HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 02_RTC Part 2Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
LOCAL AGENCIES AND COMMITTEES
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -203 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -204 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter Li
,MIT, CI! .11
To: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
From: Debra Stevens, EQAC Chair
Date: October 17, 2011
Re: Comments on the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR
The Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) is pleased to have this
opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
Newport Banning Ranch project. It is our hope that these comments will lead to the best
possible project for the City of Newport Beach, the neighbors and the applicant. Our
comments are summarized below and follow in the order of appearance in the DEIR as far
as possible.
SECTION 1.0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The comments provided in the following sections also apply to the Executive
Summary and any changes in the document should be reflected in the Executive
Summary.
SECTION 3.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Page 3 -8, Project Objectives. The project objectives have been narrowly
defined. This may make it more difficult to find alternatives that meet the
project objectives. For example, Objective 3 suggests that up to 1,375 1
residential units would be constructed. A specific number is not as
appropriate as a range or general acknowledgement of appropriate land
uses.
2. Page 3 -10, Section 3.6.1 Oilfield Abandonment. There is no good
discussion of the baseline activities associated with the oil production
facilities on Banning Ranch. Such information should include the existing
equipment, amount of oil removed on a daily, monthly or annual basis,
how the material is transported, etc.
3. Page 3 -11, 1s' full paragraph. The EIR states that third party consultants
would monitor the removal of all pipelines, facilities, etc. While a
consultant may perform the physical work, a regulatory agency should
monitor, oversee and have compliance authority over the remediation
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoc 3 -205 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
3 cent.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -206 Responses to Environmental Comments
activities. Please describe the regulatory oversight and procedures for
site remediation.
4.
Page 3 -11, Section 3.6.2. General comment. The EIR does a poor job at
identifying the locations of the types of land uses discussed. Page 3 -12,
Table 3 -1. The table should reference the appropriate Exhibit that shows
the different land uses.
5.
Page 3 -42, PDF 4.6 -4. A "dark sky" lighting concept will be implemented.
The "dark sky" concept must be defined as it is not a common term. What
types of lighting design requirements would be included in a "dark sky"
concept and how would they reduce light and glare impacts?
6.
Page 3 -43, PDF 4.11 -1. This Project Design Feature indicates that the
project will be consistent with a green building program that exists at the
time, but does not provide any requirement for how energy efficient the
building should be constructed. Describe the programs that will be
implemented beyond the California Green Building Code. Requirements
for some level of energy efficiency should be imposed.
7.
Exhibit 3 -16 depicts a soil disturbance map for the project. What are the
estimated hazards produced by excavating existing oil pipeline and other
related materials to the local environment both (a) short-term (i.e., through
release of airborne contaminants through excavation), and (b) long -term
(i.e., through exposure and seepage from topsoil in residential gardening
and recreation activities on the excavated ground that long -term residents
would have contact with and long -term exposure to)?
8.
Over 16 pages of the project description is spent on the details of road
design, but a disproportionately small portion of Section 3 addresses
potential hazards presented by the unearthing of oil field operations
materials and building reside ntiallcommercial properties on top of the land.
Aside from the preliminary documents provided in Appendix D, Section 3
should have given more discussion of the known hazards associated with
the decommissioning and building on the oil production facility and while
also continuing production for another 30 -40 years, to rule out potential
risks to public health associated with the large scale excavation and
grading planned for the development portions of this project. If this
information is located in another portion of the DEIR please provide a
reference to the section.
9.
Page 3 -36, Section 3.6 - C. Remediated Soil Disposition. In summarizing
the use of excavated hydrocarbon -laden soils the Project Description
states: "The primary location for placement of the treated soil would be in
the deeper over - excavation portions of the North Family Village." (p. 3 -36).
More justification is needed in the EIR for using treated soils as the basis
3 cent.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -206 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
for planned residential areas. In particular, additional information is
required on the existence of petroleum based contaminants and the
potential presence of TENR - contaminated materials in remediated soil.'
TENR - contamination in varying degrees of severity may exist at every oil
and gas production site and pipe handling facility, including those
associated at Banning Ranch. Throughout the present EIR document
questions and concerns that are typically raised in relation to TENR-
contamination in the oil and gas industry should be adequately addressed.
This is especially needed since soil in contact with operating oil hardware
(i.e., pipes, fittings, etc) that is relocated from elsewhere in the site may
contain hazards such as Radium -226, which has a half -life of 1620 years.
The contents of these contaminated sites may be of concern for centuries.
As is the case in general with all areas where oil drilling activities occur, a
radiation area survey should be performed (if not already completed)
before any development of the land for residential and commercial use is
initiated, and should proceed only when the area can be deemed
acceptable for residential land uses in accordance with local and federal
guidelines.
Exhibits 3 -1 and 3 -4 show that residential units are planned where oil
extraction activities have occurred. The utmost care must be given to
avoid buildings constructed over any radioactive materials or petroleum
contaminated soil, since, in the case of radium, contamination the
resulting radon concentrations could pose serious a health threat.
The last paragraph of this section estimates that 25,000 cubic yards may
prove too contaminated to use and may need to be removed from site.
What course of action is planned if all 246,000 cubic yards of remediated
material is unusable? By what means will it be relocated and where and
when will the replacement fill and grading material be obtained?
Discussion of the impacts of this possible scenario is needed in the EIR.
