HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment_PA2017-031 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
March 23, 2017 Meeting
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
4311-4321 Jamboree Road (PA2017-031)
Site Development Review No. SD2017-001
APPLICANT: TSG-Parcel 1, LLC
OWNER: Uptown Newport Jamboree, LLC
TPG/TSG Venture 1 Acquisition, LLC
PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
949-644-3208, rung@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
An amendment of the previously approved Master Site Development Review application
to allow alternative locations and phasing of the commercial component (up to 11,500
square feet) within the 25.05-acre mixed-use planned community known as Uptown
Newport.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find that all environmental effects of the Uptown Newport mixed-use residential
development have been previously addressed by the certification of Final
Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012-001 (SCH No. 2010051094) and no new
environmental impacts and no impacts of greater severity would result from approval
and implementation of the alternative location for the commercial component
analyzed in the Addendum 1 to the Uptown Newport Final EIR; and
3) Approve the requested Amendment by Adopting Resolution No. _ approving Site
Development Review No. SD2017-001 (Attachment PC 1).
1
V�
QP
�P
,!� �r • 'jA it �.
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 3
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
c
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
MU-H2 (Mixed-Use PC-58 (Uptown
ON-SITE Horizontal 2) Newport Planned Office/Industrial
Community)
PC-58 (Uptown
NORTH MU-H2 Newport Planned Office Development
Community)
SOUTH UCI North Campus UCI North Campus UCI North Campus
MU-H2/UCI North PC15 & UCI North Office/Commercial
EAST Campus Campus Developments & UCI North
Campus
WEST MU-H2 PC-15 Office Development
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 4
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting
The Uptown Newport Planned Community is located within the Airport Area and is
approximately 25.05 acres in size. Vehicular access to the project site is from Jamboree
Road and Birch Street with the primary project entrance at the intersection with Fairchild
Road.
The site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by commercial/office uses within the
Koll Center Newport office park. 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.
Construction of Phase 1 (approximately 12 acres) is underway. Demolition of the Jazz
Semiconductor office building and parking lot has been completed. Most of the rough
grading has been completed and utilities and streets will be constructed with the initial
construction of residential units. The development of Phase 2 will be initiated after Jazz
Semiconductor's lease concludes either in 2022 or 2027.
Background
On February 26, 2013, the City Council approved the zoning entitlements and certified
the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Uptown Newport project, which consists of
a mixed-use planned community of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of
neighborhood-serving retail space, and two, one-acre public parks (one for each phase
of the overall project).
The approved zoning documents for Uptown Newport consisted of: (1) Land Uses,
Development Standards & Procedures, (2) Phasing Plan, and (3) Design Guidelines.
These documents set forth the development standards with procedures for project
implementation, phasing requirements, and design framework. These documents,
together, are called Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP). These documents
are available at the City of Newport Beach website at:
http://newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-
division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/planned-communities
The Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures provides land use development
regulations, site development standards, and implementation process by requiring a
master site development review approval by the Planning Commission for the entire
Uptown Newport project; and a minor site development review approval by the
Community Development Director for the individual buildings and construction of the two
neighborhood parks.
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 5
On September 5, 2013, the Planning Commission approved the Master Site Development
Review (MSDR) application for the Uptown Newport project. The Planning Commission
also approved prototypical architectural building elevations, master landscape plan and
plant palette, preliminary public parks and paseo plans, preliminary master wall/fence
plans, master signage plans and preliminary site improvement plans for the entire
development. The purpose of this approval is to ensure that the project will be developed
in a cohesive manner in phases consistent with the PCDP, Development Agreement,
environmental mitigation measures required by EIR, and applicable City codes and
standards. The Planning Commission staff reports, minutes, approved resolution and
plans are available at the City of Newport Beach website at:
http://newr)ortbeachca.gov/uptownnewi)ort
Figure 1 shows the basic layout of the planned community, the two phases, and several
lots that are the subject of this report.
Figure 1
Project Phasing
Loll - Phase 2 a ll rr ll
�(J u
Ir Public Park Public
r 4
Phase 1
3 - --•— •- -•-^ _iiii6i gym»
LOt 4 Phase 1 Phase 2 Total
LOt2 COmmalCl81 Number of Units: 680 564 1,244
LOcatioD 11 Developable Area(ac): 8.74 9.72 18.46
i Park Area(ac): 1.03 1.02 2.05
Retail(sf): 11,500 0 500
JAMBOREE ROAD Right of Way Area(ac): 3.24 130 4.4.54
Total Area(ac): 13.01 12.04 25.05
Phase 1 consists of up to 680 units and 11,500 square feet of retail uses to be developed
on Lots 1, 3 and 4, and a one-acre public park. Phase 2 includes the remaining project
area and Lot 2 and consists of 564 units and the second one-acre park. Phase 2 will not
likely begin before 2022 and might not begin until 2027. Jazz Semiconductor has
exercised its first 5-year option to remain and they have an additional 5-year option to
consider. If Jazz operation remains profitable, they will mostly likely continue to operate
until 2027. The following provides a more detailed summary of the planned development
of Phase 1.
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 6
Lot 1
Lot 1 is planned for approximately 200 residential units. It has frontage on the
internal spine street and wraps around the north and west side of the public park.
The lot could support commercial use along the spine street; however, the site has
no visibility from Jamboree Road. A required Minor Site Development Review
application has not been submitted for the development of the site.
Lots 3 and 4
On January 14, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the Minor
Site Development Review for the construction of 455 residential apartment units in
two separate buildings located along Jamboree Road. The Picerne Group
(Picerne) is the developer in partnership with the applicant. The southerly area of
the two buildings (Lot 3) was approved for 222 apartment units and 10,700 square
feet of retail use in the location shown in Figure 1. Lot 4 contains the northerly
building which has a total of 233 units. The area between the two proposed
buildings is a 50-foot wide paseo allowing pedestrian access from Jamboree Road
and the internal spine street. Building permits for this development are ready for
issuance; however, the Picerne and the applicant seek to eliminate the commercial
component from Lot 3 and replace it with seven (7) additional apartment units.
Issuance of building permits are on hold pending resolution of the subject
application. Should the Commission approve the applicant's request, the
Community Development Director is prepared to amend the Minor Site
Development Review application to reflect the change.
Project Description
The applicant requests an amendment to the approved Master Site Development Plan to
allow alternative locations and phasing for the retail commercial space. The applicant
requests the elimination of 10,700 square feet of commercial uses from Lot 3 and the
commercial use would be developed on other lots. As noted, seven additional residential
units would replace the commercial space.
According to the applicant, the principal reason for the change is the cost of the
subterranean parking structure under the southerly building planned for Lot 3 to support
commercial uses. Apparently the cost of the third subterranean level of parking
jeopardizes project finances. Project finances are complicated by the fact that it includes
92 affordable housing units. The second reason for the change is that the Picerne does
not want to manage the commercial space. With the approval of the proposed
amendment, a total of 462 apartment units would be developed on Lots 3 and 4, inclusive
of the 92 low-income units.
As an alternative to the 10,700 square feet of commercial space in Lot 3, the applicant
proposes development of approximately 6,500 square feet of commercial space on Lot 1
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 7
and Lot 2 in Phase 1. Specifically, the applicant believes they can develop about 3,500
square feet of commercial space around the existing SCE substation on Lot 2. The initial
retail uses for Lot 2 include a restaurant and market. The completion for commercial
space on Lot 2 would coincide with the certificate of occupancy of Picerne's southerly
building which includes 229 apartment units.
The applicant also believes they can include at least 3,000 square feet of space in Lot 1
along the internal spine street adjacent to the park. The applicant also indicates a
possibility to develop more commercial area on Lot 1 but there is no commitment at this
time. Any remaining area would be developed as part of Phase 2, likely near the park
along the spine street.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and renderings to illustrate the
potential locations and building design for uses on Lots 1 and 2, as viewed from Jamboree
Road and with Picerne's project (Attachment PC 3). Figure 2 shows the locations of the
proposed commercial area.
Figure 2
Proposed Commercial Location Depicted on Lot 2
LOT 1
C
PARK LOT 1
LOT A RETAIL
MCNGM l\ S,OWSF
f55PA6E
WAFACE
Ii SPACES. -I SPACES
r5SPAFS
4005E
YORNMF� AmcA
Hn1f.
ERISiEYG '�55 ACES
SIIOSTATIONscEAO»
LOT 2 e LOT 3
:z 'SF
The proposed change requires an amendment of the Master Site Development Review
by the Planning Commission to ensure that the amendment is consistent with the PCDP.
2
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 8
DISCUSSION
Consistency with the General Plan
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-H2 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. The proposed amendment to MSDR is consistent with the
MU-H2 designation as no changes are being proposed that would affect the overall
density and/or intensity of the entire development.
Consistency with the Zoning Code (Uptown Newport Planned Community Development
Plan
The PCDP is intended to be a multi-family residential community with neighborhood-
serving retail uses for residents, visitors and nearby commercial uses. The Design
Guidelines of the PCDP envisioned the mixed use node of the project to be located at the
entrance to draw upon traffic and visibility from Jamboree Road to enhance its
commercial viability.
The PCDP allows up to 11,500 square feet of commercial uses to be developed on any
site within the planned community. Off-street parking is required in accordance with the
Zoning Code and the PCDP allows street parking to satisfy off-street parking.
The PCDP Phasing Plan, as depicted in Figure 1, was developed as a general guide for
phasing project implementation. Therefore, development of Lot 2 in Phase 1 is consistent
with the PCDP. The amendment application does not propose any additional
development or increase intensity beyond the project approvals.
The applicant submitted conceptual renderings of the commercial component proposed
on Lot 2 (see Attachment PC3). The initial review showed that the conceptual renderings
are compatible with the approved contemporary architectural style for Uptown Newport
and complimentary to the adjacent Picerne apartment project. A variety of colors,
materials, and architectural character are also shown on the conceptual renderings. The
Jamboree Road frontage contains building height variations with major and minor
massing breaks in accordance with the Design Guidelines. The requested amendment is
consistent with the PCDP and precise site plan layout and architectural details would be
addressed when a detailed plan is available and the commercial uses are defined.
9
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 9
Analysis
The applicant's conceptual site plan illustrates the potential commercial development of
Lot 2 in Phase 1. It shows approximately 3,500 square feet of retail and restaurant use,
continued operation of the SCE substation, and 14 parking spaces. The applicant's
concept plan also shows 3,000 square feet of commercial space in Lot 1 along the spine
street adjacent to the park.
The proposal maintains commercial development at the project entrance, although at a
smaller scale. The conceptual plan appears potentially viable, however, it requires further
study and refinement. The following issues shall be addressed. If they cannot be resolved,
the commercial development of Lot 2 could be delayed to Phase 2.
• Parking - As illustrated, some of the required parking would be provided on site
and the remainder of parking would be provided along internal streets (not
including spaces at the public park). All on-street spaces would be approximately
560 feet from the commercial use. The conceptual site plan may generate a small
parking deficiency that might be eliminated by identifying additional spaces in a
more refined design, and/or a reduction of commercial area, and/or a parking
waiver.
The City's Traffic Engineer recommends eliminating the five angled parking spaces
located on the main driveway across from Parcel 2 should the amendment be
approved as the repositioning of commercial use would likely lead to jaywalking
across the main access street from Jamboree Road.
• Southern California Edison Access - The access driveway for the substation is
narrow and does not provide an opportunity to turn around. Southern California
Edison is reviewing the concept and final clearance/approval has not been
received as of the drafting of this report.
If commercial use is not located on Lots 2 and 3 and development of commercial space
is sought in Phase 1, Lot 1 is the best possible location. However, Lot 1 would not be
visible from Jamboree Road and, therefore, would be heavily reliant upon future resident
patronage to be successful. Lastly, segmenting the commercial uses and locating them
off of Jamboree Road may conflict with the success of approved mixed-use development.
Summary/Conclusion
The approved plan for commercial space within Lot 3 is the superior plan in that it locates
the critical mass of commercial uses at the entrance of the project, where it has the
greatest potential for success. However, staff recognizes the applicant's goal to reduce
costs of the Picerne development that includes affordable housing. The proposed concept
plan might be feasible, but further analysis would be needed as part of a future Site
10
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 10
Development Review application. If the amendment is approved, staff will work with the
applicant and SCE to address the plan's challenges. If those challenges cannot be
addressed, commercial use of Lot 2 would be delayed to Phase 2 when the substation is
removed.
Commercial development along the internal spine street in Phase 1 or Phase 2 will not
be visible from Jamboree Road and would be largely reliant upon neighborhood traffic.
All locations for commercial development, with the exception of the development of Lot 2
without the SCE substation, are less desirable than the current approved location within
the Picerne project. However, staff does not want to jeopardize the Picerne project given
that opportunities to develop commercial use on Lot 2 when the substation is removed
and others will remain to help achieve the overall goal of the planned community to
provide a viable mixed-use, housing opportunity in the Airport Area.
Alternatives
1. Require commercial development on Parcell in Phase 2— If the Commission does
not support establishing commercial development in Phase 1, as depicted in the
submitted plan, the applicant could be directed to locate the commercial in Phase
2 on Parcel 2. A superior and more cohesive plan could be implemented without
the substation.
2. Deny Amendment—The Planning Commission may deny the request and require
that the commercial be located on Parcel 3, as originally approved (Attachment PC
2).
Environmental Review
The City prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for Uptown Newport
Project (SCH#2010051094). State CEQA Guidelines allow for the updating and use of a
previously certified EIR for projects that have changed or are different from the previous
project. In cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant environmental
impacts, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164. The City has prepared Addendum No. 1 to the Uptown
Newport Final Environmental Impact Report for the modified project (Attachment PC 4).
