Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Uptown_Newport_Project_PA2011-134CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 4, 2012 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Uptown Newport - (PA2011 -134) 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011- 003 • Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001 • Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005 • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002 • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001 • Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 APPLICANT: Shopoff Management, Inc. PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The Uptown Newport project would redevelop a 25.05 -acre office /industrial site with a mixed use residential project consisting of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail use, and two acres of park space. The subject property is located on the north side of Jamboree Road, west of MacArthur Boulevard, and east of Birch Street. A full project description is included in the Notice of Study Sessions and Notice of Completion and Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). STUDY SESSION This is first of the two planned study sessions scheduled for the Planning Commission. The second study session has been scheduled for October 18, 2012, at 4:30 p.m. The study sessions are intended to provide the Planning Commission and public the opportunity to review and discuss details of the proposed project including the DEIR prior to public hearing. The study sessions are for discussion purposes only, and no action will be taken by the Planning Commission. A complete staff report with comprehensive analysis of the project will be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission at a future scheduled public hearing. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of the October 4 and October 18, 2012 study sessions has been provided in the following manner: 1) mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the property and to project interest groups; 2) posting of the site; and 3) noticing through the City's Uptown Newport October 4, 2012 Page 2 Select Alert system. The mailing, posting of the site, and notification occurred at a minimum 10 days in advance of the October 4, 2012 meeting. In addition the agenda for this meeting was posted at City Hall and on the City's website (72 hours in advance of the meeting). Prepared by: o alinh Ung As ociate Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: yk4zf -1 Kimberly Alt. ■ - 0 The following attachments have been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review in advance of the study sessions. These attachments may be reviewed at the Planning Division of the Community Development Department (Building C, 2nd Floor), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at http: / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2029 • Draft Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 • Proposed Planned Community Development Plan (Land Uses Development Standards & Procedures) • Proposed Design Guidelines • Proposed Phasing Plan • Preliminary Site Plan • Master Tentative Tract Map ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED 1� 0 Will I FNo 2 1 Wsumm, uploWl 11119b M, ,9I/ F0 0.N", ession Outline ■ Study Session: discussion purposes only — no action on the project by Planning Commission a Staff Presentation — summary of project framework EIR Consultant Presentation —environmental overview Applicant Presentation — project overview Planning Commission Questions & Answers Public Comments 9161116111110 Redevelopment of a25-05-acre office /industrial site with a mixed use residential project consisting of: Up to 1,244 residential units 922 base units (replacement + additive) 322 density bonus units requested 11,500 square feet of retail use; and 2 acres of park space Photograp Residential IRV ©T JW Commercial Office 3000 �. The Plaza Commercial Office UC Irvine North Came UC Irvine Child Devt. Commercial Office Upper BNewport San Diego Creek Channel Legend Airport Area --- - -ICDP - ---- Project Site 4 Residential IRV ©T JW Commercial Office 3000 �. The Plaza Commercial Office UC Irvine North Came UC Irvine Child Devt. Commercial Office Upper BNewport San Diego Creek Channel Legend Airport Area --- - -ICDP - ---- Project Site 4 K ol l I i 7C e nt e Center ,�� 'I Half Moon Tower.lazz Building owl, I I.. FP Subject I L 5 AO CO- AO ' C m (3 MU -H2 MU -H2 AO ® o MU -H2 C� ® A \i MU -H2 Dr: PF 111111i1r.1N1• 7 -�5 2 MU -Hz •Multifamily residential up to 2,200 units *Horizontal intermixing of regional commercial offices & residential • Vertical mixed use buildings *Industrial MU-H2 <,,. *Hotel -H *Ancillary