0. Page 3 -36, Section 3 -6: "D. Open Space Grading." For all small and large
scale grading and resurfacing tasks, to maintain habitat and water basin
quality it makes sense to avoid use of reclaimed treated contaminated soil 1r
in all cases. This is not mentioned here in Section 3 -6 D, although it may
be described elsewhere in the EIR. Please note where appropriate the
rationale for or against such a safe guard.
Page 3 -37, Section 3.7 "PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN." The
proposed timing of the implementation of the project is described as
1 TENR (or also TENORM) is Technologically Enhanced Natural Radiation from, e.g., pipe scale
and equipment. Because the extraction process concentrates the naturally occurring
radionuclides and exposes them to the surface environment and human contact, these wastes
are classified as TENORM. Environmental Protection Agency document "Oil and Gas Production
Waste." Retrieved 10/10/11 from http:// www. epa. gov /rpdweb00 /tenormloilandgas.html.
=t.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -207 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
flexible, taking place over an estimated period of 9 years. One concern
that arises from the discussion of Stage 1, also shown on Exhibit 3 -18, is
that residential occupancy may occur in Stage 1 in the South Family
Village before soil remediation and grading are fully complete in the areas
depicted as Stage 2 and 3 in Exhibit 3 -18.
This is cause for concern simply due to the unique precautions that are
demanded by the decommissioned oil operations on this site. Utmost care
is needed to protect individuals and families that reside or work in the
Stage 1 portion of the project from fugitive dust and airborne hazards that
may be created by construction activities associated with Stages 2 and 3
of the project. Toxic aspects of decommissioning activities of this sort
include toxic air contaminants that when inhaled can produce significant
short- and/or long -term health problems. Because this property is a
contaminated site, a more comprehensive and conservative justification is
needed regarding the timing of project implementation and the safeguards
that will be implemented during project implementation to ensure the
public health. This is needed for both the local short-term surrounding
communities and the longer -term residential occupants for which this
development is planned.
2. Page 3 -41: Project Design Features (PDFs). Hazards and Hazardous
Materials PDF 4.5 -1 should additionally include a PDF specifically
addressing the hazards unique to the site, how they factor into the project t:
implementation, how they will be mitigated, and what aspects of the site's
risks specifically cannot be mitigated.
3. Page 3 -44-5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials PDF 4.5 -1. The
following is stated:
"The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan and
the
Master Development Plan require that the following measures be
implemented
during initial project grading activities and will be incorporated into all
grading
permit applications submitted to the City:
a. Construction waste diversion will be increased by 50 percent from
2010 requirements.
b. To the extent practical, during the oilfield clean -up and remedlation
process, the landowner /Master Developer will be required to recycle
and reuse materials on site to minimize off -site hauling and disposal of
materials and associated off -site traffic."
Question 1: What oversight will be used to assure that (a) construction
waste that needs to be diverted (i.e., contaminated soil at unacceptable
cont.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -208 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
13 cont.
14
15
16
17
18
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoc 3 -209 Responses to Environmental Comments
levels) is not reintroduced back into the project in an effort to keep waste
diversion within the constraint implied by (a.)?
Question 2: What oversight will be used to assure the "practicality'
mentioned in (b.) in the event that none of the excavated materials can be
reused due to their toxicity? Why is the decision to reuse the materials left
to the Landowner /Master Developer, which could present a conflict?
Please clarify how these issues will be decided and what oversight will be
in place to meet the tandem goals of optimizing recycling, while minimizing
reuse of contaminated materials.
SECTION 4.1: LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING PROGRAMS
1.
Impact of light illumination from the Community Park on the Newport Crest
neighborhood: Have design alternatives been considered to reduce /
mitigate this significant impact? The location of the playing fields and the
lights thereon, including the way the lights "face" and the hours which the
lights will remain on, should be considered.
2.
The proposed building heights seem excessive. Doesn't the City have a
maximum residential building height of 30 feet? Here, the Family Villages
calls for 45 feet height; the Resort Colony calls for 50 feet height; and the
Urban Colony calls for 60 feet height. Even the low density, single family
housing calls for 36 feet height, while the low -to- medium density single
family housing calls for 45 feet height. Why are such tall buildings being
considered? Are these heights necessary? Are these proposed heights
compliant with City codes / ordinances?
3.
The scope of the proposed safety lighting in the two Oil Consolidation
sites is not addressed. What are the specifics in this regard? Will there
be an increase in light over the existing conditions? How many lights?
How bright? For what hours will the lights be on?
4.
The North Family Village Coastal Homes are to be constructed on "zero
lot lines." Why is there no set back requirement? Is this proposed "zero lot
line" compliant with City codes / ordinances? Is this compatible with the
City's standards?
5.
More information is needed regarding the specifics of "restoration and
remediation" of the 252 acres that are to remain as open space. What
needs to be done? What is the plan? Where are the areas on -site for
remediation and restoration? If there will be off -site mitigation areas,
identify these. What agencies need to be part of this process? What is
the current state of the land as far as the degree and scope of
13 cont.
14
15
16
17
18
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoc 3 -209 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
18 cont.
19
20
21
22
R:TrojectsWewpn J015tRTMRTC- o3t5tzdoe 3 -210 Responses to Environmental Comments
contamination? Are there any long -term risks arising from the current
state of contamination?
6.
