expression of floor levels and structure. As described in the following sections of this document, buildings should follow sound design principles by incorporating massing and proportion, structure, simple roof forms, fenestration, balconies, accent elements, materials and colors into a unified architectural expression. Buildings in Uptown Newport shall convey a timeless architecture. Figure 3 -5: Building defining and activating the street Figure 3 -6: DISCOURAGED - does not embody urban edge character Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 31 Figure 3 -8: Traditional building drawing inspiration from historical styles Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.2.2 Traditional Architecture For the purpose of these Guidelines, traditional architecture may draw inspiration from such historic styles as Georgian, Italianate, Colonial Revival, Tuscan, Italian Renaissance and Monterey. Building design and execution should be sensitive to current construction practices and should not attempt to literally replicate historic styles. Traditional architecture need not aspire to an historic style but should exhibit clearly defined fenestration patterns and wall mass and appropriately scaled detailing. A range of materials may be used including plaster, siding and masonry. The use of heavily rustic materials is not recommended. The use of metal should be reserved for trim and ornamentation. Ornate and heavily themed styles, such as Tudor, Victorian and Beaux Arts are not allowed. I 1 Figure 3 -7: Traditional materials and details Figure 3 -9: Traditional facade elements Figure 3-10: Traditional forms and details Figure 3 -11: NOT ALLOWED - heavilythemed buildings Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 32 n _711 � I Figure 3 -12: Contemporary metal and glass exterior Figure 3 -14: Contemporary courtyard space Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.2.3 Modern /Contemporary Architecture Modern architecture may be characterized by simple form where the design is expressed by the materials and structure of the building rather than by historically - based massing, proportion and ornamentation. Walls need not be used to visually imply structural support as in historically based design. Rather, the spirit of modern design may introduce clean, bold lines where the fa4ade appears to be hung from the structural super structure. Large window openings typify modern architecture and may include floor to ceiling glass or windows that wrap around corners. Cantilevered projections are often provided to dramatize the non - bearing nature of the walls. Metal, glass and smooth - finished wall materials may be used for exterior treatments. Masonry elements should be applied in geometric patterns. While contemporary styles often radically break from traditional form and composition and include bold juxtapositions of massing and material, the incorporation of such architecture within Uptown Newport must execute design restraint and maintain a degree of regimentation and discipline to offer a more timeless expression. Forms and elements that are arbitrary and unrelated to the balance of a building's architectural composition are strongly discouraged. Figure 3-13: Large window openings with expansive Figure 3- 15 : NOT ALLOWED - arbitrary roof forms Figure 3- 16: NOT ALLOWED - arbitrary facade forms corner glass elements Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 33 Figure 3-17: Orthogonal building reinforcing street grid 3.3 URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.3.1 Building Orientation Residential buildings should generally be organized parallel and perpendicular to adjoining project streets to support the traditional urban design character proposed for Uptown Newport. This orthogonal orientation will help facilitate the connectivity of the public street and park realm to pedestrian - friendly courtyards, paseos and other such intimately - scaled spaces within the individual development parcels. Where buildings front onto parks and greenbelts, an orthogonal orientation is also recommended to reinforce a traditional geometry, define edges and help "contain" the urban open space. In areas between parcels and where physical separation occurs, buildings should be sited and shaped such thatthe spaces created between buildings provide opportunities for pedestrian plazas, courtyards and ordered landscape elements. Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.3.2 Relationships of Buildings to Streets In keeping with the vision of creating an urban village, buildings in Uptown Newport should be designed with a strong street presence. Principal facades should predominantly conform to minimum street setbacks. Except where mandated massing breaks are implemented, deviation from the minimum setback for principal facades should generally be limited to no more than 4 -6 feet such that continuity in the urban character of the village is maintained. Figure 3-18: Orthogonal courtyard relationship Figure 3 -19: Strong street presence Figure 3 -20: Building defining park edge Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 34 Figure 3 -21: Variation in massing through a variety of materials and articulated elements 3.3.3 'Block" Massing Building facades facing internal streets and project perimeters visible to the greater community should incorporate a variety of materials, design treatments and articulation of elevations to promote interest and provide a varied architectural expression. To avoid continuous uninterrupted building planes, horizontal modulation in facade setbacks should be provided such that the resulting break in massing introduces the play of shade and shadow to the exterior elevations. In such conditions, changes to colors, materials and architectural character should be implemented in a deliberate manner that corresponds to massing breaks. Facades should generally offer architectural variation in increments of 100 -125 horizontal feet or less. Compositions of simple forms is encouraged. Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Buildings should provide variation in height to break up the roof -line. This may be achieved through differentiation in the number of stories, providing mezzanines in upper floor residences, step -backs at the upper floor, modulation of balconies, deliberate variation in parapet heights and introduction of tower elements. Overly repetitive vertical accent elements in a singularfa4ade should be avoided. Major and minor horizontal breaks are required on selected block - scaled facades to assure distinguishable separations between building elements (see Figure 3 -25). Figure 3 -22: Massing break incorporating horizontal and vertical elements Figure 3 -23: Horizontal massing break Figure 3 -24: Variation in building height through a reduction in the number of floors Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 35 i Jamboree Road Frontage Area T Jamboree Road Frontage Area Figure 3 -25: Horizontal massing breaks Design Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Legend 1 Major and 1 Minor horizontal break required 1 Major horizontal break required 1 Minor horizontal break required 1 Corner break required Note: Major horizontal breaks are defined as a massing break no less than 25'wide and 25'deep. Minor horizontal breaks are defined as a massing break no less than 15'wide and 8'deep. Required corner break is defined as 15'wide and 15'deep. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 36 Jamboree Frontage Larger massing elements are appropriate on Jamboree Road frontage in response to surrounding development context, expansive width of the street and the perception of associated vehicular travel speed. In order to break the primary frontage into two sub - blocks, a 50' -wide mid -block greenbelt has been provided. Variation in building height is mandatory within the Jamboree Road frontage. At a minimum, two of the following elements must be used in each "Jamboree Road Frontage Area" designated on Figure 3 -25: • Tower element (appearing at least one story taller than surrounding massing); • Increased ceiling height on selected upper floor residential units; • Mezzanines in selected upper floor residential units; and • Increase or reduction in the number of floors in selected areas. • Increased parapet height on upper units Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Figure 3 -27: Variation in building height through a reduction in the number of floors Figure 3 -29: Introduction of massing proportions to Figure 3 -26: Horizontal massing break Figure 3 -28: Horizontal massing break and tower element Figure 3 -30: DISCOURAGED - overly repetitive forms and accent elements Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 37 Figure 3 -31: Drop -off for high -rise building partially concealed by low -rise element 3.3.4 High -Rise Building Massing and Siting High -rise buildings are strongly encouraged to incorporate low -rise elements that provide for a step - back to the tower element in order to create a more human scale at the public realm. Should step -back conditions not be provided, increased building setbacks are required. Towers should be offset from each other to enhance view opportunities from all four sides of the building. If towers do face each other, adequate separation (minimum 75 feet) should be provided. The design of roof decks and outdoor recreational amenities should be incorporated into the overall architectural composition of high -rise buildings. Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES When high -rise buildings engage the street - level, elements such as enhanced exterior finishes and materials, canopies, lobbies and awnings shall be incorporated to reinforce the pedestrian -scale environment for Uptown Newport. Designated passenger drop -off areas at street level may be provided in front of the main pedestrian entrance of high rise buildings and may include canopies or other such coverings for weather protection, building identification, or for additional way- finding. Drop -off entrances for high -rise buildings separated from the street network may also be provided. Paving, landscape materials and other such elements of the drop -off area shall complement the urban design of the adjoining street. Figure 3 -32: Low -rise massing providing a step -back to Figure 3 -33: Low -rise massing and increased building Figure 3 -34: Offset high -rise buildings to provide views high -rise element setback for high -rise on all four sides of each building Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 38 Figure 3 -35: Reduction in building height as focal point 3.3.5 Community Focal Points Key locations within the project have been specifically identified for the implementation of special architectural features. These features are to be located at the entries to Uptown Newport, at portions of buildings that become focal points based on the juxtaposition and patterns of project roadways, and in key building frontages adjacent to park space and other locations that are visually prominent within the community (see Figure 3 -39). These features may include the introduction of tower elements, enhanced fenestration or materials, reductions in building height and building step -backs by upper floors. Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES In addition to the focal point locations, tower elements are encouraged to be introduced to serve as architectural features to enhance the overall design and massing composition of project buildings. Towers may be used to incorporate roof stairway access and elevator over - rides, may be integrated into the functional design of residential units, or may be for the sole purpose of architectural interest. Towers should appear to be complete in form and detail from all vantage points. Figure 3 -36: Step -back as focal point Figure 3-37: Tower as focal point Figure 3 -38: Enhanced fenestration as focal point Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 39 Figure 3 -39 Community Focal Points Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Otk Architectural Ad Fnral Pnintc Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 40 3.3.6 Street Activators Building lobbies, common spaces, front entry stoops and raised private patios shall be provided within Uptown Newport to engage internal project streets and enhance the pedestrian interface. Although these elements will be provided throughout Uptown Newport, special emphasis will be given to activating the street level of buildings facing the Spine Street (see Figure 2 -19). As described on the following pages of this document, these elements will be designed to provide a human scale to the community. Shading and weather protection devices may be incorporated into these street -front elements. Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Resident Serving Facilities Private resident serving uses such as clubhouses, fitness centers, business centers and mail rooms are encouraged to be located at the street frontage. If compatible with the architecture of the building, the uses should embody a retail storefront -like aesthetic. Figure 3 -40: Building lobby as street activator Figure 3 -43: Private resident serving facility Figure 3 -41: Shading device incorporated into street -front uses Figure 3-42: Retail as a street activator Figure 3 -44: Private resident serving facility Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 41 Figure 3 -45: Restaurant use with outdoor dining Figure 3 -47: Outdoor displays for retail may be used to activate the street Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Retail A minimum of twelve feet (12' -0 ") in floor -to -floor height for the retail uses should be provided. Ground floor retail spaces should be articulated with an emphasis on storefront glass. Storefront glazing is encouraged to provide a minimum of ten feet (10' -0 ") in height from the adjacent sidewalk. While storefront windows may extend to the ground, they should feature a solid base finished with high - quality materials. To promote accessibility, ground floor retail and street - fronting resident serving facilities should have a floor elevation that approximates the surface elevation of the adjoining public sidewalk. Outdoor seating and dining areas are encouraged on sidewalks adjacent to retail uses. Figure 3 -46: Store -front window with solid base Figure 3-48: Variation in store - fronts is encouraged Figure 3 -49: NOT ALLOWED - Low floor -to -floor height at first floor Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 42 Figure 3- 50:Two -story lobbies are encouraged "I i Odd �i j ­1 h -' Figure 3 -52: Lobbies to mark buildings and promote way- finding Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Lobbies Condominium and apartment buildings shall feature street - facing central lobbies. Lobby entrances shall be articulated and distinguished through materials, details and textures from other areas of the facade. Entry canopies of high quality material and design are encouraged and may project into the building setback up to five feet (5'-0'). AWN I A Figure 3 -51: Enhanced materials and canopy Figure 3 -53: Recessed lobby entrance Figure 3 -54: DISCOURAGED - understated lobby is not distinguished from building facade Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 43 Figure 3 -55: Enhanced door and window materials Figure 3 -57: Architectural detail incorporated into stoops and first floor patio Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Stoops Stoops for private residences should be provided throughout Uptown Newport. Stoops are not permitted for uses fronting onto Jamboree Road. Openings to residences should be comprised of enhanced materials and trim. First Floor Patios To further enhance street activity within Uptown Newport, first floor patios for private residences are permitted throughout Uptown Newport. First floor patios should be raised above the sidewalk level. Rails should be designed to provide privacy to the patio. Figure 3 -56: Stoops integrated into the base of the Figure 3 -58: First floor patio designed to provide privacy Figure 3 -59: First floor patio as a street activator building Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 44 Figure 3 -60: Building elevated above street level Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.3.7 Ground Floor Relationships to Streets and Perimeter Conditions In order to provide privacy for street level residential uses, finished floors should generally be located approximately two feet (2' -0 ") above the adjacent street elevation. Retail storefronts and other semi - public street level improvements are encouraged to be generally flush with the adjacent sidewalk or shall incorporate terraces to accommodate a positive relationship to the public realm. Figure 3 -61: Building elevated above street level Figure 3 -62: DISCOURAGED - residences below the level of the adjoining sidewalk Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 45 Figure 3 -63: Buffer irrigation equipment with plant material Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.3.8 Screening Elements To the extent practical, above -grade utility vaults and such infrastructure equipment as backflow preventers at domestic water meters, irrigation controllers, and cable television pedestals should be screened from public right -of -way views with dense landscaping and /or walls of materials and finishes compatible with adjacent buildings. Above grade utilities should be visually buffered with low walls or plant material. Chain link fencing is not allowed, except temporary fencing to screen construction areas. Service door and mechanical screen colors should be the same as, or compatible to, the adjacent wall colors. Figure 3 -64: Utility infrastructure placed in below -grade vaults Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 46 Figure 3 -65: Accessibility ramp screened by landscaping Figure 3 -67: Double -sided half -stop elevators may be utilized instead of ramps Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.3.9 Accessibility Ramps Accessibility ramps and lifts should be discretely integrated into the composition of the building exterior and entry design. Exposed utilitarian open metal railings should be avoided unless integrated into the overall aesthetic of the architecture. If significant grade changes must be negotiated, ADA accessibility requirements are encouraged to be satisfied though placement of building elevators in perimeter entry locations. Figure 3 -66: Accessibility ramp integrated into building Figure 3 -68: Accessibility ramp screened by landscaping Figure 3 -69: NOT ALLOWED - ramp not adequately design screened or integrated into architectural design Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 47 3.4 BUILDING DESIGN 3.4.1 Massing and Building Form Articulation Massing should offer simple contrasts between adjoining components. All four sides of each building should be designed with elevations that are well integrated with the overall building composition. Figure 3 -70: Top element . q® Architectural interest should be incorporated into the facades of all buildings in Uptown Newport. This may be achieved through articulated base treatments which respond to the pedestrian scale, horizontal or vertical variation in fenestration treatments, horizontal or vertical layering of facade planes, forms and materials, or by incorporating elements such as canopies, columns and recesses to create depth and interest to different parts of the facade, Though not mandated, the incorporation of a legible base, middle and top should be considered for the design of buildings within Uptown Newport. In this approach, base, middle and top portions may be visually defined by plane breaks, step- backs, horizontal banding, cornices or belt moulding. The base should be differentiated though material, color, or rustication. Darker tones relative to other building field colors are generally encouraged within the building base with the application of lighter colors above. Exposed basement conditions shall incorporate architecture consistent with the base treatments. The design of first floor entry stoops and private patios shall also utilize a similar or complementary design vocabulary as the building base. Top element distinguished by cornice lines and lighter color Middle element forms a consistent body through window patterning Base element differentiated through darker color and rustication Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES In general, the middle portion should form a consistent body to the building with simplified window and material patterning, consistent field color and restrained visual movement. If horizontal massing elements are not provided, the middle portion should be distinguished from the base and top by a clearly defined moulding or cornice line. The top portion of the building may be distinguished by cornices at the roof line, articulated eaves and soffits or by visual accentuation through enhanced window heights, transoms and extended parapets. The top portion of the building should appear to be the lightest in color tone, material and form. Building forms and massing should be articulated based on the scale and length of the facade and should be composed as deliberate architectural solutions. Buildings should not be articulated as an aggregation of "stacks "of individual residences. Figure 3 -71: Example of composition of base, middle, Figure 3 -72: Simple massing elements and variation in and top elements vertical and horizontal planes Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 48 Figure 3 -74: Deliberate forms incorporated into corner Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.4.2 Corner Conditions To create a successful urban design framework for blocks within Uptown Newport, corners of buildings should consist of deliberate forms and exterior elevation articulation. The front and side elevations of buildings on corner lots should be designed to "turn the corner" The design of street corners of buildings on prominent parcels should incorporate such elements as unique towers, bays, wrapped balconies and ground Floor treatments that are distinguishable from secondary building corners. Residential units in corner conditions should include windows and allow for architectural features that orient to both adjacencies. Building entries may be integrated into the first Floor corner conditions and are encouraged at street intersections and round -about locations. The location of stair towers, utility chases, and other non - occupied areas at building corners is discouraged. Figure 3 -73: Prominent corner Figure 3 -75: Balcony placed in corner condition and Figure 3 -76: NOT ALLOWED - corner condition with engaged in building mass windows orienting in only one direction Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 49 3.4.3 Roofs Roof forms should be integrated into the overall massing composition of each major building component and be complete or appear complete. Flat roofs and pitched roofs are permitted within Uptown Newport. Flat roofs should incorporate variation in parapet heights to promote visual interest. Cornices, shading devises and other such horizontal projections may be utilized to create additional visual definition to the profile of flat roofs. Where roofs are sloped, they should generally maintain a relatively shallow pitch (5:12 pitch or less). Pitched roofs on high -rise buildings are not encouraged, but, if incorporated into the design, may deploy steeper pitches to enhance visibility. Where a combination of flat and pitched roof forms are incorporated into individual buildings, transitions between the roof forms should be associated with horizontal breaks in massing. Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES In accordance with NBMC, roofs should generally appear free of utility and communication devices when viewed from the public realm. Screening shall be consistent with the overall architectural design. Figure 3 -77: Flat roof with variation in parapet height Figure 3 -78: Flat roof with horizontal projection Figure 3 -79: Pitched roofs Figure 3 -81: DISCOURAGED - arbitrary roof form Figure 3 -80: Combination of flat and pitched roofs Figure 3 -82: NOT ALLOWED - non - integrated roof element Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 50 0 r Window Figure 3-83: 3.4.4 Fenestration Composition Fenestration between floors should be vertically aligned whenever possible. If opening widths are not vertically consistent between floors, the wider of the openings should be incorporated into the lower levels. Fenestration and modulation in a high -rise building should be designed to emphasize verticality. Figure 3 -85: Recessed window with header and sill Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Detail Windows should generally be recessed from the exterior wall surface to depict the substance of the exterior wall mass and introduce shade and shadow. Window surrounds may be utilized to create the appearance of a recessed condition. Windows that are flush with exterior wall surfaces may only be used if consistent with a building's overall architectural vocabulary. Such windows must incorporate reveals or other such detailing to demonstrate quality design. Clear glazing is preferred and should be specified to reduce glare and reflectivity. Windows with articulated frames are encouraged. Examples of articulated frames include enhanced trims, awnings, and cornice detailing. Window headers and sills should be of the same color. Figure 3 -84: Vertical alignment of fenestration between Figure 3 -86: window floors detailing Figure 3 -87: Recessed windows with headers and sills Figure 3 -88: Simple recessed window in contemporary facade Figure 3 -89: NOT ALLOWED - Flush windows without trim or adequate detailing Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 51 Figure 3 -90: Balcony wrapping building corner Figure 3 -92: Balconywrapping building corner Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.4.5 Balconies Balconies shall be integrated into the architecture of the building. Balconies may be designed to collectively create features within the overall composition and should be complementary to the massing, architecture and material palette of the building. Balconies may be utilized to wrap corner conditions to create visual interest to the building's architecture. In order to maintain an urban architectural expression within Uptown Newport, balconies facing internal roadways are encouraged to be mostly recessed into the building volume. Projecting balconies, if located on internal streets, should not dominate the facade. Figure 3 -91: Recessed balconies integrated into Figure 3 -93: Balconies may be fully recessed Figure 3 -94: DISCOURAGED - balconies dominating building architecture the facade of the building Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 52 Figure 3 -97: Transparent sound barrier on balcony to reduce noise impacts Figure 3 -95: Rail detail on Juliet balcony Milk Figure 3 -96: Rail detail on traditional building Figure 3 -98: Rail detail on contemporary building Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Balcony railings should be well detailed and balance transparency with privacy. Solid balcony walls are discouraged. Highly ornamental railing details are also discouraged. The use of Juliet balconies as an architectural element is encouraged as a means of enhancing fenestration patterns and providing additional texture and detail to the fa4ade. To reduce noise impacts in certain areas of the site, balconies may contain Plexiglas or other such transparent sound barriers. The barriers may be mounted on hinges to allow residents to open or close them. or aeo Figure 3 -99: Rail detail on contemporary building Figure 3 -100: DISCOURAGED - solid balconies Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 53 �M Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.4.6 Horizontal Design Treatments Cornice lines, belt moldings, friezes or other kinds of horizontal design treatments should wrap the corners of the building and terminate only at a perpendicular surface. In order to provide contrast to the balance of the facade, horizontal design elements should incorporate thickness and depth or include substantial reveals. Figure 3 -101: Cornice lines wrapping building corners Figure 3 -102: Horizontal banding with sufficient Figure 3 -103: NOT ALLOWED - horizontal banding that and terminating on a perpendicular surface thickness and depth does not integrate into the overall building facade Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 54 Figure 3 -104: Masonry WEN MI, cur I Figure 3 -106: Enhanced plaster wall and high density foam molding Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.4.7 Building Materials Colors, materials, and finishes should be coordinated on all exterior elevations to achieve continuity of design. Stone, metal, exterior plaster, exterior insulated finishing systems (EIFS), brick, concrete, wood, metal, and glass are acceptable materials for building walls. Metal, wood, and glass are acceptable materials for railings. High density foam is an acceptable material for molding. Stripes and patterns are not appropriate, although retail storefronts may reflect the design theme of the merchant. Use of highly reflective building materials, such as polished metals and reflective glass, is not allowed as a primary building material, but may be considered in limited applications as accent elements. Tile, metal, and "green roof" systems are acceptable materials for roofs. Figure 3 -105: Metal panels Figure 3 -107: Plaster Figure 3 -108: DISCOURAGED - overly rustic materials Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 55 Figure 3 -109: Change in materials occurring at plane breaks Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Material changes should occur at plane breaks, preferably at inside corners or at step -backs and should be visually integral to the structure. The change of materials within a continuous horizontal plane is discouraged. Figure 3-110 NOT ALLOWED - change in materials Figure 3-111: NOT ALLOWED- materials terminating occurring on the same facade plane on building corners Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 56 Figure 3 -113: Colors rich in tone Figure 3 -112: Color applied to emphasize base element Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 Figure 3 -114: Colors consistent with building massing elements Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.4.8 Colors The palette of building colors should generally be warm and rich in tone, but be appropriate to the style of the building. Accent colors should be used purposefully to express entries, bases or special areas and should not be highly contrasting, arbitrary or graphic. Color should be consistent within building massing elements. Changes in color should be applied to clearly define horizontal building planes and should not be applied at outside corners. The change of color within a vertical fagade should occur in conjunction with cornices or other such physical horizontal elements. The changing of color in an uninterrupted horizontal plane is not allowed. Roof flashing, rain gutters, drains, vents, and scuppers should harmonize in color with the building's architecture. Figure 3 -115: DISCOURAGED - excessive use of color variation 57 Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 3.4.9 Exterior Building Lighting The incorporation of exterior architectural lighting is encouraged to emphasize and highlight key building features, forms and details. The buildings may include accent lighting, up- lighting and grazing or washing techniques to emphasize vertical surfaces. Excessive lighting and glare should be avoided. Landscape lighting within the adjacent streetscapes or open space areas should be coordinated with the design of exterior building lighting. Figure 3 -116: Lighting used to emphasize focal point Figure 3 -117: Lighting emphasizing building features Figure 3 -118: Lighting wash highlighting vertical surfaces Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 58 3.4.10 Architectural Enhancements In addition to massing features, several locations within blocks and building parcels that are visually prominent to the community have been designated to include enhanced facade treatments (see Figure 3 -119). While quality design execution must be provided throughout Uptown Newport, these locations require such upgrades to finishes and materials as: • Expanded masonry • Metal panels or siding • Rusticated base elements Enhanced window systems Enhanced door specifications Enhanced materials application techniques Figure 3 -119: Architectural Enhancement Areas MBOREE ROAD Ate- -- , V u' Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Particular attention and enhancement shall be placed on the exterior elevations of the first floor (street level) and base of the buildings in these locations to enhance the pedestrian /public realm experience. Balcony rails, canopies, and other building elements may require additional ornamentation or execution of trim and detail appropriate to the building's architectural vocabulary. n,en ee� Enhancement Zone r 0 cA Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 59 Figure 3 -120: Partially exposed subterranean garage with integrated architectural elements screened by landscaping 3.4.11 Structured Parking Structured parking shall be located in basements or, if constructed above - grade, be encapsulated by habitable space, landscaping, or garden walls. Any exposed edge of subterranean parking shall be integrated into the architecture of the building and treated with consistent or complementary materials (Figure 3 -120). Other than landscaping that is consistent with adjoining building areas, screening is not required for exposed basement conditions where the height of the first level of habitable space above adjoining finish grade is less than or equal to three feet. The interior of parking structures should be designed to promote safe vehicular and pedestrian access. Ceilings should be painted white or such light colors to brighten the ambiance of enclosed parking facilities. Convenient, well marked and attractive pedestrian access should be provided within parking facilities and connect to elevator cores and parking -level building lobbies. Guidelines 3. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Vehicular Access to Parking Garage access should be incorporated into the overall patterning of fenestration, construction bays and other components of the exterior elevation. Broad spanning openings between bays should be avoided. For subterranean parking facilities, ramps are encouraged to be located within the building perimeter and be integrated into the overall design character of the buildings they serve. Garage Ventilation Openings for ventilation or day - lighting of subterranean parking structures will be incorporated into design of the exterior of the building. If detached from the building fa4ade, openings for ventilation should generally be screened from view from public streets and sidewalks, and from adjacent buildings. Figure 3 -121: Structured parking entrance aligned with Figure 3 -122: Simple garage opening in contemporary Figure 3 -123: NOT ALLOWED- garage entrance not the massing of the building building integrated into building design Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 60 UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 4 Site Development and Infrastructure Design Guidelines 4.1 GRADING AND EARTHWORK Grading of the project shall be designed in a manner consistent with the applicable grading standards and ordinances of the City of Newport Beach. The grading shall be designed with a goal of minimizing the earthwork import and export to and from the site. The grading design and earthwork specifications shall incorporate the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer and a licensed geologist. The design of the grading shall anticipate the possibility of subterranean parking levels beneath the proposed buildings. Some of the material excavated to establish the subterranean pad envelopes can be used as fill to bring site grades up to elevations that would be several feet above existing grades. The grading should be designed such that the first floor elevations of the residential buildings are two to four feet above the surrounding site grades. Excess cut material should be exported from the site to locations and by routes approved by the appropriate governing agencies. The volume of export will depend on the extent of the subterranean parking. In addition, site and street grades shall be designed to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular connections to the adjoining Koll- Center Newport property. It will be necessary to blend the limits of grading in the first phase with the TowerJazz Semiconductor facility. It will be necessary to construct interim retaining walls and slopes along the edge of the first phase grading. In the second phase of development, these interim walls and slopes could be removed. Guidelines 4. SITE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE The design of the on -site sanitary sewer facilities shall be consistent with the applicable standards of the City of Newport Beach. In general, the sewer system shall be designed to take advantage of existing City and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) facilities that currently serve the site. Where possible, the proposed on -site sewer system will be located within the site roadway system. Manholes and cleanouts will be provided at recommended intervals to facilitate access to the system for cleaning and maintenance. The system should be designed to flow by gravity. The need for pumps is not anticipated, nor should it be encouraged. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 62 Domestic water system improvements shall be designed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). The locations of fire hydrants, fire department connections, and other elements of the fire protection water system must be approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Backflow preventers and other above ground water system appurtenances should be placed in unobtrusive locations that are screened with landscaping to the extent practicable. Currently, IRWD does not have recycled water facilities in the streets adjoining the project site. Should IRWD determine that its recycled water system will be expanded to serve the project, then it will be necessary to provide a network of recycled water pipelines and meters for project landscaping irrigation. Irrigation and sprinkler head piping shall be "purple pipe" so that if recycled becomes available, Uptown Newport will be able to connect. Guidelines 4. SITE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4.4 STORM DRAINAGE Runoff from the site is currently conveyed by underground storm drains to the existing drainage ponds along Von Karman Avenue to the northwest of the property. The ponds connect to the City of Newport Beach storm drain system which, in turn, discharges to the Back Bay /San Joaquin Creek near Jamboree Road. Drainage design for Uptown Newport shall be in accordance with appropriate City of Newport Beach requirements and permits. This will include approval and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan that will incorporate Low Impact Development principles. In general, the proposed storm drain system is expected to consist of a system of underground pipes that will convey storm water runoff (including that which has been properly treated for water quality) to the existing downstream off -site system using several points of connection along the northwest side of the side of the site. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 63 Figure 4 -1: Infiltration planter Figure 4 -2: Vegetative Filter Strips with Infiltration Figure 4 -3: Bioretention catch basins Guidelines 4. SITE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4.5 WATER QUALITY 4.6 UTILITIES The proposed project shall be designed to comply with the requirements of the appropriate permits pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared. The purpose of the WQMP is to minimize the effects of urbanization on site stormwater runoff quality and quantity by implementing Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMP's). For each construction phase of the project, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. This plan will specify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be deployed during construction of the project to protect the quality of stormwater runoff from the project during construction. A variety of BMPs will be deployed for this project. These may include infiltration with bioretention in landscape and park areas, planter boxes with underdrains, vegetated filter strips, and proprietary treatment systems. To the extent practicable, the Master Developer should provide BMP's for the design capture volume for the entire site. These can be placed within the parks, the planter areas, and landscape strips. Planter boxes with underdrains are an additional BMP option forthe individual building sites.The downstream ponds in the Koll Center Newport will provide further water quality treatment through aeration and settlement of silt and sediments. Electrical service for the project will be provided by Southern California Edison Company (SCE). The existing SCE substation, located near the southwest corner of the site will remain functional during Phase 1 to supply service to the TowerJazz Semiconductor facility. Natural gas service will be provided by Southern California Gas Company. 4.7 GENERAL Nothing in the Uptown Newport PC or Design Guidelines is intended to lessen the other requirements with respect to site infrastructure that are set forth in city, state or federal codes. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 64 UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 5 Landscape and Hardscape Design Guidelines Design Guidelines 5.1 INTRODUCTION The existing landscape setting around the Uptown Newport site is a campus setting with existing office uses and high -tech industry uses which are relatively visible from the street over informal turf berms and random eucalyptus trees. The new residential land uses of Uptown Newport Vilalge will alter the interface needs of the current Jamboree landscape toward a less transparent landscape that will soften, buffer and serve a greener softer transition to the needs of the new residential land uses. A transition to other existing office to the north and east and large parking structure to the west will be addressed with buffer landscape transitions. This section defines the goals of the guidelines and outline the Common Area landscape framework, hardscape and streetscape character. 5.2 LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK The landscape design is focused on establishing a pedestrian friendly urban village with centralized outdoor parks and amenities. The design is arranged around the spine road and pedestrian paseos. Emphasis has been placed at key intersections and gateways which assists in wayfinding and orientation for both pedestrians and vehicles. 5.2.1 Framework Principles The landscape design within Uptown Newport should follow the following guiding principles: 1. Establish comfortable, walkable streets and pedestrian spaces; 2. Establish an urban village streetscape through the use of enhanced paving, on- street parking, and urban canopy trees; 3. Use plants that adhere to the low water use standards of Newport Beach; 4. Provide both active and passive centralized park amenities; 5. Provide a landscape design that is consistent with the land uses planned within the Uptown Newport PC; 6. Provide a landscape along the project's frontage on Jamboree Road which compliments the existing street scene at adjacent properties along Jamboree Road. 5.3 COMMON AREA LANDSCAPE The common area landscape consists of the areas outside of the individual residential product development areas. These areas include; entry monuments and entry drives, Jamboree Road landscape, spine road landscape, secondary streets, paseo landscapes, parks, common open space and community edges. The following exhibits outline the landscape framework, hardscape and streetscape character. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 66 nllll'.I,.,ull I '1 1;11TIlli, llllllllll ..,, ,.,...,..., Design Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES i n �rmrirj� pItTTTT1' iTHIni7Ti�11Ti�YTTTTIflTiU �1 � _ ��lllr ------- 1 - - MAMBO -RE-E ROAD - Entry / Roundabout Landscape — Jamboree Road Landscape - Entry Monumentation / Landscape - Spine Road Landscape Enhanced Paving Figure 5 -0 Landscape Framework Plan IlLtJ 1. ,Imr I - Secondary Street Landscape - Paseo Landscape — Buffer / Perimeter Landscape O Conceptual Building Pads 0 Park Landscape O Retail Overlay Accent Element Phase Boundary Line 0' 100 200' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 67 Design Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES e o n 0 0 0 0 ,O O OoOo O o e0 0 0 0 0 00o O o 0 0 000 0 ®� e °oe oe eOO— oeT— +eo —de oe— oe —seeo 'oa�e o °e ooe ee e° °e— rtlo —oo e° —oe o �1 eo q �.. ►. a ��� I I D F oil Z /:00 . eee0 ye0e � °Oi' � O ee R�y�%1� ;�%� O _' 0000 ee 000 C O ° .... OO: �� •N JAMB* OAD "Olf'00'00 -'E O - ' 00" QQ�O "O "'OQ "�00�OQ'OQ�00'Ob'00 - Figure 5 -1 Overall Landscape Master Plan 0 100 200' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 68 5.4 PLANTING PLAN 5.4.1 Jamboree Road The recommended landscape character along Jamboree Road is vertical evergreen tree screening with an accentuated landscape of Date Palm trees at the entry's and paseo connections. The new Jamboree Road median island landscape will continue the theme of the existing median islands to the northeast. 41 z13 DI ul VIO UI yl jl¢ I �I OI 1 �I 61 1 ml QI 1 1 1 4 fi o Me n�deing Within � 6 -o" 53' -fi" IZia nd Parkway Figure 5 -2 Section I- Jamboree Road Entriesand Paseos Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Parkway Figure 5 -3 Section J- Jamboree Road Streetscape Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 69 5.4.2 Entry Monuments The landscape character at the entries will be transparent, inviting and colorful. Date Palm trees are recommended to punctuate the skyline entry while providing important views into the adjacent residential buildings and parks beyond. The use of colorful vines on the palm trunks and ground covers in this area is encouraged. The landscape will frame the monument walls and signage when possible. The use of strong signage that identifies the project with use of enhanced paving, walls, or fountain elements is encouraged. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 70 5.4.3 Entry Drives The landscape character along the Entry Drives will complement the Entry Monument landscape and will be transparent, inviting and colorful. Date Palm trees are recommended to punctuate the skyline entry while providing important views into the adjacent residential buildings and parks beyond. The use of colorful vines on the palm trunks and ground covers in this area is encouraged. Vertical screen trees used at the building edges are encouraged to soften and buffer the buildings from the street in this area. Hedges will be used to soften building bases and ground covers will be used when parking is not adjacent. Buildings are designed to be approximately 2' -3' above the Jamboree Road center line elevation. Short retaining walls may be incorporated into the retail edge where necessary. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Figure 5 -7 Section A- Phase One Entry Drive Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 71 5.4.4 Spine Street at Angled Parking The Spine Street is the core that provides connectivity between the two main entries off of Jamboree Road. Anchored by the two entries and supported by the two parks at each end, visually and physically the Spine Street is an important link and circulation element in the project. The street tree pattern is formal with alternating combinations of skyline palms and large evergreen canopy trees. Angled parking located at the retail and park edges modifies the pattern while the canopy trees shade the parking areas and palms hug the walk promenade at the storefronts on one side and the market park paseo on the other. Turf parkways at adjacent parking areas will allow ease of access to the sidewalk from parking areas. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Figure 5 -9 Section B - Spine Street Figure 5-10 Community Retail Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 72 Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES 5.4.5 Spine Street at Parallel Parking The Spine Street is the core that provides the connection between the neighborhood and community amenities. Anchored by the two entries and supported by the two parks at each end, visually and physically the Spine Street is an important link and circulation element in the project. The street tree pattern is formal with alternating combinations of skyline palms and large evergreen canopy trees. Parallel parking is located along the Spine Street. Turf parkways at adjacent parking areas will allow ease of access to the sidewalk from parking areas. The use of synthetic turf will be considered for areas with high pedestrian / pet traffic volumes. C.' Figure5 -11 Section C -Spine Street ao 0 a i M� 7 Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 73 5.4.6 Neighborhood Street Neighborhood Streets provide access to buildings away from the Spine Street. Neighborhood Streets will be lined with formal deciduous street trees. Turf parkways at adjacent parking areas will allow ease of access to sidewalks from parking areas. The use of synthetic turf will be considered for areas with high pedestrian / pet traffic volumes. Vertical accent trees used at the building entries are encouraged to accentuate the street pattern. Hedges will be used to soften building bases and ground covers will be used when parking is not adjacent. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Figure 5 -12 Section H - Neighborhood Street Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 74 5.4.7 Paseo Landscape The paseo landscape areas are pedestrian connections that provide pedestrian connectivity and tie the project together. Paseos shall be master planned and accessible to the public and provide opportunities for walking, biking, sitting and social gathering spaces. In addition light recreational activities such as lawn bowling, chess, horse shoes, bocce ball, picnic areas and exercise stations are encouraged. Paseos will be lined with vertical palms or canopy trees. The beginning and end of the paseos will be enhanced with accent trees or palms to define points of access to the paseos. Colorful shrubs and ground covers will be used throughout. Vertical buffer trees and accent trees will soften the edges and transitions to the vertical building masses and hedges will be used to soften building bases. The use of large pots, meandering walks, seating spaces and fountains in these garden areas are encouraged. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES JAMBOREE R Figure 5 -14 Section F1 - Paseo Landscape Figure 5 -15 Section F2 - Paseo Landscape Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 75 5.4.8 Community Edge Conditions The edges of Uptown Newport Village and its transition to the existing Koll Center Newport office campus have been designed to provide a smooth and secure transition between these differing land uses. The landscape will soften and screen architecture along the sides of the Uptown Newport Village community and provide a visual buffer. Along these transitions are walkway access openings that provide pedestrian connectivity. Pedestrian connections will have enhanced treatments with accent trees and colorful ground covers that will call attention and visually signal these areas. The edge along Uptown Newport Vil lage and the Koll Center Newport wil I incorporate a mix of walls, fencing, shrubs, openings for pedestrian and vehicular connections, D and landscaping to define a "soft" boundary and direct pedestrians to designated connections between the Koll Center Newport and the Uptown Newport Village properties. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Adjacent Uptown Koll Center Uptown Property Newport Newport Newport ' Property Property � Property i i i ' VI y s Proposed j C Proposed ' Barrier Tubular Steel Fence atop 4AU Fence atop Retaining Wall Retaining Wall Existing Parking Structure iZ' -0" 5' -0" 5' -0" 3' -0" Figure 5 -17 Section D- Buffer at Parking Structure Figure 5 -18 Section E - Buffer at Parking Lot Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 76 5.5 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Activity Lawn / The two (2) 1 acre neighborhood public parks in Uptown Concert Green Newport Village will create the heart of each phase and Barbecue courtyard anchor the spine road. The parks are interconnected through a network of sidewalks, paseos, and streets that Promenade provide for a pedestrian friendly village. Each park will have a variety of amenities that will serve the residents of Pavilion Uptown Newport Village and visitors, but otherwise will Fireplace Courtyard have a common landscape theme. Children's Play Area 5.5.1 Park "A" Park W is a one acre park located within Phase 1 and is accessible to the public and the residents of Uptown Newport Village. Surrounded by public streets and centrally located within Phase 1, Park "A" will provide a link to residential uses. The amenity program that is recommended for Park A includes but is not limited to the following; activity lawn / concert green, stage, open air pavilion, fire place courtyard, barbecue courtyard, children's play area, market/art show and a promenade. Accent elements at the corners of the park could include fountains or sculpture elements. Park Wwill be developed as part of the Phase 1 Master site improvements. Park furnishings will be unified in form, color and manufacturer, if possible. Benches, bike racks, metal bollards, tree grates, picnic tables, BBQ's, and drinking fountains are examples of possible furnishings to be used and are to be of one family that works well together and that supports a "one district look" within Uptown Newport Village. It is encouraged that park signage be located in proximity to the entry Spine Street. Park lighting is encouraged to match the lighting style of the street lighting but could match the architectural style of the park buildings. The park buildings, trellises and monument entries will be unified in style and characterto bring a unified look to the community amenities. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES X� Figure 5 -19 ParkA Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 77 5.5.2 Park "B" Park "B' is a one acre neighborhood park located in Phase 2 and is accessible to the public and the residents of Uptown Newport. The parks are interconnected through a network of sidewalks, paseos, and streets that provide for a pedestrian friendly village. Bordered by public streets and centrally located, the parkwill provide a link to residential uses. The amenity program that is recommended for Park B includes but is not limited to the following; activity lawn, grand Plaza, trellis, fire place courtyard, barbecue courtyard, grand fountains or sculpture elements in the courtyard, sport courts including but not limited to sand volleyball, bocce ball, croquet, or horse shoes. Park furnishings will be unified in form, color and manufacturer if possible. Benches, bike racks, metal bollards, tree grates, picnic tables, BBQ's, and drinking fountains are examples of possible furnishings to be used and are to be of one family that works well together and that supports a "one district look" within Uptown Newport Village. It is encouraged that park signage be located in proximity to the entry Spine Street. Park lighting is encouraged to match the lighting style of the street lighting but could match the architectural style of the park buildings. The park trellises and monument entries will be unified in style and character to bring a unified look to the Uptown Newport Village amenities. Park "B" will be designed and constructed in a consistent style with Park "A, reinforcing the community theme throughout the Uptown Newport PC. Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Figure5-20 ParkB Sand Volleyball Bocce Ball Activity Lawn Fireplace Courtyard Barbecue courtyard Trellis Grand Plaza Grand Fountain Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 78 5.6 PLANT LIST 5.6.1 Plant List The following plant palette could be used for common areas and parcel landscape areas. BOTANICAL NAME: COMMON NAME: ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA WHITE ALDER CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA CAMPHORTREE ERYTHRINA CAFFERA KAFFIRBOOM CORALTREE FICUS FLORIDA FIG TREE FICUS NITIDA FIG TREE JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA OLEA EUROPAEA COMMON OLIVE PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANETREE PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE SCHINUS MOLLE CALIFORNIA PEPPER TREE BOTANICAL NAME: COMMON NAME: AGONIS FLEXUOSA PEPPERMINTTREE ALOE BAINESII NCN ARBUTUS'MARINA' MARINE STRAWBERRYTREE ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRYTREE CITRUS'NAVEL' NAVEL ORANGE CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS LAURUS NOBILIS'SARATOGA' SWEET BAY MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA PAPERBARKTREE PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE PYRUS KAWAKAMII EVERGREEN PEAR STRELITZIA NICOLAI GIANT BIRD OF PARADISE Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES BOTANICAL NAME: ARCONTOPHOENIX CUNNINGHAMIANA PHOENIX CANARIENSIS PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANUM WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA L41 i] i�� h V� L i 7 N I� F_ U I KING PALM CANARY ISLAND DATE PALM DATE PALM QUEEN PALM MEXICAN FAN PALM SCREEN TREES: BOTANICAL NAME: COMMON NAME: MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA PAPERBARKTREE PINUS HALENPENSIS ALEPPO PINE PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE TRISTANIA CONFIRTA BRISBANE BOX SHRUBS: BOTANICAL NAME: COMMON NAME: ACACIA REDOLENS ALOE ARBORESCENS BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA CALLIANDRA HAEMATOCEPHALA CARISSA MACROCARPA CARISSA MACROCARPA'BOXWOOD BEAUTY' CEANOTHUS CHAMAEROPS HUMILIS COTTONEASTER PARNII CYCASREVOLUTA ECHIUM FASTUOSUM FATSIA JAPONICA FICUS NITIDA KNIPHOFIA PRAECOX LANTANA CAMARA LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS NCN TREE ALOE JAPANESE BOXWOOD PINK POWER PUFF NATAL PLUM NATAL PLUM CALIFORNIA LILAC MEDITERANEAN FAN PALM COTTONEASTER SAGO PALM PRIDE OF MADEIRA JAPANESE ARALIA INDIAN LAUREL FIG RED HOT POKER LANTANA TRAILING LANTANA Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 79 LAVANDULA DENTATA FRENCH LAVENDER LAVANDULAINTERMEDIA'PROVENCE' LAVENDER LEONOTIS LEONURUS LION'STAIL LIGUSTRUMJAPONICUM'TEXANUM' PRIVET MAHONIA SPP. MAHONIA PHILODENDRON SELLOUM TREE PHILODENDRON PHILODENDRON'XANADU CUT LEAF PHILODENDRON PHORMIUM JACK SPRATT' NEW ZEALAND FLAX PITTOSPORUM SPP. PITTOSPORUM PYRACANTHA COCCINEA FIRETHORN RHAPIS EXCELSA LADY PALM RHAPHIOLEPSIS SPP. RHAPHIOLEPSIS RHAPHIOLEPIS'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' NCN ROSA SPP ROSE SALVIA SPATHACEA HUMMINGBIRD SAGE SANTOLINA SPP. SANTOLINA SHEFFLERA ARBORICOLA ELF SCHEFFLERA STRELITZIA REGINAE BIRD OF PARADISE TRACHELOSPERMUMJASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE GROUNDCOVERS: BOTANICAL NAME: COMMON NAME: AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS ANIGOSANTHOS HYBRIDS BACCHARIS PILULARITCONSAGUINEA' BOUGAINVILLEATA JOLLN COTYLEDON SP. CRASSULA SP. EUPHORBIA AMMAK EUPHORBIA RIGIDA KALANCHOESR LIRIOPE'GIGANTIA' PELARGONIUM PELTATUM AGAPANTHUS KANGAROO PAW CHAPARRAL BLOOM LA JOLLA BOUGAINVILLEA NCN NCN NCN NCN NCN LILYTURF IVY GERANIUM Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES BOTANICAL NAME: COMMON NAME: FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA MARATHON II (LAWN AREAS) FESTUCA MAIREI NCN LEYMUS TRITCOIDES WILD RYE MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS STIPAGIGANTEA FEATHER GRASS SUCCULENTS: BOTANICAL NAME: COMMON NAME: AEONIUM FLORIBUNDUM NCN AGAVE ATTENUATA NCN AGAVE VILLMORIANA OCTOPUS AGAVE ALOE ARBORESCERIS FIRE BUSH ALOE ECHEVERIA CRENULATA NCN ECHEVERIA IMBRICATTA HENS AND CHICKS SEDUM CONFUSUM NCN SEDUM SPECTABILE NCN SENECIO MANDRALISCAE NCN Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 80 5.7 HARDSCAPE PLAN 5.7.1 Walls and Fencing The project will have one fence design used throughout all parcel areas. Several pedestrian connections to surrounding properties are incorporated into the Master Site Plan. Openings are encouraged and shall be provided to promote connectivity to adjacent properties. Community fencing is to betubularsteel with a painted metal finish. Wall materials are to be made of Concrete Masonry Units with a split face or enhanced finish to match the adjacent architecture with a tubular steel community fence atop. Retaining wall materials are to be poured in place concrete or Concrete Masonry Units with a split face or finish to match the adjacent architecture in the Uptown Newport PC. Wall and fence locations are shown diagrammatically in Figure 5 -21. Figure 5 -21 Overall -Walls and Fencing Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES i R � � R �.�r. R.f•._� R � �� �f•tt•� - -- ___, lllll�llAlllll�'�S - R R Community Perimeter Fencing Barrier Fence 4. — Barrier Fence Community Perimeter Fencing idir vpmmm Tubular Steel Fence ;.V- J atop Retaining Wall ■ Pilasters 0' 100' 200' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 81 5.7.2 Walks, Paseos and Bicycle Trails Uptown Newport Village is designed to be a pedestrian friendly village, with connectivity to surrounding properties. Walks, Paseos and Bicycle Trails will connect the residents to each other and to the projects parks and amenities, as well as connect Uptown Newport to the adjacent land uses. Walks within the community will be located along the entry drives, Spine Street, Neighborhood Streets, and paseos. Sidewalks will be linear and continuously ! ~ -- - - - - - - i - - - - - ! I 1 1 1 1 1 =1 1 Lq I Fes. 1 1 1 1 1 V 1_ ----- separated with a planted parkway. The walk materials will be made of natural grey concrete with enhanced areas utilizing concrete pavers, colored concrete, enhanced finishes or scoring. The Jamboree Road sidewalk will be 12' wide to accommodate both pedestrians and a Class I bike trail, consistent with the Jamboree Trail included in the city's General Plan. Bicycles will be permitted on streets and paseos within the Uptown Newport PC. .t. 1 . I I 1 � 1 I 1 I r .I 1 I / A --y 1 1 1 � 1 1 _ 1 1 � 1 � 1 � I r — — — - -` I 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- -J- - - - -1 I i I I � I Figure 5 -22 Overall -Walks and Trails 11 1 1 v 1 1 Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES li 1 ,Jamboree Road Public Sidewalk and Class I Bike Trail I 1 E- - Spine Street Walkway Pedestrian Walkway 0' 100' 200' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 82 5.7.3 Lighting Plan style of the buildings. All common area lighting shall be Uptown Newport Village lighting shall embrace a consistent with the local code requirements. Pole lights unified lighting theme for fixtures along common area along Jamboree Road shall match the existing street streets. The master lighting plan depicted in Figure scene style and layout. Up- lighting will be utilized at 5 -23 provides the hierarchy for lighting included in entries, illuminating community monuments and trees. the master development. There will also be a hierarchy The lighting between phases shall match in style, height, of lighting fixture heights and sizes within Uptown color and manufacturer. Newport. The overall unified lighting style could range from modern to classical. The lighting within parcel developments is encouraged to match the architectural • • • o " 'milI II w w Figure 5 -23 Master Lighting Plan • Street Lights to complywith local code requirements Ir • Rte. ®• •° .. -_ ° o e �e. • s o e ° • Design Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES ulr Spine Street & Neighborhood Monument &Tree Up - Lighting Pedestrian Walk Lights wt ® ® Spine Street Lights 4 • Neighborhood Street Lights • Pedestrian Walk Lights ! ! ° • Monument &Tree Up- Lighting I • Jamboree Road Street Lights 0' 100' 200' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 83 5.7.4 Site Furnishings Site furnishings within the common areas of the Uptown Newport PC shall be unified in form, color and manufacturer, if possible. Benches, bike racks, metal bollards, and tree grates are to be of one family that works well together that supports a "one district look" within the community. Master site furnishings are shown in Figure 5 -24 and depicts the site furnishings that will be provided as part of the master site development. El ❑ n ❑ ❑ • y, A ®❑❑❑ DOOL\ Figure 5 -24 Master Site Furnishings El El El Design Guidelines 5. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Bench ❑ ❑ ❑ A ❑ El El ®U ❑ ❑ ❑ L 4a Q � Bench Outdoor Dining (Retail Area) ID Picnic Table <+,Y Bicycle Rack Trash Receptacle c 0 Trash Receptacle Kiosk 0' 100' 200' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 84 El El A ❑ ❑ ❑ A ❑ El El ®U ❑ ❑ ❑ L 4a Q � Bench Outdoor Dining (Retail Area) ID Picnic Table <+,Y Bicycle Rack Trash Receptacle c 0 Trash Receptacle Kiosk 0' 100' 200' Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 84 UPTOWN NEWPORT Planned Community Development Plan CHAPTER 6 Signage Design Guidelines 6.0 INTRODUCTION 6.1 SIGNAGE AND GRAPHICS 6.0.1 Signage Design Guideline Objectives Program Components The signage design guidelines identified in this document provide standards for use in the development for the Uptown Newport PC project as part of the Master Site Development and site plan review process. The intent of the guidelines is to establish criteria that will be the basis for the design of signage /graphics throughout the project and to insure that there is a consistent design image that contributes to the identity and promotes the quality of Uptown Newport. It is intended that all signage has a coordinated design with organizational unity and overall visual identity. The signage should be an integral part of the project's architecture, landscaping and be compatible with the lighting. 