neighborhood commercial uses m Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan _ Uptown Newport Legend C�= ��ltTlJf'al� •r' S1�ti5 PROPOSED OPEN SPACES IMPROVED RESIDENTALSTREErS � PPOPOSEE) t ?ESIbENTIA STREETS 80111 eP P D PEDESTRNArV WAYS 65 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR' CONCEPTUAL FLAN r*QUIRED 7 Y ♦ Y T °C i t ICDP *Approved in September 2010 •Provides framework and -i: criteria for residential f development of up to 1,504 units on subject property & Koll Center __ • •1,244 units on subject property E-ail •26o units on Koll Center t, property 8 1 OA i. i '%'N Sp 1 ME X04" sr `� 41 QP y 9 I: �P '1pb 0 a �O Industrial Site i of PC 3.5 •Light Industrial *Office and commercial related uses 7/0 793ft K 7 u 1.03 AC M J A M B O R E E R O A D T > 7 i I I I ._._ ... _._._._,J Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Number of Units: 680 564 1,244 Developable Area (ac): 8.65 10.02 18.67 Park Area (ac): 1.03 1.02 2.05 Right of Way Area (ac): 2.61 1.72 4.33 Total Area (ac): 12.29 12.76 25.05 Nore:0.04apesadjacent to Pork Swill be comenedfo 'Right of Way Area' in Phase in 'Pork Area' w Phase 2. P rn w rt P ■ Phase :L (2013 -2o18) ■ 68o units 1 -acre park �:1OIWO,q 11,500 sf. of retail commercial Phase 2 (2017 -2021) 564 units 1 -acre park Housing Product Mid- and high -rise townhomes & condominiums for sale and rental 185 affordable rental units (20% of base units for low - income households — consistent w/ density bonus law) 1 1 Proposed Entitlements Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and Adoption; Phasing Plan & Design Guidelines w Tentative Tract Map; Traffic Study pursuant to TPO ordinance; Affordable Housing Implementation Plan; and ■ Development Agreement OFA M Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for 45 -day public review, 9 /10 -10/24 Significant Unavoidable Impacts Air Quality - Short -term construction related emissions of Phase 1 & z construction Land Use — Pending Consistency determination with Airport Environs Land Use Plan for zoning Noise - Construction - related noise impacts for Phase 1 & 2 Statement of overriding considerations Pntative Scheccltjle ■ 2nd Planning Commission study session, if needed October 18th, at 4pm. Airport Land Use Commission Meeting October 18th, at 4pm. Planning Commission public hearing November 8th, at 6:3opm. (tentatively scheduled) City Council public hearings —to be determined 1, 1 For more information contact: Rosalinh Ung 949 -644 -3208 Rung@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov -tow �. Item 2: Additional Materials Received Planning Commission - Study Session October 4, 2012 PA2011 -134 Larry Tucker Uptown Newport Study Session List of Issues October 4, 2012 Below are my comments to the Uptown Newport project documents received to date, other than the DEIR. My apologies in advance for duplicative or off base comments of which there will surely be a few. I. OVERVIEW 1. Will the Commission be asked to approve a Parcel Map when the matter formally comes before the Planning Commission? If so, perhaps some (many ?) of my questions /comments will be addressed when we see the proposed conditions of approval. 2. Note 3 of the TTM contemplates that there may be multiple final maps based upon the TTM. 3. Presumably, the Applicant intends to have the right to record one or more Final Maps and deed out parcels to buyers. 4. If some parcels may be deeded out, is there a risk to the City that a parcel will not have access or utilities without the cooperation of another owner? See comments on Phasing Plan. 5. Does the Applicant intend to act as Master Developer of the site work? That is, grading and underground public services. 6. If so, will the master grading plan contemplate subterranean parking on some, most, all or none of the parcels since there will be no surface parking lots allowed for residential uses (Design Guidelines Page 16)? 7. The Design Guidelines indicate that certain design master plans are to be accomplished later, such as: Landscape Plan, Fencing and Wall Plan, Common Area Lighting Plan, and a Comprehensive Sign Program. Some of what is in the documents indicates that plans are "For Illustrative Purposes Only ". If parcels are deeded out before these plans are finalized, how is the completion of those plans managed so that a Master Plan is created that is binding on all future owners? Should that be done before parcels can be deeded out? II. PARCEL MAP 1. Who will own the lettered lots? Notes 7 & 8 indicate that streets, sidewalks, angled parking and parkways will be privately owned and maintained. What about the Paseos? The PC Text refers to the parks as "Public" (at Page 17). Presumably that means the land will be dedicated to the City, which will own and maintain the parks, correct? 