The proposed walking bridge over PCH is hardly discussed at all. Why is
this bridge needed? How was its proposed size and location determined?
Have the bridge's effects on the aesthetics and historical nature and
environment of PCH been evaluated? Have the bridge's effects on traffic,
businesses and homes been evaluated?
SECTION 4.2: AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
1.
Page 4.8 -9. Visual Effects -The number of residential dwellings planned
for this area, 1375 homes on 149 acres, will create a community of 3,012
(p 4.8 -9) people living in a relatively small area. Of the 401 acres
encompassing the project, approximately 252 acres do not support
building of residences. Some of the planned residences will be 4 to 5
stories or 45 to 60 feet high. Where visible, this concentration of homes
will have a negative visual impact on surrounding communities. Will the
ocean views from Newport Crest condominiums be obscured by the
Resort Colony? The Resort Flats, at 50 feet high, could be obtrusive. The
impact of the Resort Colony could negatively alter views from the
condominiums, Provide a sight line view exhibit.
The Urban City will include 730 units at a height of 60 feet, which is taller
than most residential structures in the City of Newport Beach. The EIR
justifies this by stating that this section of the project is located in Costa
Mesa, which has a higher maximum height level. As it is assumed that
the whole development will be incorporated into the City of Newport
Beach, this reasoning seems flawed. Visually, the impact of this 60 foot
building will be negative. The impacts of this development on the
surrounding community must be adequately addressed in the EIR.
2.
Bluff Road - Why does Bluff Road need to be 4 lanes wide? Traffic on this
road will be fast, generate noise impacts, and create visual impacts. Bluff
Road will be as wide as Superior Avenue. Bluff Road can be used as a
"short cut" by drivers from 15th or 17" Street to PCH. With three other
entrances into this project and a planned commercial resort area of only
75 units, this seems like an overly ambitious and unnecessarily wide
entrance.
3.
Excavation on the project site will involve moving 2,600,000 cubic yards of
soil. Cuts will be as deep as 25 feet. Canyons and ridges will be either
changed or eliminated. Much of the topography in the area of the project
will have permanent soil disturbance. The visual character of the
18 cont.
19
20
21
22
R:TrojectsWewpn J015tRTMRTC- o3t5tzdoe 3 -210 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
22 cont.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoc 3 -211 Responses to Environmental Comments
topography within the Project site will be changed and the related
aesthetic impacts must be addressed in the EIR.
4.
Page 4.2 -41. Utilities= Putting utilities underground within the Lowland
Open Space seems a hard goal to achieve. Beneath this area is a
collection of pipes, drains and other impediments left over from earlier
uses of this area. All utilities should be placed underground. Is the
undergrounding of utilities in the Lowland Open Space feasible?
5.
Mentioned are non - habitable structures. What do they look like? Will they
be visible from outside the project? What will the accessory structures be
used for?
6.
For both aesthetic and safety reasons, it is recommended that the minimal
bluff setback for residences be increased from 60 to 100 feet. Are the
proposed bluff setbacks adequate?
SECTION 4.3: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1.
The baseline discussion of geology and soils should contain a description
of the known existing soil contamination areas. For areas of suspected
contamination, there should be a discussion of the specific steps that will
be used to determine the actual presence or absence and the levels of
contamination present for specific compounds. Also, a discussion of the
specific actions that will be taken to remediate the site should be provided
in the EIR.
2.
Although Appendix B covers many aspects of geology and soil, additional
information should be provided regarding the use of reclaimed /treated soil
in the project. Please provide in Section 4.3 of the EIR an adequate
disclosure of existing soil contamination, and a full description of the risks
associated with using the site's treated soil as backfll in the grading and
fill operations of the project.
SECTION
4.4: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (PER CBWQ)
1.
Please consider revising the criteria of the south end retention system to
handle a 200 -year flood.
2.
Smart controllers should be mandatory for all irrigation systems, public
and private.
3.
Please explain the retention basin maintenance program and the funding
source of that program.
22 cont.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoc 3 -211 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
4.
Please consider programs that will improve the quality of water discharged
into the slough and lowlands.
5.
Please ascertain that no untreated runoff from the project reaches the bay.
6.
If work is done around the network of pipes at the southwest part of the
property, consider improvements to that system.
SECTION 4.5: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES
1.
General Comment. The City of Newport Beach as the lead agency carries
primary responsibility for approving a project. Many practical features
make this project very appealing to the City (e.g., addition of needed low -
income housing for the City, needed increases in the parkland /open space
requirements on the City, additional revenue from the Inn planned, and so
on.). What is the City's long -term liability if the proposed project does not
adequately safeguard against the oilfield related hazards.
2.
Exhibit 3 -2 and 3-4 suggest that residential units will coincide with oil use
and pipe line areas. According to EPA and NRDC documents found
online, people who live near oil and gas operations report serious health
problems. Such people experience symptoms resembling those that may
be caused by the toxic substances found in oil and gas. The negative
health effects associated with these substances range from eye and skin
irritation to respiratory illness such as emphysema, thyroid disorders,
tumors, and birth defects. As described in the cited documents, a recent
study reported a higher prevalence of rheumatic diseases, lupus,
neurological symptoms, respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular
problems in a New Mexico community built on top of a former oilfield with
some nearby active wells when compared to a community with no known
similar exposures. Other studies have found increased cancer risks
associated with living near oil or gas field S.2 The potential health effects of
developing residential areas over contaminated soils must be adequately
addressed in the EIR. Please clarify if exposure to contaminated soils and
the related health impacts have been included in the health risk
assessment discussed in Section 4.10 — Air Quality.