6.0.2 Comprehensive Sign Program The City of Newport Beach Sign Standards (Section 20.42.120) allows for the integration of all of a project's signs with the overall site design and building design into a unified architectural statement. The proposed sign program for Uptown Newport PC shall comply with the purpose and intent of NBMC Chapter 20.42 Sign Standards, these Signage Design Guidelines and the overall purpose and intent of Section 20.42.120. In addition tothe signage guidelines herein, signs where applicable, must comply with the codes and regulations of NBMC (Chapter 20.42) and all applicable State of California (CBC/Title 24). Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE These Signage Design Guidelines include standards for the following signage /graphics elements: Primary Project ID Monuments and /or Wall Signs (Sec. 6.4) Secondary Project ID Monument Signs (Sec. 6.5) Retail Tenant Directory Monument Signs (Sec. 6.6) On- Building Project ID Signs (Sec. 6.7) Retail Tenant ID Signs (Sec. 6.8) On -Site Advisory Signs (Vehicular and Pedestrian Directionals) (Sec. 6.9) Building and Unit Address Signs (Sec. 6.10) Amenity Identification Signs (Sec. 6.11) Parking Garage ID (Sec. 6.12) Marketing Banners (Sec. 6.13) Park Identification Signs (Sec. 6.14) Park Rules /Regulations Signs (Sec. 6.15) Marketing Signs (Sec. 6.16) Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 86 6.2 GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES These Design Guidelines have been developed to implement a signage program within Uptown Newport that is compatible with the surrounding physical and visual character of the project, communicate effectively, enhance the perception of the Uptown Newport PC, and reduce visual clutter caused by excessive and poorly placed signage. The following guidelines will be taken into consideration in the final design of individual signs in the context of the overall sign program for the project. 6.2.1 Legibility Signs should be easy to read and comprehend. Legibility does not depend on size, but on design. Awell composed sign, that is smaller in size can be easier to read than a larger sign that is cluttered with too much information, too many elements of color, shapes and typefaces. To enhance legibility, sign panel backgrounds should be free of distracting details and decoration and provide sufficient contrast with the graphics displayed on the sign. 6.2.2 Typography In addition to the master planned and individual project identification logotypes, a single typeface should be selected for application to ancillary signage that is compatible with the logotype and reflects the image of the project. A sans serif typeface is recommended because it communicates information more effectively than an elaborate and complex typeface. Consideration should be given to the use of a typestyle that is available in a family of different weights and in condensed or regular versions. Within one typeface family, a bolder weight can be used to accentuate a particular portion of a message by creating a distinction between other copy. The use of several different typefaces on a sign is discouraged, as it makes the sign difficult to read. Also, the use of upper and lower case characters versus all upper case characters should be studied in the context of each sign. If all upper case characters are used, this approach should be consistently applied to all signs. 6.2.3 Materials and Colors Sign materials should be consistent on all signs and all finishes uniformly applied. It is recommended that signs fabricated from metal have an acrylic polyurethane paint with a satin gloss finish. Color is most effective when used simply.Too many colors, particularly accent colors, can distract the reader and reduce legibility, making the signs less effective. Colors selected for sign backgrounds should be compatible with the architectural palette of the project and provide sufficient contrast with the copy color. 6.2.4 Placement Signs should be located in areas where they are easy to read and be in scale to the viewer whether the sign is pedestrian or vehicular oriented. Locations should be selected so that the signs are compatible with adjacent architectural elements and surrounding landscape/ hardscape features. Signs located along street frontages shall comply with the set back/sight distance triangle requirements as determined by the City of Newport Beach sign standards. 6.2.5 Size Signs should be of a size proportional to the area where they are located, or building on which they are placed. The prevailing travel speeds of motorists should betaken into consideration when determining sign formats and copy sizes. Copy on vehicular oriented signs should be larger to allow viewers to perceive, read and understand the intent of the sign. Pedestrian oriented signs can be at a smaller scale. Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.2.6 Methods of Illumination Primary project identification signs can consist of cabinets with internal illumination or they can be externally illuminated by ground mounted light fixtures. Internally illuminated sign cabinets can display face lit push -thru copy in translucent white or day /night acrylic letters or have halo lit copy. The level of illumination should be sensitive to surrounding light levels. Signs with multi - colored internally illuminated components are discouraged. Internally illuminated sign cabinets with lit backgrounds are not permitted, only the copy can transmit light. Address signs on buildings may be required to be halo lit, or have an indirect light source subject to the City of Newport Beach signage /life safety requirements applicable to Uptown Newport. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -1413 87 6.3 SIGN LOCATION PLAN The sign location plan depicted on this page shows general locations for sign types 1 -13 established in these guidelines (see figure 6.1). SIGN LEGEND O Primary Project ID Monument O Secondary Project ID Monument • Retail Tenant ID Monument • On- Building Project ID Signs • On- Building Retail Tenant ID Signs • On -Site Advisory Signs • Building and Unit Address Signs O Amenity ID Signs O Parking Garage Signs O Temporary Marketing Signs Subject to City of Newport Beach Municipal Code O Marketing Banners Subject to City of Newport Beach Municipal Code O Primary Park ID Signs ® Park Rules /Regulations Signs 2 13 n111RPt V ��iJ O YUI W,IW II -. 9lRnI111RRT1 �.ATRTl1lllTflr.l l 3#Gii1YAHW •\ � -. Q C7 • 6 � g 6 Y Ur Figure 6.1: Master Signage Plait �@ O O 13 Q Z © 0" 000 Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE I MMw u YM l w.n Mqu � - -.Q - w a N T J S Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 88 �.�e.— _._._ - —. —. r r r r —. - N l LLUntuumlLl i uuu wu IIUwLL` J /�f �.� ,AMBOREE PH .:.p Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 88 Fabricated aluminum cabinet with paint finish or faux plaster finish. Cabinet to rest on integral color concrete base. Copy to be internally illuminated push -thru day/ night acrylic or illuminated by ground mounted light fixture. Address numerals to be flat cut metal, pin mounted to concrete base with blind anchor studs. UPTOWN NEWPORT VILLAGE lb 12000 Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.4- SIGN TYPE 1 Primary Project Identification Monument Purpose Permanent ground level monument to identify Uptown Newport. Maximum Number Two signs located on Jamboree Road Frontage. Location On -site. Project name on monument or screen walls adjacent to primary project entries off Jamboree Road. outside of sight- distance triangles per City standards. Sign Copy Name of project, tagline such as "Apartments" or "Apartment Villages" project logo and project addresses or address range. Maximum Sign Height +/- 12' -0 "average height for sign monuments. Maximum Sign Area 75 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 18" Sign Construction /Materials Individual letters mounted on project screen wall or metal cabinet with concrete or stone clad base. Method of Illumination Individual halo illuminated letters, external illumination from ground mounted light fixtures or internally illuminated push thru copy. Signs with internally illuminated backgrounds are not allowed. Typestyle Project name logotype and symbol with supporting copy in project standard font. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 89 Fabricated aluminum cabinet with paint finish or faux plaster finish. Cabinet to rest on integral color concrete base. Copy to be internally illuminated push -thru day/ night acrylic or illuminated by ground mounted light fixture. Address numerals to be flat cut metal, pin mounted to concrete base with blind anchor studs. Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.5 - SIGN TYPE 2 Secondary Project Identification Monument Purpose Permanent ground level monument to identify Uptown Newport. Maximum Number One sign at Birch Street project entry. Location On -site adjacent to project entry off Birch Street. Sign Copy Name of project, tagline such as "Apartments" or project address or address range. Maximum Sign Height 8' -0" Height Maximum Sign Area 30 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 12" Sign Construction /Materials Fabricated aluminum cabinet with internal illumination mounted to concrete or stone -clad base. Method of Illumination Individual halo illuminated letters, internally illuminated push thru copy or externally illuminated copy from ground mounted light fixtures. Typestyle Project name logotype and symbol with supporting copy in project standard font. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 90 Fabricated aluminum cabinet with paint finish or faux plaster finish. Cabinet to rest on integral color concrete base. Copy to be internally illuminated push -thru day/ night acrylic or illuminated by ground mounted light fixture. Tenant panels to be changeable. Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.6- SIGN TYPE 3 Retail Tenant Identification Monument Purpose Permanent ground level monument located along project site frontage. Maximum Number One sign on Jamboree Road. Location On -site. Perpendicular to street on Jamboree Road. Sign Copy Names of up to four retail tenants. Sign to have copy on two sides. Maximum Sign Size 7'-6" Maximum Height. Maximum Sign Area 30 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 6" Sign Construction /Materials Fabricated aluminum cabinet with internal illumination on concrete or stone clad base.Tenant panels to be changeable. Method of Illumination Individual halo illuminated letters, internally illuminated push thru copy or externally illuminated copy from ground mounted light fixtures. Typestyle Tenant logotype or project standard typestyle in project standard color. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 91 1❑ Individual flat cut or fabricated aluminum letters and numerals with paint finish. Letters to be pin mounted to building fascia with blind anchor studs. 2❑ Marketing banner adjacent to primary building entries. See Sign Type 13 for details. (Subject to City of Newport Beach Municipal Code). t UPTOWN NEWPORT VILLAGE 12000 i i k Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.7 - SIGN TYPE 4 On- Building Project Identification Signs Purpose Building mounted project identification sign located at primary building entries and leasing office. Maximum Number One sign per each primary building entry. Four marketing banners adjacent to entry (subject to City of Newport Beach Municipal Code) Location On building fascia above or adjacent to entry or on architectural canopy at entry. Sign Copy Symbol /logotype and /or project or building name. Maximum Sign Size 12' -0" Length Maximum Sign Area 9 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 9" Sign Construction /Materials Individual flat cut or fabricated aluminum letters and numerals with paint finish. Letters to be pin mounted to building fascia with blind anchor studs. Method of Illumination Halo illumination, or non - illuminated. Typestyle Project logotype or project standard typestyle. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 92 Fabricated aluminum sign frame with changeable tenant ID panel. Sign to have paint finish. Sign copy can be internally illuminated with LED lamp or non - illuminated. 11 �J JOE'S COFFEE SNACK BAR Blade Sign 11 �J JOE'S COFFEE it SNACK BAR Wall Sign Wall Sign Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.8 - SIGN TYPE 5 On- Building Retail Tenant Identification Signs Purpose To identify business names of retail tenants. Maximum Number Two signs per retail space frontage with a primary entry. Corner spaces may have a third sign on a separate elevation subject to owner approval. Location On- building walls adjacent to primary store entry, on canopies above store entry and /or blade sign along storefront. Sign Copy Business name and symbol. Business descriptions or product descriptions are not permitted unless part of name. Maximum Sign Size 2'x 2'wall sign, 12'(max) length canopy signs and 18 "x 2' blade sign. Maximum Sign Area 4 S.F. (Wall Sign), 36 S.F. (Canopy Sign), 36 S.F. (Blade Sign) Maximum Letter Size 9" Sign Construction /Materials Fabricated aluminum sign frame with changeable tenant ID panel. Sign to have paint finish. Method of Illumination Internal illumination or non - illuminated. Typestyle Tenant logotype in project standard color. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 93 Fabricated aluminum post and panel sign with paint finish. Copy to be reflective vinyl. Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.9 - SIGN TYPE 6 On -Site Advisory Signs ■ Purpose Jw� Vehicular and pedestrian oriented signs to provide direction to on -site motorists and pedestrians as required to facilitate on -site wayfinding. xnnwx Maximum Number a As required. �1 Location On site. Adjacent to project entries and drive aisles and UPTOWN NEWPORT along pedestrian walkways. VILLAGE Sign Copy APARTMENTS Directional information with arrows to include 4 identification of individual products within Uptown CONDOMINIUMS Newport. E Maximum Sign Height TOWNNOMES 6'-0" Height TMaximum Sign Area 9 S.F. Sign Panel ■ Maximum Letter Size Jw� 5" Sign Construction /Materials xnnwx Fabricated aluminum post and panel with paint finish. xcwroxT VILLALE Method of Illumination LEASING Non - illuminated. CENTER Typestyle Project standard typestyle. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 94 Fabricated aluminum numerals with paintfinish. Numerals to have halo illumination with LED lamps. Method of illumination to be verified by City of Newport Beach. 251' 350 2❑ Fabricated aluminum sign frame and panel with paint finish and raised numerals. Size of numerals to be verified by City of Newport Beach security /life safety requirements. LF31-01 Fn 350 Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.10 -SIGN TYPES 7 & 7A Building and Unit Address Signs Purpose Code - required address signage to identify individual buildings and units within buildings. Maximum Number As required. Location On- building fascias at locations visible to visitors and emergency response vehicles. Sign Copy Building address and unit numbers. Maximum Sign Height 12"address numerals - 2 1/2" unit numbers. Maximum Sign Area As required. Maximum Letter Size As required. Sign Construction /Materials Fabricated or flat cut aluminum address numerals and fabricated aluminum unit number plaque with paint finish. Method of Illumination As required. Typestyle Project standard typeface. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 95 Fabricated aluminum frame and changeable sign panel with paint finish. Copy to be vinyl. UPTOWN NEWPORT VILLAGE LEASING CENTER MON -SAT 9AM -6PM SUNDAY 12PM -6PM Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.11 -SIGN TYPE 8 Amenity Identification Signs Purpose To identify on -site amenities within buildings to include recreation rooms, fitness centers, leasing office, etc. Maximum Number One sign per primary entry. Location On wall adjacent to primary entry. Sign Copy Amenity identification and hours of operation. Maximum Sign Size 18" x 24" Maximum Sign Area 3 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 3" Sign Construction /Materials Fabricated aluminum frame and sign panel with paint finish. Method of Illumination Non - illuminated. Typestyle Project standard typestyle. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 96 Individual fabricated or flat cut aluminum letters with paint finish. Letters to be pin mounted to fascia with blind anchor studs. Aluminum fabricated bang bars with paint finish. Bars to be suspended from soffit as clearance requires by code. 251.350 RESIDENT & VISITOR PARKING EXIT CLEARANCE r-r ENTER 3❑ 1 "thick lightweight MDO panel with paint finish. Graphic to be reflective vinyl. Panels to be suspended or beam mounted as determined by location /orientation. ELEVATOR TO VISITOR 251.300 PARKING NO Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.12 -SIGN TYPE 9 Parking Garage Signage Purpose To identify vehicular entries into parking garages, address code required signage and provide vehicular and pedestrian directional /wayfinding signage to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Maximum Number As required. Location At parking garage entries, elevator and stairs along drive aisles within garage. Sign Copy As required for wayfinding and by code. Maximum Sign Size As required. Maximum Sign Area As required. Maximum Letter Size As required by code and for legibility. Sign Construction /Materials Individual fabricated or flat cut aluminum letters with paint finish. MDO sign panels with paint finish. Method of Illumination Non - illuminated. Typestyle Project standard typestyle and graphics. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 97 Aluminum support post with fabric or vinyl banner with silkscreened graphics to include copy and background imagery. *Signs subject to City of Newport Beach Municipal Code MAX aI I Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.13 - SIGN TYPE 11 Marketing Banners Purpose To identify projects and products. Maximum Number Clusters of six (6) marketing banners at two locations and four per building entry. Location At locations adjacent to project entries on Jamboree and at primary entries to residential buildings. Sign Copy Project name and project description. Maximum Sign Size 3'x 8' banner. Maximum Sign Area 24 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 9" Sign Construction /Materials Aluminum post with fabric or vinyl banner. Method of Illumination Non - illuminated. Typestyle Project logotype and project standard typestyle. Duration Temporary signs shall be removed at the expiration of a temporary sign permit, or upon sale, lease or rental of the property has been consumated. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 98 Fabricated aluminum cabinet with paint or faux plaster finish. Cabinet to rest on integral color cast concrete base. I I Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.14 - SIGN TYPE 12 Park Identification Signage Purpose To identify park. Maximum Number 2 signs per park. Location At primary entries to park. Sign Copy Park name and hours. Maximum Sign Height 4'- 6" height Maximum Sign Area 14 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 6" Sign Construction /Materials Aluminum cabinet on concrete base. Method of Illumination Non - illuminated or lit from ground mounted fixtures. Typestyle Project standard typestyle. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 99 Fabricated aluminum post and panel sign with paint finish. Copy to be reflective vinyl. UPTOWN NEWPORT PARK HUM Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.15 - SIGN TYPE 13 Park Rules /Regulations Sign Purpose To identify park hours and rules /regulations. Maximum Number 2 signs per park. Location At pedestrian entries to park. Sign Copy Park name, hours and listing of restricted activities. Maximum Sign Size 4'- 6" height Maximum Sign Area 4.5 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 2" Sign Construction /Materials Fabricated aluminum sign panel and post with paint finish. Method of Illumination Non - illuminated. Typestyle Project logotype and project standard typestyle. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 100 Fabricated aluminum post and panel with paint finish. Copy to be vinyl. *Signs subject to City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Guidelines 6. SIGNAGE 6.16 -SIGN TYPE 10 Marketing Signs Purpose To provide project information to include identification of future property use and leasing information. Construction barricade signage /graphics related to project opening, leasing and identification of development team. Maximum Number • Two (2) Future Facility sign along Jamboree Rd. • Two (2) Leasing Information sign along Jamboree Rd. •Two (2) leasing office directional signs. Location At various locations along Jamboree Road and along primary entry drives. Sign Copy Project logotype, information related to project opening/ leasing and graphics on construction barricade. Maximum Sign Size 6'x 8'sign panel. Maximum Sign Area 48 S.F. Maximum Letter Size 9" Sign Construction /Materials Fabricated aluminum post and panel with paint finish. Sign panel may have background with accent color. Method of Illumination Non - illuminated. Typestyle Project logotype and project standard typestyle. Duration Temporary signs shall be removed at the expiration of a temporary sign permit, or upon sale, lease or rental of the property has been consumated. Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan 2 -14 -13 101 Attachment No. CC 23 Project Plans (Site Plans & Tentative Tract Map) This document is not included in the staff report package due to its size and bulk. It is available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at http: / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?paqe =2029 425 420 S PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ACCESS 15 ST. "A" ENTRY DRIVE S 92 N 42' 15' 20' 22' 16' PUBLIC t PUBLIC 1 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS "151 �q PARKING 7' ST. "A" WITH DIAGONAL PARKING STALL 17" PEDESTRIAN ACCESS W 66' E TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17438 36 15' 18' 18' 15' PUBLIC PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN \� �q� PEN ACCESS ACCESS IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11' FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ST. -13" W 101' E S 60' N 32' 36' 12' 20' 16' 16' 20' 17, 12' 18' PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC f PUBLIC F PUBLIC PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN `I PEDESTRIAN PEACCESS N �q PEACCESS N W 60' E ACCESS PARKING \v PARKING ACCESS S 76' N �jy `r0 36" \� 7 36' 25' 7 12' 18" 18" 12' 8' 10" il' 15' 18" 18" PUBLIC 8 11 PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN ST. "B" WITH DIAGONAL PARKING STALL PEACCESS DESTRIAN �q ACCESS ST. "C" ACCESS so LID ACCESS 7' B' ST. "C" ENTRY DRIVE ST. "D" JAMBOREE ROAD LEGEND DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE FLOW FF = FINISHED FLOOR PE = PAD ELEVATION PE1 = PAD ELEVATION WITH 1 LEVEL OF PARKING BELOW GRADE PE2 = PAD ELEVATION WITH 2 LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW GRADE TENTATIVE TRACT BOUNDARY PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED BUILDING PAD —56— PROPOSED GRADE CONTOUR ROADWAY CENTERLINE N40'38'21 "E S 54' N 32" 10" 16" i 16' 12' PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN �9I ACCESS 9' --1 117" ST. "E" FRONTING ALONG LOT 4 S 5s' N 32' 15' 16" 16' 12' PUBLIC PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ACCESS 7' s' ST. 'E' ALONG PARK MI I' 1 -: L I -7 I'Ell NOI W 103' CL 6' 23' WIDE 74' ACCESS 6' 68' I 12' WIDE MEANDERING BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY JAMBOREE ROAD I1't_� lZ E�Ilit! z P.M.B. W M/27 1'• R �EL CURVE TABLE S 60' N Cl 30.00' 27.53' 36' 30.00' 27.72' C3 12' 27.40' 18" 18" 67.00' 62.98' 12' PUBLIC 45.06' C6 182.00' 29.01' PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS s, �q O C8 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 127.95' C9 218.00' 7' C10 218.00' 40.37' C11 12.5' 11' C12 212.00' 22.01' C13 ST. "F" 7.52' C14 I'Ell NOI W 103' CL 6' 23' WIDE 74' ACCESS 6' 68' I 12' WIDE MEANDERING BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY JAMBOREE ROAD I1't_� lZ E�Ilit! z P.M.B. W M/27 1'• R �EL CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH Cl 30.00' 27.53' C2 30.00' 27.72' C3 30.00' 27.40' C4 67.00' 62.98' C5 132.00' 45.06' C6 182.00' 29.01' C7 182.00' 94.41' C8 175.00' 127.95' C9 218.00' 89.77' C10 218.00' 40.37' C11 218.00' 49.40' C12 212.00' 22.01' C13 10.00' 7.52' C14 10.01' 8.06' C15 40.00' 12.77' a v o z ui E-6 o � z� a c0 '3 w 0 0 D J I 1 11 U A II 0 1 1 1 L'.dp YGOI X111111111111111 FI\ ffLWMTI- rF( W Master Site Plan Uptown Newport Uptown Newport LP n0 o �I��b�lolb�bb�b Hill 1 1 Summary Phase 1 Number of Units: 680 Park Area (ac): 1.03 Retail (sf): 11,500 On- Street Parking Stalls: 59 Total Area (ac): 13.01 Phase 2 564 1.02 0 34 12.04 Tota 1 1,244 2.05 11,500 93 25.05 0' 50' 100' 150' November 30, 2012 11111111 11110 H Ii W Phase 1 Master Site Plan Uptown Newport Uptown Newport LP , n. �3F L ��Elllllllllllllllllll�lfl �u 0 0 oI RRI.IH `�IRRHHHH II J J Summary Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Number of Units: 680 564 1,244 Park Area (ac): 1.03 1.02 2.05 Retail (sf): 11,500 0 11,500 On- Street Parking Stalls: 59 34 93 Total Area (ac): 13.01 12.04 25.05 0' 50' 100' 150' November 30, 2012 L r' i 'I I �i i i I i j- j [ha L Phase -1 Phase 2 a Figure 1 -1: Phasing Diagram 1 Hiii'J I`HIIIIMII AS - -,111 - ' 'I{r— Number of Units: 680 564 1,244 Developable Area (ac): 8.74 9.72 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): 13.01 12.04 25.05 0' 100' 200' 400' VON KARMAN AVE. ' XrT I i o 0 0 ii - - - - -- 0� 'II IV II III''' Gy J�N�PJ�N� II II /� II /I� I'll II II ❑ n° II° II�II�I° II�II °Ibll °II�II °�� °II�I�'I��ii II GIN ��P ��' ���JpN�P ❑-- - -��II I 1 1 I I I I�— �/ I I ----------------------------------- - -- - - - -- I— ---- ---- 77 - - -_— -- - - -- w 1 17' - - -_ -- — - - - -- III 0 n 24° A L — — 30' - - - -- — -------- - - - - -- \ I- L - - - - -- — — �-- N o �G 10' kL F \ 15' 15' Fe / e — LLJ PIfIA SE 1 6 12 T- 9.12' 0 0 / 0 / I o / INTERIM PHASE 1 / CUL —DE —SAC BULB PH I 32' IO � I - �;� PHASE 2 9.07' 0 OPEN HSPACE �S DF 6' UPTOWN NEWPORT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN \ ti S / \ a w / 0 ti�G 8.92' r 4 ��-0 � - -��• -ice- O PATH TO BE 12' WIDE TO ACCOMMODATE 0 C) C')Nn W M � r- (j) 70 m cf) D Cn zRo - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - 41 Lo p�fA z4 SE 7 �W D m 7 C) (/) rn�r to z m cn D U PATH TO BE 12' WIDE--/ TO ACCOMMODATE C = Ll 1 I I I 1 II A I 1 11 W11 H I i i n 1 �T M I I I I EII I IIII I I I LMN __ ST "D" CD 10 ' i ��. W m — ` ' — _ LOADING ZONE 24' 1 cn 1 0 I 20 8 L I I I I I o l II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II .0 r ® NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS = 93 STALLS LEGEND CONCEPTUAL BUILDING PAD FOOTPRINT -- SITE BOUNDARY L - - - -- -- PROPOSED LOT LINES RETAIL ENHANCED PAVERS PHASE LINE A PI� III III I— lll sca I 5C,) ® II 84' I I _ 6 IBM III 32' 32' w�u ,pp N W lICVES-S—T-�O-- N B RIU;HI `,3jTR�- I U w I III U ❑ W L ❑ I o � o C PREPARED ON: NOVEMBER 28, 2012 Engineering • Planning • Surveying 17782 17TH ST, SUITE 200 TUSTIN, CA 92780 -1947 • 714 - 665 -4500 Attachment No. CC 24 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan 42 422 UPTOWN NEWPORT / 7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATI "ON January 29, 2013 r, Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 1 -�f g� Contents I. Introduction .................................................. ............................... II. Project Description ....................................... ............................... III. Affordable Housing Obligation ..................... ............................... IV. Methods to meet Affordability Requirements ............................... V. Definitions .................................................... ............................... VI. Assurance of the Development of Affordable Housing ................ VII. Phasing of the Affordable Housing Production ............................ VIII. Affordable Housing Agreement .................... ............................... IX. Amendments of the AHIP ............................ ............................... X Successors in Interest ................................................. ............................... XI. Right to Assign ...................................................................... ..............................9 e Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 2 4J D L Introduction Uptown Newport consists of 25 acres of developed land located in the City of Newport Beach on the north side of Jamboree Road at the intersection of Fairchild Road. The property was originally developed as part of the Koll Center, and has been used for manufacturing telecommunications equipment and computer chips since the 1970's. The property currently includes two industrial buildings that are leased to multiple tenants including TowerJazz, who manufactures computer chips onsite. The property is currently accessed via two entries on Jamboree Road, a drive access via Birch, and a drive access via Von Karman Avenue. The City's General Plan allows for infill development and redevelopment of the Airport Business Area including up to 2,200 residential units. In September of 2010, the City approved the Koll- Conexant Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which provides a framework for residential development on both the Koll and Conexant properties within the Airport Business Area. The ICDP allocated a maximum of 1,244 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet of retail to be developed on the Uptown Newport (formerly Conexant) property, and up to 260 residential units to be developed on the Koll property. ❑. Project Description The Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PA2011 -134) project will include redevelopment of the 25 -acre property into a high- density mixed use residential project. Up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail, and 2 acres of park space are planned as part of the project. The project is anticipated to be developed in two primary phases. Phase 1 will include demolition of the existing single -story office building at 4311 Jamboree, and development of the westerly portion of the property, including the frontage along Jamboree Road. Phase 1 will include development of up to 680 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet of retail space, and is projected to commence in 2013. Phase 2 will include demolition of the existing TowerJazz fabrication building, and development of approximately 564 residential units on the easterly portion of the property. The number of residential units planned to be developed is based upon replacement units allocated to the site based on conversion of existing office and industrial uses to residential uses, additive units allocated pursuant to the General Plan, and density bonus units allowed pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 -65918 ( "State Density Bonus Law ") and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.32 (the "Density Bonus Code "). On the Uptown Newport site, up to 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, 290 units are additive for a total of 922 units ( "Base Units "). Up to 322 additional units can be developed as density bonus units pursuant to the State Bonus Density law and the Density Bonus Code. Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 3 491- Replacement Units 632 Additive Units 290 Subtotal — Base Units 922 Density Bonus Units @ 35% 322 Total Units 1,244 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 for a total of 1,244 total units. This AHIP is intended to implement affordable housing requirements for the Uptown Newport project pursuant to the State Bonus Density Law, Title 19 Chapter 19.54 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( the " Inclusionary Code "), and the Density Bonus Code. III. Affordable Housing Obligation Subdivision projects that result in a net increase of residential units have a requirement to provide affordable housing pursuant to the City's inclusionary housing requirements that are set forth in chapter 19.54 of the Municipal Code as well as the Density Bonus Code set forth in chapter 20.32 of the Municipal Code (combined, the "Affordability Requirements" or "Affordable Housing Requirements "). The Owner seeks to achieve the maximum 35% density bonus, and will meet the Affordable Housing Requirements by the construction of affordable housing as follows: • By providing a minimum of eleven percent (11 %) of the Base Units (102 units) for Very -Low Income households for rent, or • By providing a minimum of twenty percent (20 %) of the Base Units (185 units) for Low - Income households for rent, or • By providing a minimum of forty percent (40 %) of the Base Units (369 units) for Moderate - Income households for ownership, or • By providing a combination of the above. In the event a combination of the above housing types is constructed, a Very-Low Income unit shall be deemed to be the equivalent of 3.6 Moderate Income units or 1.8 Low - Income units. A Low - Income unit shall be the equivalent of 2 Moderate - Income units. For example, if 30 Very-Low Income units are constructed, either 131 Low - Income or 261 Moderate Income units would be required to complete the affordability requirements. If 89 Low - Income units are constructed, 191 Moderate - Income units are required. For this conversion the required number of units shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 4 4J 2 In the event that the Project utilizes a density bonus of less than 35 %, then the Affordability Requirements would be reduced pro -rata with the reduction of market rate units through an amendment to this AHIP. /V. Methods to meet Affordability Requirements The Owner shall meet its Affordable Housing Requirements by developing the affordable units on site. Pursuant to section 20.32.070 of the City Municipal Code, affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the Planned Community unless clustering the of affordable units in one or more sections of the Planned Community is approved by the Community Development Director. V. Definitions 1INt The City's Affordability Requirements and Affordable Housing Requirements set out certain definitions and descriptions to assist in the implementation of the requirements, many of which are indicated below. These definitions and descriptions will be utilized in the interpretation of the requirements under this AHIP: A. Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA). Section 20.32.100 of the Density Bonus Code requires that an applicant that seeks a density bonus shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement ( "AHA ") with the City. Section 19.54.020(A) of the Inclusionary Code states that the AHA shall provide legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the units remains affordable to very low -, low -, or moderate - income households, as applicable. With respect to rental units, rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner - occupied units, resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and /or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property. B. Affordable Housing Cost. Pursuant to State of California Health & Safety Code Section 50052.5, affordable housing costs for any owner - occupied for -sale affordable units shall be as follows: a. The affordable housing costs for very low- income households shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of fifty (50) percent of area median income for Orange County adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. b. For low- income households the affordable housing costs shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of seventy (70) percent of area median income for Orange County adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. For those low- income households with incomes above seventy (70) percent of area median income the maximum affordable housing cost may be increased to thirty (30) percent of the income of the household. c. For moderate - income households the affordable housing costs shall not be less than twenty -eight (28) percent of the gross income of the household nor exceed thirty -five (35) percent of one hundred ten (110) percent of Orange County area median income adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. Furthermore, for those moderate - income households with incomes above one hundred ten (110) percent of area Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 5 -4J° 3 Amended Page 5 to CC -24 In the event that the Project utilizes a density bonus of less than 35 %, then the Affordability Requirements would be reduced pro -rata with the reduction of market rate units through an amendment to this AHIP. IV. Methods to meet Affordability Requirements The Owner shall meet its Affordable Housing Requirements by developing the affordable units on site. ° ^ ^t t^ SP4A^ 29 32 070 Af the City IVIURiGipal Qed Affordable units s4a44may be dispersed throughout the Planned Community or unless clusteredi"g -the^f 214^ "12hIP W;41; in one or more sections of the Planned Community is appFeved by the OeMMURity t BireGtef. V. Definitions The City's Affordability Requirements and Affordable Housing Requirements set out certain definitions and descriptions to assist in the implementation of the requirements, many of which are indicated below. These definitions and descriptions will be utilized in the interpretation of the requirements under this AHIP: A. Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA). Section 20.32.100 of the Density Bonus Code requires that an applicant that seeks a density bonus shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement ( "AHA ") with the City. Section 19.54.020(A) of the Inclusionary Code states that the AHA shall provide legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the units remains affordable to very low -, low -, or moderate - income households, as applicable. With respect to rental units, rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner - occupied units, resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and /or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property. B. Affordable Housing Cost. Pursuant to State of California Health & Safety Code Section 50052.5, affordable housing costs for any owner - occupied for -sale affordable units shall be as follows: The affordable housing costs for very low- income households shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of fifty (50) percent of area median income for Orange County adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. b. For low- income households the affordable housing costs shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of seventy (70) percent of area median income for Orange County adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. For those low- income households with incomes above seventy (70) percent of area median income the maximum affordable housing cost may be increased to thirty (30) percent of the income of the household. c. For moderate - income households the affordable housing costs shall not be less than twenty -eight (28) percent of the gross income of the household nor exceed thirty -five (35) percent of one hundred ten (110) percent of Orange County area median income adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. Furthermore, for those moderate - income households with incomes above one hundred ten (110) percent of area Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft 1, ', o -. ^ '�9 = January 29, 2013) Page 5 median income the affordable housing costs may be increased to thirty - five (35) percent of the gross income of the household. d. Pursuant to sections 19.54.020 (C) and (D) of the City's Municipal Code "Adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit" shall mean a household size based upon two (2) persons per bedroom except for efficiency units where the household size shall be one (1) person. C. Affordable Rental Price. — Municipal Code section 19.54.020(D) defines an affordable rental price as an annual rent that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the maximum income level for very low -, low -, and moderate - income households, as adjusted for household size. In determining the maximum household income for a given affordable unit, it shall be based upon each bedroom being occupied by two persons, except for efficiency units (one person). D. Affordable Unit. - Municipal Code section 19.54.020 (E) defines an Affordable Unit as an ownership or rental- housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to households with very low -, low -, and moderate - incomes as defined herein. E. Low - Income.- Municipal Code section 19.54.020 (G) defines low- income as an income between fifty (50) percent and eighty (80) percent of the Orange County median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ( "HCD "). Within this AHIP "low- income" and "lower- income" shall have the same meaning. F. Moderate - income. - Municipal Code section 19.54.020 (H) defines moderate - income as an income between eighty (80) percent and one hundred twenty (120) percent of the Orange County median Income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the HCD. G. Very low- income. - Municipal Code section 19.54.020 (1) defines very low - incolf'ie to mean income fifty (50) percent or less of the Orange County median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the HCD. H. Annual Adjustments. - Orange County Area Median Incomes utilized for setting the Affordable Housing Price, Affordable Housing Costs, and Affordable Rental Price shall be those published annually by HCD. Permissible Residency. - Whenever an occupancy restriction identifies a particular household category for occupancy, households with less income may also occupy that unit. So, for example, if a unit has a Moderate - Income restriction, Low - Income and Very-Low Income households may occupy that unit. Similarly, if a unit has a Low - Income restriction, Very Low - Income households may occupy that unit. J. Rental Income Limits Established. - The permissible rental rates for the affordable units shall not exceed the Affordable Rental Price described earlier in this AHIP. Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 6 494 K. Affordable Housing Costs Established. - The permissible Affordable Housing Costs for the affordable units shall not exceed the Affordable Housing Costs described earlier in this AHIP. L. Term of Affordability Restrictions. a. The affordable rental units provided through the implementation of this AHIP shall be legally restricted to occupancy by, and affordable to, households meeting the income requirements designated herein for a minimum duration of thirty (30) years from the date of the certificate of occupancy for the affordable units. b. Any affordable owner - occupied units of this AHIP will be restricted to moderate income households. The the earlier of (i) the termination accordance with the equity sharing below or (ii) thirty (30) years from Occupancy. provided through the implementation occupancy by, and affordable to, term of the restrictions will run until of the affordability restrictions in provisions described in section c(i) the date of the initial Certificate of c. The affordability restrictions will be documented by the recording of the following documents against the affected units: i. In the case of owner - occupied for -sale units a Regulatory Agreement, Restrictive Covenant, or equivalent will be recorded against each affordable unit upon the sale to the initial occupant. The new qualified owner will also sign a promissory note with the City as beneficiary in the amount of the City's initial subsidy, which shall be as defined in section 20.32.090 B 2 (a) of the Density Bonus Code. The promissory note will be secured by a trust deed, which will be recorded against the unit and subordinated to ,MW7 conventional financing secured by the buyer, which will be in first position on title. The affordable units shall be subject to the City's equity sharing requirements which are described in section 20.32.090 B of the City's Density Bonus Code. ii. In the case where the restricted units are rental units, a Regulatory Agreement or equivalent will be recorded against the apartment project assuring the continued affordability of the restricted units for a minimum of 30 years. The Regulatory Agreement will be subordinate to any conventional mortgage or bond financing which has a first trust deed position against the apartment project. M. Units Applicable against RHNA Requirements. - The City and Owner agree that any affordable units produced through the implementation of this AHIP may be used by the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessments ( "RHNA ") specified by the Southern California Association of Governments ( "SCAG "). Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 7 495 N. Orange County Area Median Income. - Annually HCD publishes area median incomes ( "AMP') for each county in California. HCD revised and updated its 2012 income limits on February 1, 2012. The 2012 income limits for Orange County are as follows: Orange County Median Income - 2012 Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 Income Category: Extremely Low Income $20,250 $23,150 $26,050 $28,900 $31,250 Very Low Income $33,750 $38,550 $43,350 $48,150 $52,050 Lower Income $53,950 $61,650 $69,350 $77,050 $83,250 Median Income $59,700 $68,250 $76,750 $85,300 $92,100 Moderate Income $71,650 $81,900 $92,100 $102,350 $110,550 Source: Department of Housing & Community Development, revised 211112 VI. Assurance of the Development of Affordable Housing. 1. If the Owner has not commenced the development of affordable units in accordance with the phasing plan described in section VII below then the City may withhold Certificates of Occupancy for the market rate units under construction until the Owner or successor in interest has commenced or completed the development of the affordable units. 2. For purposes of this section "commence the development' shall mean (i) commence or complete the construction of the affordable units, or (ii) issuance of building permits for or completion of the construction of the affordable units. VII. using of the Affordable Housing Production. 1. Affordable housing shall be constructed in each of the two proposed phases of development. Based upon the current phasing plan where 680 units are proposed for Phase 1 (55% of the project) and 544 units are proposed for Phase 2 (45% of the project), the minimum number of affordable units to be constructed in Phase 1 shall be 55% and shall not exceed 60% of the total affordable housing obligation for the Uptown Newport project. The remaining affordable housing obligation shall be constructed in Phase 2. 2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for fifty percent (50 %) of the market rate units planned within each Phase, the Owner shall commence construction or complete the construction of a minimum of fifty percent (50 %) of the affordable units required to be constructed within each Phase. 3. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for ninety percent (90 %) of the market -rate units within each Phase, the Owner shall obtain Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 8 -9J° 0 a certificate of occupancy for all affordable units required to be constructed within each Phase. VIII. Affordable Housing Agreement. - An AHA referencing the terms of this AHIP shall be executed and recorded between the City and Owner prior to recordation of the Final Map for the project. IX. Amendments of the AHIP. - This AHIP may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties which will require City Council approval pursuant to section 19.54.060 of the Municipal Code. X. Successors in Interest. - The obligations and benefits applying to the Owner under this AHIP shall also apply to any successors in interest to the Owner. XI. Right to Assign. - Owner shall have the right to assign the AHA or this AHIP, including all benefits, covenants, duties, and obligations contained herein, upon the City's prior approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Owner shall notify the City in writing of the assignment at least thirty (30) days prior to completion of the assignment. Owner's notice of assignment to the City shall include the name of, and contact information for the assignee. Upon completion of the assignment, the assignee shall assume and perform all duties and obligations set forth in the AHA and this AHIP, excepting only those duties and obligations expressly retained by Owner, if any, as part of the assignment. Le, Uptown Newport AHIP (Draft January 29, 2013) Page 9 497 4j 2 Attachment No. CC 25 Development Agreement 4jj 500 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 Attn: City Clerk (Space Above This Line Is for Recorder's This Agreement is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the City of Newport Beach and is exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code §§, 6103 and 27383. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and UPTOWN NEWPORT LP CONCERNING UPTOWN NEWPORT PROPERTY 2115,2013. Exec. ion Copy 1501 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Definitions ............................................................................................ .............................3' 2. General Provisions .............................................................................. ..............................7 2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation ............................. ..............................7 2.2 Binding Effect of Agreement .................................................. ..............................7 2.3 Landowner Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the Property and Related Matters Pertaining to this Agreement .. ..............................7 2.4 Term ........................................................................................ ..............................7 3. Public Benefits .................................................................................... ..............................8 3.1 Public Benefit Fee .................................................................... .............................8. 3.2 Other Public Benefits ............................................................... ..............................9 4. Development of Project ..................................................................... ....................::.......11 4.1 Applicable Regulations; Landowner's Vested Rights and City's Reservation of Discretion With Respect to Subsequent _Development Approvals........................... .................................................... .............................11 4.2 No Conflicting Enactments .................................................... .............................12 4.3 Reservations of Authority ..........................................::.......... .............................13 4.4 Tentative Subdivision Maps ..... .......................................................................... 15 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement ....................................... .............................15 6. Enforcement ....................................................................................... .............::...:..........15 7. Annual Review of Landowner's Compliance With Agreement ........ .............................16 7.1 General ...::.............................................................................. .............................16 7.2 Landowner Obligation to Demonstrate Good Faith Compliance .......................16 7.3 Procedure ............................................................................... .............................16 7.4 Annual Review a Non- Exclusive Means for Determining and Requiring Cure of Landowner's Default ................................................ .....................::......16 8. Events of Default ............................................................................... .............................16 8.1 General Provisions ................................................................. .............................16 8.2 Default by Landowner ........................................................... .............................17 8.3 City's Option to Terminate Agreement ................................. .............................17 8.4 Default by City ....................................................................... .............................17 8.5 Waiver .................................................................................... .............................18 8.6 Specific Performance Remedy ............................................. ............................... 18 8.7 Monetary Damages ................................... : ......................................................... 18 8.8 Additional City Remedy for Landowner's Default ............... .............................18 8.9 No Personal Liability of City Officials„ Employees, or Agents ........................ 18 8.10 Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action .......................19 9. ForceMajeure .................................................................................... .............................19 ?!141.013 �2 -.rL .502 PP 10. Indenmity Obligations of Landowner ................................................ .............................19 10.1 Indemnity Arising from Acts or Ommissions of Landowner .............................19 10.2 Third Party Litigation ............................................................ .............................20 10.3 Environmental Indemnity ......._.. ............................................ .............................20 11: Assignment .................................................. ............................... 12. Mortgagee Rights .......................................................... :.......................... 12.1 Encumbrances on Property ........................... ............................... 12.2 Mortgagee Protection .................................... ............................... 12.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated ............................. ............................... 12.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure..... PTO, 13. Miscellaneous Tenns ................................................. ............................... 13.1 Notices ........................................................... ............................... 13.2 Project as Private Undertaking ....................... ............................... 13.3 Cooperation .................................................... ............................... 13.4 Estoppel Certificates ...................................... ............................... 13.5 Rules of Construction .................................... ............................... 13.6 Time Is of the Essence ................................... ............................... 13.7 Waiver ............................................................ ............................... 13.8 Counterparts ................................................... ............................... 13.9 Entire Agreement ........................................... ............................... 13.10 Severability .................................................... ............................... 13.11 Construction ................................................... ............................... 13.12 Successors and Assigns; Constructive Notice and Acceptance.... 13.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries ......................... ............................... 13.14 Applicable Law and Venue ............................ ............................... 13.15 Section Headings ........................................... ............................... 13.16 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits .......... ............................... 13.17 Recordation ..................................................... ............................... 7,142013 Q -ii- ................... 23 ................... 23 ................... 23 ................... 24 ................... 24 ................... 24 ................... 24 ................... 24 ................... 24 ................... 25 ................... 25 ................... 25 ................... 25 ................... 26 .................... 26 ................... 26 .................... 26 ................... 26 .503 REVELOPNIENT AGREEMENT (Pursuant to California Government Code sections 65864 - 6869.5) This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is dated for reference purposes as of the _ day of, 2012 (the "Agreement Date "), and is being entered into by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("City'), and UPTOWN NEWPORT LP, a .Delaware. limited partnership ( "Landowner "). City and Landowner are sometimes collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party." RECITALS A. Landowner is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California commonly referred to as Uptown Newport, located at 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road (APN 9 445 - 131 -02, 445 - 131 -03), and generally located on the west side of Jamboree Road, between Birch Street and Fairchild Road (the "Property "). The Property is more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A and is depicted on the site map attached hereto as Exhibit B. B. In order to encourage investment in, and commitment to, comprehensive planning and public facilities financing, strengthen the public planning process and encourage private implementation of the local general plan, provide, certainty in the approval of projects in order to avoid waste of time and resources, and reduce the economic costs of development by providing assurance to property owners that they may proceed with projects consistent with existing land use policies, rules, and regulations, the California Legislature adopted California Government Code sections 65864 - 65869.5 (the "Development Agreement Statute ") authorizing cities and counties to enter into development agreements with persons or entities having a legal or equitable interest in real property located within their j urisdiction. C. On March 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance. No. 2007 -6, entitled "Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.45 of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Regarding Development Agreements (the "Development Agreement Ordinance"). This Agreement is consistent with the Development Agreement Ordinance. D. As detailed in Section 4 of this Agreement and the Development Plans (as defined herein), Landowner has agreed to provide the following significant public benefits as consideration for this Agreement: • Payment of a public benefit fee in the sum of thirty -two thousand five hundred dollars ($32,500.00) per residential dwelling unit developed as part of the Project (as defined herein), including an armual adjustment to the public benefit fee based on the Consumer Price Index ( "CPI "). • 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. • Perpetual private maintenance of over two (2) acres of on-site public parks. 2,144013 0 - I -- Jr- 0 4 • 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. • Remediation of soil and groundwater contamination on the Property that has existed on -site since the mid- 1980's. • Reduction:in greenhouse gases generated within the Airport Area. • Reduction in electric, gas, water and sewer utility usage through the redevelopment of an existing industrial manufacturing site into a residential mixed use project. • Reduction of urban runoff volumes and implementation of stormwater runoff water quality facilities that will improve the quality of stormwater runoff entering the Newport Back Bay. • Construction of affordable housing units within the Project that will provide affordable housing opportunities to Newport Beach residents. E. This ,Agreement is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan, including without limitation the General. Plan's designation of the Property as "Mixed -Use Horizontal -2," Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, and the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan that is being adopted and approved by the City Council concurrently with its approval of this Agreement in order to establish appropriate zoning to regulate land use and development of the Property consistent with the General Plan. F. In recognition of the significant public benefits that this Agreement provides, the City Council has found that this Agreement: (i) is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan as of the date of this Agreement; (ii) is in the best interests of the health, safety, and general welfare of City; its residents; and the public; (iii) is entered into pursuant to, and constitutes a present exercise of, City's police power; (iv) is consistent and has been approved consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119) and the final. Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2012 -001) (SCH #2010051094) ( "EIR ") that has been certified or is being certified for approval by the City Council on or before the Agreement Date, both of which analyze the environmental effects of the proposed development of the Project on the Property, and all of the findings, conditions of approval and mitigation measures related thereto; and (v) is consistent and has been approved consistent with provisions of California Government Code section 65867 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code chapter 15.45. G. On February 7 2013, City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Agreement, made findings and determinations with respect to this Agreement, and recommended to the City Council that the City Council approve this Agreement. H. On February 26, 2013, the City Council also held a public hearing on this Agreement and considered the Planning Commission's recommendations and the testimony and infonnation submitted by City staff, Landowner, and' members of the public. On , 2013, consistent with applicable provisions of the Development Agreement i1412013 0 2 SOS Statute and Development Agreement Ordinance, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. (the "Adopting Ordinance "), finding this Agreement to be consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and approving this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, City and Landowner agree as follows: 1. Definitions. In addition to any terns defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms when used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth below: "Action" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.10 of this Agreement. "Adopting Ordinance" shall mean City Council Ordinance No. _ ,approving and adopting this Agreement. " Aw-eement" shall mean this Development Agreement, as the same may be amended from time to time. "Agreement Date" shall mean the date first written above, which date is the date the City Council adopted the Adopting Ordinance. " .EOA" shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177) and the implementing regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary for Resources (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.)