2. Will lettered lots other than the public parks be privately owned and maintained and if so by whom? 3. If the tentative map is not recorded all at one time, will all of the lettered lots in a phase be included in the first map recorded in that phase? 4. If not, then how will the contemplated improvements of those lettered lots be secured? 5. Does the Applicant contemplate conveying the lettered lots to an owners association? 1111�9i��]�e1�1 1. The site plan should identify the number of angled and on- street parking spaces are part of the plan and each space should be numbered. 2. Patrons of the retail space who enter at Fairchild Intersection and use the angled parking and who desire to exit the project and go north on Jamboree will need to make an awkward turning movement at Street E, or have to pull off a mid -block turn around in Street A, or wend their way to Birch Street. Are there any better alternatives? IV. PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Land Uses, Development Standards and Procedures) 1. Page 6, is there a limit as to how long industrial uses may remain on the property? It looks to me like there is no limit. 2. Page 6, are there any allowable uses that should be prohibited once residents move in nearby? 3. Page 7, Accessory Uses are referred to but not defined. What are they? 4. Page 8, are the following uses appropriate given the density of nearby residential in the project and seemingly small scale of the retail element: The uses listed under "Commercial Recreation and Entertainment ", Animal Sales and Services, Animal Grooming /Veterinary Services, Fast Food (not sure what that is - - does that mean with a drive- thru ?) and fitness facilities over 2,000 s.f. S. Page 9, Wireless Telecommunication Facilities should only require a Minor Use Permit as it will be easy to plan for them up front. 6. Page 11, there should be some very specific language on the interface between commercial and residential. Noisy uses and uses requiring food exhaust venting should not be located below or next to residential without mitigating features. 7. Page 17, 1 question the wisdom of crediting all street parking against required retail parking. Some credit may be appropriate, but to the extent there is a significant amount of restaurant space, I would be very concerned about giving any credit. Further, it is not clear to me where guests and service staff /personnel of homeowners would park (some, or all, of the project could be "for sale" housing which usually generates a greater need for parking). 8. Page 17, 1 am not sure there should be a right to deviate from parking requirements with a parking management plan. I would delete the word "number' in 4.1.2 d and delete 4.1.4 Para. 4. This is a new development and there does not seem to be a justification to deviate from code parking requirements. Having said that, doesn't the code already allow for a deviation process? If so, why add one here? 9. Page 17, 4.1.4 Para. 3 a, should be revised to read: " All exterior materials and their manner of application ". Page 18, 4.1.4 Para. 6 a, should be revised to read: "General location of all plant material, by common and botanical names with photographs." 10. Page 19, won't some type of review be necessary for the master landscape plan (at least along streets and paseos) or the comprehensive sign plan or the master fencing plan? If the Applicant desires to deed out property prior to plan approval for site work /signage then it would seem that the overall plan, other than building plans, would have to be agreed to before parcels are deeded out. Once those plans have been approved, then I'd feel more comfortable with review of building plans and landscaping to be located on numbered parcels being left to the Director. 11. Page 22, acid a definition of Streets and then refer the reader to Section 3.2.7. 1. Page 4, Vision Statement implies that connections with Koll property will be coordinated. How will this be ensured since there is no common ownership? 2. Page 8, the Master Concept Plan (Figure 2 -5) purports to incorporate the "framework principles" yet it does not actually depict several framework principles (e.g. it's 3, 5, 7 & 8). 3. Page 12, can traffic calming devices be designed at the front end of project. Otherwise, when will they be designed? 4. Page 16, should paid parking be prohibited? Is there enough on- street parking to accommodate visitors and customers of retailers. If there is not, where would visitors and customers of retailers park and when would that be figured out? S. Page 23, windows with articulated frames should be required for windows facing Jamboree Road. 6. Page 25, not sure I understand how Plexiglas will be mounted on hinges so it opens and closes. 