3.
The Draft EIR proposes to (1) build residences and commercial property
2 Retrieved: 10/10111; Environmental Protection Agency:
htto' //wwni eoa .gov /rodweb00 /tenormloilandgas. html Natural Resources Defense Council
htlp:lhv .nrdc.oralland/ use /down/fdown. pdf Occupational Safety and Health Administration
htto:l/www.osha.gov /dtsfhib/hib data/hib19890126.html
8
31
32
33
34
35
36
R:\ProjedsWewpartMl&RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -212 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
36 cont.
37
36
39
40
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -213 Responses to Environmental Comments
on top of a former oilfield, and (2) continue some oilfield operations on the
site while residential /commercial properties are occupied. For these
reasons, unlike most project EIR documents, this project EIR faces the
dual challenges of both making a good faith effort at full disclosure on the
clean up portion of the site, as well as providing adequate justification of
the development portion of the site. This EIR seems to make a good effort
at describing the impacts of the development portion of the project (item 1
above), but needs to provide a more thorough examination of the corollary
impacts that are presented for the development by the fact that the site is
a former oilfield (item 2 above).
4.
Please provide an adequate summary of the procedures and safeguards
that will be followed in the closure of the oil fields and reuse of the site as
required by the "current requirements of DOGGR (State of California
Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources)." Specifically, disclose the criteria that are applied in all
aspects of the reuse of the site that justify the property for residential and
commercial use. Describe how such criteria minimize the risk of health
related hazards to occupants of the property from both a short- and long-
term perspective.
5.
Explain why radiation area surveys are not planned in all areas containing
oil pipelines, and operating and formerly operating wells. ,Alternatively, if
such surveys are planned or have been completed, present a discussion
of the results, the acceptable thresholds for treated soils, etc. Plans for
conducting this survey as well as surveys of soil contamination (from all
known contaminants) correlated with oil field operations, treatment and
removal should be described in detail, including a review of the science on
health risks associated with exposure to contaminants likely to be on site,
and an explanation of aspects that are mitigated and unmitigated.
6.
Exhibit 4.5 -1, the Potential Environmental Concern Location Map, does
not depict the presumably thousands of feet of contaminated pipeline,
wells and oil sumps shown earlier in Exhibit 3 -4 Oil Operations. Provide
an explanation why the far smaller region depicted on Exhibit 4.5 -1 is
depicted as the area of concern rather than the larger area shown in
Exhibit 3 -4.
7.
Page 4.5 -3, General Plan Safety Element. Special attention is needed
here since the typically existing exposure hazards detailed in the General
Plan Safety Element (which include coastal hazards, geologic hazards,
seismic hazards, flood hazards, wild land and urban fire hazards,
hazardous materials, aviation hazards, and disaster planning) do not
foresee the complications created by the present scenario of building on a
former oilfield site, adjacent to continuing oilfield operations.
36 cont.
37
36
39
40
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -213 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
SECTION 4.6: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.
Page 4.2 -22, second paragraph indicates that the eroded bluff would be
restored and grading would be required on currently impacted bluffs to
restore and re- vegetate the bluff /slope edge. There does not appear to be
a complete description of the bluff's current state, i.e. what plant
communities are present? What is the extent of the bluff degradation?
How did it result? What percent of the bluff would need to be restored?
Exhibits 4.2 -3b (Resort Colony) and 4.2.5 (Resort Flats) show restored
bluff simulation. Exhibit 4.2. -3b includes palm trees which would not be
consistent with the use of native plants for restoration. Also, is the
extensive use of trees, as shown in Exhibit 4.2 -5a (3) consistent with plant
species normally found at the bluffs edge?
2.
Pages 4.4-41 through 4.4-44 (Table 4.4 -13), Source Control Non -
Structural BMPs. Page 4.4 -43, S4: Use Efficient Irrigation and
Landscape Design: What BMP is proposed for plant selection in
residential landscaping? For residents with landscaping areas, what
recommendations and HOA guidelines will be provided for plant selection?
Will use of native plants be promoted? The use of efficient irrigation and
landscape design is being promoted 'to minimize the runoff of excess
irrigation water into the municipal storm drain system'. Why would
'detached residential homes' have a limited exclusion to this BMP?
3.
Page 4.4 -44, S4. 7: In what cases would native species which are
drought tolerant not be possible or feasible?
4.
Page 4.4 -44, S5 Protect Slopes and Channels #5: Indicates that the
project will "Vegetate slopes with native or drought tolerant vegetation."
S5 should require native vegetation consistent with bluff slope habitat.
5.
Page 4.5- 13 -14, Non - Native Grassland/ Non - Native
Grassland /Ruderal: "Non- Native Grassland occurs throughout the mesa
on the Project site. ...Within these Non - Native Grasslands, there are
pockets of native species that were not mapped because they were
mowed to a height of less than six inches and could not be delineated.
What is the area of these unmapped sections? Should these species be
resurveyed when they have reached a height of 6 inches? If they are not
resurveyed, how will these grasslands be accounted for in the amount of
grassland which must be restored or mitigated for, discussed in 4.6 -53, in
terms of: (a) acreage; and (b) requirements for mitigation as coastal sage
scrub (CSS) (3:1 ratio) or disturbed CSS (1:1 ratio) or grasslands (0.5:1
ratio) (see paragraph 2, grassland and ruderal) (4.6 -53). Where is the
table of required mitigation ratios for plants included?