The analysis provided in the Addendum concludes that no new environmental impacts
and no impacts of greater severity would result from approval and implementation of the
proposed amendment. The Final Environmental Impact Report for Uptown Newport
mixed-use residential project and supporting documents are available for public review
and inspection at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at
www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments
11
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 11
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property
within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and
waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days
before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City
Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Ro alinh Ung *na i, ICP, Deputy Director
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Approval Resolution
PC 2 Draft Denial Resolution
PC 3 Conceptual Site Plan & Renderings
PC 4 CEQA Addendum 1
12
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Approval Resolution
2s
V�
QP
�P
2�
RESOLUTION NO. ####
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO MASTER SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO
SD2017-001 FOR THE 25.05 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY
KNOWN AS UPTOWN NEWPORT LOCATED AT 4311 AND 4321
JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2017-031)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. On February 26, 2013, the City Council certified the Uptown Newport Final
Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012-001 (SCH No. 2010051094) (EIR) and
approved the following entitlement applications for the Uptown Newport Planned
Community:
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 (2) 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. The Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures provides land
use development regulations, site development standards, and implementation
process by requiring a master site development review approval by the Planning
Commission for the entire Uptown Newport project; and a minor site development
review approval by the Community Development Directorfor the individual buildings
and construction of the two neighborhood parks.
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.
15
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 2 of 10
E. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12-001: A program specifying
how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements,
pursuant to Chapter 19.53 (Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density
Bonus) of the Municipal Code.
F. Development Agreement No. DA2012-003 (adopted on March 12, 2013): 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. On September 5, 2013, the Planning Commission approved Master Site Development
Review No. SD2013-002 (MSDR) for the entire 25.05-acre planned community known
as Uptown Newport. Phase 1 consists of up to 680 units, 11,500 square feet of retail,
and a one-acre park to be developed on Lots 1, 3 and 4 of Tract Map 17763. Phase 2,
to be developed at a later date, consists of 564 units and the remaining one-acre park.
The Planning Commission also approved prototypical architectural building elevations,
master landscape plan and plant palette, preliminary public parks and paseo plans,
preliminary master wall/fence plans, master signage plans and preliminary site
improvement plans for the entire development. The purpose of this approval is to ensure
that the project will be developed in a cohesive manner in phases consistent with the
PCDP, Development Agreement, environmental mitigation measures required by EIR,
and applicable City codes and standards.
3. On January 14, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the Minor Site
Development Review for the construction of 455 residential apartment units in two
separate buildings located along Jamboree Road, on Lots 3 and 4 of Tract Map 17763.
The Picerne Group (Picerne) is the developer in partnership with the applicant. The
southerly building was approved for 222 apartment units and 10,700 square feet of retail
use on Lot 3. The northerly building located on Lot 4 would contain 233 units. The area
between the two proposed buildings is a 50-foot wide paseo allowing pedestrian access
from Jamboree Road and the internal spine street.
4. An application was filed by TSG-Parcel 1, LLC on behalf of Uptown Newport Jamboree
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, with respect to property generally located on
the north side of Jamboree Road between Birch Street and the intersection of Von Karman
Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, at 4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road, and legally
described as Parcel Map No. PM2013-108, requesting approval of an amendment to
Master Site Development Plan SD2013-002.
01-03-17
10
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 3 of 10
5. The amendment application proposes alternative locations and phasing of the 11,500
square foot commercial component. Picerne and the applicant seek to eliminate the
commercial component from Lot 3 of Tract Map 17763 and replace it with seven (7)
additional apartment units.As an alternative, the applicant proposes approximately 3,500
square feet of commercial area to be developed on Lot 2 and 3,000 square feet on Lot
1 as part of Phase 1. The remaining commercial component could be developed in
Phase 1 and/or Phase 2.
6. The Property has a General Plan designation of Mixed-Use District Horizontal-2 (MU-H2),
and is zoned Uptown Newport Planned Community (PC-58) District.
7. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.
8. A public hearing was held on March 23, 2017, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center
Drive, Newport Beach in regards to the MSDR amendment application. 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 Planning Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. All significant environmental effects for the PCDP have been adequately addressed in
the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012-001 (SCH No.
2010051094) ("EIR"), which included a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program and
statement of overriding considerations, and the City of Newport Beach intends to use
said document for the approval of the subject MSDR application and its implementation.
The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum, together with the EIR, reflects its
independent judgement, and further finds that these documents, which are incorporated
herein by reference, have been completed and are in compliance with and satisfy the
requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines.
Copies of the previously prepared environmental document are available for public
review and inspection at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website
at www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments.
2. MSDR is required by the PCDP, and the MSDR amendment application ensures that
the subject property is developed consistent with the previously approved entitlements
identified above as updated to identify the location of commercial use in Phase 1. The
MSDR amendment application locates up to 3,500 square feet of commercial use in Lot
2 and 3,000 square feet in Lot 1 of Tract No. 17763 during Phase 1 development. The
remainder of the commercial square footage will be located within the balance of Phase
1 and/or Phase 2.
3. The MSDR amendment application does not seek an increase in intensity or to change
the development standards. The changes to the project and circumstances under which
the project is undertaken, including the placement of commercial square footage near
the existing Southern California Edison substation (substation), are not substantial and
will not require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant
01-03-17
27
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 4 of 10
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects. There are no additional reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that
should be considered in conjunction with the MSDR, the MSDR amendment application
and the implementation thereof. There is no new information of substantial importance
showing the project will have new significant effects, substantially more severe
previously identified significant effects, new mitigation measures or alternatives, or that
mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible are now feasible.
None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the need for further
subsequent or supplemental environmental review have occurred. State CEQA
Guidelines allow for the updating and use of a previously certified EIR if some changes
or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR occur in connection with the MSDR
amendment. In cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant
environmental effects, and without a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant environmental effects, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR
may be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164).
4. The proposed changes in the MSDR amendment application do not require major
revisions to the EIR, and there are no new, previously unconsidered significant
environmental effects. No new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, because of the proposed
location of up to 3,500 square feet of commercial use in Lot 2 of Tract No. 17763 during
Phase 1 development. The substation is located on Lot 2 of Tract No. 17763, and the
EIR analyzes health hazards related to electric and magnetic fields ("EMF") from the
substation. The overall commercial square footage, number of residential units and
proximity of residential units to the existing Jazz Semiconductor facility, substation and
66 kV overhead electric power transmission line have not changed.
5. There is no state or nationally recognized regulatory standards for EMF exposure for
the general public. Nevertheless, the EMF study prepared in connection with the
Addendum evaluated magnetic fields from the substation and the associated overhead
electric power transmission lines in proximity to the relocated commercial/retail use onto
Lot 2 as part of the MSDR amendment and concludes that EMF exposure levels would
not create any new significant hazards to the public or environment.
6. 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.
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.
01-03-17
12
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 5 of 10
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
Finding:
A. The MSDR Amendment application is consistent with the General Plan.
Facts in Support of Finding
Al. 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-H2 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. The proposed amendment to MSDR is consistent with
the MU-H2 designation as no changes are being proposed that would affect the overall
density and/or intensity of the entire development.
Finding
In accordance with Section 4.1 of the Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures of
the PCDP, the purpose of the Master Site Development Review is to ensure that the Uptown
Newport Project is developed consistent with the PCDP, Development Agreement, applicable
environmental mitigation measures, and applicable City Codes and standards. The consistency
findings and facts in support of the MSDR application are set forth below:
B. The MSDR Amendment application is in compliance with the provisions of the Land
Uses, Development Standards and Procedures of the PCDP.
Facts in Support of Finding
B1. The PCDP is intended to be a multi-family residential community with neighborhood-
serving retail uses for residents, visitors and nearby commercial uses. The Design
Guidelines of the PCDP envisioned the mixed use node of the project to be located at the
entrance to draw upon traffic and visibility from Jamboree Road to enhance its commercial
viability. The PCDP allows up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of commercial
uses and two, one-acre public parks. The PCDP does not specify or limit the location of
the commercial uses. The amendment does not propose additional development beyond
the existing project approvals, or any revisions to the Land Uses, Development Standards
and Procedures of the PCDP. Therefore, the request to develop commercial uses on Lots
1 and 2 rather than Lot 3 is consistent with the land use regulations provided in Section 2
of the PCDP.
B2. The commercial square footage in Lot 3 of Tract No. 17763 was depicted on Master Site
Development Plan Sheet LD-2, dated 7/19/2013. The application revises the Master Site
01-03-17
29
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 6 of 10
Development Plan to locate commercial uses within Lots 1 and 2 of Lot 2 Tract No. 17763.
If after the development of Phase 1 there is any commercial floor area remaining, it could
be constructed on any parcel within Phase 2 as established during the site development
review process.
B3. The overall commercial square footage, number of residential units and proximity of
residential units to the existing Jazz Semiconductor facility, and locations of the substation
and 66 kV overhead electric power transmission line have not changed from what was
previously approved for the project.
Finding:
C. The MSDP amendment application is in compliance with and consistent with the
Phasing Plan of the PCDP.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C1. The PCDP Phasing Plan was developed as a general guide for phasing project
implementation. Therefore, development of Lot 2 in Phase 1 as proposed is consistent
with the PCDP. The amendment application does not propose any additional
development or increase intensity beyond the project approvals.
Finding:
D. The MSDP amendment application is in compliance with and is consistent with the
Design Guidelines of the PCDP.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D1. The amendment application does not propose any additional development beyond the
project approvals, or any revisions to the Design Guidelines of the PCDP.
D2. The applicant submitted conceptual renderings of the commercial component proposed
on Lot 2 that are consistent with the Design Guidelines of the PCDP for the following
reasons:
a) The conceptual renderings are compatible with the approved contemporary
architectural style for Uptown Newport and complimentary to the adjacent Picerne
apartment project.
b) A variety of colors, materials, and architectural character are also shown on the
conceptual renderings. The Jamboree Road frontage contains building height
variations with major and minor massing breaks in accordance with the Design
Guidelines.
01-03-17
20
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 7 of 10
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Master Site
Development Review No. SD2017-001, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A,
which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23 DAY OF MARCH, 2017.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Kory Kramer, Chairman -,
BY:
Peter Zak, Secretary
01-03-17
�2
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project-specific conditions are in italics)
PLANNING
1. The expiration date of Master Site Development Review No. SD2017-001 (Amendment to
Master Site Development Review No. SD2013-002) shall be consistent with the term of
Development Agreement No. DA2012-003 (the "Development Agreement').
2. Any substantial modification to the approved Master Site Development Review plans,
as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require an amendment to
this Master Site Development Review application or the processing of a new application.
3. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
4. The construction of commercial buildings on Lot 2 in Phase 1 shall be completed prior
to the certificate of occupancy for Picerne's southerly 229-unit apartment building.
5. In the event that issues cannot be resolved to accommodate the commercial component
around the existing SCE substation on Lot 2 in Phase 1, the commercial component
located on Parcel 2 shall be delayed to Phase 2 when the substation is removed. The
amount of square footage shall be maximized, subject to development standards and
site development review.
6. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant 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 Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment including, but
not limited to Master Site Development Review No. SD2017-001.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,
attomeys'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 condition
01-03-17
22
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 9 of 10
Fire Department Conditions
7. Prior to issuance of building permit, a technical report shall be prepared by a qualified
electrical engineer to address the location of commercial structures adjacent to the SCE
substation and any additional issues as required per the 2016 edition of the California
Electrical Code, Article 450.
8. An approved fire apparatus access road shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions
of the structures measured by an approved route around the exterior of the buildings
per California Fire Code (CFC) Section 503.1.1. Fire Department Guidelines C.01 and
C.02 shall be used to comply with access requirements.
9. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet
and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches, per CFC
Section 503.2.1.
10. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus, per CFC Section 503.2.5.
11. Fire flow shall be determined by an approved method per CFC Section 507.3 and
submitted for the building plan check review.
12. On-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided whenever a portion of the structure is
more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the structure, per CFC Section 507.5.1.
13. Per CFC Section 304.3.3, dumpsters and containers with an individual capacity of 1.0
cubic yards (200 gallons) or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within 5 feet
of combustible walls, openings or combustible roof eave lines unless the dumpsters are
constructed of noncombustible materials or of combustible materials with a peak rate of
heat release not exceeding 300 kW/m2 where tested in accordance with ASTM E1354
at an incident heat flux of 50 kW/M2 in the horizontal orientation. However, storage in a
structure shall not be prohibited where the structure is of Type I or IIA construction,
located not less than 10 feet from other buildings and used exclusively for dumpster or
container storage.
Building Division Conditions
14. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division
and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-
adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must comply with
state and federal laws regarding disability access.
15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and
Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall
be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made
part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy
01-03-17
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 10 of 10
of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality
Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during
construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality.
16. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of
the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP
shall provide appropriate best management practices to ensure that no violations of
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur.
Public Works Conditions
17. The parking layout shall comply with City Standards STD-805-L-A and STD-805-L-B.
All dead-end drive aisles shall have a dedicated turn around area and minimum 5-foot
clear hammerhead.
18. The applicant shall obtain approval from Southern California Edison for improvements
in and around the substation and easement(s).
19. Uptown Newport Drive shall be modified to eliminate the five (5) angled parking spaces
along the section between Jamboree Road and Half Dome Place.
20. No encroachments within the Phase 1 one-acre neighborhood park area shall be
permitted as part of the commercial use.
01-03-17
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Denial Resolution
25
V�
QP
�P
RESOLUTION NO. ####
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN
AMENDMENT TO MASTER SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO
SD2017-001 FOR THE 25.05 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY
KNOW AS UPTOWN NEWPORT LOCATED AT 4311 AND 4321
JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2017-031)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. On February 26, 2013, the City Council certified the Uptown Newport Final
Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012-001 (SCH No. 2010051094) (EIR) and
approved the following entitlement applications for the Uptown Newport Planned
Community:
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 (2) 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. The Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures provides land
use development regulations, site development standards, and implementation
process by requiring a master site development review approval by the Planning
Commission for the entire Uptown Newport project; and a minor site development
review approval by the Community Development Directorfor the individual buildings
and construction of the two neighborhood parks.