7. Page 27, what does it mean to "optimize" grading? 8. Page 36, Figure caption refers to Phase 2 entry drive, but it looks like Phase 1 from the diagram. 9. Page 38, synthetic turf? Really? 10. Page 40, some of the list of improvements look like they may have been carried over from park description and may not fit in Paseos: lawn bowling, horseshoes, bocce ball, picnic areas and exercise stations. 11. Page 40, any requirement that Paseo landscape plans be consistent throughout the development? 12. Page 42, when do the public parks get built? Will they be consistent in design with each other? 13. Page 46, says "The project should have one fence design used throughout all parcel areas." When is that design determined and by whom? 14. Page 48, says "This community is encouraged to embrace a unified lighting theme in fixtures of common area streets. How would that "encouragement" be manifested and implemented? 15. Page 51, who will develop the Comprehensive Sign Program and when will it be done? Also see footnote at Page 54. 16. Page 54, delete references to Pylon Signs. They should not be allowed. 17. Page 56, limits sign copy to 3 tenant signs yet diagram shows 4 tenant signs. 18. Page 58, clarify that a tenant may only pick one of the three sign types. VI. PHASING PLAN 1. Page 2, the land will be phased, but where the units fall is totally subject to change. Should there by a limit on the upper end and lower end of the unit count in Phase 1? 2. Page 4, note that the Applicant proposes to introduce residents to an area with a 2,200 gallon liquid ammonia tank. 3. Page 4, which water Board is SRWQCB? 4. Page 6, looks like erroneous reference to figure 2 -1 should be to 3 -1. 5. Page 12, will all Phase 1 streets be bonded with recordation of first map in Phase 1. If not, when. Sarne comment with respect to pedestrian circulation facilities. 6. Page 13, indicates a Master Landscape Plan will be done, but doesn't indicate when. 7. Page 17, indicates the project would have one fence design and that the locations will be done in "future design ". When and by whom? 8. Page 30 refers to an outline of the Phase 2 landscape framework, hardscape and streetscape character, but Figure 6 -6 indicates it is for "illustrative purposes" only. 9. Page 31, retailers won't appreciate emphasis on shade trees that could block their signage. 10. There is no diagram of neighborhood streets, which is ok, except the road in from Birch is really not just a neighborhood street. Perhaps there should be more detail on the design of this street segment. 11. Page 33, the word "could" is used which means "could not" as well. Is that intended? APPLICANT PRESENTATION - PART 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - 10 -04 -2012 PA2011 -134 I1 " pi 1I? ftiar, i"i �i �Twu;) p RE AL ESTATE INVESTMENT CAPITAL D K A • ADVISORS LLC F GENERAL'k"' PLAN .a'i ! 'r•' � — ���r��:..+�...a r��� i�:oy�,� � r 9.ia1 .° L °.�� , f_� ❖ In 2006 the Newport Beach residents adopted a General Plan providing a mixed use residential community for the airport area. ❖ The community recognized the Airport Area had an urban character different from other Newport Beach neighborhoods. Airport Area General Plan Policy Overview: ❖ Develop clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected with pedestrian walkways. ❖ Contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground -level convenience retail uses. N '•.� � G E N E IZ A L � � i �� ; � 1. PI A �i' � y� - ��� s?r�l�.� ♦i.i.iJ, ♦ T i � %1 as � °tl� '�� 9 f_� ��... t The General plan allocated 2,200 residential units within the Airport Area: ❖ 550 new /additive units ❖ 19 650 replacement units from conversion of commercial and industrial uses •'• Traffic neutral x �� (tri lOAQUIN f., i N /i C4_0 Jl -1 I- if I F17 i; 0 it, 1 Jll ICDP- Integrated Conceptual Development Plan • Adopted in December 2012 • Allocated 260 units to Koll site and 1,244 units to the Uptown Newport site. • Allocated 11,500 SF of retail to Uptown Newport site. • Provides the framework for development ICDP Unit Allocation Summary The Uptown Newport site was referred to as the Conexant site in the ICDP. 11,500 SF of retail also allocated to Uptown Newport. 5 x Arl C' A �� ! lr� r UPTOWN NEWPORT r� (SUBJECT PROPERTY) till J w n Im'. L x KOLL CENTER �l M • Sa • F17-1 1* - - - -y-- i Proposed Residential Units Replacement Units 632 Additive Units 290 Sub -Total Base Units: 922 Density Bonus @ 35% 322 Total Units: 1,244 Affordable Units — 20% of Total — 184 Units .i / �: _iJI � i�'�' ",��nr :p,\' ��Y� ,.fir �rfe^"•_ . ,�_ ❖ Implement the goals of the 2006 General Plan ❖ Implement the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan By Adopting ❖ Environmental Impact Report ❖ Planned Community Development Plan Design Guidelines Phasing Plan ❖ Traffic Phasing Plan (TPO) Tentative Tract Map Development Agreement ❖ Affordable Housing Implementation Plan I I �11 t UPTOWN NEWPORT U RIBAN LIFESTYLE 'I 'Z �il�M'. 