10
41
42
43
44
45
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -214 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
6.
Page 4.6- 55 -56, Wildlife Impacts. How will the restoration and mitigation
measures discussed in the section address wildlife corridors? Will
corridors/contiguous areas for wildlife movement be improved through the
project?
7.
Page 4.6 -69: Vernal Pools. Which Agency /protocol was used to
complete the vernal pool survey? What are the requirements for survey
time period, length, season, i.e. wet season, dry season surveys? How
many surveys were conducted? Were both dry and wet season surveys
conducted? Are the survey documents available? Note: The survey
protocol located, "Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery
Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the
Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods," calls for:
• Two full wet season surveys done within a 5 -year period, or
• Two consecutive seasons of one full wet season survey and one dry
season survey (or one dry season survey and one full wet season
survey).3
• Does this standard apply, or was another used? How were the
mitigation values for habitat replacement arrived at? How do they
compare to those used in similar projects? Do EPA /USFW /other
agencies provide a range of guidelines?
8.
Please clarify if the developer intends to sell mitigation credits and if so
please identify the potential sites for this program.
SECTION
4.7: POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
1.
How are the following defined?
Very low income (69 units, or 5 %)
• Low income (138 units, or 10 %)
• Moderate income (206 units, or 15 %)
2.
What is the basis / formula for the City's projected population being 96,892
by 2030 and 97,776 by 2035?
3.
Affordable Housing - more specifics need to be provided regarding
payment of in -lieu fees and construction of off -site affordable housing.
• What are the in -lieu fees? How are they calculated?
• Where and what off -site affordable housing can be constructed?
3http:lhvww.slocou nty.ca.gov /Assets/P Uenvironmental/Fai ry+Shrimp+Survey+G uidelines.
#M
11
47
W
49
041
51
RiFrojects\NewpodU015�RTC\RTC- 031512 doe 3 -215 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• What are the criteria for "affordability" of the units for those
employed within the City?
• What is the projected sale pricing for the Affordable Housing units?
• For the 50% of Affordable Housing that is to be constructed on site,
where will these units be located? What is the projected pricing
range?
SECTION 4.8: RECREATION AND TRAILS
1. The addition of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge crossing Pacific Coast
Highway would encourage walking /biking to the beach. This proposal
would need to be approved with Cal Trans and the Coastal Commission.
The 50 foot landings supporting each end of the bridge could impact the
views of residents of Lido Sands. Safety lighting on the bridge would also
be visible in Lido Sands. The aesthetics and light and glare impacts on
these communities should be evaluated in the EIR.
2. Bluff Toe Trail is too close to Newport Shores. Why is it 10 feet wide? Is it
necessary?
3. The parks proposed for this project are easily accessible and preserve
significant views. As Service Area #1 has a 53 acre park deficiency, parks,
especially sport parks, are desirable. However, the location of the
Community Park so close to Newport Crest, will negatively impact those
living in the condominiums. The impacts if these parks on adjacent
communities should be evaluated.
SECTION 4.9: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Check Exhibit 4.9.2 for accuracy, (16t" Street is not a 4 lane undivided
roadway).
2. SC 4.9 -3 indicates that the Haul operation will be monitored by the City of
Newport Beach "public works department" How will be the haul vehicles
be identified to the public works department? Do they have special
marking so that they can be counted and verified? How will this measure
be implemented? The enforcement of this standard condition needs to be
addressed in the EIR and included in a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
3. Trip Distribution and Assignment - 16t" street — what happens if the
NMUSD does not give permission and right of way to do improvements?
What is the alternate plan for site access?
12
51 cont.
52
53
54
55
56
57
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -216 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
4.
The EIR does not discuss the improvements proposed on the north side of
West Coast Highway approximate 100 feet of intersection with Superior
Ave. to approximately 700 feet of the Centerline of Bluff road. Is this part
of the Banning Ranch property?
5.
The EIR indicates that Resort Colony Road is a single road — Resorts
generally have service roads or back of house roads for service that is
different than the primary road to the resort. Is this also proposed for the
resort?
SECTION 4.10: AIR QUALITY
1.
Page 4.10 -12, Table 4.10 -4. The existing emission sources for criteria
pollutants used in the oil field at Banning Ranch should be described in
detail. The calculations used to determine the existing oil field emissions
in Table 4.10 -4 should be provided in the Draft EIR, rather than a
reference provided to another document.
2.
Page 4.10 -14, Table 4.10 -5. The existing emission sources for toxic air
contaminants (TACs) used in the oil field at Banning Ranch should be
described in detail. The calculations used to determine the existing oil
field TAC emissions in Table 4.10 -5 should be provided in the Draft EIR,
rather than a reference provided to another document. A baseline health
risk assessment should be performed to demonstrate existing health
impacts.
3.
Page 4.10 -20, 15' sentence references the use of URBEMIS. The
emission calculations were done using CaIEEMod and not URBEMIS.
4.
Page 4.10 -20, Table 4.10 -7. The construction emission calculations
should be provided for peak day emissions. Please clarify what would
constitute peak day construction emissions, i.e., what phase of
construction, types of equipment, emission factors, etc.