., as the same may be amended from time to time. "City" shall mean the City of Newport Beach, a California charter city, and any successor or assignee of the rights and obligations of the City of Newport Beach hereunder. "City Council" shall mean the governing body of City. "City's Affiliated Parties" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 10.1 of this Agreement. "Claim" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 10.1 of ttus Agreement. "CPI index" shall mean the Consumer Price Index published from time to time by the United States Department of Labor for all urban consumers (all items) for the smallest geographic area that includes the City or, if such index is discontinued, such other similar index as may be publicly available that is selected by City in its reasonable discretion. "Cure Period" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section S. l of this Agreement. "Default" shall have the meaning ascribed to that tern in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. "Develop" or "Development" shall mean to improve or the improvement of the Property for the purpose of completing the structures, improvements, and facilities comprising the Project; ?1142013 6 including but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project, whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of all of the private improvements and facilities comprising the Project; the preservation or restoration, as required of natural and man -made or altered open space areas; and the installation of landscaping. The tenns "Develop" and "Development," as used herein, do not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction, replacement„ or redevelopment of any structure, improvement, or facility after the initial construction and completion thereof. "Development Agreement Ordinance" shall mean Chapter 15.45 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. "Development Agreement Statute" shall mean California Government Code sections 65864- 65869.5, inclusive. "Development Exactions" shall mean any requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any ordinance, resolution, rule, or official policy for the dedication of land, the construction or installation of any public improvement or facility, or the payment of any fee or charge in order to lessen, offset, mitigate, or compensate for the impacts of Development of the Project on the environment or other public interests. "Development Plan" shall mean all of the land use entitlements, approvals and permits approved by the City for the Project on or before the Agreement Date, as the same may be amended from time to time consistent With this Agreement. Such land use entitlements, approvals and permits include, without limitation, the following: (1) the Development rights as provided under this Agreement; (2) Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001 which consists of Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures (dated ), Design Guidelines (dated ), and Phasing Plan (dated );, (3) Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003; (4) Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002; (5) Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001; (6) Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005; (7) Site Plan 9 -19- 2012); (11) Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094); and (12) all conditions of approval and all mitigation measures approved for the Project on or before the Agreement Date. ".Development Regulations" shall mean the following regulations as they are in effect as of the Effective Date and to the extent they govern or regulate the development of the Property, but excluding any amendment or modification to the Development Regulations adopted, approved, or imposed after the Effective Date that impairs or restricts Landowner's rights set forth in this Agreement, unless such amendment or modification is expressly authorized by this Agreement or is agreed to by Landowner in writing: the General Plan; the Development Plan; and, to the extent not expressly superseded by the Development Plan or this Agreement, all other land use and subdivision regulations governing the permitted uses, density and intensity of use, design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications, procedures for obtaining required City permits and approvals for development, and similar matters that may apply to Development of the Project on the Property during the Term of this Agreement that are set forth in Title 15 of the Municipal Code (buildings and construction); Title 19 of the Municipal Code (subdivisions and inclursionary housing), and Title 20 of the Municipal Code (planning, zoning and density bonus), but specifically excluding all other sections of the Municipal Code, including 2,14,2013 v3 4 �� without limitation Title 5 of the Municipal Code (business licenses and regulations). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term "Development Regulations," as used herein, does not include any City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy governing any of the following: (i) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (ii) taxes and assessments; (iii) the control and abatement of nuisances, (iv) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; or (v) the exercise of the power of eminent domain. "Effective. Date" shall mean the latest of the following dates, as applicable: (i) the date that is thirty (30) days after the Agreement Date; (ii) if a referendum concerning the Adopting Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date is timely qualified for the ballot and a referendum election is held concerning the Adopting Ordinance or any of such Development Regulations, the date on which the referendum is certified resulting in upholding and approving the Adopting Ordinance and such Development Regulations and becomes effective, if applicable; (iii) if a lawsuit is timely filed challenging the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and /or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date, the date on which said challenge is finally resolved in favor of the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and /or the applicable Development Regulations, whether such finality is achieved by a final non- appealable judgment, voluntary or involuntary dismissal (and the passage of any time required to appeal an involuntary dismissal), or binding written settlement agreement. Promptly after the Effective Date occurs, the Parties agree to cooperate in causing an appropriate instrument to be executed and recorded against the Property memorializing the Effective Date. "Environmental Laws" means all federal, state, regional, county, municipal, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rites, and regulations which are in effect as of the Agreement Date, and all federal, state, regional, county, municipal, and local laws, statutes, riles, ordinances, rules, and regulations which may hereafter be enacted and which apply to the Property or any part thereof, pertaining to the use, generation, storage, disposal, release, treatment, or removal of any Hazardous Substances, including without limitation the following: the 'Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601, et seg., as amended ( "CERCLA' ); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901, et sec ., as amended ( "RC RA'); the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. Sections 11001 et seq., as amended; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1801, et seq., as amended; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et seq., as amended; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq., as amended; the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601 et seq., as amended; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Sections 136 et seq., as amended; the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 300f et seq., as amended; the Federal Radon and Indoor Air Quality Research Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et seq.; as amended; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 651 et seq., as amended; and California Health and Safety Code Section 25100, et seq. "General Plan" shall mean City's 2006 General Plan adopted by the City Council on July 25; 2006, by Resolution No. 2006 -76, excluding any amendment after the Effective Date that impairs or restricts Landowner's rights set forth in this Agreement, unless such amendment is expressly authorized by this Agreement, is authorized by Sections 8 or 9, or is specifically 271-.2011 v3 5 50 ZS agreed to by Landowner. The Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element of the General Plan was- approved by City voters in a general election on November 7, 2006. "Hazardous Substances" means any toxic substance or waste, pollutant, hazardous substance or waste, contaminant, special waste, industrial substance or waste, petroleum or petroleum - derived substance or waste, or any toxic or hazardous constituent or additive to or breakdown component from any such substance or waste; including without limitation any substance; waste, or material regulated under or defined as "hazardous" or "toxic " under any Environmental Law.. "Landowner shall mean Uptown.Newport LP, a Delaware limited partnership, and any successor or assignee to all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of Uptown Newport LP in and to ownership of all or a portion of the Property. "Mortgage" shall mean a mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, or any other form of conveyance in which the Property, or a part or interest in the Property, is pledged as security and contracted for in good faith and for fair value. "Mortgagee" shalt mean the holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage or any successor or assignee of the Mortgagee. "Notice of Default" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. "Party" or "Parties" shall mean either City or Landowner or both, as determined by the context. " Project" shall mean all on -site and off -site improvements that Landowner is authorized and /or required to construct with respect to each parcel of the Property, as provided in this Agreement and the Development Regulations; as the same may be modified or amended from time to time consistent with this Agreement and applicable law. "Pro ert is described in Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit 13. "Public Benefit Fee" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 3.1 of this Agreement. "Subsequent Development Approvals" shall mean all discretionary development and building approvals that Landowner is required to obtain to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property after the Agreement Date consistent with the Development Regulations and this Agreement, with the understanding that except as expressly set forth herein City shall not have the right subsequent to the Effective Date and during the Term of this Agreement to adopt or impose requirements for any such Subsequent Development Approvals that do not exist as of the Agreement Date. "Tenn" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. "Termination Date" and "Lot Tenination Date" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. "Transfer" shall Have the meaning ascribed in Section 1 I of this Agreement. 2/14 :2013 Q 6 1501 2. General Provisions. 2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation. This Agreement and the Development Regulations applicable to the Property will cause City's zoning and other land use regulations for the Property to be consistent with the General Plan. 2.2 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized. and shall be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 2.3 Landowner Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the Propert y and Related Matters Pertaining to this Agreement. Landowner and each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Landowner hereby represents and warrants to City as follows: (i) that Landowner is the owner of the fee simple title to the Property; (ii) if Landowner or any co -owner comprising Landowner is a legal entity that such entity is duly formed and existing and is authorized to do business in the State of California; (iii) if Landowner or any co -owner comprising Landowner is a natural person that such natural person has the legal right and capacity to execute this Agreement; (iv) that all actions required to be taken by all persons and entities comprising Landowner to enter into this Agreement have been taken and that Landowner has the legal authority to enter into this Agreement; (v) that Landowner's entering into and performing its obligations set forth in this Agreement wilt not result in a violation of any obligation, contractual or otherwise; that Landowner or any person or entity comprising Landowner has to any third party; (vi) that neither Landowner nor any co- owner comprising Landowner is the subject of any voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or insolvency petition; and (vii) that Landowner has no actual knowledge of any pending or threatened claims of any person or entity affecting the validity of any of the representations and warranties set forth in clauses (i) -(vi), inclusive, or affecting Landowner's authority or ability to enter into or perform any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 2.4 Tenn. The tens of this Agreement (the "Tenn ") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate on the "Termination Date." Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, if either Party reasonably determines that the Effective Date of this Agreement will not occur because (i) the Adopting Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date for the Project has /have been disapproved by City's voters at .a referendum election or (ii) a final non- appealable judgment is entered in a judicial action challenging the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and /or any of the Development Regulations for the Project approved on or before the Agreement Date such that this Agreement and/or any of such Development Regulations is /are invalid and unenforceable in whole or in such a substantial part that the judgment substantially impairs such Party's rights or substantially increases its obligations or risks hereunder or thereunder, then such Party, in its sole and absolute discretion, shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon delivery of a written notice of 2!14,2013 0 7 510 termination to the other Party, in which event neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations. hereunder except that Landowner's indemnity obligations set forth in Article 10 shall remain in full force and effect and shall be enforceable, and the Development Regulations applicable to the Project and the Property only (but not those general Development Regulations applicable to other properties in the City) shall similarly be null and void at such time. The Tenmination Date shall be the earliest of the following dates: (i) the fifteenth (15th) anniversary of the Effective Date, as said date may be extended in accordance with Section 5.1 of this Agreement; (ii) such earlier date that this Agreement may be terminated in accordance with Articles 5, 7, and /or Section 8.3 of this Agreement and /or Sections 65865.1 and /or 65868 of the Development Agreement Statute; (iii) as to any separate legal lot within the Property (but not as to the balance of the Property or the portion thereof that remains subject to this Agreement at such time), upon the "Lot Termination Date" (defined below); or (iv) completion of the Project in accordance with the tens of this Agreement, including Owner's complete satisfaction, performance, and payment, as applicable, of all Development Exactions, the issuance of all required final occupancy permits, and acceptance by City or applicable public agency(ies) or private entity(ies) of all required offers of dedication. As used herein, the term "Lot Termination Date" for any separate legal lot within the Property means the date on which all of the following conditions have been satisfied with respect to said lot: (i) the lot has been finally subdivided and sold or leased (for a period longer than one year), individually or in a "bulk" of four or fewer lots, to a member of the public or other ultimate user; (ii) a final Certificate of Occupancy or "Release of Utilities" has been issued for the building, or buildings approved for construction on said lot; (iii) the duties under this Agreement and the Development Plan have been fully satisfied with respect to said lot; (iv) the Master Site Improvements as described in and required by the Development Plan, and approved as part of the Master Site Development Plan review, have been completed for said lot. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the provisions set forth in Article 10 and Section 1110 (as well as any other Landowner obligations set forth in this Agreement that are expressly written to survive the Termination Date) shall survive the Termination Date of this Agreement. 3. Public Benefits 3.1 Public Benefit Fee. As consideration for City's approval and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement, Landowner shall pay to City a fee that shall be in addition to any other fee or charge to which the Property and the Project would otherwise be subject (herein, the "Public. Benefit Fee ") in the sum of Thirty -Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars (832,500:00) per residential dwelling unit Developed as part of the Project, with the unpaid balance of said Public Benefit Fee increased beginning on January 1, 2015, by the percentage increase in the CPI Index between the Effective Date and said January I" date (the first "Adjustment Date') and thereafter with the unpaid balance of said Public Benefit Fee increased on each subsequent January 1 during the Term of this Agreement (each, an "Adjustment Date') by the percentage increase in the CPI Index in the year prior to the applicable Adjustment Date. The amount of the percentage increase in the CPI Index on the applicable Adjustment Dates shall in each instance be calculated 211W2013 v3 8 Jr11 based on the then. most recently available CPI Index figures such that, for example, if the Effective Date of this Agreement falls on July I and the most recently available CPI Index figure on the first Adjustment Date (January l of the following year) is the CPI Index for November of the preceding year, the percentage increase in the CPI Index for that partial year (a 6 -month period) shall be calculated by comparing the CPI Index forNovember ofthe preceding year with the CPI Index for May of the preceding, year (a 6 -month period). In no event, however, shall application of the CPI Index reduce the amount of the Public Benefit Fee (or unpaid portion thereof) below the amount in effect prior to any applicable Adjustment Date. Landowner shall pay the Public Benefit Fee on .a per unit basis at the time each residential building permit is issued. Notwithstanding, any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, during the Tenn of this Agreement City shall not increase the Public Benefit Fee except pursuant to the CPI Index as stated in this Section 3.1. Landowner acknowledges by its approval and execution of this Agreement that it is voluntarily agreeing to pay the Public Benefit Fee, that its obligation to pay the Public Benefit Fee is an essential term of this Agreement and is not severable from City's obligations and Landowner's vesting rights to be acquired hereunder, and that Landowner expressly waives any constitutional, statutory, or common law right it might have in the absence of this Agreement to protest or challenge the payment of such fee on any ground whatsoever, including without limitation pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, California Constitution Article I Section 19, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), or otherwise. In addition to any other remedy set forth in this Agreement for Landowner's default, if Landowner shall fail to timely pay any portion of the Public Benefit Fee when due City shall have the right to withhold issuance of any further building permits, occupancy permits, or other development or building permits for the Project. 3.2 Other Public Benefits. In addition to the Public Benefit Fee, the direct and indirect benefits City expects to receive pursuant to this Development Agreement are as follows: 3.2.1 Park Land Dedication and Improvements. Based upon the number of residential dwelling units approved in the Development Plan, City calculated that Landowner's park land dedication for the Project pursuant to the City General Plan, Government Code Section 66477 ( "Quimby Act ") and Municipal Code Chapter 19.52 is 13.62 acres. City acknowledges that Landowner's performance of its obligations as set forth in this section satisfies all of Landowner's General Plan, Quimby Act and Municipal Code Chapter 19.52 obligations governing park land dedication and fees. City acknowledges that Landowner shall be eligible to receive credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land consistent with the General Plan, Quimby Act and Municipal Code Chapter 19.52. As of the Effective Date, the established fair market value per acre figure used in assessing in -lieu ofpark dedication fees equals Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000). Landowner fees and credit shall be based on the established Two Million Five .Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) per acre. Landowner shall undertake the following: i. On -Site Parks. Landowner shall construct and improve two (2), one (1) acre parks within the Property pursuant to the Development Plan. Landowner shall offer the two (2) on -site parks to the City for dedication in fee simple, and City shall accept Landowner's offer for dedication provided that the parks have been completed in accordance 2/,1912013 Q 9 5-1 2 with the requirements of the Development Plan. The parks may be offered for dedication and accepted by the City either together as one action or separately at different times. The two (2) parks shall be privately maintained (by Landowner or the Master Association as defined in the Development Plan) in perpetuity and in accordance with the Development Plan as set forth in a separate written maintenance and license agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such agreement shall grant Landowner and /or the private Master Association access to the parks and the park facilities, including drainage and stormwater runoff facilities, for operation and maintenance: The maintenance and license agreement shall also provide for Landowner or Master Association's responsibility for maintaining stormwater and water quality improvements in perpetuity and in accordance with the Development Plan. Landowner shall be eligible to receive credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land for park construction and dedication. The dollar amount of the credit shall be based on land value and final park construction and improvement costs, (excluding land value), which shall be review and approved by the Community Development Director and shall include, but not be limited to„ the cost to design, engineer, construct, install; supervise and inspect the park and improvements, including any pen-nit and inspection fees to be paid to City with respect thereto and the cost of obtaining and maintaining in effect security instruments for the work. The credit shall be determined by the Community Development Director at the time the City accepts the offer of dedication. ii. Public Recreational Open Space Areas. Landowner shall construct and improve public recreational open space areas pursuant to the Development Plan. Public recreational open space areas shall be open to the public but privately owned and maintained by Landowner or a private master association in perpetuity and in accordance with the Development Plan. Pursuant to General Plan land use policy 6,15.16, Landowner may be eligible to receive up to thirty percent (30 %) credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land for such open space recreational areas. The dollar amount of the credit shall be based on land value established by multiplying, the eligible acreage by Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500;000). The percentage credit and the eligible acreage shall be determined by the Community Development Director at the tune final improvement plans are approved. The acreage of open space that is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way and of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public may be eligible for credit. Public open space recreational area construction costs shall not be considered for credit. iii. Private Recreational Amenities. Landowner shall construct and improve private recreational' amenities and open space pursuant to the Development Plan. Private recreational amenities shall be privately owned and maintained in perpetuity by Landowner or a private master association. For private recreational amenities, Landowner may be eligible to receive up to twenty percent (20%) credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land. The dollar amount of the credit shall be based on. land value established by multiplying the eligible acreage by Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2;500;000). The percentage credit and the eligible acreage shall be determined by the Community Development Director at the time building plans are submitted. Credited private recreational facilities include active recreation facilities such as playfields, turfed play areas, tot lots, recreation buildings, swimming pools and playing courts, and similar facilities. Privately maintained bicycle or hiking trails that connect to trails outside the Property and which are open to the public shall be eligible. Passive open space, such as setback areas and passive greenbelts shall not be eligible. z14/2013 0 10 151S iv. In -lieu of parkland dedication fees shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Payment shall be made for all units included on any final map(s) at the time that the first building permit is issued for any single unit included on a final map(s). The fee amount shall be based on the pro -rated gross acreage of the final map minus any parkland dedication and applicable credits for recreational improvements approved by the City pursuant to the General. Plan and the Subdivision Code within the area encompassed by the final map. For example; if a final map encompasses 10 acres of the 25.05 acre planned community (or 39.92 % of the total acreage), the fee required prior to final map recordation would be 39.92% of the 13.62 acre parkland dedication requirement minus any parkland dedication and' any approved credits for recreational improvements. 3.2.2 AHIP. The Parties have agreed to an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012- 001(the "AHIP ") to identify the manner in which Project is to satisfy the City's affordable housing requirements, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.53 (Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus). Landowner agrees to implement the AHIP. 3.2.3 Undererounding of Electrical Lines City and Landowner may cooperate in good faith with each other in connection with the formation of an assessment district, if any, and construction of underground utility lines. 4. Development of Project. 4.1 Applicable Regulations; Landowner's Vested Rights and City's Reservation of Discretion With Respect to Subsequent Development Approvals. Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the Tenn of this Agreement, (i) Landowner shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property in accordance with the terms of the Development Regulations and this Agreement and (ii) City shall not prohibit or prevent development of the Property on grounds inconsistent with the Development Regulations or this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein is intended to limit or restrict City's discretion with respect to (i) review and approval requirements contained in the Development Regulations, (ii) exercise of any discretionary authority City retains under the Development Regulations, (iii) the approval, conditional approval,, or denial of any Subsequent Development Approvals that are required for Development of the Project as of the Effective Date, or (iv) any environmental approvals that may be required under CEQA or any other federal or state law or regulation in conjunction with any Subsequent Development Approvals that may be required for the Project, and in this regard, as to future actions referred to in clauses (i) -(iv) of this sentence, City reserves its full discretion to the same extent City would have such discretion in the absence of this Agreement. In addition, it is understood and agreed that nothing in this Agreement is intended to vest Landowner's rights with respect to any laws, regulations, rules; or official policies of any other governmental agency or public utility company with jurisdiction over the Property or the Project; or any applicable federal or state laws, regulations, rules, or official policies that may be inconsistent with this Agreement and that override or supersede the provisions set forth in this Agreement, and regardless of whether such overriding or superseding laws, regulations, riles, or official policies are adopted or applied to the Property or the Project prior or subsequent to the Agreement Date. 2�14¢013 0 11 514 Landowner has expended and will continue to expend substantial amounts of time and money planning and preparing for Development of the Project. Landowner represents and City acknowledges that Landowner would not make these expenditures without this Agreement, and that Landowner is and will be making these expenditures in reasonable reliance upon its vested rights to Develop the Project as set forth in this Agreement. Landowner may apply to City for pen-nits, or approvals necessary to modify or amend the Development specified in the Development Regulations, provided that the request does not propose an increase in the maximum density, intensity, height, or size of proposed structures, or a change in use that generates more peak hour traffic or more daily traffic and, in addition, Landowner may apply to City for approval of minor amendments to existing tentative tract maps, tentative parcel maps, or associated conditions of approval, consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 19.12.090. This Agreement does not constitute a promise or commitment by City to approve any such permit or approval, or to approve the same with or without any particular requirements or conditions, and City's discretion with respect to such matters shall be the same as it would be in the absence of this Agreement. 4.2 No Conflictine.Enactments. Except to the extent City reserves its discretion as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the Tenn of this Agreement City shall not apply to the Project or the Property any ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or other measure relating to Development of the Project that is enacted or becomes effective after the Effective Date to the extent it conflicts with this Agreement. This Section 4.2 shall not restrict City's ability to enact an ordinance, policy, rule; regulation, or other measure applicable to the Project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866 consistent with the procedures specified in Section 4.3 of this Agreement. In Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, the California Supreme Court held that a construction company was not exempt from a city's growth control ordinance even though the city and construction company had entered into a consent judgment (tantamount to a contract under California law) establishing the company's vested rights to develop its property consistent with the zoning. The California Supreme Court reached this result because the consent judgment failed to address the timing of development. The Parties intend to avoid the result of the Pardee case by acknowledging and providing in this Agreement that Landowner shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property at the rate, timing, and sequencing that Landowner deems appropriate within the exercise of Landowner's sole subjective business judgment, provided that such Development occurs in accordance with this Agreement and the Development Regulations, notwithstanding adoption by City's electorate of an initiative to the contrary after the Effective Date. No City moratorium or other similar limitation relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the Development of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or another method, affecting subdivision maps, building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlement to use, shall apply to the Project to the extent such moratorium or other similar limitation restricts Landowner's vested rights in this Agreement or otherwise conflicts with the express provisions of this Agreement. 2'14¢013 0 12 515 4.3 Reservations of Authority. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the laws, rules, regulations, and official policies set forth in this Section 4.3 shall apply to and govern the Development of the Project on and with respect to the Property. 4.1:1 Procedural Regulations. Procedural regulations relating to heating bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of procedure shall apply to the Property, provided that such procedural regulations are adopted and applied City -wide or to all other properties similarly situated in City. 4.3.2 Processing and Permit Fees. City shall have the right to charge and Landowner shall be required to pay all applicable processing and pen-nit fees to cover the reasonable cost to City of processing and reviewing applications and plans for any required Subsequent Development Approvals, building permits, excavation and grading permits, encroachrnent pen-nits, and the like, for performing necessary studies and reports in connection therewith, inspecting the work constntcted or installed by or on behalf of Owner, and monitoring compliance with any requirements applicable to Development of the Project, all at the rates in effect at the time fees are due. 4.3.3 Consistent Future City Regulations. City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and official policies governing Development which do not conflict with the Development Regulations, or with respect to such regulations that do conflict, where Landowner has consented in writing to the regulations, shall apply to the Property. 