1'f!��.'li�• X' I 0 .. T r, .v - t.� 'PIP; V) F mm 0 DE T ,1 j Aw - Me-*Aft� w- r i t� � L �_ �, �. ,; _ •.: ._;_ ,.,. N .�. .. �._.:•—„-; ��• �ww�iTruit -iTntn�ltliIN1111111N1�111 III�� .,<<uum�num�. �_ .. ,_ � 0 �,}� �� ,�►�I �;; � ��� :�� � IIM W� �H. 1" Air-A _iL .y r r:AMM I J aW II r. -; v DESIGN KN J DTI TIDELINES •'• Site Planning •'• Architectural Design •'• Site Development & Infrastructure •'• Landscape Design ❖ Signage J J Drive Str eet borhood Street Point Monument trian Path mm Future Class 1 Bike Path J,.. . Fl F 40 i :rte lJ Lfnm4 FOR I M�r pa W Odom 40 I—M-1 J� iT 4�4 I I r r � � 1 i + 4k ' A 1 '; 11 DESIGN ■ / \�`�T, T T F lTN 1. ./ 1..�.!_D.i. ��_9_i.._�_ \ �-�S !l�'i �I 7ElL .. y�an :! ��1�:.��1 rw,M1`f �,T it.'t�e ee� ,• -' ��'-' Architectural Design Guidelines ❖ Theme & Character ❖ Building Orientation & Massing ❖ Roofs / Windows / Patios / Balconies DESIGN ■ / \�`�T, T T F lTN 1. ./ 1..�.!_D.i. ��_9_i.._�_ \ �-�S !l�'i �I 7ElL .. y�an :! ��1�:.��1 rw,M1`f �,T it.'t�e ee� ,• -' ��'-' Architectural Design Guidelines ❖ Theme & Character ❖ Building Orientation & Massing ❖ Roofs / Windows / Patios / Balconies FN, of rd A 1 r P �t fl ib 11 I o" 11 III LL ell fig io ■ ■ ,.•�i3s'a rii �R'd t ,l i� ��� r .. �� .� �� � II r zip DESIGN � �'� =w��� "�.� JI� . . " 4 �m.9 Y Vii, �} GUIDELINES Landscape Design Guidelines •'• Common Area Landscape •'• Street Landscaping v* Paseos •'• Edge Conditions ❖ Neighborhood Parks v* Hardscape ❖ Walls & Fencing ❖ Lighting � n �� J: PMtA W ow lJ PAR PHASE S 1 a fjPy.j� FOR p s J vr`• .J � •'r ;�00000000�% � � �•.::ag O� 4� 0� 7 'M BTU -- 4"A-4t-4r—,w � J .J. a_ FO K� M + b.. + P, SanclVolleyball Bocce Ball Activity Lawn L Fi I r �t � r 4' E ; 'r 1 I� _y -v » 0 ,C FOR kJ J P� A I 40 I-M-1 .. - -r- �i I i 'Ali - i i : . t - / i (fill' '01 / M `,� � ! -.` r � � � �`� ��ii� hf � I r-4i r ?.. z� - _. N i�! � 7�.. �._w,� r� +:IOO J ..r J � J J v.n • J ":+0000000,;/ �lJ. „'gQOQOQO � J^ V��r m1N Paul i �rF. . � y.� l� r. ter• .> .. J �....1J r. . . {� frY�l �rA�� �, � � J- !� � � v, I t ! '' -3 l .J ,,' , t1,q A?% _�-. a �WS -77 POO m jt y. _r m 'h, I � p . �. �{ _�� I _ � �., h :;,�.. � y o�� �/'�i I��k .. F.I„ -� •sI wb*�� -Ade `.y . ;aj y F, -� •sI wb*�� -Ade `.y . PCDP ZONIN(O Planned Community Development Plan ❖ Land Use Development Standards •'• Land Uses ❖ Building Heights & Setbacks ❖ Park and Recreation Standards ❖ Parking Requirements PHASING PHASING MiO'Cu, U.1 ,r :lu Q PLAN Phasing Plan: •'• Site development •'+ Access and circulation ❖ Grading & site improvements •'• Interim conditions •'• Landscape considerations I Fl 0 u t_1 5 JAMBOREE ROAD .. ............... I Li r x 6 a1 T � <<���I i(Ifl V VIII I a lot �.1 3 ff■1_ 1A M�_ 1 llj� lj� 11, I V 11 '� 1 1 y:r- ���f smrtc; up REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CAPITAL D K A • ADVISORS LLC F o; F U 4a W�i1` \L IFOR�� 'Itp�1 �n CONSULTANT PRESENTATION PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - 10 -04 -2012 PA2011 -134 UPTOWN NEWPO Environmental Overview Location: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 October 4, 2012 12/8/11-1/9/12 12/15/11 Dec 2011 — Sept 2012 9/10/12 — 10/24/12 CEQA Initial Study (IS) prepared Notice of Preparation /IS released; 30 day public comment period Public Scoping Meeting Draft EIR Preparation Draft EIR Public Review Period Scoping Technical Studies Significance Findings Alternatives Next Steps ✓ Aesthetics Agricultural /Forestry Resources ✓ Air Quality ✓ Biological Resources ✓ Cultural Resources ✓ Geology /Soils ✓ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ✓ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ✓ Hydrology /Water Quality ✓ Land Use /Planning Mineral Resources ✓ Noise ✓ Population & Housing ✓ Public Services ✓ Recreation ✓ Transportation /Traffic ✓ Utilities /Service Systems Process Technical Studies Significance Findings Alternatives Next Steps Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis • Biological Resources Assessment • Cultural Resource Assessment —Archaeology/Paleontology • Phase 1 Site Assessment (hazardous substances - ground /groundwater /surface water) • Health Risk Assessment (air toxics) • (cont... ) Process Scopi gnificance Findings Alternatives Next Steps • Noise and Vibration Analysis • Offsite Consequence Analysis (potential chemical release) • Shade /Shadow Analysis • Traffic Impact Analysis ■ Water Supply Assessment