5.
Page 4.10 -23, Operational emissions. The assumptions used in the
CaIEEMod model should be explained in more detail.
6.
Page 4.10 -25, Table 4.10 -13. The emission sources for criteria pollutants
used in the oil field at Banning Ranch should be described in detail. The
calculations used to determine the existing oil field emissions in Table
4.10 -13 should be provided in the Draft EIR, rather than a reference
provided to another document.
7.
Page 4.10 -16 and Page 4.10 -27, CO Hotspots Analysis. The use of the
SMAQMD screening methodology in southern California is questionable.
13
58
59
RE
61
62
63
64
65
66
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -217 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
14
66 cont.
67
M
69
70
71
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doc 3 -218 Responses to Environmental Comments
CO modeling at the intersections where LOS E or F are predicted should
be modeled and not screened.
8.
Page 4.10 -27, Ambient Air Quality. An ambient air quality analysis is only
provided for CO emissions. An ambient air quality analysis during project
operations should be provided for the other criteria air pollutants (e.g.,
NOx and particulate matter).
9.
The air quality section does not discuss the health impacts associated with
exposure to criteria pollutants. The section concludes that air quality
impacts are potentially significant for NOx. Therefore, the health impacts
associated with exposure to NOx would also be significant.
10.
Page 4.10 -29, Human Health Risk Assessment. The potential health risks
associated with TACs are not described in the Draft EIR. The oilfield
sources of TAC emissions and the estimated TAC emissions associated
with the operation of the proposed project should be provided in the Draft
EIR.
SECTION
4.11: GREENHOUSE GASES
1.
Page 4.11 -18 states: " ...the Project would create a significant
cumulative contribution to GHG emissions if it would emit more than 6,000
MTCO2e /yr of GHGs."
In Table 4.11 -3, annual estimated GHG emissions values are presumably
based on the estimated 25,000 cubic yards of remediated material that is
planned for removal from the site (discussed in Section 4.5). Provide a
revised upper -bound estimate that reflects the additional GHG emissions
that would be incurred if all 246,000 cubic yards of remediated material
(discussed in Section 4.5) is unusable and requires removal from site, and
replacement by new fill material from off site.
2.
Table 4.11 -4: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions From
Operations:
The table's presentation of "mitigated" GHG emissions states that the
.'mitigated" scenario demonstrates the GHG reductions that occur with
Project features that contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions when
compared with typical residential and commercial developments.
Another useful comparison would be the presentation of mitigated GHG
emissions that occur under alternative project features (Alternatives A and
B, Section 7) that resemble the current full open space status quo of the
403 acres, since one original vision of the project was to maintain the
14
66 cont.
67
M
69
70
71
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doc 3 -218 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
open space qualities that are present in Banning Ranch's current state.
Please provide this alternative comparison to complement the typical
residential and commercial development comparison already provided.
Furthermore, it seems somewhat misleading to describe the reduction of
GHG emissions of the project plan when compared with typical residential
and commercial developments, since no such "typical" development plans
were included in the envisioned scenarios for use of Banning Ranch.
3. Page 4.11 -21: The project would make a cumulatively significant impact
on GHG emissions, and exceed the City's threshold. As justification it is
stated on Page 4.11 -22: "However, as described in the PDFs and
demonstrated above, the proposed Project incorporates many
characteristics and features that would reduce GHG emissions compared
with development of similar land uses in other locations or without
commitments to sustainable design." It is unclear if this reference to
.'similar land uses" here is in reference to the "typical residential and
commercial development" mentioned earlier. Please clarify this
comparison since comparing the current project plan to a typical
residential and commercial development seems inappropriate.
4. Page 4.11 -25 Level of Significance after Mitigation. It is stated:
"Despite application of all feasible mitigation, the Project would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory and
would have a significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact."
Provide brief explanation why such significant and unavoidable impacts
would occur.
SECTION 4.12: NOISE
1. Page 4.12 -14, 151 paragraph. For some very close neighbors of the
proposed project (Newport Crest) and a private school (Carden Hall), the
noise level will be substantially increased during the construction period
and construction noise impacts are considered to be significant and
unavoidable and affect a number of the surrounding communities
including California Seabreeze, Parkview Circle, Newport Shores, Lido
Sands..." as well as several identified mobile home parks in the area.
Portions of Newport Crest are as close as 5 feet from the proposed project
boundary and Carden Hall is within a few hundred feet.
Mitigation Measure (MM)4.12 -3 requires that the residents and schools be
notified in order for them "to plan their activities to minimize potential
disruptive effects of construction noise'. This does not reflect a real
solution to mitigating "significant short-term noise impacts" on schools. All
15
71 cont.
72
73
74
R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -219 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
IR
74 cont.
75
7s
77
78
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -220 Responses to Environmental Comments
feasible noise mitigation measures must be imposed, which could include
doing the construction activities closest to the school during the summer
hours or when students would not be present.
2.
Page 4.12 -22. Longer term, the traffic generated by the proposed project
will cause significant traffic noise without mitigation. The use of rubberized
asphalt is proposed to mitigate noise impacts. While the mitigating noise
on the affected streets with the highest noise impacts (171" St. west of
Monrovia & 15t ". St. west of Placentia), these 2 streets are still within 3
dBA of the 65 dBA threshold. Enforcement of this mitigation measure is
not assured as Newport Beach cannot require the mitigation measure on
the City of Costa Mesa. Is there any data, references, or evidence
regarding the use of rubberized asphalt that shows what the noise
reduction would be should it be installed? Has the installation of the
rubberized asphalt been included in the construction noise /air quality
analyses? Has this mitigation been used elsewhere, and if so, what was
the actual noise reduction achieved?