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.
27
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 2 of 4
E. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12-001: A program specifying
how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements,
pursuant to Chapter 19.53 (Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density
Bonus) of the Municipal Code.
F. Development Agreement No. DA2012-003 (adopted on March 12, 2013): 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. On September 5, 2013, the Planning Commission approved Master Site Development
Review No. SD2013-002 (MSDR) for the entire 25.05-acre planned community known
as Uptown Newport. Phase 1 consists of up to 680 units, 11,500 square feet of retail,
and a one-acre park. Phase 2, to be developed at a later date, consists of 564 units and
the remaining one-acre park. The Planning Commission also approved prototypical
architectural building elevations, master landscape plan and plant palette, preliminary
public parks and paseo plans, preliminary master wall/fence plans, master signage
plans and preliminary site improvement plans for the entire development. The purpose
of this approval is to ensure that the project will be developed in a cohesive manner in
phases consistent with the PCDP, Development Agreement, environmental mitigation
measures required by EIR, and applicable City codes and standards.
3. On January 14, 2016, the Community Development Director approved the Minor Site
Development Review for the construction of 455 residential apartment units in two
separate buildings located along Jamboree Road, on Lots 3 and 4 of Tract Map 17763.
The Picerne Group (Picerne) is the developer in partnership with the applicant. The
southerly building was approved for 222 apartment units and 10,700 square feet of retail
use on Lot 3. The northerly building located on Lot 4 would contain 233 units. The area
between the two proposed buildings is a 50-foot wide paseo allowing pedestrian access
from Jamboree Road and the internal spine street. Building permits for this development
are ready for issuance; however, the Picerne and the applicant seek to eliminate the
commercial component from Lot 3 and replace it with seven (7) additional apartment units.
Issuance of building permits are on hold pending resolution of the subject application. An
amendment to the Minor Site Development Review to reflect the change is necessary upon
the approval of subject application.
4. An application was filed by TSG-Parcel 1, LLC on behalf of Uptown Newport Jamboree
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, with respect to property generally located on
the north side of Jamboree Road between Birch Street and the intersection of Von Karman
Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, at 4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road, and legally
described as Parcel Map No. PM2013-108 requesting approval of an amendment to
Master Site Development Plan SD2013-002.
5. The amendment application proposes alternative locations and phasing of the 11,500
square foot commercial component. Specially, the applicant requests the elimination of
commercial uses from Lots 3 and 4 of Tract Map 17763. As an alternative, the applicant
01-03-17
22
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 3 of 4
proposes approximately 3,500 square feet of commercial area to be developed on Lot
2 and 3,000 square feet on Lot 1 as part of Phase 1. The remaining commercial
component could be developed in Phase 1 and/or Phase 2.
6. The Property has a General Plan designation of Mixed-Use District Horizontal-2 (MU-H2),
and is zoned Uptown Newport Planned Community (PC-58) District.
7. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.
8. A public hearing was held on March 23, 2017, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center
Drive, Newport Beach in regards to the MSDR amendment application. 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 Planning Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to
CEQA review.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
1. In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings set
forth in Section 4.1 of the Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures of the
PCDP. The proposed amendment to the Master Site Development Review application
is not consistent with the PCDP, Development Agreement, applicable environmental
mitigation measures, and applicable City Codes and standards. The currently approved
plan for commercial space within Lot 3 is the superior plan compared with the proposed
amendment. The proposed conceptual site plan requires further study and refinement,
and the viability of implementation is not known at this time. Alternative locations for
commercial development along the internal spine street in Phase 1 or Phase 2 will not
have visibility from Jamboree Road and would be largely reliant upon neighborhood
traffic. The proposed amendment changes the nature of the planned environment with
the repositioning of the commercial area. Segmenting the commercial uses and locating
them off of Jamboree Road may conflict with the success of approved mixed-use
development.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Master Site
Development Review No. SD2017-001.
2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
01-03-17
�9
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 4 of 4
with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23 DAY OF MARCH, 2017.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Kory Kramer, Chairman
BY:
Peter Zak, Secretary
01-03-17
Attachment No. PC 3
Conceptual Site Plan & Renderings
32
V�
QP
�P
SITE SUMMARY ( PHASE 1 )
LOT 1 LOT 1 :
RETAIL: +- 3,000 SF
+- 4 SPACES
LOT 2:
RETAIL: +- 1 ,000 SF
PARK LOT 1 RESTAURANT 1 : +- 21,500 SF
(50% APPROX. NET PUBLIC AREA)
LOT A +- 1 ,250 SF INDOOR/OUTDOOR
TRUCK PATH RETAIL
(BACKING IN) 3,000 SF
TOTAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT: +- 6,500 SF
51
NOTE: FINAL RETAIL LOCATIONS, AMOUNT OF RETAIL AND
+--1.5-SPACE,S PAC ES PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED DURING THE SITE
SURFACE LOT �� S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.
I � " '`�� +- 1
+- 14 S PACE S 1 54 A$
56
RETAIL +- 5,,SPAu
5 1 ,000 SF
52
2
PARKINGTURN
AROUND AREA ACCESS TO
PARKING
EXISTING +- 5 SPACES
SUBSVTATIOIN �� 56 SCE ACCEss
GATE
LOT 3
LOT/ / 2 s SCREEN WALL
53
S
56 56
I I
RESTAURANT 1 55
12,500 SF
SCE 4
I
EASEMENT
3
I
I I
52
CONCEPTUAL RETAIL PLAN - PHASE 1 3/8/20170"
REALTY UPTOWN NEWPORT
MW SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS ?
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
+ P A R T N E R S Transforming Opportunity into Value 0' 15' 30' 60'
r
Ab or
40
p
.i u -
r1A/l _--
- ♦� �-_, -___-- it
owl
r FR
_ NAM= _ r■r�
- - y
MWMMM
++mvm AAAw— r�■ ,stir . , - .- 9..- l. _.. . . IL
Y
�.��. �� Ar.�AAAAAAA■ + "�� .�.AAAr � ti K+
.d Ly t � � =,kms-.w►�u. ' � �� �. �1 I {� , � II � sl
IL L.
40
•
�Rw
AAS
.qul Asa ` t,' ;•girl IT. � .._•.: m.
u
�fj
*wow
I
I I • 1 '
• i a
s � -
k4
- -� _. - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j�
`' " N kms`\. _ I __ +�0°'>,+--- q�_ _�L `� i`I --- `/ �.✓
y
' . \ •�4 `^i .X� -`� -„ r _..�,- f+-' 2 , -' �y" , 'l . 1,.� ,- .y. " / IG�'1 G" � ,' i — — 1 -_—_—
_ I Y
f � 9
l - __ q _
I'. i.., 'fir 11-- _ - ` CY !Z Y"/-�• I 1
e 9 ' 1
_ .: _ Y _ 4s I Ij
1 �
u ,
u
I y I
• I I
<r
I
' I
' A
s 1
�•1�..Hf ->•,•A F. �.<" '�,i � J' u wall
f
I'--tet
1 ---------- -----
Ilr + 7+
--------__--
r
AW <Yy
BIRDEYE VIEW LOOKING NORTH FROM JA BOREE
LOT 2 - CONCEPTUAL RETAIL 3 752017
SHOPOFF REALTY
INVESTMENTS UPTOWN NEWPORT
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
—� P A R T N E R S Transforming Opportunity into Value
<S
i
I I
s
L
j —!
FAA, }�
f Cry
+A' 1w
"aM40 { •sl III e�F���
y , Wd
pr ,v.
MA
I, i � � � � �-fir,,,^ � ' �_I �i �� �� I�—�I_ �- r``j� � —r �-,� } 'k "�++� •�, �
1
1
i I i i I
1 it 1I1
_ _
�A �� — —
` f
[►.i! I= IIIDJ� ' _� —ili ��—l `�� - -'�1� I
.. I- a �' `� �. 1-�•-,.. 11 l i - — -
I � • " '� � tl� ii w � 1' a� ., .,, '� �sl r i •� •�. . /�`E i - ;.� .�,� �4�� . sr, - ry *�` I I�
AW
ton a
_ _— —
tIi yII 11. 11 n■1■r!1 Iy/r` X11 Y 1 A ♦ `�'
111JIIf II tiiF'I 5!Pi�llli�lIfi� 7 1 Ill /f � W 1�4.
6 1
,. .. OiF.
r
Y
I I • r
Attachment No. PC 4
CEQA Addendum
S
V�
QP
�P
3g
Q PLACEWORKS
ADDENDUM
to the
UPTOWN NEWPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse No. 2010051094, Certified February 26, 2013
March 2017
Introduction
This report is an Addendum to the previously certified Uptown Newport Environmental Impact Report(Certified EIR,
State Clearinghouse No. 2010051094)for the approved Uptown Newport project (Approved Project) and serves as
the environmental review for the modified Uptown Newport project (Modified Project),as required pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the
State CEQA Guidelines. The Certified EIR was prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with the
Approved Project and was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on February 26, 2013.
The Addendum includes the following sections:
■ Introduction.An introduction to the Uptown Newport EIR Addendum.
• Project Description.A description of the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project.
■ Environmental Analysis. A brief analysis of the Modified Project's impacts on each of the 18 environmental
topical sections.
■ Conclusion.Brief conclusion of the Modified Project's environmental impacts.
• AppendixA—EMF Survey
Project Description
APPROVED PROJECT
Uptown Newport is an approved master planned community (PC) consisting of up to 1,244 residential dwelling
units, 11,500 square feet (SF) of retail space and two one-acre neighborhood parks situated on 25.05 acres of land
located in the Airport Area on the west side of Jamboree Road between Birch Street and the intersection of Von
Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach (see Figure 1, Approved Site Plan and
Phasing Plan).
Construction of the Approved Project will occur in two primary phases, originally projected to be completed by 2018
and 2021, respectively. To date, grading activities and construction of infrastructure and utilities associated with
Phase 1 has been initiated on the western portion of the site along Jamboree Road.
39
At buildout,the Approved Project is projected to house approximately 2,724 residents and employ approximately 26
people in the retail component of the project. The development program from the Uptown Newport Planned
Community Development Plan is reproduced below in Table 1, Uptown Newport Development Program,
Table 1 Uptown Newport Develo ment Program
Land Use Buildout
Residential 922 units
Residential Density Bonus 322 units
Total Residential 1,244 units
Commercial(Retail) 11,500 square feet
Uptown Newport received the following entitlement approvals from the City of Newport Beach in February and
March 2013 through Resolution No. 2013-24 and Ordinance Nos. 2013-5 and 2013-6:
» Certified FIR, FR2012-001
» Amendment to the Planned Community Development Plans, PD2011-003
u Planned Community Development Plan, PC2012-001
» Traffic Study TS2012-005
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17543, NT2012002
u Affordable Housing Implementation Plan,AH2O12-001
Development Agreement, DA2012-003
MODIFIED PROJECT
The proposed modification to the Approved Project is to amend the Uptown Newport Master Site Development
Review application to relocate the approved 11,500 SF of retail space elsewhere on the property. The 11,500 SF of
retail space was originally approved as part of the Uptown Newport PC, and conceptually located on the north side
of Uptown Newport Drive on the ground floor of the south residential building, which is located on Lot 3 of Tract
17763 in Phase I of the project.
The Modified Project would relocate 3,500 SF of the Phase 1 retail use to Lot 2 of Tract 17763 (see Figure 2,
Modified Project Site Plan). Lot 2 is located at the southwestern corner of the property near the intersection of
Jamboree Road and Fairchild Road. Lot 2 was originally planned to be developed in Phase 2, as it currently contains
a Southern California Edison (SCE) substation servicing Jazz Semiconductor. It would remain in operations during
Phase I and be demolished in Phase 2 of the project. An additional 3,000 SF of retail use is proposed at the
southwest corner of Lot 1, which is permitted and could be developed in Phase 1, and was previously analyzed in
the certified EIR.Therefore, the retail development on Lot 1 is not considered a project change and is not analyzed
in this Addendum. The remainder of the retail uses are allowed as part of future development of the Uptown
Newport PC.
The certified EIR analyzed development of Lot 2 during Phase 2 of the project; however, the Modified Project is
proposing to develop the relocated retail uses during Phase 1, concurrently with the proposed apartment building
located on Lots 3 and 4 along Jamboree Road. Phase 1 uses contemplated for Lot 2 now include a restaurant,
market, and other retail uses. The 5,000 SF remainder of the approved retail space will be located within the
balance of Phase 1 or Phase 2.
The proposed changes to the retail location requires the approval of an amendment to the Master Site
Development Plan by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission to ensure that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the zoning document which allows up to 11,500 SF retail to be built throughout the Uptown
Newport PC.
March 9,2017 1 Page 2
40
UPTOWN NEWPORT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 1 -Approved Site Plan and Phasing Plan
-— 1111 rill m Ill,IIIILIrunlulnrllnrlmm�lirlll� •rlli� II 111 r l -
If�`I7T1"L1
I P�Iii 341iI I�fIi i1A
Phase 2
I �7T�p
I l_J
,I Public Park
Public Park :�
Phase 1
r
I Phase: 1 I / IIIc _y , i i1H.Alni
1 2 1 r
Lot3 Lot4
"- Lot 2, Site Boundary
u.
Commercial Location.
- _ - - - - Phasing Boundary
=I JAMBOREE ROAD Zoo
Commercial/Retail
0 200
Scale(Feet)
Source:Shopoff Realty Investment, 2017
PlareWorks
41
UPTOWN NEWPORT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 2 - Modified Project Site Plan
LOT 1
+-45PACES
PARK LOT 1
MUCK PATH LOT A RETAIL
(BACKING IM �\ 3,000 SF
+ti5-SPACES
SURFACE LOT ��
1 SPACES
+-14 SPACES +-.