4.3.4 Development Exactions Applicable to Property. During the Tern of tlus Agreement, 'Landowner shall be required to satisfy and pay all Development Exactions at the time performance or payment is due to the same extent and in the same amount(s) that would apply to Landowner and the Project in the absence of this Agreement; provided, however, that to the extent the scope and extent of a particular Development Exaction for the Project has been established and fixed by City in this Agreement or the conditions of approval for any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date City shall not alter; increase, or modify said Development Exaction in a manner that is inconsistent with such Development Regulations without Landowner's prior written consent or as may be otherwise required pursuant to overriding federal or state laws or regulations (Section 43.5 hereinbelow). In addition, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be deemed to vest Landowner against the obligation to pay any of the following (which are not included within the definition of "Development Exactions ") in the full amount that would apply in the absence of this Agreement: (i) City's nonnal fees for processing, enviromnental assessment and review; tentative tract and parcel map review, plan checking, site review and approval, administrative review, building permit, grading permit, inspection, and similar fees imposed to recover City's costs associated with processing, reviewing, and inspecting project applications, plans, and specifications; (ii) fees and charges levied by any other public agency, utility, district, or joint powers authority, regardless of whether City collects those fees and charges; or (iii) community facility district special taxes or special district assessments or similar assessments, business license fees, bonds or other security required for public improvements, transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sewer lateral connection fees, water service cormection fees, new water meter fees; and the Property Development Tax payable under Section 3.12 of City's Municipal Code. 4.3.5 Overriding _Federal and State Laws and Regulations. Federal and state laws and regulations' that override Landowner's vested rights set forth in this Agreement shall apply to the Property, together with any City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and official policies that are necessary to enable City to comply with the provisions of any such overriding federal or state laws and regulations, provided that (i) Landowner does not waive its right to challenge or contest the validity of any such purportedly overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation; and (ii) upon the discovery of any such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation that prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of this Agreement, City or Landowner shall provide to the otherParty a written notice identifying the federal, state, or City law or regulation, together with a copy of the law or regulation and a brief written statement of the conflict(s) between that law or regulation and the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter City and Landowner shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation. In such negotiations, City and Landowner agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of Landowner as derived from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. City agrees to cooperate with Landowner at no cost to City in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any financial impact of the conflict upon Landowner. City also agrees to process in a prompt.. manner Landowner's proposed changes to the Project and any of the Development Regulations as may be necessary to comply with such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation; provided, however, that the approval of such changes by City shall be subject to the discretion of City, consistent with this Agreement. 4.3.6 Public Health and Safety. Any City ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, program, or official policy that is necessary to protect persons on the Property or in the iirunediate vicinity from conditions dangerous to their health or safety, as reasonably detennined by City, shall apply to the Property, even though the application of the ordinance, resolution, rule regulation, program, or official policy would result in the impairment of Landowner's vested rights under this Agreement. 4.3.7 Uniform Building Standards. Existing and future building and building - related Standards set forth in the uniform codes adopted and amended by City from time to time; including building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, housing, swimming pool, and fire codes, and any modifications and amendments thereof shall all apply to the Project and the Property to the same extent that the same would apply in the absence of this Agreement. 4.3.3 Public Works Improvements. To the extent Landowner constructs or installs any public improvements, works, or facilities, the City standards in effect for such public improvements, works, or facilities at the time of City's issuance of a permit, license, or other authorization for construction or installation of same shall apply. 4.3.9 No Guarantee or Reservation of Utility Capacity. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be interpreted to require City to guarantee or reserve to or for the benefit of Landowner or the Property any utility capacity, service, or facilities that may be needed to serve the Project, whether domestic or reclaimed water service, sanitary sewer transmission or wastewater treatment capacity, downstream drainage capacity, or otherwise, and City shall have the right to limit or restrict Development of the Project if and to the extent that City reasonably determines that inadequate utility capacity exists to adequately serve the Project at the time Development is scheduled to commence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City covenants to provide utility services to the Project on a non- discriminatory basis (i.e., on the same terns and conditions that City undertakes to provide such services to other similarly situated new developments in the City of Newport Beach as and when service connections are provided and service. commences). 4.4 Tentative Subdivision Maus City agrees that Landowner may file and process new and existing vesting tentative maps for the Property consistent with California Govermnent Code sections 66493.1- 66493.9 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code chapter 19.20. Pursuant to the applicable provision of the California Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code section 66452.6(a)), the life of any tentative subdivision map approved for the Property, whether designated a "vesting tentative map" or otherwise, shall be extended for the Tenn of this Agreement. 4.5 Light Industrial Land Uses Light industrial land uses will cease on the Property as of March 1,2, 2027. 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement Other than modifications of this Agreement under Section 3.3 of this Agreement, this Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual written and executed consent of the.Parties in compliance with California Government Code section 65363 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.060 or by unilateral tennination by City in the event of an uncured default of Landowner. 5.1 Extension. Landowner may request up to, and upon receipt of a written request from Landowner, City shall grant two (2) five (5) year extensions that extend the Term of this Agreement for a total of ten (10) additional years provided that Landowner has submitted its written request to extend this Development Agreement and the following has occurred: (1) For the first five (5) year extension; building permits for the two hundred fiftieth (250th) units have been issued; and (2) For the second five (5) year extension, receipt of building permits for five hundredth (500th) units have been issued. 6. Enforcement. Unless this Agreement is amended, canceled, modified, or suspended as authorized herein or pursuant to California Government Code section 65369.5, this Agreement shall be enforceable by either Party despite any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulation or other applicable ordinance or regulation adopted by City (including by City's electorate) that purports to apply to any or all of the Property. 2111;1013 0 15 1522 Annual Review of Landowner's Compliance With Agreement. 7.1 General. City shall review this Agreement once during every twelve (12) month period following the Effective Date for compliance with the terns of this Agreement as provided in Govermnent Code section 65865.1_, Landowner (including any successor to the owner executing this Agreement on or before the Agreement Date) shall pay City a reasonable fee in an amount City may reasonably establish from time to time to cover the actual and necessary costs for the annual review. City's failure to timely pr'ovid'e or conduct an amoral review shall not constitute a Default hereunder by City. 7.2 Landowner Obligation to Demonstrate Good. Faith Compliance. During each annual review by City, Landowner is required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Landowner agrees to filmish such evidence of good faith compliance as City, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, may require, thirty (30) days prior to each anniversary of the Effective Date during the Tenn. 7.3 Procedure. The City Council of City shall conduct a duly noticed hearing and shall detennine, on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not Landowner has, for the period under review, complied with the terms of this Agreement. If the City Council finds that Landowner has so complied, the annual review shall be concluded. If the City Council finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Landowner has not so complied, written notice shall be sent to Landowner by first class mail of the City Council's finding of non- compliance, and Landowner shall be given at least ten (10) days to cure any noncompliance that relates to the payment of money and thirty (30) days to cure any other type of noncompliance. If cure not relating to the payment of money cannot be completed within thirty (30) days for reasons which are beyond the control of Landowner, Landowner must commence the cure within such thirty (30) days and diligently pursue such cure to completion. If Landowner fails to cure such noncompliance within the time(s) set forth above; such failure shall be considered to be a Default and City shall be entitled to exercise the remedies set forth in Article 3 below. 7.4 Annual Review a Non - Exclusive Means for Determining and Requiring Cure of Landowner's Default. The annual review procedures set forth in this Article 7 shall not be the exclusive means for City to identify a Default by Landowner or limit City's rights or remedies for any such Default. 8. Events of Default. 8.1 General Provisions. In the event of any material default, breach; or violation of the terms of this Ag-eement ( "Default "), the Party alleging a Default shall have the right to deliver a written notice (each, a "Notice of Default ") to the defaulting Party. The Notice of Default shall specify the nature of the 1142013 3 16 2::71 2� alleged Default and a reasonable manner and sufficient period of time (twenty (20) days if the Default relates to the failure to timely make a monetary payment due hereunder and not less than thirty (30) days in the event of non - monetary Defaults) in which the Default must be cured (the "Cure Period"). During the Cure Period, the Party charged shall not be considered in Default for the purposes of termination of this Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. if the alleged Default is cured within the Cure Period, then the Default thereafter shall be deemed not to exist. if a non- monetary Default cannot be cured during the Cure Period with the exercise of commercially reasonable diligence, the defaulting Party must promptly commence to cure as quickly as possible, and in no event later than thirty (30) days after it receives the Notice of Default, and thereafter diligently pursue said cure to completion. 8.2 Default by Landowner. If Landowner is alleged to have committed Default and it disputes the claimed Default, it may make a written request for an appeal hearing before the City Council within ten (10) days of receiving the Notice of Default, and a public hearing shall be•scheduled at the next available City Council meeting to consider Land'owner's appeal of the Notice of Default. Failure to appeal a Notice of Default to the City Council within the ten (10) day period shall waive any right to a hearing on the claimed Default. If Landowner's appeal of the Notice of Default is timely and in good faith but after a public hearing of Landowner's appeal the City Council concludes that Landowner is in Default as alleged in the Notice of Default, the accrual date for commencement of the thirty (30) day Cure Period provided in Section 8.1 shall be extended until the City Council's denial of Landowner's appeal is communicated to Landowner. 8.3 City's Option to Terminate A2Teement. In the event of an °alleged Landowner Default, City may not terminate this Agreement without first delivering a written Notice of Default and providing Landowner with the opportunity to cure the Default within the Cure Period, as provided in Section 8.1, and complying with Section 8.2 if Landowner timely appeals any Notice of Default with respect to a noil- monetary Default. A termination of this Agreement by City shall be valid only if good cause exists and is supported by evidence presented to the City Council at or in connection with a duly noticed public hearing to establish the existence of a Default. The validity of any termination may be judicially challenged by Landowner. Any such judicial challenge must be brought within ninety (90) calendar days of service on Landowner, by first class mail, postage prepaid, of written notice of termination'by City or a written notice of City's determination of an appeal of the Notice of Default as provided in Section 8.2. 8.4 Default by City. If Landowner alleges a City Default and alleges that the City has not cured the Default within the Cure Period, Landowner may pursue any equitable remedy available to it under this Agreement, including, without limitation, an action for a writ of mandamus, injunctive relief, or specific performance of City's obligations set forth, in this Agreement. Upon a City Default, any resulting delays in Landowner's performance hereunder shall neither be a Landowner Default nor constitute grounds for tenmination or cancellation of this Agreement by City and shall, at Landowner's option (and provided Landowner delivers written notice to City within thirty ('30) v14n013 Q 17 1520 days of the commencement of the alleged City Default), extend the Tenn for a period equal to the length of the delay. 8.5 Waiver. Failure or delay by either Party in delivering a Notice of Default shall not waive that Party's right to deliver a future Notice of Default of the same or any other Default. 8.6 'Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its pre - existing condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, both Landowner and City may be foreclosed from other choices they may have had to plan for the development of the Property, to utilize the Property or provide for other benefits and alternatives. Landowner and City have invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the temis of this Agreement. It is not possible to detennine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Landowner or City for such efforts. For the above reasons, City and Landowner agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if either City or Landowner fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. Therefore, specific performance of this Agreement is necessary to compensate Landowner if City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement or to compensate City if Landowner falls to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. 8.7 Monetary Damages. The Parties agree that monetary damages shall not be an available remedy for either Party for a Default hereunder by the other Party; provided, however, that (i) nothing in this Section 8.7 is intended or shall be interpreted to limit or restrict City's right to recover the Public Benefit Fees due from Landowner as set forth herein; and (ii) nothing in this Section 8.7 is intended or shall be interpreted to limit or restrict Owner's indemnity obligations set forth in Article 10 or the right of the prevailing Party in any Action to recover its litigation expenses, as set forth in Section 8.10. 8,8 Additional City Remedy for Landowner's Default. In the event of any Default by Landowner, in addition to any other remedies which may be available to City, whether legal or equitable; City shall be entitled to receive and retain any Development Exactions applicable to the Project or the Property; including any fees, grants,, dedications, or improvements to public property which it may have received prior to Landowner's Default without recourse from Landowner or its successors or assigns. 8'.9 No Personal Liability of City Officials, Employees, or Agents. No City official, employee, or agent shall have any personal liability hereunder for a Default by City of any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 21IM2012 v3 18 1521 8.10 Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action. In any judicial proceeding, arbitration, or mediation (collectively, an "'Action ") between the Parties that seeks to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or arises out of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall recover all of its actual and reasonable costs and expenses, regardless of whether they would be recoverable under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 or California Civil Code section 1717 in the absence of this Agreement. These costs and expenses include expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, and costs of investigation and preparation before initiation of the Action. The right to recover these costs and expenses shall accrue upon initiation of the Action, regardless of whether the Action is prosecuted to a final judgment or decision. 9. Force Maieure. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in Default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused, through no fault of the Party whose performance is prevented or delayed, by floods, earthquakes, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes or other labor difficulties, state or federal regulations, or court actions. Except as specified above, nonperformance shall not be excused because of the act or omission of a third person. In no event shall the occurrence of an event of force majeure operate to extend the Tenn of this Agreement. in.. addition, in no event shall the time for performance of a monetary obligation, including without limitation Landowner's obligation to pay Public Benefit Fees, be extended pursuant to this Section. 10. Indemnity Obligations of Landowner. 10.1 Indemnity Arising From Acts or Omissions of Landowner. Except to the extent caused by the intentional misconduct or negligent acts, errors or omissions of City or one or more of City's officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and contractors (collectively, the "City's Affiliated Parties ") , Landowner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against all suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations, and expenses (including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) (collectively, a "Claim ") that may arise, directly or indirectly, from the acts, omissions, or operations of Landowner or Landowner's agents, contractors, subcontractors„ agents, or employees in the course of Development of the Project or any other activities of Landowner relating to the Property or pursuant to this Agreement. City shall have the right to select and retain counsel to defend any Claim filed against City and /or any of City's Affiliated Parties, and' Landowner shall pay the reasonable cost for defense of any Claim. The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.1 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 10.2 Third Party Litigation. In addition to its indemnity obligations set forth in Section 10.1, Landowner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against any Claim against City or City's Affiliated Parties seeking to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement, the Adopting Ordinance, any of the Development Regulations for the Project (including without limitation any actions taken pursuant to CEQA with respect M 1'2013 Q 19 15 2 thereto), any Subsequent Development Approval, or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. Said indenmity obligation shall include payment of reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and court costs. City shall promptly notify Landowner of any such Claim and City shall cooperate with Landowner in the defense of such Claim. If City fails to promptly notify Landowner of such Claim,, Landowner shall not be responsible to indemnify, defend, and hold City hannless from such Claim until Landowner is so notified and if City fails . to cooperate in the defense of a Claim Landowner shall not be responsible to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City during the period that City so fails to cooperate or for any losses attributable thereto. City shall be entitled to retain separate counsel to represent City against the Claim and the City's defense costs for its separate counsel shall be included in Landowner's indemnity obligation, provided that such counsel shall reasonably cooperate with Landowner in an effort to minimize the total litigation expenses incurred by Landowner. In the event either City or Landowner recovers any attorney's fees, expert witness fees, costs, interest, or other amounts from the party or parties asserting the Claim, Landowner shall be entitled to retain the same (provided it has filly performed its indemnity obligations hereunder). The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.2 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs; and shall survive the Termination Date. 10.3 Environmental Indemnity. In addition to its indemnity obligations set forth in Section 10.1, from and after the Agreement Date Landowner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against any and all Claims for personal injury or death, property damage, economic loss, statutory penalties or fines, and damages of any kind or nature whatsoever, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs; based upon or arising from any of the following: (i) the actual or alleged presence of any Hazardous Substance on or under any of the Property in violation of any applicable Envirorumental. Law; (ii) the actual or alleged migration of any Hazardous Substance from the Property through the soils or groundwater to a location or locations off of the Property; and (iii) the storage, handling,, transport, or disposal of any Hazardous Substance on, to; or from the Property and any other area disturbed, graded, or developed by Landowner in connection with Landowner's Development of the Project. The foregoing indemnity obligations shall not apply to any Hazardous Substance placed or stored on a separate legal lot within the Property after the Lot Termination Date for said lot, as provided in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.3 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless -of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 11. Assignment. Landowner shall have the right to sell, transfer, or assign (hereinafter, collectively, a "Transfer ") Landowner's fee title to the Property, in whole or in part, to a Permitted Transferee(which successor, as of the effective date of the Transfer, shall become the "Landowner" under this Agreement) at any time from the Agreement Date until the Termination Date; provided, however, that no such Transfer shall violate the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or City's local subdivision ordinance and any such transfer shall include the assignment and assumption of Landowner's rights, duties, and obligations set forth in or arising under this Agreement as to the Property or the portion thereof 21142013 Q 20 525 so Transferred and shall be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent: (i) no transfer or assignment of any of Landowner's rights or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the Transfer of all or a part of the Property; and (ii) prior to the effective date of any proposed Transfer, Landowner (as transferor) shall notify City, in writing, of such proposed Transfer and deliver to City a written assignment and assumption, executed in recordable form by the transferring and successor Landowner and in a form subject to the reasonable approval of the City Attorney of City (or designee), pursuant to which the transferring Landowner assigns to the successor Landowner and the successor Landowner assumes from the transferring Landowner all of the rights and obligations of the transferring Landowner with respect to the Property or portion thereof to be so Transferred, including in the case of a partial Transfer the obligation to perform such obligations that must be performed outside of the Property so Transferred that are a condition precedent to the successor Landowner's right to develop the portion of the Property so Transferred. Any Permitted Transferee shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and liabilities of Landowner under this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property sold, transferred, and assigned to such Permitted Transferee; provided, however, that in the event of a Transfer of less than all of the Property no such. Permitted Transferee shall have the right to enter into an amendment of this Agreement that jeopardizes or impairs the rights or increases the obligations of the Landowner with respect to the balance of the Property. Notwithstanding any Transfer, the transferring Landowner shall continue to be jointly and severalty liable to City, together with the successor Landowner, to perform all of the transferred obligations set forth in or arising under this Agreement unless there is full satisfaction of all of the following conditions, in which event the transferring Landowner shall be automatically released from any and all obligations with respect to time portion of the Property so Transferred: (i) the transferring Landowner no longer has a legal or equitable interest in the portion of the Property so Transferred other than as a beneficiary under a deed of trust; (ii) the transferring Landowner is not then in Default under this Agreement and no condition exists that with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a Default hereunder; (iii) the transferring Landowner has provided City with the notice and the fully executed written and recordable assignment and assumption agreement required as set forth in the first paragraph of this Section 11; and (iv) the successor Landowner either (A) provides City with substitute security equivalent to any security previously provided by the transferring Landowner to City to secure perfonnance of the successor Landowner's obligations hereunder with respect to the Property or the portion of the Property so Transferred or (B) if the transferred obligation in question is not a secured obligation, the successor Landowner either provides security reasonably satisfactory to City or otherwise demonstrates to City's reasonable satisfaction that the successor Landowner has the financial resources or commitments available to perform the transferred obligation at the time and in the manner required under this Agreement and the Development [regulations for the Project. 12. MortaaQee Rielnts. 12.1 Encumbrances on Property. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Landowner in any manner from encumbering the Property, any part of the Property; or any improvements on the- Property VI- V2017.a 21 with any Mortgage securing financing with respect to the construction, development, use, or operation of the Project. 12.2 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Nevertheless, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in the Property or part of the Property by a Mortgagee (whether due to foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease terinination, or otherwise) shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee who takes title to the Property or any part of the Property shall be entitled to the benefits arising under this Agreement. 12.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 1'2.3, a Mortgagee will not have any obligation or duty under the terms of this Agreement to perform the obligations of Landowner or other affinnative covenants of Landowner, or to guarantee this performance except that: (i) the Mortgagee shall have no right to develop the Project under the Development Regulations without fully complying with the terms of this Agreement; and (ii) to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Landowner is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, that performance shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance. 12.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. Each Mortgagee shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive written notice from City of (i) the results of the periodic review of compliance specified in Article 7 of this Agreement, and (ii) any default by Landowner of its obligations set forth in this Agreement.. Each Mortgagee shall Have a further right, but not an obligation, to cure the Default within thirty (30) days after receiving alloticeof Default with respect to a monetary Default and within sixty (60) days after receiving a Notice of Default with respect to a non- monetary Default, If the Mortgagee can only remedy or cure a non - monetary Default by obtaining possession of the Property, then the Mortgagee shall have the right to seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through a receiver or otherwise; and to remedy or cure the non- monetary Default within sixty (60) days after obtaining possession and, except in case of emergency or to protect the public health or safety, City may not exercise any of its judicial remedies set forth in this Agreement to terminate or substantially alter the rights of the Mortgagee until expiration of the sixty (60) -day period. In the case of a non - monetary Default that cannot with diligence be remedied or cured within sixty (60) days, the Mortgagee shall have additional time as is reasonably necessary to remedy or cure the Default; provided the Mortgagee promptly commences to cure the non- monetary Default within sixty (60) days and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion. 21W2013., 77 525 13. Miscellaneous Tenns. 13.1 Notices. Any notice or demand that shall be required or pennitted by law or any provision of this Agreement shall be in writing. If the notice or demand will be served upon a Party, it either shall be personally delivered to the Party; deposited in the United. States mail, certified, return receipt requested, and postage prepaid; or delivered by a reliable courier service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery with courier charges prepaid. The notice or demand shall be addressed as follows: TO CITY: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 Attn: City Manager With a copy to: City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 TO LANDOWNER: Uptown Newport, LP c/o The Shopoff Group, L.P 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92614 Attn: William A. Shopoff With a copy to: Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh 2030 Main Street, 12th Floor hrvine, CA 92614 Attn: Gregory P. Powers, Esq. Either Party may change the address stated in this Section 13.1 by delivering notice to the other Party in the manner provided in this Section 13. 1, and thereafter notices to such Party shall be addressed and submitted to the new address. Notices delivered in accordance with this Agreement shall be deemed to be delivered upon the earlier of; (i) the date received or (iii) three business days after deposit in the mail as provided above. 