3.
Page 4.12 -40 thru 41. The proposed project will result in significant noise
impacts to Newport Crest. MM4.12 -7 requires the installation of noise
insulation upgrades to reduce second floor balcony and interior noise
impacts. There is a list of Construction Activities mitigation measures
provided (p. 4.12- 40 -41) which show concern and consideration for the
affected neighbors during the construction years. These must be enforced
by the City and the contractors. Additionally, the City should carefully
monitor the activities during the construction phases to assure the level of
public relations with the neighbors is positive, pro- active and consistent. A
detailed mitigation monitoring program needs to be developed and
implemented.
4.
The list of Mitigation Measures (MM) included for the Operational
Activities includes details on truck deliveries and loading dock activities
(MM 4.12 -9, 4.12 -43, para # 2). The restriction of such activities should be
between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM., the same as construction
hours. Stipulating that deliveries can happen until 10:00 PM, as stated in
this paragraph, will not reduce noise during the evening hours. Truck
traffic and loading /unloading activities generate too much noise to be
permitted after dark. An additional mitigation measure should require that
loading docks be located at least 300 feet away from dwelling units.
SECTION 4.13: CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.
Page 4.13 -24, Threshold 4.13 -2, second paragraph, 5t" sentence states:
"However the planned removal of the oilfield- related infrastructure prior to
grading would adversely impact portions of the site. The extent of impacts
IR
74 cont.
75
7s
77
78
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -220 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
is unclear at this time ". Could the impact excavations be more clearly
defined prior to the issuing of grading permits? If not, when will the impact
of these excavations be defined?
SECTION 4.15: UTILITIES
4.15.1 Water Supply
1. Of the 3 sections in this category, water supply takes up well over 1/2 (25+
pages of 45), indicating its potential concern in the public's view as well as
the complications of multiple suppliers of water and their future supply
predictably. A water supply assessment (WSA) was done, as required by
SB 610 for a project of more than 500 dwelling units (du). In addition,
there are multiple governmental entities involved in water distribution
within southern California (pp.4.15 -4 through 4.15 -12). Their overall
conclusion, including the WSA results above noted is that Newport Beach
will be able to meet the water demands for the period 2015 -2035 "even
under the worst drought conditions" (p. 4.15 -12, last para.). Implicit in the
projections are past records as well as a future reliance on the entire
region to be better stewards and conservationists of water.
Recent drought years have caused both the MWD and the City to take
actions involving a new water supply plan (eff. 2008). Included is a plan to
augment existing groundwater supplies "by producing purified water to
recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin" (p. 4.15 -25, last
paragraph).
4.15.2 Wastewater Facilities
2. Page 4.15 -29, tst paragraph. While there's capacity to handle the
incremental wastewater from this proposed development, there is a
concern that there may be a necessity for a wastewater lift station for the
Banning Ranch wastewater. This may be required if gravity Flows are not
great enough to be conveyed to the pump station. This structure would be
"between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet and would be enclosed within a
structure approximately 2,000 sf feet (sic) in size ". (p.4.15 -29, paragraph
#1). It is not clear from the environmental analyses whether the
construction of this structure has been included in the evaluation of noise,
grading and construction impacts. The construction impacts related to the
pump station must be included in the analysis of project impacts.
4.15 -3 Energy
3. The installation of electricity lines (Southern California Edison) and natural
gas lines (The Gas Company) can result in significant impacts. The
17
78 cont.
79
Ell
81
R:TrojectsWewpn J015tRTMRTC- o315izdoc 3 -221 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
18
81 cont.
82
83
84
85
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -222 Responses to Environmental Comments
defined Project Design Features and identified mitigation measures must
be included in any construction work completed by the applicant or these
utility companies. Such measures need to be included in the mitigation
monitoring program and enforced to assure they are implemented.
5.0
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1.
MM 4.2 -1. The project calls out the use of the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America 'Dark Sky Standards' as the baseline for night
lighting. Dark Sky standards need to be defined. How does this standard
compare to other standards for night lighting? Does the Dark Sky standard
have a reference number? (Could also be an ASHRAE number?) Does
'Dark Sky' include or refer to a specific level of darknesstlight, or to an
overall standard set? The project calls for 'lighting to be 'directed and
shielded from the Open Space Reserve, including habitat areas. What is
the benchmark level of darkness to be targeted for the project, particularly
in wildlife areas? Is there a minimal level of darkness to be achieved?
6.0
LONG -TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IMPACTS
1.
The proposed 51.4 acres for active and passive parks, while generous,
are insufficient. This amounts to only 12.8% of the entire
project. Consideration of an alternative that would require 25 percent or
about 100 acres of parks should be made in the EIR. Is the provision of
parks and open space consistent with the General Plan and City
ordinances?
2.
The assertion in the DEIR that the project would not induce growth
through the provision of infrastructure is not credible. It seems obvious
that the establishment of Bluff Road and North Bluff Road will bring more
traffic to the surrounding area and more growth in traffic. The installation
of an addition 1,325 residential units will also result in an increase in
population growth in the area. This section of the EIR should be revised
and a better discussion of growth inducing impacts should be provided.