� RETAIL
V V
_ 1,000 SF ,
PAR K4 �I
AROUNOAREA - '� ACCESSTO
PARKING
+-5 AGES
EXISTING �� �
S<�BSTATION. ss SCEACCESS�
GA E LOT 3
LOT 2 SCREENWALL
RESTAURANT
2,500 SF
XE
EASEMENT —
r- - -
Jamboree Rd
0 100
Scale(Feet)
Source:Shopoff Realty Investment,2017
PlaceW'orks
42
Environmental Analysis
An Addendum is required to evaluate only the changes in the project, changes in circumstances, or new information
that led to the preparation of the Addendum. In other words, the project as presented in the Certified EIR is
effectively treated as part of the baseline for the subsequent environmental review. Only the incremental
differences in impacts are assessed (or mitigated, as necessary).This section evaluates whether or not the Modified
Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Certified EIR for each environmental topical section.
AESTHETICS
PHASE 1
The Uptown Newport site is not within a state scenic highway; nor is the project site visible from any (officially
designated or eligible) scenic highway. Thus, no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would
occur.
Additionally, relocating a portion of retail development to Lot 2 of the project site would have no substantial
adverse effect on scenic vistas in the project area or substantially degrade the planned visual character or quality of
the site. Development of the retail uses would comply with development standards and design guidelines detailed in
the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan, including setbacks, building height, building material,
lighting, etc. Further, no new sources of substantial light or glare would be generated by the relocation of retail use
within the project site.
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I.The substation would be demolished in Phase 2 of the
project. No new adverse impacts related to aesthetics would occur.
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
PHASE 1
The project site is not designated as important farmland or zoned for agricultural use. It also does not conflict with a
Williamson Act contract and would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
No impact would occur.
PHASE 2
The analysis for Phase 1 also pertains to Phase 2.
AIR QUALITY
PHASE 1
The Certified EIR identified that construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Approved Project would result in a
significant regional construction-related air quality impact as a result of the number of haul trucks and large off-road
construction equipment needed for soil export. Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-7 were incorporated to reduce
construction impacts of the project. However, despite mitigation, regional construction impacts were identified as
significant and unavoidable. No significant, long-term, operational air quality impacts (regional, localized, or health
risk)were identified.
The Approved Project allows up to 11,500 square feet of retail to be built within Phase 1 and/or 2 of the project.The
Certified EIR evaluated construction of the retail uses in Phase 1.The Modified Project would relocate 3,500 square
feet of the Phase 1 retail use to Lot 2 of Tract 17763,which was analyzed in the Certified EIR as being graded during
Phase 2. Construction of the retail uses on Lot 2 during Phase 1 would not result in an increase in the maximum daily
construction emissions identified in the Certified EIR. Mitigation Measures 2-1 through 2-7 would still apply to the
March 9,2017 1 Page 5
43
Modified Project to reduce the significant construction impacts. The Modified Project would not result in an
increase in development intensity in Phase 1 or place sensitive receptors closer to major sources of air pollutants;
and therefore, operational phase impacts would remain less than significant.
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. Additional retail may be added to Lot 2 once the
substation is demolished. However, construction and operational air quality impacts associated with the Modified
Project would be the same as identified in the Certified EIR. No new adverse impacts related to air quality would
occur.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PHASE 1
The development footprint for the Modified and Approved Projects are the same.Therefore,the relocation of 3,500
SF of retail use to Lot 2 would have no new substantial impacts to sensitive species, riparian habitat, natural
communities,federally protected wetlands, wildlife corridors, or protected trees. The project site is also not located
in an area designated as a preserve under the Orange County Central-Coastal Natural Communities Conservation
Plan (NCCP). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-1 would ensure impacts remain less than significant.
PHASE 2
The analysis for Phase 1 also pertains to Phase 2.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PHASE 1
The proposed relocation of retail space to Lot 2 would occur within the development footprint of the Uptown
Newport site. In addition, the entire site has been previously developed, graded and disturbed. Therefore, no new
substantial impact on historic, archaeological or paleontological resources would occur. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 4-1 and 4-2 would ensure impacts remain less than significant.
PHASE 2
The analysis for Phase 1 also pertains to Phase 2.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PHASE 1
The development footprint of the Modified and Approved Projects are the same. Therefore, the proposed
relocation of retail use onsite would not expose people or structure to potential substantial geologic hazards,
including active faults, seismic groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, collapse, subsidence, or
expansive soils. Development of the relocated retail use would also not result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil
compared to the Approved Project. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 6-1, impacts would be less than
significant.
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. However, no new adverse impacts related to geology
and soils would occur.
March 9,2017 1 Page 6
44
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PHASE 1
The Certified EIR identified that Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport project would generate an increase in GHG
emissions onsite but would not exceed the proposed South Coast Air Quality Management District significance
thresholds.The Approved Project allows up to 11,500 square feet of retail to be built within Phase 1 and/or 2 of the
project and the Certified EIR evaluated construction of the retail uses in Phase 1. The Modified Project would
relocate 3,500 square feet of the Phase 1 retail use to Lot 2 of Tract 17763. Because the Modified Project would not
result in an increase in development intensity in Phase 1, GHG emissions impacts during Phase 1 would remain less
than significant.
PHASE 2
The Certified EIR identified that at full buildout, the Approved Project would result in a net decrease in GHG
emissions, resulting in a GHG emissions benefit. The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2
of the project. The Modified Project would include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. GHG
emissions impacts associated with the Modified Project would be the same as identified in the Certified EIR. No new
adverse impacts related to GHG emissions would occur.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PHASE 1
The Modified Project does not propose any additional development beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR.
Therefore, it would not create any new significant hazards to the public or environment through routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.
Further, the project site and development footprint of the Modified and Approved Projects are the same.Thus,the
Modified Project would not emit hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; is
not listed on any hazardous materials databases; would not result in airport safety hazards; and would not interfere
with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans regulated by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department.
Developing 3,500 SF of retail use on Lot 2 in Phase I of the project would introduce retail use adjacent to the existing
SCE substation.The Approved Project did not anticipate any development on Lot 2 until Phase 2 of the project when
the substation was to be demolished. Therefore, an electro-magnetic frequency (EMF) survey was prepared to
determine whether hazards associated with EMF exposure from the substation would adversely impact workers and
visitors of the proposed retail development. Note there are no state or nationally recognized regulatory standards
for EMF exposure for the general public.The California Department of Education has not established thresholds for
exposure to EMF emissions from transmission lines and the World Health Organization (WHO) also has not
established health-based thresholds for EMF exposure. After nearly 40 years of research, no scientific organization
that conducts weight-of-evidence reviews has concluded that exposure to EMF is a demonstrated cause of any long-
term adverse health effect. Nevertheless, an EMF survey was conducted in anticipation of potential concerns
related to potential EMF exposure from the nearby SCE substation and associated 66 kilovolt transmission line.
The EMF survey consisted of measuring magnetic field strength at outdoor locations across portions of the project
site in the vicinity of the SCE substation and the proposed Restaurant 1 structure and Retail structure (see Figure 2,
Modified Project Site Plan).
The proposed location of the Retail structure had an average EMF exposure level of 0.5 milligauss (mG), which is
lower than all background levels measured and. lower than typical average exposures one would expect in modern
society due to routine daily activities.
The proposed location of the Restaurant 1 structure had an average EMF exposure level of 5.3 mG, which is lower
than all background levels measured on the northwest end of Jamboree Road (10.5 mG), but greater than the
background levels measured on the southeast end of Jamboree Road.The Restaurant 1 structure's average value is
also greater than a typical daily average exposure of approximately 1 mG.
March 9,2017 l Page 7
45
The average Restaurant 1 structure EMF exposure level is also greater than EMF levels tied to the basis for the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determination that EMF is a Class 2 B carcinogen (i.e., 3 to 4
mG). However, EMF exposure at the Restaurant 1 site is not expected to cause a health hazard or safety issue
because: 1) after more than 40 years of research, none of the scientific organizations that conducted weight-of-
evidence reviews, including the WHO, concluded that exposure to EMF is a demonstrated cause of any long-term
adverse health effect; 2) there are no appropriate or applicable numeric regulatory thresholds established for EMF
exposure; 3) expected exposure durations at the Restaurant 1 structure would be much less than the durations
implicit in the pooled epidemiology studies that were the basis for the IARC classification; 4) the proposed land use
(restaurant) is a limited use activity with inherently limited exposure duration compared to unrestricted use
activities (e.g., residential, school, etc.) and represent a corresponding lower land. use priority (i.e.,
commercial/industrial) with respect to California Public Utilities Commission mitigation guidance; and 5) the SCE
substation is slated to be demolished during Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport development. Based on the field
survey, and for the reasons cited above, EMF exposure levels would not create any new significant hazards to the
public or environment.The full EMF Survey is included as Appendix A of this Addendum.
Mitigation Measures 7-1 through 7-11 from the Certified FIR would also apply to the Modified Project and would
ensure impacts are less than significant.
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. However, no new adverse impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials would occur.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PHASE 1
The Modified Project does not propose any additional development beyond what was analyzed in the Certified FIR.
Therefore, it would not introduce new sources of pollutants from construction or operation that would violate water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements; deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge; alter the existing drainage pattern onsite; or contribute additional runoff waters into the City's storm
drain system. The Modified Project site is also within the same development footprint as the Approved Project and
is outside of 100-and 500-year Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated flood zones. Impacts would be
less than significant.
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. However, no new adverse impacts related to hydrology
and water quality would occur.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
PHASE 1
The relocation of 3,500 SF of retail use would not physically divide an established community. The retail use would
serve the future residents of Uptown Newport. The Modified Project would require an amendment to the Uptown
Newport Master Site Development Plan; however, the Modified Project would still be consistent with the
development standards detailed in the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan, including parking
requirements, setbacks, building heights, lighting, etc.). Additionally, the Modified Project site is the same as the
Approved Project site and is not located in an area designated as a preserve under the Orange County Central-
Coastal NCCP.Thus, land use and planning impacts would be less than significant under the Modified Project.
March 9,2017 1 Page S
40
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. However, no new adverse impacts related to land use
and planning would occur.
MINERAL RESOURCES
PHASE 1
The Modified Project is located on the same site as the Approved Project and would not impact any known valuable
mineral resources.
PHASE 2
The analysis for Phase 1 also pertains to Phase 2.
NOISE
PHASE 1
Relocating 3,500 SF of retail use to Lot 2 under the Modified Project would not notably change project-generated
traffic flaws, associated noise levels, or stationary noise sources. Mitigation Measures 10-1 through 10-6 would still
be applicable to the Modified Project and would ensure impacts from stationary noise sources (i.e., truck deliveries
and parking lot activities)are less than significant and exterior/interior noise levels meet City standards.
Construction vibration and noise impacts of the Modified Project would also be similar to the Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures 10-7 through 10-12 would also apply and would reduce construction vibrations and noise
impacts. However, as analyzed in the Certified EIR, construction noise impacts would still be significant and
unavoidable.
The project site is the same for both the Modified and Approved Project. Thus, impacts from aircraft noise
associated with the John Wayne Airport would similarly be less than significant.
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. However, no new adverse impacts related to noise
would occur.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PHASE 1
The Modified Project does not propose any new residential development. No population and housing impact would
occur.
PHASE 2
The analysis for Phase 1 also pertains to Phase 2.
PUBLIC SERVICES
PHASE 1
The relocation of a portion of retail use to Lot 2 on the Uptown Newport site would have no impact on public
services, including fire, police,school, and library services.
March 9,2017 l Page 9
47
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. However, no new adverse impacts related to public
services would occur.
RECREATION
PHASE 1
The relocation of 3,500 SF of retail use would not impact the availability of parks and recreational facilities to
residents of Uptown Newport. The two acres of parkland proposed under the Approved Project would still be
developed. No impact would occur.
PHASE 2
The analysis for Phase 1 also pertains to Phase 2.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PHASE 1
The Certified FIR concluded that the Approved Project would not result in significant traffic impacts during
construction and operation. The relocation of 3,500 SF of retail use to Lot 2 would not change the internal
circulation in the Uptown Newport property nor the driveway access at the intersection of Jamboree Road and
Fairchild Road, as evaluated in the Certified EIR.
Compared to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would include a new parking lot with approximately 14
spaces just north of the SCE substation. However, this would not result in substantial changes in the internal
circulation and use of the project access driveways. Further, final parking requirements and locations will be
determined during the Site Development Review process.
It is anticipated that construction of the Modified Project would be similar to the Approved Project, no additional
construction-related traffic impacts would occur with the Modified Project. Additionally, since no additional
development is being proposed, average daily trips and roadway and intersection levels of service would not
change.
In summary, the Modified Project would not result in new substantial changes in traffic compared to the Approved
Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. However, no new adverse impacts related to
transportation and traffic would occur.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Under the California Public Resources Code Sections 21073 et seq., the Native American Historic Resource
Protection Act(Assembly Bill 52 [AB 52])took effect July 1,2015, and incorporates tribal consultation and analysis of
impacts to tribal cultural resources into the CEQA process. It requires tribal cultural resources to be analyzed like
any other CEQA topic and establishes a consultation process for lead agencies and California tribes.
Projects that require a Notice of Preparation of an EIR or Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration on or after July 1, 2015,. are subject to AB 52. Since this CEQA document is an
Addendum, AB 52 does not apply to the Modified Project. In addition, the entire site including Lot 2, has already
been previously developed,graded and disturbed.
March 9,2017 1 Page 10
42
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PHASE 1
No additional development beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR is proposed.The retail use was previously
analyzed to be developed during Phase I of the Approved Project.The relocation of 3,500 SF of retail use to Lot 2 of
the Uptown Newport site would not alter the project's overall water demand, wastewater generation, solid waste
generation,or electricity and natural gas demand.Thus, no impact would occur.