13.2 Project as Private Undertaking. The Development of the Project is a private undertaking. Neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect, and each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the teens, covenants, and conditions set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement forms no 14.2013 6 23 1520 partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind. The only relationship between the Parties is that of a government entity regulating the Development of private property by the owner of the property., 13.3 Cooperation. Each Party shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party to the extent consistent with and necessary to implement this Agreement. Upon the request of a Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgement or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record the required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary to implement this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 13.4 Estoppel Certificates. At any time, either Party may deliver written notice to the other Party requesting that that Party certify in writing that, to the best of its knowledge: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and is binding on the Party; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if this Agreement has been amended, the Party providing the certification shall identify the amendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting Party is not in Default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement and no event or situation has occurred that with the passage of time or the giving of Notice or both would constitute a Default or, if such is not the case, then the other Party shall describe the nature and amount of the actual or prospective Default. The Party requested to furnish an estoppel certificate shall execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt. 13.5 Rifles of Construction. The singular includes the plural; the masculine and neuter include the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; and "may" is pennissive. 13.6 Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 13.7 Waiver. The failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, and failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon a Default by the other Party; shall not constitute a waiver of that Party's right to demand strict compliance by the other Party in the ftuture. 13.3 Counterparts. z, ian_ora Q 24 j This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be identical and may be introduced in evidence or used for any other purpose without any other counterpart, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same agreement. 13.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter addressed in this Agreement except for the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (No. A1-12O12 -001). 13.10 Severability. The Parties intend that each and every obligation of the Parties is interdependent and interrelated with the other, and if any provision of this Agreement or the application of the provision to any Party or circumstances shall be held invalid or' unenforceable to any extent, it is the intention of the Parties that the remainder of this Agreement or the application of the provision to persons or circumstances shall be rendered invalid or unenforceable. The Parties intend that neither Party shall receive any of the benefits of the Agreement without the full performance by such Party of all of its obligations provided for underthis Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Parties intend that Landowner shall not receive any of the benefits of this Agreement if any of Landowner's obligations are rendered void or unenforceable as the result of any third party litigation, and City shall be free to exercise its legislative discretion to amend or repeal the Development Regulations applicable to the Property and Landowner shall cooperate as required, despite this Agreement, should third party litigation result in the nonperformance of Landowner's obligations under this Agreement. The provisions of this Section 13.10 shall apply regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs and after the Termination Date. 13.11 Construction. This Agreement has been drafted after extensive negotiation and revision. Both City and Landowner are sophisticated parties who were represented by independent counsel throughout the negotiations or City and Landowner had the opportunity to be so represented and voluntarily chose to not be so represented. City and Landowner each agree and acknowledge that the terms of thus Agreement are fair and reasonable, taking into account their respective purposes, terms, and conditions. This Agreement shall therefore be construed as a whole consistent with its fair meaning, and no principle or presumption of contract construction or interpretation shall be used to construe the whole or any part of this Agreement in favor of or against either Party. 13.12 Successors and Assigns: Constructive Notice and Acceptance. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement, All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to Development of the Property: (i) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (ii) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successor in interest during its ownership of the Property or any portion thereof. Every person or 21112013 1..2 25 1"22 entity who now or later owns or acquires any right, title, or interest in any part of the Project or the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision of this Agreement. This Section 13.12 applies regardless of whether the instrument by which such person or entity acquires the interest refers to or acknowledges this Agreement and regardless of whether such person or entity has expressly entered into an assignment and assumption agreement as provided for in Section 11. 13.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The only Parties to this Agreement are City and Landowner. This Agreement does not involve any third party beneficiaries, and, it is not intended and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any other person or entity. 13.14 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced consistent with the internal laws of the State of California, without regard to conflicts of law principles. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by any Party for the purpose of enforcing, construing, or determining, the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, or the United States. District Court for the Central District of California. The Parties waive all provisions of law providing for the removal or change of venue to any other court.. 13.15 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 13.16 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. All of the Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Exhibits A and Bare attached to this Agreement and incorporated by this reference as follows: EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION A Legal Description of Property B Depiction of the .Property 13.17 Recordation. The City Clerk of City shall record this Agreement and any amendment, modification, or cancellation of this Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange within the period required by California Govenunent Code section 65868.5 and City of Newport 2,..I42013 Q 26 C"�) 6� Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.090. The date of recordation of this Agreement shall not modify or amend the Effective Date or the Termination Date. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS1 2414 2013 .3 27 JT30 SIGNATURE PAGE TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT "LANDOWNER" UPTOWN NEWPORT LP, a Delaware limited partnership By: G &I VI NEWPORT CORP., a Delaware corporation, its General Partner By: _ Name: Its: "CITY" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH En ATTEST: City Clerk P OTOL- Aaron Harp, City Attorney 1 01t $ f 3 Keith D. Curry, Mayor 14 2013 0 28 531 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by their signature on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. I certify tinder PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by their signature on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State 2 ,' M2911 v2 -29- SS 2 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. 5s3 EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF PROPERTY ma,zoi i Va Exhibit B I = � wuunw,a .i nurr v i i i nnnnmm�r. l zBmBBmimr - .....n.. w w ywm m m r,_ _ _ r-_-4 i sumr.aawa n x nw ,I ! �' i ' �, 31NHIMhJrmnnnnmmmmA� _ _ t '1 m � i. i ❑ w JAMBOREE ROAD Master Site Plan Uptown Newport y` Uptown Newport LP 5515 5s o Attachment No. CC 26 ALUC Letter Dated Feb 4, 2013 53j 5S2 February 4, 2013 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Overrule tthe Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Uptown Newport Project i Dear Ms. Ung: We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's letter dated January 10, 2013 and City Council Resolution No. 2013 -3 notifying the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County of the City's intent to'ovemile,the ALUC'- Inconsistency determination on the Uptown Newport Project. In accordance with�Section 21676of the Public Utilities Code, the ALUC submits the following comments addressing the proposed overrule findings for the above - referenced project. Background: On October 18, 2012, the ALUC Inconsistent with the Airport Eni and with the AELUP for Helipor paragraph of Secti611-2.1.3 may utilize criteria for pro from those contained in FA sufficient to justify sucli an Orange County found the Uptown Newport Project to be is Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) i- a- 4- 1_vote, with one recusal, and based upon the third 4,ofthe AELUP for JWA which states: "The Commission raft traffic pattems at individual airports which may differ should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface Comments on the City's Facts in Support of Finding A: Fact in Support of Finding A. 2. addresses the October 18, 2012 ALUC staff report which makes a recommendation of Consistency to the ALUC. Please be advised that although staff members make recommendations to governing bodies, it is the duty of each governing body to review all of the materials and rely on their independent judgment to make decisions. Final findings of Consistency or Inconsistency are made by the Commission based upon information presented by staff, project proponents, opponents and/or Commissioners. As stated in the JWA AELUP, the ALUC has the responsibility to consider the broader perspective in matters affecting the public's Uptown Newport Overrule February 4, 2013 Page 2 well being and the viability of public aviation facilities. The ALUC accomplishes these overall goals by applying its discretion to evaluate individual projects based upon a wide range of facts 2 gathered through public testimony and Commissioners' knowledge, in addition to informative cont'd analysis provided by staff. Fact in Support of Finding A.3.b. asserts that "The residential and commercial land uses for the Project are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP." As noted in the City's discussion, Safety Compatibility Zone 6 generally allows most residential and nonresidential uses. However, it is the view of the ALUC that, because the Uptown Newport project would include residential buildings built to a height just under the FAR Part 77 obstruction surface, this may put at risk both general aviation operations and future residents of the high rise building. The ALUC has commented on similar projects in many of its past proceedings, that high rise buildings near an airport are ill- advised and has, therefore, found such projects to be Inconsistent with the JWA AEL UP. Fact in Support of Finding A.3.c discusses wording in the JWA AELUP stating that the ALUC recognizes FAA as the single "Authority" for analyzing project impacts on airport or aeronautical operations. The reference made in the AELUP is actually intended to inform applicants that other aeronautical studies which might be submitted to ALUC will only be considered if they have received approval by FAA. Additionally, as stated above, it is the responsibility of the ALUC to consider the broader perspective in matters affecting the public's well being and the viability of public aviation facilities. With regard to the three building points which the FAA noted would not result in any significant adverse affect on JWA aeronautical operations, and the discussion that existing obstacles and terrain control the development of future approach and departure procedures for JWA, these existing obstacles are a direct result of other tall buildings that have received local approvals in the past. Those approvals disregarded the JWA general aviation air traffic pattern, and have therefore caused approach/departure procedures for general aviation operations to be modified. The cumulative effect of more tall buildings may cause additional approach/departure modifications and lead to an unsafe operating environment for general aviation aircraft. Although the Uptown Newport structures are now proposed to be constructed in conformance with FAA Part 77 height restrictions, this does not mean that it is prudent to build a residential structure right up to the 206' above mean sea level (AMSL) elevation. Comments on the City's Facts in Support of Finding B: The City notes in its Facts in Support of Findings B.1. and B.2., that implementation of the standards in JWA AELUP Sections 2 and 3 "[seek] to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace." The ALUC has viewed the construction of residential high rise buildings at an elevation just below 206' to constitute a concentration of people in an area where general aviation air traffic is operating in very close proximity. Therefore, the ALUC acted in its MIR 3 0 5 Uptown Newport Overrule February 4, 2013 Page 3 responsibility to consider the broader perspective in matters affecting the public's well being and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, as well as the viability of public aviation facilities, by finding the Uptown Newport Project Inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA. Fact in Support of Finding B.5. discusses the ALUC action of August 19, 2010, in which the ALUC found the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update to be Consistent with the JWA AELUP. The ALUC made a finding of Consistency; however, the ALUC had significant discussion regarding the proposed 300' High Rise Height Area and that it was not acceptable for structures to penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 obstruction surface, which is well below 300'. In fact, the ALUC based its August 19, 2010 Consistency finding on agreement with City staff that language would be included in the Zoning Update that limits building heights to below the FAA FAR Part 77 obstruction surface. Additionally, the ALUC finding stated that if the City Council did not adopt the proposed language revisions, the Zoning Update project would be required to return to the ALUC for reconsideration. Since the project did not return to ALUC, we are under the assumption that the Zoning Update included the agreed upon ALUC language. Comments on the City's Facts in Support of Finding C: Fact in Support of Finding C.1. correctly states that an FAA Determination of No Hazard does not automatically equate to a project consistency determination by the ALUC. The ALUC may base its determination on factors other than FAA's determinations of hazard or obstruction. Specifically, the ALUC may find a project Inconsistent in order to protect airport traffic patterns at JWA and for the health, safety and welfare of the public. Also, please refer to JWA AELUP Section 3.2.6 (page 25), regarding the height restriction zone wherein any object, which by reason of its height or location would interfere with the established, planned, airport flight procedures, patterns, or navigational systems, is unacceptable to the Commission. Finding C on page 10 of the City's resolution states that the ALUC's determination that the proposed project was inconsistent is not based on substantial evidence that was introduced, commented on, or identified in support of the inconsistency finding. In fact, the ALUC did base its finding on the following evidence and facts in the written record and during extensive discussion by the Commission. As the public record of the October 18, 2012 ALUC meeting shows, ALUC deliberations utilized the results of the aeronautical study conducted by the FAA pursuant to FAR Part 77.13 and other relevant factors including but not limited to: penetration of the FAA FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces by 3 of 11 building points submitted for review; flight track information; and specific reference to JWA AELUP Section 2.1.3. The minutes of the meeting (attached) specify the facts and information the Commissioners considered in arriving at their finding. These include, but were not limited to, the potential cumulative effect of multiple high -rise projects in the area and the placement of residential high -rise use directly under the general aviation flight path. In addition to the ALUC meeting minutes, an audio recording of the meeting is available upon request. Review of flight track information at the ALUC meeting showed flight activity at 0 to 500 feet directly over the proposed project area. The Uptown Newport Project includes construction of 541 5 cont'd 0 Uptown Newport Overrule February 4, 2013 Page 4 two residential towers up to 150 feet above ground level (208 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Rather than minimizing the public's exposure to safety hazards, the project would increase the public exposure to safety hazards. In addition, it is the job of the ALUC for Orange County to protect the existing air traffic pattern in order to provide for optimal aircraft operation at John Wayne Airport. By virtue of being clearly stated in JWA AELUP Sections 1.2 "Purpose and Scope" and 2.0 "Planning Guidelines," every Commissioner understands the complex legal charge to protect public airports from encroachment by incompatible land use development, while simultaneously protecting the health, safety and welfare of citizens who work and live in the airport's environs. To this end, and as also statutorily required, our ALUC proceedings are benefited by several members "having expertise in aviation." Based upon careful consideration of all information provided, and input from ALUC members with expertise in aviation, a majority of the ALUC found the proposed Uptown Newport Project to be Inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA and AELUP for Heliports. Fact in Support of Finding C.2. declares that the ALUC's two previous determinations of AELUP consistency (for the Newport Beach General Plan (2006) and the Zoning Code Update (2010)) allowed residential uses in the Airport Business Area with a maximum building height of 300' above grade. Neither of these ALUC actions, in fact, supported this 300' maximum building height. To address the concerns of the ALUC, the City included as part of their August 23, 2010 submittal package, a redline /strikeout version of the Draft Zoning Code Amendment which included language stating that proposed projects in the 300 feet high rise height limit area shall comply with the requirements of Subsection E of the Zoning Code Amendment document (John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Additional Comments: Please be advised that California Public Utilities Code Section 21678 states: "With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to Section 21676, 21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation." Also, please be advised that California Business & Professions Code Section 11010 requires the following statement to be included on sale /lease disclosure documents for developments within an ALUC's "Airport Influence Area:" "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some 1542 6 cont'd 7 Uptown Newport Overrule February 4, 2013 Page 5 of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (For example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you." We urge the City Council of the City of Newport Beach to take all these comments into consideration in its deliberations prior to deciding whether to overrule the ALUC. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, Gerald A. Bresn Chairman Attached: Meeting Minutes from October 18, 2012 ALUC meeting. cc: Members of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Members of City Council Terry Barrie, Caltraru/Division of Aeronautics 1543 cont'd ALVC AIRPORT LAND 3160 Airwav Avenue MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING October 18, 2012 PLACE: John Wayne Airport Administration Building Airport Commission Hearing Room 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 TIME: Regular Meeting called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman Bresnahan COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gerald Bresnahan, Rod Propst, Leslie Daigle, Tom O'Malley, and Jim Righeimer Commissioners Absent: Herman Beverburg, Jon Dumitru Alternate Commissioners Present: Stephen Beverburg STAFF PRESENT: Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer Lea Choum, Staff Planner Sue Tanner, Recording Secretary T. Mat Miller, County Counsel PLEDGE: Vice - Chairman Rod Propst led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The motion to approve the July 19, 2012 minutes was made by Commissioner Leslie Daigle, seconded by Commissioner Tom O'Malley, and was approved unanimously. Vice - Chairman Rod Propst abstained. 544 ALUC Minutes Page 2 October 18, 2012 1. City of Newport Beach Request for Consistency Review of Uptown Newport Project: Staff Planner Lea Choum presented the agenda item to the Commissioners. The City of Newport Beach is requesting Consistency review of the Uptown Newport Project which consists of mixed uses with 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail space, and approximately two acres of park space. Residential product types would be for sale -and rent with a mix of town homes, mid- and high -rise condominiums, and affordable housing. Proposed buildings would range from 30 feet to 75 feet in height; with residential towers up to 150 feet high. The proposed project requires a Zone Change and the adoption of a Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) by the City of Newport Beach to accommodate the proposed mixed -use residential development. The proposed project site is located within the 60 CNEL noise contour for JWA. Residential and commercial uses are considered normally consistent within the 60 CNEL noise contour. The city is requiring that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB. In addition, the applicant and or future residential developers will be required to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. The proposed project is located within airport Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone) for JWA, which includes aircraft within a regular traffic pattern and pattern entry routes. As stated in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, within Safety Zone 6 there is generally low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports. Risk concern primarily is with uses such as large outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities. The proposed mixed uses for the Uptown Newport Project would be compatible within this zone, although noise and overflight should be considered and disclosed to residents. Regarding height restrictions, the ALUC Chairman requested a flight track map to show the flights over the project area which was distributed at the meeting. The proposed project area is within the Notification Area for JWA and the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction surface for JWA above the project area is 206 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Uptown Newport allows for a maximum height of 150 feet from finished grade for all structures. The ground elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 55 to 59 feet. The allowed maximum building height could penetrate the obstruction imaginary surface for JWA by up to 3 feet. An FAA aeronautical study was completed for the proposed project and a determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation was issued. However, the FAA did find that 3 of 11 of the submitted points that represent the building heights are identified as obstacles under the obstruction standards of Title 14 CFR Part 77; Section 77.19 by between 1 to 3 feet, a height penetrating the Horizontal Surface for JWA. The three points identified are associated with proposed Tower Zone 1. The city states in their submittal package that these three points identified as exceeding the 206 -foot elevation will be reduced such that the maximum building elevations (and all building appurtenances) will all be below the horizontal imaginary obstruction surface for JWA. In addition, the following building height restrictions language was proposed for inclusion in the PCDP for the project: 15415 ALUC Minutes Page 3 October 18, 2012 "All development must be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the height restrictions set forth by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport and the Airport Land use Commission (ALUC). It should be noted that the current avigation easement for JWA as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors restricts the construction of buildings to a maximum height of 206 feet (NAVD 88), including all rooftop appurtenances." It was also recommended that Figure 3 -2 of the PCDP include a note clarifying that the Tower Zone 1 height limit is 150 feet, but cannot exceed 206 feet AMSL. Based upon staff's review, the proposed PCDP including the city's proposed additional language restricting building heights and rooftop appurtenances to below 206 feet AMSL, would be Consistent with the Commission's JWA AELUP. Additional conditions were recommended for inclusion in the Uptown Newport PCDP Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures document as follows: "Development within Uptown Newport shall be required to comply with the following conditions related to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport: 1) No buildings, including rooftop appurtenances or architectural features within the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan shall penetrate the FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary obstruction surface for John Wayne Airport. 2) Applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA (Form 7460 -1) for any construction cranes that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level. 3) Neighborhood parks within Uptown Newport shall have posted a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and related aircraft overflight and noise. 4) For Uptown Newport, the residential use interior sound attenuation requirement shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dB. 5) Appropriate written notifications shall be provided to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within Uptown Newport notifying them that the area 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 the airport. " Discussion among the Commissioners, City staff and the applicant ensued and Chairman Bresnahan explained why he asked for a flight track map. The map shows flights at elevation 0 -500 ft. in red and 500 -1000 ft. in blue. He pointed out that a substantial amount of red shows over the project area and indicated that this is an extremely sensitive area. Commissioner Propst noted that there would be 1,244 units in a tall building of 150 ft. and it would be under a busy traffic pattern, which is the worst place for residential uses. Commissioner Propst made a motion to find the project Inconsistent with the JWA AELUP, based upon Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP. Commissioner O'Malley seconded the motion. 1540 ALUC Minutes Page 4 October 18, 2012 Additional input from the project proponent indicated that the City of Newport Beach General Plan was found consistent by ALUC and it included residential uses in this area. The Commission indicated that this area directly under the general aviation flight path is not a good place for residential and noted that if buildings this tall were built, there would eventually be a "wall of buildings" that a pilot would need to navigate through. There was additional discussion regarding continuing the project, resubmitting the project and the ALUC overrule process. It was noted by the Commission that an overrule of the Commission would result in liability being shifted to the City of Newport Beach. The vote was called for and the Commission voted four (4) to one (1) in favor of Inconsistency. Commissioner Righeimer recused himself and did not vote. 2. Administrative Status Report: Executive Officer Rigoni called the Commission's attention to the various letters of correspondence and JWA statistics. 3. Proceedines with Consistent Aeencies: Nothing new to report. 4. Proceedines with Inconsistent Aeencies: Nothing new to report. Commissioner Stephen Beverburg asked when the Inconsistent Agencies would become Consistent. Executive Officer Kari Rigoni advised that staff is currently working on updating the AELUPs and would work with the cities involved during that time. 5. Items of Interest to the Commissioners: Nothing new to report. 6. Items of Interest to the Public: No one from the public addressed the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer 547 S4 g Attachment No. CC 27 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Letter dated February 14, 2013 5.4J 550 UA'11;.0 :'Q[,[Ea6 NIA— IINSINGS $.'I'ItAN,�I'Olt'rA'I'ION ANI) iIOLISINC AGIiNI -Y IL&IIINO0. URL1WN 1R_Gnvemo_+ Dr, PARI'MENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OI' AERONAUTICS —M.S. 1140 1120 N s'num'I,, Surm 3300 11: 0.130X 9428'73 SACRAMI;Nr0. CA 94273 -0001 I'b10N, (916)65,1-4959 FAX (916)653-9531 TVY 711 a +rvmdulxll.sov }iebruary 14, 2013 Ms. Rosalinh M. Uig, /Associate Planner Division of Planning, City of Newport Beach 3300Newl2ort Boulevard. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ms. Ung: ]'lie California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division) goal is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) in the development and implementation of policies. that protect the safety and general welfare of the conimuni GCS in which aeronautical activities take place. We encourage collaboration Willi our paxt iers in the planning.process and 1:118111( you for including us ill the review of the Notice of Intent to Overrule [lie Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. On .fanuary 15, 2013, we received a Notice of Intent to Overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission dated January 10, 2013. her Public Utilities Code (PUC) Article 3.5, the City of Newport Beach has Clio statutory authority to overrule an ALUC's inconsistency determination by a two- thirds vote, given that the specific findings are consistenf with the purposes of this article to protect the safely and general welfare of the community. Based on our review, the following comment is provided for your future consideration. Exhibit "A" Finding A(3)(c) and finding C(l) state that the.FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, although three obstacles penetrating the air space were identi fred . The FAA stated that the adverse effect of these three obstacles are known and that other similarly situated structures of equal height or greater exist. Tile FAA conclucleCI that these three points do not result in any signi 11cant adverse effect on 8eronaufcal operations. Subsequently the project proponent amended the building heights to be within the limits established. for the ,Cohn Wayne Airport, by (lie Orange County Board of Supervisors. Although the project has been amended to be within the established AELUP height restrictions and [lie FAA identified similarly situated structures, we encourage the City to tal(c into consideration cumulative effects of horizontal surface penetration, with this and future development projects. The three identified obstructions may not particularly pose a significant adverse effect on their own, but cumulatively these obstructions may pose safety hazardS in the future. 