Process Scopi gnificance Findings Alternatives Next Steps ANALYSES APPROACH: ■ Impacts analysis for each project phase: Demolition of "Half Dome" building - Construction /Operation of 680 residential units & 11,500 SF commercial - Adjacent operation of TowerJazz until Phase 2 (2017 or potentially 2027) Process Scoping Technical Stud ves Next Steps ANALYSES APPROACH: - Construction additional 564 units - Total Buildout — 1,244 units, 11,500 SF commercial Process Scoping Technical Stud ves Next Step: ■ Aesthetics ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hydrology /Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Population & Housing • Public Services ■ Recreation • Transportation /Traffic • Utilities /Services di Process Scoping Technical Stud ves Next Steps • Biological Resources — Habitat for migratory birds — Phases 1 & 2 • Geology & Soils — Potential expansive soils — Phases 1 & 2 • Hazards — Hazardous building materials (asbestos, etc.) — Phase 2 • Noise - New stationary noise sources — Phases 1 & 2 • Vibration — Phase 2 construction impacts on Phase 1 residences Process Scoping Technical Stud ves Next Steps r "I aza - Potential vapor intrusion (VOC) into Phase 1 buildings - Potential chemical release from TowerJazz ■ Noise - Phase 1 exposure to TowerJazz operational noise (exterior & interior noise standards exceeded) ■ Vibration - Phase 1 construction vibration impact on sensitive TowerJazz equipment Process Scoping Technical Studie 111ternatives Next Steps 1w-i ■ Air Quality — Construction - related impacts (NOx exceedance) — Phase 1 & 2 ■ Land Use — Pending Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) consistency determination by Airport Land Use Commission (potentially significant unavoidable impact) — Phase 1 & 2 ■ Noise — Construction noise levels — Phase 1 & 2 Process Scoping Technical Sty ves Next Steps Optional site within city that meet project objectives, and could not be identified Optional Project Phasing 0 could be acquired by applicant) reduce environmental impacts Review of alternative to eliminate impacts associated with concurrent operation of TowerJazz and Phase 1 residences — determined economically infeasible and would not eliminate any significant unavoidable impacts Process Scoping Technical Studies Significance Find Steps o Project Alternative — existing conditions would remain ■ Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative El Phase 1 — 174 hotel rooms El Phase 2 — 160,000 SF office; 20,000 SF commercial ■ Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative Ll Phase 1 — 100,000 SF office; 7,000 SF commercial Ll Phase 2 — 830 residential units ■ Reduced Density Alternative J Phase 1 — 260 residential units; 11,500 SF commercial J Phase 2 — 301 residential units �g W rog O ®�� F � O ; /�pyt�� \J ♦CENTERG Process Scoping Technical Studies Significance Finding next - ext Steps C�pppgN 88DC &E J:914I moo W A 0 12 IMN L1 Comparison of Project Alternatives Process Scoping Technical Studies Significance Find No Project Alternative Pro oosed Project Hotel/ Office/ Commercial Office/ Commercial Residential Reduced Dens) Phasel Phase2 Total Phase Phase2 Total Phasel Phase2 Total Phasel Phose2 Total Dwelling Units — 680 564 1,244 - - — 830 830 260 301 561 Commercial /Retail(SF) — 11,500 0 11,500 - 20,000 20,000 7,000 - 11,500 - 11,500 Office (SF) 126,675 - - - - 160000 160,000 100,000 100,000 — Industriel (SF) 311,452 - - - - - - - - - - - - Hotel (Rooms) — - - - 174 - 174 - - - - - - PerkSpece(ec) — 1.03 1.02 2.05 1.5 - i 1.52 1.40 6.47 1.91 8.38 Process Scoping Technical Studies Significance Find ■ No Project Alternative is Environmentally Superior Alternative Would eliminate significant, unavoidable impacts ■ Hotel /Office /Commercial Alternative — Environmentally Superior Development Alternative Would eliminate significant impacts associated with Phase 1 resident adjacency to TowerJazz (interim condition). These impacts, however, mitigated to less than significant for proposed project. Process Scoping Technical Studies Significance Find Steps • Draft EIR public review period closes October 24, 2012 • Final EIR under preparation will include Response to DEIR Comments • Planning Commission Public Hearing(s) • City Council Public Hearing(s) • EIR Certification and Notice of Determinatior Process Scoping Technical Studies Significance Findings Alte TOWN NEWPOR F Source: JHA Environmental Inc 2011 Location of Former Underground Storage Tanks L� &sllN9lN Off Q Q LEGEND UST NO. 1- WASTE SOLVENT. 000 OAL.ON CARBON STEEL, REMOVED IN 1973. / • UST NO. 2 -WASTE SOLVENT- 6000V1ON CARBON STEEL. REMOVED IN 1976. :� • UST NO. 3- WASTE SOLVENT.1,600OALLON STAINLESS STEEL. REMOVED IN 19&5. - ■ UST NO.d - FUEL. REMOVED IN 1985. O• UST NO. 5. WASTE SOLVENT 2,1M GALLON STAWLESS STEEL. REMOVED IN I B& 5. • UST N0.6 -WASTE SOLVENT. 