If some of the remaining 5,000 SF of allowed retail use is moved to Phase 2, utility impacts would be reduced in
Phase 1. However, overall project impacts to utilities and service impacts would be the same as analyzed in the
Certified EIR.
PHASE 2
The Approved Project anticipated development of Lot 2 in Phase 2 of the project. The Modified Project would
include introducing retail development into Lot 2 in Phase I. However, no new adverse impacts related to utilities
and service systems would occur.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the Modified Project,the proposed modifications to the Approved Project would have no
new or increased significant impacts,and no new or changed mitigation measures would be required.
March 9,2017 1 Page 11
49
Appendix A - EMF Survey
March 9,2017 1 Rage 12
50
March 20171 City of Newport Beach
EMF Survey
Uptown Newport, Newport Beach, California
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Contact: Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Planner
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.644.3208
Project Number:
CNB-13.2
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Karl Rodenbaugh, D.Env., Senior Scientist
700 S flower Street,Suite 600
Los Angeles,California 90017
213.623.1443
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
PLACEWORKS
51
A-1
52
A-2
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Table of Contents
Section Page
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................1
2. Scope of Work................................................................................................................................................3
3. Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................................................13
3.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF EMF EXPOSURE FROM TRANSMISSION LINES.........13
3.2 CDE TRANSMISISON LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS..............................................14
3.2.1 Unrestricted Uses: Under 200kV Transmission Lines Only.........................................14
3.3 LAUSD-OEHS SETBACK EXEMPTION REQUEST CRITERIA......................................15
3.4 CPUC EMF POLICY........................................................................................................................15
3.4.1 Historical Background of California EMF Policy..........................................................15
3.4.2 Current California EMF Policy..........................................................................................16
4. Project Site Conditions...............................................................................................................................19
4.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS................................................................................................. 19
4.2 PROPOSED SITE MODIFICATIONS.......................................................................................19
5. EMF Survey Results and Discussion.........................................................................................................21
6. Strategies to Reduce EMF Exposure.........................................................................................................23
7. Summary and Conclusion...........................................................................................................................27
8. References...................................................................................................................................................29
Alarcb 2017 Page i
53
A-3
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Table of Contents
List of Figures
FFigme Pale
Figure1 Regional Location.................................................................................................................................5
Figure2 Local Vicinity.........................................................................................................................................7
Figure3 Aerial Photograph.................................................................................................................................9
Figure 4 EMF Monitoring Locations..............................................................................................................11
List ofAppen&ces
Appendix A. EMF Monitoring Results
Page a Placelr�orks
A-4 54
I . Introduction
This report presents results of an electric and magnetic field (EMF) survey conducted on March 2,2017,near
the existing substation at the southern corner of the Uptown Newport project site, located generally at 4311
Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). The assessment focused on evaluation
of magnetic fields from the Southern California Edison (SCE) substation and the associated 66 kV overhead
transmission line that runs along the northwest side of Jamboree Road. Specifically, we evaluated potential
exposures at the proposed locations of the Retail and Restaurant 1 buildings near the substation (see Figure
4). The EMF survey was performed at the request of the City of Newport Beach Community Development
Department(CDD).
The SCE multi-circuit 66 kV transmission line along Jamboree Road is immediately adjacent to and southeast
of the project site. The 66 kV power lines are supported by wooden poles, which are in the parking strip
between the sidewalk and the curb for Jamboree Road.
Three power lines connect at a right angle to the 66 kV lines along Jamboree Road and feed the SCE
substation on the project site. According to a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for
Conexant Systems, Inc. (FORM 2009), the ground substation includes both Edison and Conexant (now
Tower]azz) transformers. The substation is within a walled enclosure that is 50 feet by 100 feet and
approximately 10 feet high. The nearest (southeastern) wall of the substation is approximately 100 feet from
the curb of Jamboree Road.According to the latest figure available from the City, "Lot 2 Retail Study—Phase
1," dated March 1, 2017, the proposed Restaurant 1 structure is at least 13 feet 7 inches from the substation
wall;the proposed Retail structure is at least 19 feet 7 inches from the substation wall (see Figure 4).
Marcb 2017 Page 1
5.55
A-5
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1. Introduction
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 2 Plaelr�orkr
50
A-6
2. Scope of Work
The EMF survey scope of work encompassed measuring magnetic field strength in a grid pattern at discrete
locations across portions of the project site in the vicinity of the substation and proposed Restaurant 1 and
Retail structures on March 2, 2017 (see Figure 4). EMF measurements also were recorded at selected
background locations near the project site on the same day (see Figure 3). A total of 341 discrete
measurements of magnetic field strength were collected at 10-foot intervals on the project site around the
substation area. Background EMF measurements were collected continuously along both sides of Jamboree
Road for a distance of 600 feet.
Readings were recorded in milliGauss (mG) using an Emdex "Snap" 3-Axis magnetic field strength meter.
Each of the three-axis sensors measures the magnetic field, and the meter calculates a resultant field value,
which is the root square mean reading. The EMDEX Snap meter has a range of 0.1 mG up to 1,000 mG.
The meter displays resultant magnetic field levels every 0.5 second with an accuracy of ±1%.
Figure 4 shows the project site monitoring locations as well as the locations of the proposed Restaurant 1 and
Retail structures.Background monitoring locations collected continuously along both sides of Jamboree Road
are shown on Figure 3. Table l (in Appendix A) presents magnetic field strength readings (expressed as mG)
collected at all 341 project site locations. The table also shows calculated average EMF values for the
footprints of the proposed Restaurant 1 and Retail structures, as well as average values for continuous
readings from two off-site background areas (600 foot stretches along the southeast and northwest sides of
Jamboree Road).
[lamb 2017 Page 3
A-7 57
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
2. Scope of Work
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 4 Plaelr�orkr
58
A-8
■■■■�■!n■■■■.r.■�►C ■1■1111■ ����• ' '-
��■:ems!11/�■■■■I ���1 ■■■��ar� -,. � ,
■■■■■■■■��■■■ /t■mlNO
■ISI y
rel■■■■■ �■■�:
ONE
MEN
\ via
\ roir;•
I, I
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
2. Scope of Work
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 6 Plaelr�orkr
60
A-10
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 2 - Local Vicinity
0 Su wr M
M`^N
John Wayne ._i
Qty of Costa Mesa orange Count
Airport y
o Wm~ e '
PlxnI1
_
51 City of Irvine
:;a S
>` v
SR J,T
City of Newport Beach,..... wR
' �41� 1 nbrti
O
San Diego Creek Channel e�.
\ o%
.� ao
Upper Newport Bay � '1,- un
tt eA`"`�n&xxk 5r>Vy y:VV/ IF
n0 O
UCI
V'v.a lL � •� nV,
�' ba Lar.wn
b
I -
Project Boundary
City Boundary 0 2,000
Source:ESRI,2016 Scale
PlarelF/orks
02
A-11
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
2. Scope of Work
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 8 Plaelr�orkr
62
A-12
-�.
v � t
1
rz
, f .
d � �
„
T
r�
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
2. Scope of Work
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 10 Plarelr/orrk1r
A-14 6'
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 4 - EMF Monitoring Locations
53 52 51
3 3p29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
A0-0-0-9
Sp c
•—•—• •—• •—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—• •—•—•�•—I •—•
• • • • • • • •—• • A
1AeL-40 I ?1 ies
B •—• • •—•—•—•—• •—•—•—• • • • • —J• •—• • • • II• • • •I—}�{•—• •
_ N �3 I I_ I 'I
512
14
\ �;, _I 4
71
F •—• • • •—•—•—•—• •—•_• •_•_• •_•_� • • i •T• • �• • • • •=• F
Re toura�lt 12,00 SF 25' - 3/8" I o `r
III A
0
H •—•—•
0— •—•—•—•—• •—•—• •—•—• •—•—•—•—•—•—• •—•—•—• • •—• •—• H
56 Retail 1,04 SF
J • • • • •—•—•—• •—• • •—•—•—• • • •—•—•—.—•—• •—•—•—• Am. • J
K •—•—•—• •—•—•`•—•—• • K
31 30 29 28 7 26 2 24 23 22 21 0 19 18 17 16 15 13 12 11 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
52 3 4 55 56 Park
a
356
a
0
m +/-5 Spaces
Q
F-1 10'x 10'Square • EMF Monitoring Locations(341) 0 30
Scale(Miles)
Base Map Source:MVE and Partners;2017
Pla,ell'Di-k_r
05
A-15
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
2. Scope of Work
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 12 Plaelr�orkr
60
A-16
3. Regulatory Setting
3.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF EMF EXPOSURE FROM TRANSMISSION
LINES
There are no state or nationally recognized regulatory standards for EMF exposure of the general public
because there is scientific uncertainty and lack of clear evidence that exposure to EMF is a demonstrated
cause of any long-term adverse health effects. The World Health Organization (WHO) does not have
established health-based thresholds for EMF exposure; however, it does list EMFs as a Class 2B "possible
carcinogen," based on a determination by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The 2B
classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and
less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals. This classification was based on
pooled analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of a twofold increase in
childhood leukemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic field above 0.3
to 0.4 microtesla (µT), which is equivalent to 3 to 4 mG (WHO 2007). Other Class 2B listed possible
carcinogens include coffee,welding fumes, and carpentry (IARC 2016).
After nearly 40 years of research and hundreds of studies,none of the scientific organizations that conducted
weight-of-evidence reviews concluded that exposure to EMF is a demonstrated cause of any long-term
adverse health effect. The evidence in support of a causal relationship is founded largely, if not entirely, on
limited epidemiology studies that reported statistical associations between EMF exposure and diseases.
Scientists have placed less weight on these associations because they are often inconsistent across studies,
have errors in the way the study was designed or conducted,and use methods to measure EMF exposure that
are unreliable. Overall, laboratory studies have not reported an increase in cancer among animals exposed to
high levels of electric or magnetic fields, and no mechanism has been discovered in cellular studies that
explains how electric or magnetic fields might initiate disease (Kabat 2008).
The absence of clear adverse effects after continued testing increases the probability that there is no adverse
effect from long-term exposure. However, no scientific review panel can ever completely rule out the
possibility that EMF in the community and workplace might have some adverse effect, due to the inherent
limitations of scientific investigations. Therefore, various agencies have addressed this scientific uncertainty
with precautionary policies regarding EMF exposures. The California Department of Education (CDE), for
example,employs the "precautionary principle" to ensure that students and staff at school sites do not suffer
adverse health effects from exposure to EMF associated with high-voltage transmission lines by establishing
setback zones to minimize exposure (see Section 3.2). The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) has developed guidelines to implement the CDE policy
(see Section 3.3). In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has established a "no
cost/low cost" policy for mitigating exposures to EMF (see Section 3.4). For reference purposes, the CDE,
LAUSD-OEHS, and CPUC policies are briefly addressed below.
[lamb 2017 Page 13
A-17 67
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3. Regulatory Setting
3.2 CDE TRANSMISISON LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
The California Code of Regulations (CCR),Tide 5, Section 14010(c), specifies a distance setback requirement
for power lines greater than 50 kV for proposed new school sites and school additions. Specifically, Section
14010(c) requires a setback of 100 feet from overhead 66kV power lines for proposed school sites. The
regulatory requirement is summarized as follows:
The property line of the site even if it is a joint use agreement as described in subsection (o)
of this section shall be at least the following distance from the edge of respective flower line
easements. [emphasis added]
• 100 feet for 50-133 kV line
• 150 feet for 220-230 kV line
• 350 feet for 500-550 kV line
However, CDE has a policy that allows schools within the vicinity of overhead lines to apply for variances to
this regulation, as described in the "Power Line Setback Exemption Guidance Policy" (CDE 2006). This
guidance has been developed in consultation with international experts on the health effects of EMF; state
agencies such as the Department of Public Health (DPH),the Division of the State Architect (DSA),and the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); electric utilities; school districts; consultants; and private
citizens with an interest in the topic. CDE's past endorsement of prudent avoidance continues to form the
basis of this guidance, but it also recognizes that encroachment into the setback areas may be necessary to
provide schools in areas with limited site choices. The prescribed guidance acknowledges the scientific
uncertainty of the health effects of EMFs, the lack of any state or nationally established standard for EMF
exposure, and the CPUC's recently reconfirmed reliance upon no/low-cost measures targeted to only reduce
fields from new power transmission lines.
3.2.1 Unrestricted Uses: Under 200kV Transmission Lines Only
For lines up to 200 W,, CDE's guidance prescribes that an exemption request can be made for unrestricted
school site land uses within the setback,provided,among other requirements,that:
• The school district explains to CDE's satisfaction why encroachment into the setback area is necessary
and addresses what other site options (if any) are available and how this site and plan compare to them,
including other Title 5 standards and other safety and cost complications.
• Upon satisfaction of the above, a Field Management Plan (FMP) should be prepared by a competent
professional and be submitted with the exemption request. The FMP should identify and evaluate
options and include: a) low- and no-cost measures to "re-engineer" the transmission line configuration to
reduce EMF exposure to the school; and b) design the school, especially electrical wiring and power
components,to minimize exposure of students and staff to EME
Page 14 PlacelPlarks
08
A-18
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3. Regulatory Setting
3.3 LAUSD-OEHS SETBACK EXEMPTION REQUEST CRITERIA
In conformance with the CDE Guidance,LAUSD's Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) has
established criteria and a process for evaluating the suitability of an exemption request for unrestricted uses
within the 50-200 kV setback areas (OEHS 2007). The following three-step process is to be completed prior
to submitting a request for an exemption to the CDE:
1. Determine EMF levels on the proposed school site which are associated with the subject power lines.
Whether direct measurements or modeling is utilized, EMF levels must be representative of the full
capacity of the power line.