0 Flev )nrir Powell Be energyG60ch`Wl "C'rlllrems improves mob flify aaro3,L f,'alifornln" 151- Ms. Rosalinh M. Ung Associate Planner Page 2 The Division has reviewed the findings of Council Resolution No. 2013 -3 and concludes the stated facts support the findings and are consistent with the purposes of PUC section 21670. cont'd Sincerely, RON BOLYARD Aviation Planner c: Orange County ALUC "Call is improms mobility ncross California" 5,52 Attachment No. CC 28 Response to ALUC & Caltrans Letters 553 554 Uptown Newport Project Responses to Comments Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Letter dated February 4, 2013 (Chairman Gerald Bresnahan) Response to Comment 1: This comment summarizes receipt of the City's Notice, and ALUC's action finding the Project inconsistent with the AELUP based on Section 2.1.3 (permitting ALUC to utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns which may differ from FAR Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action). Comment acknowledged. Response to Comment 2: This comment references City's Facts in Support of Finding A.2, and states that although staff members make recommendations to governing bodies, it is the duty of each governing body to review materials, information presented by staff, proponents, opponents and Commissioners, and rely on independent judgment to evaluate a project. This comment references ALUC's responsibility to consider the public's well being and viability of public aviation facilities. Comment acknowledged. Similarly, the City Council will rely on all information within the public record, including ALUC's letter, in taking its actions regarding the Project. Response to Comment 3: This comment references City's Facts in Support of Finding A.3.b statement that residential and commercial land uses for the Project are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP. The comment continues to reference the Project's location in Safety Compatibility Zone 6, and provides ALUC's view that because the Project will include residential buildings at a height just under the FAR Part 77 obstruction surface, the height may put at risk general aviation operations and future residents of the high rise building. The comment references other high rise buildings near the airport and ALUC's conclusion that such buildings are ill- advised and, therefore, inconsistent with the AELUP. AELUP Section 2.1.2 states the purpose of safety and compatibility zones is to support the continued use and operation of an airport by establishing compatibility and safety standards to promote air navigational safety and to reduce potential safety hazards for persons living, working or recreating near JWA. These zones were approved by the FAA in March 2005 and were developed for the runways at JWA. (AELUP, § 2.1.2.) According to AELUP Appendix D, restating the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ( "Handbook ") Table 913, there is a "[g]enerally low likelihood of accident 15,55 Page 2 occurrence at most airports; risk concern primarily is with uses for which potential consequences are severe." "Basic Compatibility Qualities" specify that residential uses and most nonresidential uses are allowed in this zone, which is defined as "acceptable." Table 9B identifies when a use should be limited or avoided; neither of which are applied to residential uses and most nonresidential uses in this zone. AELUP Section 2.1.3 references building height and states that in adopting the building height criteria "the Commission considered only one standard and that was Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (FAR Part 77) ... These regulations are the only definitive standard available and the standard most generally used." Comment 3 acknowledges that the Project building heights are under FAR Part 77. This comment states the Project "may" put at risk general aviation operations and future residents, but the statements are conclusory, and do not provide facts explaining how the Project places aviation operations or future residents at risk with building heights below the one definitive standard available. The comment references other high rise buildings near the airport and ALUC's conclusion that such buildings are ill- advised and, therefore, inconsistent with the AELUP. Public Utilities Code Section 21670 provides the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act and references its intent to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around airports "to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." This comment seems to acknowledge ALUC's position that the Property's surrounding areas are already devoted to incompatible uses, and appears to set a new arbitrary standard that all high -rises in the area are inconsistent with the AELUP. Response to Comment 4: This comment references City's Facts in Support of Finding A.3.c statement that ALUC recognizes FAA as the single authority for analyzing project impacts on airport operations, and states the AELUP reference is intended to inform applicants that non -FAA aeronautical studies will only be considered if they have received FAA approval. This comment reiterates ALUC's responsibility to consider the public's wellbeing and viability of aviation facilities. This comment states that existing obstacles and terrain are a direct result of other tall buildings that disregarded the JWA general aviation traffic pattern, and have therefore caused approach /departure procedures for general aviation operations to be modified. "The cumulative effect of more tall buildings may cause additional approach /departure modifications and lead to an unsafe operating environment." The comment continues to state that constructing in conformance with FAA Part 77 height restrictions does not mean that it is prudent to build a residential structure up to the 206' above mean sea level ( "AMSL ") elevation. This comment seems to acknowledge ALUC's position that the Property's surrounding areas are already devoted to incompatible uses, and questions whether the FAA � ,50 Page 3 designated standard is prudent. Notably, an amendment to the AELUP to address these height concerns has not been suggested. The comment acknowledges that traffic patterns were modified previously to accommodate buildings in this area. The comment does not provide facts in support of the statement that more buildings will cause modifications and /or lead to an unsafe environment. The comment does not state why adjustments may be necessary at this time, if adjustments were already made to accommodate buildings in the area. Response to Comment 5: This comment references City's Facts in Support of Findings B.1, B.2 and B.5, and states the ALUC has viewed construction of residential high rise buildings at an elevation just below 206' AMSL to constitute a concentration of people in an area where general aviation air traffic is operating in very low proximity. This comment reiterates ALUC's responsibility to consider the public's well being and viability of aviation facilities. This comment references the ALUC action of August 19, 2010, in which ALUC found the City Zoning Code update to be consistent with the AELUP, which included residential designations and a 300' High Rise Height Area. The comment states ALUC's finding involved discussion regarding the proposed 300' High Rise Height Area, that it was not acceptable for structures to penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 obstruction surface, and that language would be inserted in the Zoning Code Update limiting building height to below the FAA FAR Part 77 obstruction surface, or alternatively, the Zoning Code Update would be required to return to ALUC for reconsideration. The State Handbook allows residential use in this zone, and states there is a "[g]enerally low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports; risk concern primarily is with uses for which potential consequences are severe." Please note City Municipal Code Section 20.30.060, specifically, subsection E(1)(a), which states as follows: "Buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction — Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)." Additionally, Section 20.30.060C(2)(e) provides that within the High Rise Height Area, the maximum height limit is 300'. The amended Project building heights do not penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 obstruction surface. Additionally, the Project is located within the High Rise Height Area and is below the maximum height limit of 300'. Response to Comment 6: This comment references City's Facts in Support of Findings C.1, and the statement that an FAA Determination of No Hazard does not 15� Page 4 automatically equate to a project consistency determination. This comment states ALUC may base its determination on other factors, including protection of airport traffic patterns and the health, safety and welfare of the public. This comment references AELUP Section 3.2.6 stating objects which interfere with established, planned, airport flight procedures, patterns or navigational systems are unacceptable to the Commission. This comment references the City's statement that the ALUC determination was not based on substantial evidence, and states ALUC based its finding on the following evidence and facts: (1) the FAA aeronautical study results, including penetration of imaginary surfaces by 3 of 11 building points; (2) flight traffic information showing flight activity at 0 to 500 feet over the proposed Project area; (3) the placement of residential high rise use directly under the general aviation flight path; (4) the Project's construction of two residential towers up to 150' above ground level (208 AMSL); (5) the cumulative effect of multiple high rise projects in the area; and (6) AELUP Section 2.1.3. This comment states the Project increases the public exposure to safety hazards, and reiterates ALUC's responsibility to protect existing air traffic pattern. Finally, this comment explains that ALUC proceedings are benefited by members with expertise in aviation who are aware of the complex legal charge to protect public airports from incompatible land use and to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens. Facts have not been provided to show the Project will interfere with established, planned, airport flight procedures, patterns or navigational systems. Instead, conclusory statements are made that the Project "may" interfere. The FAA aeronautical study states the Project structure "would have no effect on any existing or proposed [Instrument Flight Rules or Visual Flight Rules] arrival /departure routes, operations, or procedures.... The structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed [Instrument Flight Rules] minimum flight altitudes.... The structure would not penetrate those altitudes normally considered available to airmen for [Visual Flight Rules] en route flight." AELUP Section 3.2.6 also states the "standards, criteria, and procedures promulgated by the FAA for the thorough evaluation of development projects are designed to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace." The Project is consistent with FAA building heights and safety zones. The 3 building points identified by the FAA as penetrating the imaginary surfaces have been amended and are now below the threshold. The FAA also concluded that the 3 points, prior to their amendment, do not result in any significant adverse effect on the aeronautical operations or on the utility of the navigable approach and departure Terminal Procedures for JWA. The FAA further concluded that existing obstacles and terrain already control development of future instrument approach and departure procedures for JWA. The Project's construction of two residential towers up to 150' above ground level is consistent with City, FAA and AELUP requirements. For a discussion on the cumulative effect of high rise projects please see City response to Comment 4 above. For 5158 Page 5 additional discussion on Section 2.1.3's requirement of evidence sufficient to justify an action please see City response to Comments 3 -4 above. The statement that the Project increases the public exposure to safety hazards is unsupported and contrary to the FAA Determination of No Hazard. Response to Comment 7: This comment references City's Facts in Support of Findings C.2, and the City's statement that ALUC's two previous determinations of consistency allowed residential uses in the Airport Business Area with a maximum building height of 300' above grade. This statement provides that neither of the ALUC actions supported this 300' maximum building height, and that the City included a redline version of the Zoning Code amendment with language stating proposed projects in the 300' high rise limit area must comply with Zoning Code amendment Subsection E regarding the AELUP and ALUC. Please note two City Municipal Code provisions governing the height requirement and AELUP: (1) Section 20.30.060C(2)(e), governing the High Rise Height Area; and (2) Section 20.30.060E, which state as follows: "C(2)(e): High Rise Height Area: In this height limit area, the maximum height limit shall be three hundred (300) feet and no further increase to the maximum allowed height is available. This height limit is applicable to all nonresidential zoning districts within its boundaries as indicated on the High Rise and Shoreline Height Limit Areas Map (See Map H -1, attached to the ordinance codified in this title). Proposed projects within this height limit area shall comply with the requirements of subsection (E) of this section (Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and Airport Land Use Commission Review Requirements)." "E: Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Review Requirements. 1. AELUP Requirements. a. Buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction — Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). b. In compliance with FAR Part 77, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface shall file a Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. A copy of the FAA application shall be submitted to the ALUC and the applicant shall provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. 5�� Page 6 2. Citywide Requirements. Development projects that include structures higher than two hundred (200) feet above existing grade shall be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review. In addition, projects that exceed a height of two hundred (200) feet above existing grade shall file Form 7460 -1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)." These sections were provided to the ALUC during the 2010 Zoning Code Update, along with Map H -1 High Rise and Shoreline Height Limit Areas. The Zoning Code Update was deemed consistent with the AELUP. (See ALUC minutes, dated August 19, 2010.) The 2006 General Plan amendment designated property located in the Airport Business Area as Mixed -Use Horizontal -2, which allows for intermixing of uses including multi- family residential and vertical mixed -use buildings. A maximum of 2,200 residential units were allocated for the MU -H2 properties. The General Plan amendment was deemed consistent with the AELUP. (See ALUC minutes, dated July 20, 2006.) Comment 8: This comment recites California Public Utilities Code Section 21678 regarding immunity of the airport operator, in the event of a public agency overrule of a commission's action, for damages caused by or resulting from the overrule. This comment also recites California Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and its requirement to include a "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" on sale /lease disclosure documents for developments within an ALUC's "Airport Influence Area." Comment acknowledged 500 Page 7 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics Letter dated February 14, 2013 Response to Comment 1: Comment acknowledged. 501 1,21ANZI]AIRIA11711- , IN' ii STATIC OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS COUNTY OIL ORANGE ) I am a citizen of the United States anc resident of the County of Los Angeles am over the age of eighteen years, ai not a party to or interested in the noti published. I am a principal clerk of ti NEWPORT BEACH /COSTA ME: DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged newspaper of general circulation September 29, 1961, case A6214, ai June 11, 1963, case A24831, for tl City of Costa Mesa, County of Orang and the State of California. Attached this Affidavit is a true and complete col as was printed and published on tl following date(s): Saturday, February 16, 2013 I certify (or declare) under penalty perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. rRECEIVEL 2013 FEB 25 All 10: 52 P r1C Executed on February 21, 2013 at Los Angeles, California Signature PG16 (Noll ;Cbn- NOTICE OF PUBLIC WEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, at 7:00 pm., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Uptown Newport - The redevelopment of a 25 -acre office and industrial site with a mixed -use community consisting of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving retail space, and two 1 -acre public parks. Residential product types would be for sale and rental with a mix of townhomes, and mid- and high -rise apartments and condominiums. Between 102 and 369 units would be made available as affordable housing depending upon the target income category (i.e. very -low, low or moderate income households). Most buildings would range between 30 and 75 feet in height with several residential towers up to 150 feet in height. Project approval requires a Planned Community Development Plan amendment and adoption, Tentative Tract Map, Traffic Study, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and Development Agreement. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act the City of Newport Beach has prepared Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2010051094 (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). Copies of the EIR and supporting documents are available for public review at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on February 7, 2013, by a vote of (7 -0), the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended that the City Council approve the Uptown Newport Project. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the City Clerk's Office or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, at (949) 644- 3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2011 -134 Zone: PC -15 (Koll Center) Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, north side of Jamboree Rd, between Birch St. and Fairchild Rd. Activity No.: ER2012 -001, PD2011 -003, PC2012- 001, TS2012 -005, NT2012 -002, AH2O12 -001, & DA2012 -003 General Plan: MU -H2 (Mixed Use — Horizontal 2) Applicant: Uptown Newport LP Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On Z®9� , 2013, 1 posted 3 Site Notices of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Uptown Newport Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road north side of Jamboree Rd, between Birch St. and Fairchild Rd. (PA2010 -073) Date of City Council Public Hearing: February 26, 2013 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Uptown Newport - The redevelopment of a 25 -acre office and industrial site with a mixed -use community consisting of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of neighborhood- serving retail space, and two 1 -acre public parks. Residential product types would be for sale and rental with a mix of townhomes, and mid -.and high -rise apartments and condominiums. Between 102 and 369 units would be made available as affordable housing depending upon the target income category (i.e. very-low, low or moderate income households). Most buildings would range between 30 and 75 feet in height with several residential lowers up to 150 feet in height. Project approval requires a Planned Community Development Plan amendment and adoption, Tentative Tract Map, Traffic Study, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and Development Agreement. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act the City of Newport Beach has prepared Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2010051094 (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 at seq.). Copies of the EIR and supporting documents are available for public review at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on February 7, 2013, by a vote of (7 -0), the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended that the City Council approve the Uptown Newport Project. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising . only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the City Clerk's Office or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, at (949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2011 -134 Zone: PC -15 (Koll Center) Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, north side of Jamboree Rd, between Birch St. and Fairchild Rd. Activity No.: ER2012 -001, P02011 -003, PC2012 -001, TS2012 -005, NT2012 -002, AH2O12 -001, & DA2012 -003 General Plan: MU -H2 (Mixed Use - Horizontal 2) Applicant: ,Uptown N -port LP 06so'O"", Leilani grown, City Clerk, City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Uptown Newport - The redevelopment of a 25 -acre office and industrial site with a mixed -use community consisting of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feel of neighborhood - serving retail space, and two 1 -acre public parks. Residential product types would be for sale and rental with a mix of townhomes, and mid- and high -rise apartments and condominiums. Between 102 and 369 units would be made available as affordable housing depending upon the target income category (i.e. very -low,, low or moderate income households). Most buildings would range between 30 and 75 feet in height with several residential towers up to 150 feet in height. Project approval requires a Planned Community Development Plan amendment and adoption, Tentative Tract Map, Traffic Study, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and Development Agreement. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act the City of Newport Beach has prepared Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2010051094 (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). Copies of the EIR and supporting documents are available for public review at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on February 7, 2013, by a vote of (7 -0), the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended that the City Council approve the Uptown Newport Project. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.pov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the City Clerk's Office or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, at (949) 644 -3208, runq(7e newportbeachca.gov. Project File. No.: PA2011 -134 Zone: PC -15 (Koll Center) Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, north side of Jamboree Rd, between Birch St. and Fairchild Rd. Activity No.: ER2012 -001, PD2011 -003, PC2012 -001, TS2012 -005, NT2012 -002, AH2O12- 001, &DA2012 -003 General Plan: MU -H2 (Mixed Use - Horizontal 2) Ap pi ican • Uptown Newport LP 4 PORT O � Leilani Brown, City Clerk, City of Newport Beach Cq�OF��r• R��?C PE+Q O TEMp " " " "y i © � BeriffbYb'Hg�Hi#*60m i USN emp�aWW60® feed Paper expo B0 4WY� Government Solutions Attn: Cora Newman 1048 Irvine Avenue #618 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Government Solutions Attn: Cora Newman 1048 Irvine Avenue #618 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bruce Goettinger Gov. Solutions has P.O. Box 9636? P.O. Box 2636 : Anaheim, CA 92815 -0636 Applicant (Representing Owner) Shopoff Management, Inc. Attn: Brian G. Rupp 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92618 Shopoff Management, Inc. Attn: Brian G. Rupp 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92618 HOA - N/A Shopoff Management, Inc. Attn: Brian G. Rupp 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92618 Shopoff Management, Inc. Attn: Brian G. Rupp 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92618 9 -28 -12 Returned — Insufficient Address (Dickson) Robert Dickson 650 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 76 Labels PA2011 -134 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road Uptown Newport LP CD3 Prepared by R.May 10123112 61� � AH3AVnJ9-008-t Replle Kure af!n de I .nr,�a6e6or�zas!Ilirl tilisez`lee i tfV%A 51600 d w o�ia Fnnn rWlec 7d Pop- Up'mjp!dea a6eg3as a ja ado �lszaaduil b easy Peet' J-aoels �q I L AJa sane a w aJnn Bd s01 ap 1panbll3 i Use Avery®.Template 5160® ADDITIRIVJ��j 4g'1Bq�i �` - ^ d THE IRVINE COMPANY I CITY OF IRVINE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE BIU- JACOBS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ! RICHARD DEMERJIAN, DIRECTOR JEFF DAVIS 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR P.O. BOX 19575 CAMPUS & ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE, CA 750 UNIVERSITY TOWER 92623 -9575 IRVINE, CA 926297 -2325 THE SHOPOFF GROUP, L.P. I BRIAN RUPP 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 700 IRVINE, CA 92614 I CAA PLANNING SHAWNA SHAFFNER ° 65 ENTERPRISE, STE. 130 iALLISO VIEJO CA 92656 BRUCE GOE77INGER PO BOX 9636 ANAHAIEM, CA 92814 -0636 EVELYN HART i 49 BALBOA COVES i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JIM MOSHER 2210 PRIVATE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 I: i BEVERLY SCHUBERTH 'NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING COALITION :1017 SANDCASTLE DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA .92625 j MIG REAL ESTATE I Kevin Stiles ATTN: GREG MERAGE Director of Asset Management THE KOLL COMPANY 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE # 1300 MIG Real Estate IATTN: SCOTT MESERVE NEWPORT BEACH CA ! I 660 Newport Center Dr. #1300 i , 17880 FITCH IRVINE, CA 92614 -6002 92660 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 i I: CESAR COVARRUBIAS THE KENNEDY COMMISSION 17701 COWAN AVE., STE. 200 IRVINE, CA 92614 CHRISTOPHER GARRETT 600 WEST BROADWAY, STE. 1800 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 -3375' Government Solutions Attn: Cora Newman 1048 Irvine Avenue #618 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Itti s a peler Ut itAVERY®51600 DRA ADVISORS ATTN: JAMES CHRISTIAN �I425 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 -2434 BRIAN CADAMS JOHN S. ADAMS &ASSOC., INC. 5100 BRICH STREET, 2ND FLOOR NavJP- 9 +&A0,Co- 92 -(0('0 .PAMELA SAPE70 SAPETTO GROUP, INC. 231 E. MEMORY LANE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 1 441-'131427 4200 VON KA LL jC 4000WESTERLY PL, S IE NEWPORT BEAC , CA 9266 -2347 ' EZEQUIEL GUTIERREZ, JR, PUBLIC LAW CENTER 601 CIVIC CENTER DR., WEST SANTA ANA, CA 92701 -4002 THE KOLL COMPANY ATTN: JERRY YAHR 17755 SKYPARK EAST IRVINE CA L92614 I I I� I I Iab§h4g' x 2 5/s°Rl"@et4bl@ h*Aw#f'- a4®dii a Itiquette�� mm x4.77%Lt*84d 92PWRTMI 65160/8160 www.averycom 1. 800 -GO -AVERY i . Easy Peel'? Labels 09L9A1919a,N9f409AB RMWMo op 04001a � � � ' Use Avery@ Template 51600 OgGI)j@gQjdRbOA�mp Iq!lBfiORAf„ R, 9�'jeQ� (� d , 427 - 222 -01 427- 222 -05 427 - 222 -06 VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS CO MALAGUENA I I PMC MACARTHUR LLC 1 SUN AMERICA CTR 38TH 1000 DOVE ST 100 4001 MACARTHUR BLVD 300 LOS ANGELES to ^ NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 90067 -6100 92660 -2822 92660 -2505 , 427 - 223 -01 ; 427 - 241 -15 •� 445- 072 -OS MACARTHUR BUILDING LLC , 3901 MAC ARTHUR BLVD LLC REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAL. 2700 N MAIN ST 780, 11 1400 N TUSTIN ST I TM 1111 FRANKLIN ST 6 I SANTA ANA, CA i ORANGE, CA OAKLAND CA 94607 ! 92705 -6636 92867 -3902 i 1-445�0�7213 5072-14 I I REGENTS6 E UNIVERSITY OF CAL I I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGENTS iH NIVERSIN OF CAL 1111 FRANKLIN ST 6 :' 1111 FRANKLIN ST 6 , /US ARMY CORPS ENGRS OAKLAND CA 94607 ' ; OAKLAND CA 94607 PO BOX 2711 I I'i LOS ANGELES CA 90078 "'�' I' 1 445- 072 -31 I 2 -32 REGENTSOFOF TH AL UN7I EO'STA OF AMERICA /US ARMY CORPS REGENTS OF VERSITY OF CAL 1111 FRANKLIN ST 6TH ENGRS 1111 FRANKLIN ST 6TH OAKLAND CA 94607 PO BOX 2711 OAKLAND CA 94607 • i LOS ANGELES CA 90078 l 445 - 122 -05 I 445 - 122 -06 1445- 122 -17 CRAIG REALTY MIZAN LLC PACIFIC CLUB 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD 200 1 4343 VON KARMAN AVE 4110 MACARTHUR BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA J ' NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2064 192660 -2099 . ! 192660.2001 445- 122 -18 1 445- 131 -02 I I 445- 131 -03 I KCN A MANAGEMENT LLC. ' UPTOWN NEWPORT LP UPTOWN NEWPORT LP 4343 VON KARMAN AVE I 4321 JAMBOREE RD 4311 JAMBOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA I NEWPORT BEACH CA j 92660 -3007 92660 -3007 45� 131 -04 I 445 - 131 -051 445- 131 -08 KCN A MANA6 NT LLC PRES- LAKESIDE L P OCRC CAPITAL CORP 4343 VON KARMAN AV 4300 VON KARMAN AVE 7 CORPORATE PLAZA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 1 92660 -2004 92660 -7904 445- 131 -09 I 445- 131 -10 !1445- 131 -11 CANOPI LLC 4350 VON KARMAN LLC PRES -4340 VON KARMAN L P 3197 AIRPORT LOOP DR E 4350 VON KARMAN AVE 4 4300 VON KARMAN AVE COSTA MESA, CA NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92626 -3424 92660 -2043 92660 -2004 445- 131 -13 i( 445- 131 -15 445- 131 -16 MAC ARTHUR LLC TR , MACARTHUR LLC 1600 DOVE ST 480 MBC HOLDINGS NEWPORT BEACH, CA . 42 0 LEXINGTON AVE 900 1 42 4320 VON KARMAN AVE 92660 -1433 I NEW YORK NY 10170 -0999 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2004 445- 131 -18 •.I 1 -19 , 445 - 131 -21 CORNERSTONE PARTNERS IV LLC I CORNE RS� S IV LLC I WHL 1976 TLLC TRUST j I 18818 TELLER AVE 227 ' 18818 TELLER AVE 227 4490 VON KARMAN AVE I IRVINE CA 92612 -1612 IRVINE CA 92612 -1612 i NEWPORTBEACHCA I 92660 -2008 Et s a peter lab I� ig' x 2 5/8" �IaJvbddv7� 4 8960 www•avery.com '� Ut it AVERY ®5160® ItIQ0eit@}j® ilHilf,a6 MM Xyft IRtftar#AlM(?gFw d51E0 /8160 1- 800 -GO -AVERY easy reel° Levels 0918 1(1949e.IUD WBA0 s 4EUM3 LJL0q! maJnajBrdet Mj8P j9BB01>3 Use Avery® Template 51600 091fj�g�kf�gBn nP'a gliz „Qy�pt?P „�Bq d 445 - 131 -23 5 -14� 31-25 1445- 131 -26 4220 VK LLC KCN A�JIANA6EM ENT LLC I 1 SANTA BARBARA BK & TRUST 4220 VON KARMAN AVE 210 4343 VON KARMAN A ` -` 'PO BOX 3170 NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA ' HONOLULU, HI 92660 -2057 •92660 196802 -3170 445- 131 -27 1 -28 1445- 132 -11 4200 VON KARMAN LLC I • KCN A MAN T LLC C BATES JOHNSON BUILDING LTD 4000 WESTERLY PL 4343 VON KARMAN AV I MACARTHUR BLVD 240 SUITE 110 NEWPORT BEACH CA 119742 IRVINE CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2347 1 192660 92612 -2446 445 - 132 -18 1445 - 141 -06 445- 141 -07 CIP CENTERPOINTE 1236 LLC I BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC 19762 MACARTHUR BLVD 300 4930 CAMPUS DR 4940 CAMPUS DR IRVINE CA NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92612 -2498 92660 -2119 192660 -2137 445- 141 -08 ,445- 141 -09 445- 141 -10 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC LAMBEAU PROPERTIES LLC 4931 BIRCH ST j 4700 VON KARMAN AVE 4921 BIRCH ST 1 NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2114 I 92660 -2194 l 92660 -2170 i I 445 - 141 -11 I [445- 141 -12 1445- 141 -13 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC I LYON HOUSING I LLC I BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC 4650 VON KARMAN AVE 4901 BIRCH ST 4911 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2121 92660 -2108 1 192660 -2155 445- 141 -14 l ( 15 j445- 141 -15 KCN LTD EDITION OWNERS ASSN I KCN LT ERS ASSN I BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC 5030 CAMPUS DR 1 5030 CAMPUS DR i 5001 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 j NEWPORT BEACH CA I I92660 -2116 1445- 445- 141 -22 1 1445- 141 -23 141 -24 ' 5000 CAMPUS PARTNERSHIP BEACHWOOD PARTNERS BEACHWOOD PARTNERS PARTNERS 5000 CAMPUS DR 5010 CAMPUS DR : 5020 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA I1� NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2120 I•�92660 -2120 Ji192660 -2120 445- 141 -26 ” I 4 1 -27 ' I445- KIM KAO : 141 -28 1 22803 SEAWAY DR KCN' N OWNERS ASSN LTC) BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 5030 CAMPUS DR 14740 VON KARMAN AVE 100 92677 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 : NEWPORT BEACH CA -445- :92660 -2172 ; 445- 141 -29 III, 141 -30 �BRIDGESTONE 1445- 141 -31 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC PROPERTIES LLC - LEBATA INC 5031 BIRCH ST 1 5015 BIRCH ST 14621 TELLER AVE 1040 NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -8102 92660 -2162 I92660 -8132 445- 151 -01 '. 1445- 161 -02 COUNTY OF ORANGE j i I LEGACY BIRCH LLC/ SYSTEMS INC ! 4601 JAMBOREE RD PO BOX 52230 i NEWPORT BEACH CA i IRVINE CA 92660 -2527 92619 4' s a peter U it AVERY® 51600 ; IBh�I ®d ' x 2 5/8” 69ai*ihRPM0hVW? "*0j8160 www.averycom 44' welted mm x "ftrkifl"~WN@ 5160 18160 1-800-GO-AVERY '� Easy PeePw Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 445 - 161 -03 THOMAS H WOOLDRIDGE .281 MERCEDES LN ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420 930 -30 -402 E 1 EGGHART 2001 TRUST 5140 BIRCH ST 300 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2135 445- 132 -33 SCHOLLE DEVELOPMENT SPE I LLC 19520 JAMBOREE RD 250 IRVINE CA 92612 -2481 5- 132 -37 SOHO OP ENT 19520 JAMBOREER SAS IRVINE CA 92612 -2481 445- 141 -21 SCREAMING EAGLES, LLC 4631 TELLER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -8105 0918/119G96.AJBN�50Ae a wLadjW9Mf304k0 V E148110113 d 09LfII�itP��Bn T1! 9!i'R„4`1'B9� IJ d '445- 161 -04 °930 -30 -401 ' 'NEWPORT FEDERAL ETAL NELSONG MAMEY 4425 JAMBOREE RD 250 5160 BIRCH ST 101 NEWPORT BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 192660 -3002 92660 -2196 '930 -30 -403 DARTS BUILDING PARTNERS 5120 BIRCH ST 200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2156 445 - 132 -35 . SCHOLLE JAMBOREE PROPERTY 19520 JAMBOREE RD 250 IRVINE CA 192612 -2481 45 -13 132 -38 SCH.OLZE-D MENT 19520. JAMBOREE RD2 IRVINE CA 192612 -2481 i 930 -30 -404 ' JOHN ADAMS & ASSOC 5100 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA i 192660 -2160 136 SCHOLLE—DIVEtePNT SPE I LLC 19520 JAMBOREE RD 250 IRVINE CA 92612 -2481 441- 132 -06 (SEE 445- 132 -33, 35, 36, 37, 38) u sapeler lab x2518 "RJF" bl®Gl%QhM W/8160 www.averycom Ut - it AVERY® 5160® i 4'� mm x��l LeJ Ig V64� 516018160 1- 800-GO -AVERY tlquett I