2,M GALLON STAINLESS STEEL REMOVED IN 2005. ' ■ USTS N0,'.10 DIESEL FUEL. TW012,000 GALLON AND TWO 20.OW OALLON. .. REMOVED IN 1965. SITE BOUNDARY 0 50 ! Scale (Feet) 0 m K rc U 6 S � ANN VON KAY IfO W2a 1 3.8 J L Sauce: ✓HA Environmental Inc 2011 VOC Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater I M-29 eD M-31& • 1 BMND /•� g. i E 1 PHASE 2 O SHALLOW ZONE MONITOR WELL 2 100 E • SHALLOW ZONE EXTRACTION WELL i (NOT IN OPERATION) �KSK BUILDING a 503 ,�, ` PHASE2 ESOB 00 352 I� PHASE 1 S-8 I OW23 w 07.8 I ND .3 ,I I I I � � I BUILDING 501 v eM O ,3 SOP E 'E 1 ?<1 PHASE 1 O ��b �P ■ DPE TEST WELL ND NOT DETECTED ABOVE LABORATORY REPORTING LIMIT 23 TOTAL VOLITILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (pgA) CONTOUR OF EQUAL VOC (VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND) CONCENTRATION IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (pg /0 TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONCENTRATIONS IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER AT OR ABOVE 100 pgn. THE PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER CLEANUP GOAL SET BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SITE BOUNDARY — — — PHASE BOUNDARY 0 300 COO Scat Soil Gas Probe Locations (GP -1 through GP -10) Birch St GP -2 0 iGP0-4 GPP5 l irmn I GP.6 GP-7 I + � 0 0 I � GP -11 � �GP OGP T' O]-6 � GP -130 '1 GP -140 1h, ;GP 150 'lt IGP -160 L.ty IGP -90 I I a Q v v 0 E J:l�l: • • Sulfuric Acid Storage ' (Central Plant) 1.03 AC 1= x Phase 1 Site Layout and Chemical Storage Locations a Storage ` / Bulk Chemica� l Storage \� rJ a I i ,III Tower Jazz Semiconductor Facility u Gas Storage El FBI ____ _J__ __- \ 'll Project Site - - - - -- Phase 1 Tower Jazz Boundary Source: ShopoNManagement Inc. 2011 z , , , , , , , , , -�� —� Jamboree Rd 0 300 Scale (Fee[) Combined Ambient Noise Levels, Phase 1 Combined Ambient Noise Levels, Phase 2 0 John Wayne Airport Future Noise Level Contours -., :+ 1O] Ma Nearest Of ite Noise- and Vibration- Sensitive Receptors Study Intersections Source: 10mley -Horn and Associates Inc 2012 ■ Hotel /O ice /Commercial Alternative r—. — ._ , —. - - -. — .— .— —. — . —.— . —. _ r • —, -1 OFIRCE OF j Ail 6, �ar750f , 1 MOTEL Va Rooms B Conference+ 1 174,000 Of /3 stwiesi 7A iM —.—.— Site Boundary �Immm�nn�mmnnn��ml J A M B O R E E R 0 A D m Phasing Boundary UTi1TTTT MTTRTlTTTTITTimlJ •IIIIIITTTTt 1TTTTTlflT1� _ Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Hotel (rooms): 174 0 174 Office(sf) 0 160,000 160,000 Commercial (sf): 0 20,000 20,000 Open Space Area (ac): 1.52 0 1.52 Total Area (ac): 12.29 12.76 25.05 o zoo Scale (Feet) Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative v 777 17 7 __. J A M B O R E E R O A D .�.�.� Site Boundary . . . Phasing Boundary t o zoo " ffl scale (Feet) Phase 1 .Phase 2 Total Number of Units: 0 830 830 Office (sf): 100,000 0 100,000 Commercial (sf): 7,000 0 7,000 Park Area (ac): 0 1.4 1.4 Total Area (ac): 10.94 14.11 25.05 J A M B O R E E R O A D .�.�.� Site Boundary . . . Phasing Boundary t o zoo " ffl scale (Feet) OPEN SPACE OPEN SP - (2.20.0 11.27 ad Phase`t �— PEN SPACE 10.72 u1 ,] 0 u Reduced Density Alternative �.�.� Site Boundary m m m Phasing Boundary ® Ground -Level Neighborhood - Serving Retail o zoo Scat Plisse 1 _Phase 2 Total Number of Units: 260 301 561 Commercial (sf): 71,500 0 11,500 00 Developable Area 00: 3.21 9.13 12.34 — ._.— ._. —.— Open Space Area (ac): 6.47 1.91 8.38 Right of Way Area (ac): 2.61 1.72 4.33 J A M B O R E E R 0 A D Total Area (ac): 12.29 12.76 25.05 �.�.� Site Boundary m m m Phasing Boundary ® Ground -Level Neighborhood - Serving Retail o zoo Scat Table 5.10 -16 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment during Phase 1 (VdB) Equipment Office Buildings to the Southwest Office Buildings to the Northwest Office Buildings to the South UCI Child Development Office Buildings to the Northeast TowerJazz Facility Vibratory Roller 77 76 76 73 64 88 Large bulldozer 70 69 69 66 57 81 Small bulldozer 41 40 40 37 28 52 Jackhammer 62 61 61 58 49 73 Loadedtrucks 69 68 68 65 56 80 Threshold 84 84 84 84 84 60 Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No Yes Source: Based on method oiogy from the united States uepanment of Transportation Federai Trans¢ AdminTStradon, Transit Noise and vibration impact Assessment, 2006. The Threshold for TowerJaa was derived from the Technical Memorandum provided by Wilson Ihrig and Associates, 2012. Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Figure 5.10 -6. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (Vd8) using the reference of one microinch /second. Bold indicates values exceeding applicable thresholds. SMN. U: r± iff JMIMI�ir lAk \I� Table 5.10 -19 Maximum Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites during Phase 1 Construction (dBA L,„.) Model wRh the construction Information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based an monitored noise levels in the study area In Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitodng location 7 I Table 5.10- 8. Affected Receptors Office Office Office Buildings to Building to Office Buildings to TowerJau Construction the the Buildings to UCI Child the Semiconductor Phase Southwest Northwest the South Development Northeast Demolition 7tl 77 78 75 65 -Building LO Grading 71 69 70 67 57 82 Utilities 70 68 69 66 1 56 81 Paving 66 65 65 62 53 77 Building 70 68 69 66 56 81 Construction Existing Ambient NoiseLevds' 58 60 67 67 59 60 dBA L ftamum Projected dBA 20 17 11 8 6 30 over Ambient Level Notes: Receptor locations are deolcted in aire 510 -6. Calculations Included in Aopendlx J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model wRh the construction Information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based an monitored noise levels in the study area In Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitodng location 7 I Table 5.10- 8. �A L J �xvi =:#.�Yei =►,ilii%Naumm rA WE on Table r ction0 Average Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites during Phase 1 Construction (dBA Le,) Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 0. Affected Receptors Office Office Office Buildings to Building to Office Buildings to TowerJau Construction the the Buildings to UCl Child the Semiconductor Stage Southwest Northwest the South Development Northeast Building Demolition 60 61 61 57 54 71 (66 days) Grading 55 56 56 52 49 66 39 days) Utilities 54 55 55 51 48 65 83 days) Paving 52 53 52 48 46 62 18 days) Building Construction 54 55 55 51 48 55 992 days) Existing Ambient Noise Levels' 58 60 67 67 59 60 (dBA Leq) Highest Projected less than less than Average dBA 2 1 existing less than existing existing 11 over Ambient Level dBA Notes: Receotor locations are deoicted in Fiaure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Aooendix J. Calculations based on the Roadwav Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 0. ALIPA4IJ�IIIJi■►i101kNN :JMM VAN WA •10�. 0W11■rALANaWAK Table 5.10 -21 Maximum Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites During Phase 2 Construction (d BA L,,,a,) Notes: Receptor locations are depicted In Figure 5.108. Calculations Included In Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing amblent noise levels are based on monRored noise levels In the study area In Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 In Table 5.10 -8. Affected Receptors Office Office Office Buildings to Building to Office Buildings to Nearest Constntetion the the Buildings to UCl Child the Phase 1 Phase Southwest Northwest the South Development Northeast buildings Oernolition 77 84 57 72 87 �JG Grading 69 76 59 64 79 88 Utilities 68 75 58 63 78 87 Paving 64 71 54 59 75 83 Building 68 75 58 63 78 87 Construction Existing Ambient Noisel-evds' 58 60 57 67 59 60 dBA L Maximum Projected dBA „ 24 equal to less than existing 28 36 overArtbient existing Level Notes: Receptor locations are depicted In Figure 5.108. Calculations Included In Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing amblent noise levels are based on monRored noise levels In the study area In Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 In Table 5.10 -8. Table 5.10 -22 Average Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites During Phase 2 Construction (dBA Leq) Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Rgure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 8. Affected Receptors Office Office Office Buildings to Building to Office Buildings to Nearest Construction the the Buildings to UCI Child the Phase 1 Phase Southwest Northwest the South Development Northeast buildings Demolition 54 67 54 59 61 70 88 days) Grading 49 62 49 54 56 65 47 days) Utilities 48 61 48 53 55 64 85 days) Paving 46 59 45 50 53 61 18 days) Building Construction 48 61 48 53 55 64 992 days) Existing Ambient Noise Levels' 58 60 67 67 59 N/A dBA Leq Highest Projected Average dBA over less than 7 less than less than existing 2 N/A Ambient Level existing existing dBA Notes: Receptor locations are depicted in Rgure 5.10 -6. Calculations included in Appendix J. Calculations based on the Roadway Construction Noise Model with the construction information provided by the applicant. ' Existing ambient noise levels are based on monitored noise levels in the study area in Table 5.10 -7 and on the monitoring location 7 in Table 5.10- 8.