2. Measure the EMF levels within the local community adjoining the school starting at the CDE
setback for the current power line configuration and extending into the community. This study
should extend at least 500 feet into the community. This community survey will result in a measured,
Area-Weighted Average (AWA) EMF level.
3. Compare the EMF levels determined on the school site with those determined within the local
community to assess whether there is a significant difference. For purposes of this comparison, a
significant difference is one standard deviation above the AWA. If the difference is determined to be
insignificant then an exemption request is considered appropriate. If the difference is determined to
be significant,then the exemption request is inappropriate.
3.4 CPUC EMF POLICY
Regulated public utilities, such as SCE, follow California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) policies and
design guidelines with respect to EMF reduction measures,as summarized below.
3.4.1 Historical Background of California EMF Policy
In 1993, the CPUC issued Decision 93-11-013, establishing EMF policy for California's regulated electric
utilities. The Decision acknowledged that scientific research had not demonstrated that exposures to EMF
cause health hazards and that it was inappropriate to set numeric standards that would limit exposure. While
recognizing the scientific uncertainty, the CPUC addressed public concern over EMF by establishing a no-
cost and low-cost EMF reduction policy that utilities would follow for proposed electrical facilities.
In workshops ordered by the CPUC, the utilities developed the initial EMF Design Guidelines based upon
the no-cost and low-cost EMF policy. Fundamental elements of the policy and the Design Guidelines
included the following:
1. No-cost and low-cost magnetic field reduction measures would be considered on new and upgraded
projects.
2. Low-cost measures,in aggregate,would:
a) Cost in the range of 4%of the total project cost;
Martb 2017 Page 15
A-19 O9
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3. Regulatory Setting
b) Achieve a noticeable magnetic field reduction. The CPUC stated, "We direct the utilities to use
4 percent as a benchmark in developing their EMF mitigation guidelines. We will not establish
4 percent as an absolute cap at this time because we do not want to arbitrarily eliminate a
potential measure that might be available but costs more than the 4 percent figure. Conversely,
the utilities are encouraged to use effective measures that cost less than 4 percent" (Decision 43-
11-013,Section 3.3.2,p.10)
3. For distribution facilities, utilities would apply no-cost and low-cost measures by integrating
reduction measures into construction and design standards, rather than evaluating no-cost and low-
cost measures for each project.
3.4.2 Current California EMF Policy
In 2006, the CPUC updated its EMF Policy in Decision 06-01-042. The decision reaffirmed that health
hazards from exposures to EMF have not been established and that state and federal public health regulatory
agencies have determined that setting numeric exposure limits is not appropriate. The CPUC also reaffirmed
that the existing no-cost and low-cost precautionary-based EMF policy should be continued. In the decision,
the CPUC required the utilities to update their EMF Design Guidelines to reflect the following key elements
of the updated EMF Policy:
1. "The Commission [CPUC] has exclusive jurisdiction over issues related to EMF exposure from
regulated utility facilities." (Decision 06-01-042,p. 21)
2. ...while we continue our current policy of low-cost and no cost EMF mitigation, as defined by a
4% benchmark of total project cost,we would consider minor increases above the 4%benchmark if
justified under unique circumstances, but not as a routine application in utility design guidelines. We
add the additional distinction that any EMF mitigation cost increases above the 4% benchmark
should result in significant EMF mitigation to be justified, and the total costs should be relatively
low"
3. For low cost mitigation, the "EMF reductions will be 15% of greater at the utility ROW [right-of-
way]....
4. "Parties generally agree on the following group prioritization for land use categories in determining
how mitigation costs will be applied:
a. Schools and licensed day care
b. Residential
c. Commercial/industrial
d. Recreational
e.Agricultural
f. Undeveloped land"
Page 16 PlarelPlorks
A-20O
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3. Regulatory Setting
5. "Low-cost EMF mitigation is not necessary in agricultural and undeveloped land except for
permanently occupied residences, schools or hospitals located on these lands."
6. ... We [CPUC) do not request that utilities include non-routine mitigation measures, or other
mitigation measures that are based on numeric values of EMF exposure, in revised design
guidelines...." (Decision 06-01-042,p. 17)
Decision 06-01-042 directed the utilities to hold a workshop to develop standard approaches for their EMF
Design Guidelines.This workshop was held in spring of 2006,and this document represents the standardized
design guidelines produced as a result of that workshop. The guidelines describe the routine magnetic field
reduction measures that all regulated California electric utilities will consider for new and upgraded
transmission line and transmission substation projects.
These guidelines are not applied to changes made in connection with routine maintenance,emergency repairs,
or minor changes to existing facilities.
Martb 2017 Page 17
A-21 71
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3. Regulatory Setting
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 18 Plarelr/orkr
A-22 72
4. Project Site Conditions
4.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Existing site conditions generally are shown on the aerial photograph that serves as the base of Figure 3.
Based on observations in the field and using Google Earth,the substation is within a walled enclosure that is
50 feet by 100 feet and approximately 10 feet tall. Similarly, the site boundary adjacent to Jamboree Road is
approximately 100 feet from the southeast wall of the substation. It was also observed that the 66 kV
transmission lines run along the northwest side of Jamboree Road. The three electrical lines feeding the
substation are perpendicular to (in the horizontal plane) and slope downward (in the vertical plane) from the
66 kV transmission lines to the substation.
4.2 PROPOSED SITE MODIFICATIONS
The relevant preferred site design is shown on Figure 4. Development would include a 2,500-square-foot
Restaurant 1 and a 1,000-square-foot Retail structure. As shown on Figure 4, MVE and Partners design
drawing, "Lot 2 Retail Study— Phase 1," dated March 1, 2017, shows the Retail structure at least 19 feet 7
inches from the northern corner of substation. Similarly, the Restaurant 1 structure is shown at least 13 feet,
7 inches from the southeast wall of the substation. The figure also shows that Restaurant 1 is as close as
about 35 feet from the 66 kV transmission fine poles on Jamboree Road; the Retail structure is shown about
210 feet from the 66 kV poles.
[lamb 2017 Page 19
A-23 73
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
4. Project Site Conditions
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 20 Plaelr�orkr
A-24 74
5. EMF Survey Results and Discussion
Table 1 in Appendix A includes all EMF survey results. All readings were taken on March 2, 2017, between
10:45 am and 12:45 pm. Table lshows magnetic field strength readings (expressed as mG) collected at all
project site locations. Monitoring point locations are shown on Figure 4. The average of the EMF levels
measured within the projected footprints of the Restaurant 1 and the Retail structures are also shown on
Table 1. Background EMF measurements were collected continuously along both sides of Jamboree Road,
for a distance of 600 feet, as depicted on Figure 3. Table 1 also shows the average EMF level measured in
these two background areas.
As shown in Table 1 and depicted on Figure 4,average EMF values for the footprint of the Restaurant 1 and
the footprint of the Retail structure were calculated. In addition, average background values were calculated
for two 600-foot stretches of Jamboree Road (see Figure 3). The average EMF value calculated for the
proposed Restaurant 1 (5.3 mG) and the average EMF value calculated for the proposed Retail structure (0.5
mG) are less than the average background value measured along the northwest side of Jamboree road (10.5
mG). The average EMF value calculated for the proposed Retail structure (0.5 mG) also is less than the
average background value measured along the southeast side of Jamboree Road (1.2 mG). In contrast, the
average EMF calculated for the proposed Restaurant 1 (5.3 mG) exceeds the average background value
measured along the southeast side of Jamboree road (1.2 mG). However, even if the proposed restaurant
were a school site,according to CDE criteria (CDE 2006), an exemption request to allow construction of the
school with "unrestricted" uses within the CDE's 100-foot setback would be appropriate due to the relatively
low voltage (66 kV) of the transmission line/substation.
While there are no numerical standards established for EMF exposure, the school siting authorities in
California have established mitigation policies based on the "precautionary principle." We also note that the
CDE guidance for setback distances from transmission lines ase advisory only, and utilization or compliance
is not required by regulation or CDE. In addition,although the guidance addresses "transmission"lines, CDE
notes that school districts should consider the feasibility of decreasing or mitigating exposure from EMF
from all sources on any existing or proposed school campus.
The average EMF level detected during the survey within the proposed footprint of the proposed retail
structure (-0.5 mG), while not representative of a pristine EMF environment, was within a typical range
(about 1 mG) of exposures one could expect in a society with electrical power. The average value calculated
for the Restaurant 1 footprint (5.3 mG) was above the typical level of exposure one could expect from
routine daily activities. For example, a comprehensive survey of California public schools indicated that 80
percent of the surveyed school areas and 83 percent of the classrooms had average magnetic fields of less
than 1 mG (CDHS 2001).
As noted above, the World Health Organization (WHO) has not established health-based thresholds for EMF
exposure. WHO does, however, list Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) EMFs as a Class 2B "possible
[lamb 2017 Page 21
A-25 �
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
5. EMF Survey Results and Discussion
carcinogen," based on a determination by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This
classification was based on pooled analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of
a twofold increase in childhood leukemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency
magnetic field above 3 to 4 mG.
Focusing on magnetic fields above 3 to 4 mG as thresholds of concern is problematic because these values
are not regulatory thresholds, and no agency has established numeric regulatory thresholds. Moreover, the
WHO emphasizes that after extensive review, the available evidence is not strong enough to be considered
causal between exposures to EMF and childhood leukemia or any health hazards. Additionally, the CPUC
specifically discourages mitigation measures based on numerical values of EMF exposure (see Section 3.4.2).
With these important caveats, we note that the average value determined for the Retail structure (0.5 mG) is
less than the levels tied to the basis for IARC's determination (i.e., 3 to 4 mG), whereas the average value
determined for Restaurant 1 structure (5.3 mG)is greater than the basis for IARC's determination.
Page 22 PlareIrlorks
A-26 70
b. Strategies to Reduce EMF Exposure
In the context of the "prudent avoidance" policy, it may be worthwhile to consider reducing exposures to
EMF.
There are two methods for reducing EMF exposure: 1) implementation of feasible low or no cost methods
for reduction in the source of EMF levels (e.g., transmission line or substation), and 2) incorporating
appropriate site design measures and EMF best management practices to reduce exposure to EMF at the site.
Changes to the existing 66 kV transmission lines and substation could theoretically reduce magnetic field
levels in the portions of the proposed project site where exposures are elevated above background or typical
levels. These changes could include rephasing the 66 kV circuits for optimum field cancellation (if they are
not currently optimi2ed), increasing pole height (to reduce field levels at the ground), relocating the lines
farther away from the site,or relocating the lines underground.
The cost to implement these changes could range into the many hundreds of thousand dollars. However,
most of the field reduction would occur within limited use areas (access road, near site boundary, and
landscaped areas) along the southwestern boarder of the project site and other low intensity use areas.
Because of the time, effort, and cost to implement any of these types of changes, combined with the fact
that occasional visitors and workers would normally not spend a significant amount of time in these limited
use areas, such changes are not warranted. For example, restaurant visitors make occasional visits to such
establishments. Similarly, workers in restaurants tend to have high turnover rates and not long-duration work
histories at one establishment. Therefore, it does not appear to be practical or cost effective to make these
changes as a field reduction option.
If upgrades to the existing 66 kV lines are required in the future, SCE can work with the City to identify low
EMF configurations that could be implemented to reduce EMF exposure at the site at that time. In addition,
the substation is already slated to be removed during Phase 2 of the proposed Uptown development. Based
on these reasons, it is not recommended that transmission line/substation upgrades be considered for this
site.
The project site layout has been designed to place limited use activities and lower intensity uses closer to the
substation and transmission lines. Some additional design measures—unrelated to the
substation/transmission line—that can be considered for implementation and incorporation into the site
design to reduce EMF exposure at the Restaurant 1 are described below.
The primary cause of high EMF levels within structures generally is from "net currents" (CDHS 2001).Most
wiring in homes and commercial buildings consists of cables containing two or more current carrying
conductors. At any point in time, an equal current is flowing in one direction on one wire and in the opposite
direction on another wire. Since these wires are very close together inside the cable jacket or conduit, the
magnetic field around one wire is cancelled by the opposite magnetic field around the other wire. The field
[lamb 2017 Page 23
A-27 77
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
6. Strategies to Reduce EMF Exposure
drops to a negligible level a few inches from the wires. In this case, there is no net current on the circuit.
Problems occur when this balance is destroyed by improperly wired circuits. Common examples are:
• Neutrals from separate branch circuits that are connected anywhere beyond the point of origin.
• Neutral-ground shorts (intentional or inadvertent) anywhere on the system.
• Improperly wired subpanels (a form of neutral-ground shorts).
■ Incorrect three-way switch wiring where the hot and neutral are fed to different points in the circuit.
Therefore, site design could focus on correct wiring within the restaurant and other structures to ensure that
there are no net current magnetic fields. To eliminate this problem, the wiring in all structures should be
compliant with the currently adopted US National Electric Code (NEC) and the California Electrical Code.
All rooms should be free of the common wiring errors listed above. The correctness of the wiring should be
checked in each room, and the goal is for measured EMF levels to comply with 1 mG for new construction
and 2 FOG for buildings undergoing modernization.
Other causes of elevated EMF levels inside buildings are electrical panels, fluorescent lights, office
equipment, power cables, power transformers; air conditioners, transmission and distribution lines, and
currents in water mains. The following strategies can be implemented to minimize these potential causes of
elevated EMF levels:
• Locate high occupancy areas such as occupied rooms as far as possible from magnetic field sources.
• Locate electrical panels, transformers, mechanical equipment, raceways, etc., as far as possible from
occupied areas.
• Locate electrical equipment in dedicated spaces that are not normally occupied (i.e., equipment rooms,
storage rooms,and supply rooms).
• Locate the service transformer and main switchboard as dose as possible and practical to the main
service street connection.
• Locate transformers, switchgear, and large panels remote from occupied spaces in outdoor or parking
structures.
• Locate equipment and equipment rooms so they are not adjacent to, directly above, or directly below
occupied spaces.
• Disburse power via low occupancy areas and keep major wiring runs away from heavily used spaces.
• Use EMF-free or low-EMF electrical wiring,where appropriate.
Page 24 PlarelPlorlks
A-28 7a
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
6. Strategies to Reduce EMF Exposure
• Design distribution lines to minimize EMF fields with the following options:
• Place distribution lines underground and shield in steel pipe or steel jacket,if possible.
• Close spacing or bundling of hot and neutral conductors.
• Use of triplex for service drops.
• Avoid routing underground feeders to pass under occupied spaces; where underground feeders have to
pass beneath the concrete slab to terminate at a distribution panel inside the building, install conduits 24
inches below finished floor.
• If power is brought in overhead,avoid bringing it in adjacent to occupied rooms or areas.
• Minimize currents by using higher voltages whenever practical.
• Avoid multiple main electric panels, which can create the potential for a current loop, resulting in high
EMF levels throughout the occupied building space.
• Gas, electric,telephone, cable, and water systems should be located to enter buildings as close together as
possible and bonded per the NEC to prevent an objectionable flow of current over the grounding
conductors or grounding paths.
• Use LED lights or electronic ballasts in place of magnetic ballasts for fluorescent lights, and mount the
ballast in remote locations away from occupied space,where possible.
In addition, low EMF equipment can be specified for use in the restaurant/retail and other occupied spaces.
Computer monitors, copy machines, microwave ovens, and similar electric equipment can generate
considerable EMF levels in the near field.
To the extent practical,these magnetic field reduction strategies can be considered for incorporation into the
design of the proposed site improvements to reduce exposure for staff and visitors. The EMF Checklist by
the California EMF Program (CEHTP 2014) can be used to verify the implementation of any such field
reduction strategies.
Martb 2017 Page 25
A-29 7J
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
6. Strategies to Reduce EMF Exposure
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 26 Plaelrlorkr
80
A-30
7. Summary and Conclusion
An SCE multi-circuit 66 kV overhead transmission line along the northwest side of Jamboree Road is
immediately adjacent and southeast of the project site. The 66 kV power lines are supported by wooden
poles,which are in the parking strip between the sidewalk and the curb for Jamboree Road.
Three power lines connect at a right angle to the 66 kV lines along Jamboree Road and feed the SCE
substation at the southern border of the project site. The substation is within a walled enclosure that is 50
feet by 100 feet and about 10 feet high.
The nearest (southeast) wall of the substation is approximately 100 feet from the curb of Jamboree Road.
According to the latest figure available from the City, "Lot 2 Retail Study—Phase 1,"dated March 1, 2017,the
proposed Restaurant 1 structure is at least 13 feet 7 inches from the substation wall, and the proposed Retail
structure is at least 19 feet 7 inches from the substation wall (see Figure 4).
The previously approved Uptown Newport project did not anticipate any development on Lot 2 until Phase 2
of the project when the substation was to be demolished. However,the Modified Project is now proposing to
develop 3,500 square feet of retail/restaurant use on Lot 2 in Phase 1, which would introduce
retail/commercial use near the existing SCE substation (see Figure 4). Therefore, this EMF assessment was
prepared to determine whether hazards associated with EMF exposure from the substation would adversely
impact workers and visitors of the proposed retail/restaurant development. EMF field measurements were
taken at Lot 2 and at offsite locations near the site to compare EMF exposure levels.
The EMF survey scope of work encompassed measuring magnetic field strength in a grid pattern at discrete
locations across portions of the project site in the vicinity of the substation and proposed Restaurant 1 and
Retail structures on March 2, 2017 (see Figure 4). EMF measurements were also recorded at selected
background locations near the project site on the same day (see Figure 3). A total of 341 discrete
measurements of magnetic field strength were collected at 10-foot intervals on the project site around the
substation area. Background EMF measurements were collected continuously along both sides of Jamboree
Road for a distance of 600 feet.
The proposed location of the Retail structure had an average EMF exposure level of 0.5 mG,which is lower
than all background levels measured and lower than typical average exposures one would expect in a modern
society due to routine daily activities.
The proposed location of the Restaurant 1 structure had an average EMF exposure level of 5.3 mG,which is
lower than all background levels measured on the northwest side of Jamboree Road (10.5 mG), but greater
than the background levels measured on the southeast side of Jamboree Road. The Restaurant average value
is also greater than a typical daily average exposure of about 1 mG and greater than the levels tied to the basis
for IARC's determination that EMF is a Class 2B carcinogen (i.e., 3 to 4 mG). However, it is instructive to
note that if the restaurant were a school site, according to CDE (2006) criteria,an exemption request to allow
Martb 2017 Page 27
21
A-31
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
7. Summary and Conclusion
construction of the school with "unrestricted" uses within the CDE's 100-foot setback would be allowed due
to the relatively low voltage (66 kV) of the transmission line/substation. In addition,the proposed Restaurant
and Retail structures would be considered "restricted" uses, which have greater leeway in terms of EMF
exposure and reduction policies.
In summary,the average EMF level calculated for the proposed Restaurant I structure (5.3 mG) would not be
expected to cause a health hazard or safety issue because: 1) after more than 40 years of research,none of the
scientific organizations that conducted weight-of-evidence reviews,including WHO, concluded that exposure
to EMF is a demonstrated cause of any long-term adverse health effect; 2) there are no appropriate or
applicable numeric regulatory thresholds established for EMF exposure; 3) expected exposure durations at
the restaurant would be much less than the durations implicit in the pooled epidemiology studies that were
the basis for the IARC classification; 4) the proposed land use (restaurant) is a limited use activity with
inherently limited exposure duration compared to unrestricted use activities (e.g., residential, school, etc.) and
represents a corresponding lower land use priority (i.e., commercial/industrial) with respect to CPUC EMF
reduction guidance; and 5) the substation is slated to be removed during Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport
development.
In conclusion, based on the field survey, and for the reasons cited above, EMF exposure levels at the
proposed Restaurant 1 and Retail locations would not create any new significant hazards to the public or
environment.
Page 28 Plare[Florks
82
A-32
8. References
California Department of Education (CDE). 2006,May. Power Line Setback Exemption Guidance. Prepared
by School Facilities Planning Division, CDE, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Health Services (CDHS).2001.Electric and Magnetic Fields in California Public
Schools. California Electric and Magnetic Fields Program. Project of CDHS and the Public Health
Institute.
California Environmental Health Tracking Program (CEHTP). 2014. California EMF Program Checklist.
California Department of Health Services.Accessed January 12,2017.
http://www.ehib.org/emf/Istform.htrfil.
Enertech Consultants. 1998,May.Survey of Personal Magnetic Field Exposure.Phase III: 1,000 Person
Survey.
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). 1994,December 13.IEEE Standard Procedures for
Measurement of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields from AC Power Lines.IEEE
Standards Board.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2016. "List of Classifications [of carcinogens],
Volumes 1-117."World Health Organization.Accessed March 6,2017.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/latest_Classif php.
Kabat, Geoffrey C. 2008. Hyping Health Disks.Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology.
New York: Columbia University Press,250 pp.
Office of Environmental Health and Safety(OEHS-LAUSD).2007,March 1 (revised). Criteria for School
Siting in Proximity to High Voltage Power Lines. Los Angeles Unified School District.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2007,June. "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health."WHO
Backgrounder fact sheet.Accessed March 6,2017.http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications
/facts/fs322/en/.
March 2017 Page 29
23
A-33
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
8. References
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Page 30 Plaelr�orkr
A-34 2
UPTOWN NEWPORT EMF SURVEY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendix
Appendix A. EMF Monitoring Results
[,lamb 2017 PlareIrlarks
8.5
A-35
Table 1
On and Off Site Magnetic Field Measurments (expressed as milligauss [mG]) at Uptown Newport Site
Monitoring Location Grid Column ID ("A"through "K")--(see Figure 4)
Monitoring
Location Grid
Average of All (A-K)
Row ID Grid Column Points,
("I"to"31"; for each Grid Row(1-
A B C D E F G H I J K 31)
1 0.9 2.2 2.4 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9
2 0.5 1.0 2.5 3.5 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1
3 0.5 1.1 3.0 3.8 2.4 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9
4 0.5 0.8 1.3 3.9 5.8 2.4 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.6
5 0.3 0.6 2.0 4.1 6.8 2.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.7
6 0.4 0.9 1.6 4.0 7.0 4.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.9
7 0.4 0.5 1.5 4.6 7.5 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.0
8 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.6 8.0 3.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.7
9 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.9 7.0 3.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.9
10 2.0 2.6 2.9 8.0 6.5 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 2.4
11 6.5 6.9 8.9 10.1 14.1 10.1 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 5.6
12 9.8 3.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 2.8
13 9.9 3.6 2.1 1.4 1.0 0.8 3.1
14 6.8 2.9 1.8 1.2 1.0 0.9 2.4
15 5.7 3.2 2.2 1.5 1.2 1.1 2.5
16 6.0 2.9 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.2 2.5
17 6.0 3.7 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.9
18 6.1 3.3 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.8
19 5.2 3.7 3.0 2.2 1.9 1.8 3.0
20 5.4 3.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.9 3.0
21 7.3 12.2 13.4 10.8 7.7 5.5 3.5 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.1 6.4
22 6.2 8.0 10.2 8.6 7.2 5.2 4.2 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.6 5.5
23 5.2 7.3 8.2 7.5 6.2 5.2 5.0 4.2 3.5 3.2 3.0 5.3
24 4.0 5.6 6.8 6.6 5.9 5.1 4.4 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.7
25 3.8 4.6 6.1 6.5 5.9 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.9
26 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.7
27 2.7 3.2 4.5 5.5 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.4 4.9 5.1 5.0 4.9
28 3.5 3.7 4.8 5.7 6.2 6.3 6.0 5 4. 5.2 5.6 5.5 5.3
29 4.9 5.1 5.4 6.2 7.1 8.0 8.1 5.8 7.0 6.1 6.5 6.4
30 5.0 5.3 5.6 6.9 7.4 8.3 8.9 6.2 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.0
31 7.5 8.2 8.6 9.2 10.0 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.2 11.5 9.7
(1-31) Grid
Row Points,for 0.9 3.9 4.9 5.8 6.5 5.4 3.4 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.3
each Grid
Column(A-K)
Additional Average Measurements On and Off Site
Average of All
Measurement
Points within 5.3
Restaurant 1
Footprint
Average of All
Measurement
Points within 0.5
Retail
Footprint
Average
Background Zontinous EMF readings
EMF Measured ere collected along a 600
Along 1.2
foot stretch of Jamboree
Road(southeast side,
Southeast End across from the project
of Jamboreesite).
Road
Average
Backrgound ontinous EMF readings
ere collected along a 600
EMF Measured oot stretch of Jamboree
Along 10.5 Road(northwest side,
Northwest End djacent to the project
of Jamboree ite).Measurements taken
rom under 66 W.
Road
A-1 20
A-36
Planning Commission-March 23, 2017
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment(PA2017-031)
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, 949-644-3208,
rung@newportbeachca.gov
Date: March 23, 2017
Re: Item No. 3 —Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review
Amendment — Proposed Changes to Conditions of Approval (PA2017-031)
The applicant, TSG-Parcel 1, is requesting changes to the draft Condition #4 as follow:
4. The construction of commercial buildings on Lot 2 in Phase 1 shall be seap4eted
commenced prior to the final certificate of occupancy for Picerne's southerly
229-unit apartment building located on Lot 3 of Tract Map 17763.
The Picerne Group will use Lot 2 as a construction staging area for the apartment
buildings. Therefore, construction of the commercial buildings will be delayed. The
construction of South Building will be first with the North Building to follow. The
construction of North Building is anticipated to be completed and available for leasing
soon after the completion of South Building. Additionally, the delay would give the
applicant time to have a more effective marketing opportunities for the retail space in
Lot 2.
Staff has reviewed the proposed changes and is supportive of the request.
The applicant seeks to maintain five (5) angled parking spaces along the roadway
segment between Jamboree Road and Half Dome Place despite the City Traffic
Engineer's recommendation to remove them. The applicant now proposes to modify
the parking layout by relocating the disabled parking stall to Lot 2 thereby pushing the
remaining spaces further away from Jamboree Road (see Attachment 1). The change
provides additional stacking area from Jamboree Road and may reduce concerns of
potential jaywalking across the entry street to reach commercial uses on Lot 2 as the
spaces would be closer to the crosswalk.
Planning Commission-March 23, 2017
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment(PA2017-031)
The City's Traffic Engineer maintains safety concerns because it is not feasible to
create a physical barrier that would prevent pedestrians from crossing the entryway
inappropriately. Additionally, the handicap stall can only be relocated along the private
streets, within the development (i.e. in the angled parking area around the corner) as
it is necessary to meet minimum accessible parking requirements of the California
Building Code. (The plan shows the space would be moved to Lot 2 does not alleviate
the requirement of accessible on-street parking). As a result, staff continues to
recommend the elimination of these spaces as stated in Condition #19. However, staff
suggests a modification of the condition to provide more opportunity provide additional
on-street parking subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and
Community Development Department.
19. Uptown Newport Drive shall be modified to eliminate the five (5) angled parking
spaces along the sestiAR roadway segment between Jamboree Road and Half
Dome Place. Additional street parking spaces may be added to Half Dome Place
southwest of the public park subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic
Engineer and Community Development Department.
Attachment
1 Applicant's Proposed Revised Parking Layout
Planning Commission -March 23, 2017
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment(PA2017-031)
Attachment 1 - Proposed Revised Parking Layout
aM ro�i�w"�.
s
PA
"n 97 _ — -
-- 7
M1B0RE mak _ -
wrooex*nnxs QO.'4ET�
4
L:J
l
a {T
i
1 m
An irG n
- 1 nen- s� Q
C. I
-91v���
v r�
I I I
PA 9s
s I I
6 m.s9rt u rx•'ELIMINATE � ' s
ADD PARKI�ALL
:I Gtl p
hANDICAP STALL "" > �`PmePN10Nf91i _ r.�j11—, ��. . .,,. NO PED CROSSING -
AND RELOCATE -- — ---- —1WDE gjgjp
IN LOT 2 save rvt n.u" itrs vav Pa ro nm "USE CRoss A LK"
SIGN AT PARKING USE CROSSWALH +
UPTOWN NEWPORT DR (SOUTH ENTRY) STALLS(TYP.)
Planning Commission1
Item • 3b Additional
Uptown Ne •• Development Review Amendment 'A1 1
Mimi
5
1
1
�• __ i Jnr
� 1 -
Uptown • •
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
Introduction 4D
An amendment to Uptown Newport Master
Site Development Review application
Alternative Location and Phasing of commercial
component by:
Remove Zo,700 sf. retail space from Lot 3, and
Relocate 6, 500 sf. retail space to Lots 1 and z
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
-031)
Uptown Newport Development
1, 244 residential units,
11, 500 square feet of neighborhood -serving
retail space, and
Two, one - acre public parks (one for each
phase)
To be developed in 2 separate phases :
Phase 1: 68o units, 11, 500 sf. retail & one-acre park
Phase z : 564 units & one-acre park
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 3
• •Is is M k1
-_ 09
r
'.8 1
a��a�, 100,
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA201 -031)
Uptown Newport Master Site Plan
�Wf�fll}I�7mtmrlrnmrcrrlrrrl.rr.
Lot 1 phase 2 4
-
W10!:0
;r Public Park Public Park u
2 Lot 3
LOt 4 Phase y Phase.2_ Total
Lot 2 Commercial Number of Units: 680 564 1.244
1; �/ Location DevelopableAm(ac): 8.74 9.72 18.46
Park Area(ac?: 1.03 1.02 2.05
l Retaillsfl: 11,500 0 11500
JAMBOREE ROAD Right of Way Area(ac}: 3.24 1.30 4,54
i Total Area(ac): 13.01 12.04 25DS
07/23/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 5
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
Project = Zoning Documents 40
Planned Community Development Plan :
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Development Standards
Project implementation process
Phasing Plan
Project implementation in 2 separate phases
Design Guidelines
Site Planning standards
Architectural guidelines
Landscaping guidelines & signage allowance
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 6
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
Project Implementation 4D
Master Site Development Review approval by
Planning Commission
To ensure entire project will be developed in a
cohesive manner in z separate phases consistent
with zoning documents
Minor Site Development Review approval by
Community Development Director
To ensure individual building and parks to be built
consistent with the master site development
review approval
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 7
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
•
ster Site Development Review 0
Planning Commission approval 09/05/13 :
Typical building architectural styles, with
emphasis on project entry points & along
Jamboree Rd .
Master Landscape plan
Preliminary public parks & paseo plans
Preliminary wall/fence design & placement
Preliminary site improvement plans
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 8
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA201 -031)
Uptown Newport
Master Site Development Plan
v : v�
7
W
W
_ 1
•r.r'�as��,i"-J'. a. .ii'_if _
J" E ROAD
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 9
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
Minor Site Development Review
E _
a
Community Development Director
approval for l5tproject in Phase z :
Uptown Apartment Project by Picerne
Group on 01/14/16
455 units in z buildings along Jamboree Road
( Lots 3 & 4); and
50-foot wide paseo between buildings
Status : Building permit ready to issue
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
Applicant's Request 4D
Alternative locations & phasing for retail
space :
Eliminate Zo, 700 sf. commercial space from
Picerne's project located in Southerly Building
( Lot 3)
Relocate 6, 500 sf. commercial space :
3, 000 sf. in Lot 1 (next to Phase 1 park)
3, 500 sf. in Lot z (w/ Edison Substation)
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 11
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
New Retail •
tions
LOT 1
+-4SPACEs
PARK LOT 1
LOT A RETAIL
3,000 SF
SPACES
SURFACE
+-14 SRK ES ,�
1,, '
� 000005 , -
i
,
x�nvrcrur«
•aouro�ru �casto
r�w�c
ISTING +-5&RACES
SL STATM �. + y�AGM
" "w LOT 3
L T 2
&E TAORANTI
2,SOG SF
so i i
user �
i
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 12
Conceptual Renderings
BIRDEYE VIEW
,.r. � IIS � �� �•' � �� �ni� i -,
LOOKING
Development07/13/2012 Community Department Division 13
Planning Commission1
Item No. Additional Materials Presented
Conceptual Renderings
Ai
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division '14
h
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
�yUptown Newport _ Development Review Amendment (PA201 -031)
t Z �
} I • - ' Mid
, 1
1Q
,.
f
� o
1 o
Ip
I
;� Iwna a von Y•i0 - -- -
Proposed Revised Parking Layout at Entry Drive
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 15
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
-031)
General Plan & Zoning 4D
General Plan Consistency - yes :
No changes to overall density and/or intensity
■ Zoning Code ( PCDP) — yes :
Relocating retail use to different location is allowed -
could be vertical (original location) or horizontal as
proposed on Lots 1 and 2
Conceptual renderings are consistent with Design
Guidelines and complimentary to Picerne's buildings
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 16
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
CEQA Review 4D
Certified EIR for entire project
■ Addendum prepared for proposed changes
No new environmental impacts concluded
No circulation required per State Laws
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 17
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
Proposed
To Condition #4:
The construction of commercial buildings on Lot 2 in Phase
1 shall be commenced prior to the final
certificate of occupancy for Picerne's southerly 229-unit
apartment building located on Lot -� of Tract Map 1776-� .
To Condition #19 :
Uptown Newport Drive shall be modified to eliminate the
five (S) angled parking spaces along the seEtie,R roadway
segment between Jamboree Road and Half Dome Place.
Additional street parking spaces may be added to Half
Dome Place southwest of the public park, subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and
Community Development Department.
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 18
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
031)
Recommendation 4D
■ Recognize Certified EIR & Find Addendum is
adequate for the proposed Amendment
Approve the requested Amendment with
changes to conditions of approval
■ Next Step : Staff to review Picerne's site
development review and process building
permit for the changes
07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division ig
a
a
ti
4
M
For more information contact: IF
Rosalinh Ung
949-644-3zo8
rung@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
I
' / r
h.
Jamboree
UPTOWNF
z � •
-• -Owl
I ' I
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
Uptown Newport Update - Phase 1
? y
n
Phase 1 will include apartments,
condominiums and retail. ---- -
• Demolition completed
• Grading completed .
• Apartment construction to begin in a.
Q2 2017
SHOPOFF REALTY
INVESTMENTS
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
Uptown Newport - Phasing Plan
• TowerJazz to stay in operation —
potentially to 2027
• Phase 2 to be developed after
TowerJazz vacates.
u 9 L U U 0 L.
n n n o n n 414
14
FL . . . . . .
OL
Phase Z
0
0
.--rL F I
Phase 1 J � o
JAMBOREE ROAD _
SHOPOFF REALTY
INVESTMENTS
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
Land Use Regulations
• The Uptown Newport Planned Community 2.1.2 Permitted Uses
(PC) allows for retail uses anywhere within Permitted uses are those uses set forth in Table 2-2. Accessory
Uses as defined herein are also permitted. Land uses that
the Uptown Newport PC. are not listed in the table herein are not allowed, except as
otherwise provided by Chapter 20.12(Interpretation of Zoning
• Maximum of 11,500 SF of Code Provisions)of theNBMG
commercial/retail uses within the PC. 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
TABLE 2-1 : DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM{ transfer of development intensity consistent with the General
Plan. Retail uses are permitted throughout the Uptown New-
LAND USE pat PC.
Residential 922 units
Appropriate written notifications shall be provided to all
Residential Density Bonus' 322 units initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within
Total Residential 1,244 units the Uptown Newport PC notifying them that the area is in
Commercial (Retail) 11,500 sq.ft. the vicinity of John Wayne Airport and, as a result, residents
and occupants of buildings may experience inconvenience,
'Density bonus units pursuant to state law&NEMC annoyance or discomfort arising from the noise resulting from
aircraft operating at the airport.
S H O P O F F IREALTY
NVESTMENTS4
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
Phase 1 Master Site Development Plan
V U
Vo'
G FI
_ wI
Lu
U
,r
I II JAMBOREE ROAD 5
U
REALTY
S H O P O F F INVESTMENTS
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
Phase 1 Retail
LOT 1 SITE SUMMARY (PHASE 1 )
LOT 1:
+-4 SPACES RETAIL: +-3,0005F
PARK LOT 1 LOT 2:
RETAIL: +- 1,0005F
TWCKPAT„ LOT A
SACMGIN RESTAURANT I: +-2,5005F
(S0%APPROX. NETPUBLICAREA)
5SPACEs� + 1,250 SF INDOOR/OUTDOC7R
SURFACE
+- �S�� z .• �- +-.7 SPACES SPA
0)00 L 55v s�� I C� I TOTAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT: +- 6,5005F
7,000 SF
,
a ,
FARM WRN
A�UWAREA XC m
PARKING
E>ISIING +-5�F'ACES
SL BSTATION > �SCEAC<E4'
I(yI'I�)T°2^/ `°'� LOT 3
LV � n XREENWAU.
0 5t
I I
RE, AURANTI
12,500 5F
XE
I
EASEMFM I I I\ ^ - -
I
R
SHOPOFF REALTY
INVESTMENTS
Planning Commission1
Item • 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Ne •• •• • (PA2017-031 )
Phase 1 Retail
BIRDEYE VIEW LOOKING • • JA�BOREE
SHOPOFF INVESTMENTSREALTY
Planning Commission1
Item • 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Ne •• •• • (PA2017-031 )
Phase 1 Retail
r � i
VIEW
0
DOWN UPTOWN • ' DRIVE
SHOPOFF INVESTMENTSREALTY
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
Modification to Conditions of Approval
4. The construction of commercial buildings on Lot 2 in Phase 1 shall be eepqpleted
commenced prior to the final certificate of occupancy for Picerne's southerly 229-
unit apartment building
19. l pto;;q4 Newpprt llriye ohaU be medified- to eliminate the five (5) angled na4(ing
To deter the potential for mid-block pedestrian crossings, low and densely
planted shrubs shall be placed in the parkway between the back of curb and
sidewalk along Uptown Newport Drive.
In addition. "NO PED CROSSING — USE CROSSWALK" signs shall be placed at
a minimum of two (2) locations by the five (5) angled parking stalls on Uptown
Newport Drive and locations where utility vaults may create openings in the
shrubs.
REALTY
SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
Parking Condition Modification
ii, ;�i�� ;iu 1 ,-, �-�
/// / � "NO PED CROSSING- I NO PED CROSSING
Il LOW SHRUBS(TYP.)
USE CROSSWALK" IUSE CROS SWALK+ I
pAx� al 1 PA �_-- VAULTS IGN WATER
Y4AMEIEN1mU -..0 nm— Q'e'94'TW
V IL
ry 8
J 1Z
i.m e.. ei izwo r/ A
Mft Am
;I
"y
� ry
°°�"'x' "NO PED CROSSING.
nM �^'h m mn mix rms xxro rta x PLAN.— USE CROSSWALK" b.
SIGN AT PARKING
UPTOWN NEWPORT DR (SOUTH ENTRY) STALLS(TYP.( 1PfON" DF
To deter mid-block pedestrian crossings:
• Add low, densely-planted shrubs in between palm tree trunks to create a
physical barrier to deter mid-block pedestrian crossings.
• Add "NO PED CROSSING — USE CROSSWALK" signs at diagonal parking stalls
and at water vaults.
In addition, the entry road is designed with two inbound lanes to allow traffic to
safely pass by and provide room for vehicles to back out of diagonal parking stalls.
S H O P O F F INVESTMENTS MENTS 10
Planning Commission1
Item • 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Ne •• •• • (PA2017-031)
Phase 1 Retail
REALTY
' P
SHOPOFF INVESTMENTS
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
C
O
f" ` I.
z „740
z . .
m _
�kljrA
.. ,,. .. NEI I
THE PICER\E GROUP
S H O P O F F REALTY
INVESTMENTS
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
wool <
-w; 7v9qr
CW
k� 5
l+/
i
• .I Im 'K( LLr.
S H O P O F F IREALTY
NVESTMENTS13
Planning Commission1
Item • 3c Additional
Uptown Ne •• Development Review Amendment (" 1 1
,� ITS 1 7G `' •r— - •: _�...— .. s..a.* � ■■ °� � ,
REALTY
SHO
__ nnYy �•
1
' I
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Uptown Newport Master Site Development Review Amendment (PA2017-031)
I
PUBLICPARK FUTURE RESIDENTIAL TOWER
(NOT A PART)
f
WEST ELEVATION --
"_ I, A23 i
0* E,,� �� STAIR Garap. �\� \
C AGCE55calf
,/E.4
J _Y,Y_P_W _ Mlf_4(MI_I f
I: `i FMI era- r L• `1 b � I
ITAMIGNM
S.RDO. ML E0Ul/ ACC�i yS
SOUTH \ I".,F MtE its f,M q
� P� • /\
—TELEVATION SL!•'in.11. YW' 1' PkW Ml q1'I��
Sim
l' FIM - rfaln rwro ,
5 9N CCI?CCG
SE
A31
^ SOUTH BUILDING
R
u . r� � , I --- stun,_
MIE ATauIS rl I
. R STAM
ACCE `+
S{ ,- -- - _, ACCESS
S FIDG.
EAST EIEVATWN
S H O P O F F REALTY
INVESTMENTS 1