7.0
ALTERNATIVES
1.
Page 7 -41, 1s' complete paragraph. Why is oil exploration expected to
expand under the No Project Alternative? It would seem apparent that
with crude oil prices at a relatively high level, oil removal activities are
progressing at a relatively rapid rate. How much additional oil exploration
would be feasible at the site?
18
81 cont.
82
83
84
85
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -222 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
2.
Page 7 -41, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Calculations should be provided
to support the conclusion that the GHG emissions associated with the No
Project Alternative would be substantially less than 6,000 metric tons. The
previous comment indicates that oil exploration activities would increase
under this alternative. Also, please justify the following sentence:
"However, it should be noted that the proposed Project would be providing
housing in a jobs -rich area, which would help offset an incremental portion
of the regional emissions." What defines a "job- rich" area?
3.
Page 7 -49, 3rd paragraph. The EIR indicates: "Under Alternative B,
oilfields could be consolidated, potentially resulting in natural vegetation
being converted to oil exploration /production." Aren't there current rules
and regulations in place that would prevent the existing oil operations from
impacting areas with known biological value?
4.
Page 7 -59, last paragraph. The EIR indicates that, under Alternative B,
future noise levels at the California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle
residences facing the Project site would increase from 0 to 4 dBA CNEL
above existing noise levels, which would be a less than significant. CNEL
increases of 3 cIBA and greater are generally considered "substantial" and,
therefore, significant.
5.
Page 7 -136, last paragraph. Alternative D would result in a reduction in
allowable dwelling units to a maximum of 1,200, as compared to 1,375 for
the proposed Project. The EIR indicates that, under Alternative D, there
would be a reduction in average daily trips, but an increase of trips in the
AM peak hour and a decrease in trips in the PM peak hour. This seems
odd. Why would there be an increase in AM peak hour trips when the
number of dwelling units has been reduced?
6.
Page 7 -156, 2nd paragraph. Alternative F does not include the pedestrian
and bicycle bridge spanning West Coast Highway. Why is the bridge not
included in Alternative F? On page 7 -172, it is indicated that Alternative F
would not provide enhanced public access through the coastal zone and
cites the lack of the bridge as one reason. Yet the bridge could be
included in Alternative F so that this alternative would achieve all but one
of the project objectives.
7.
Are there any alternatives either present or additional which can reduce
the noise, air emission, and light and glare impacts to Newport Crest from
significant and unavoidable to less than significant?
19
86
87
88
RN
fT
91
R:TrojectsWewpn J0I5�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -223 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
APPENDIX D. SITE REMEDIATION AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Appendix D presents the Draft Remedial Action Plan for the project
prepared by Geosyntec in 2009. Page 2 of Appendix D states:
"A key assumption in all development planning is that any residential
construction will be contingent upon the completion of the remediation
work and agency closure of each residential planning area."
A clarification is needed here: Is this inconsistent with the Implementation
Staging 1, 2, & 3 (discussed in Section 3.0 Project Description) which
suggests that residential construction will be staggered such that some
residential units will be completed and occupied before the completion of
remediation work in other stages? Please clarify the wording in Section 3
to address the potentially ambiguous reading of this key assumption.
2. On page 6 it is stated: "...In the case of the NBR Site where there are no
hazardous wastes orlevels of contaminants,"
Please provide a summary of the data in support of the above comment.
Provide an explanation of why this particular site differs from other former
oilfields with respect to the presence of human health hazards.
3. On page 9 it is stated: "The hydrocarbon impacts observed were generally
confined to the upper soil layers (i.e., within approximately 6 feet of the
surface)."
• Provide details concerning the disposition of the 6 feet of surface
soil for the project.
o Will it be treated and reused?
• If it is reused what are the criteria that will be applied for
acceptable /safe use as fill in residential portions of the
project?
• What portions will be removed from site?
• Provide details on whether the impacts present in the 6 feet of
upper soil layers include contaminants from pipeline scale (TENR
contaminants).
4. On page 16 of the Phase I ESA Update in (Appendix D, page 91) it is
stated: "A limited and preliminary pVIC evaluation was performed for the
Site, utilizing only the information readily available in the EDR report,
review of Site data and documentation, and results of the Site
reconnaissance and interviews. This pVIC evaluation is not intended to
meet the substantive requirements of the ASTM Standard E 2600 tiered
screening, nor is it intended to identify which pVICs are VICs."
There was no further elaboration on vapor intrusion assessment in the
O
92
93
94
95
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -224 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
main project description. Provide additional /updated information in DEIR
Section 4.5 regarding the planned assessment of the existence of vapor
intrusion conditions, and the acceptable criterion levels sought for the 95cont
project.
5. Table 3 -3 beginning on page 121 of Appendix D summarizes the Potential
Recognized Environmental Conditions of the NBRP. Provide in Section gg
4.5 of the EIR a list of the items in this table that will be unmitigated, and a
justification, during project development.
21
RT rgedsWewp .MJD151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -225 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter L1 City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC)
October 17, 2011
Response1
The opinion of the EQAC is noted. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) notes that the
.'statement of objectives" should include the underlying purpose of the project ". The statement of
objectives helps the lead agency formulate project alternatives and assists in the preparation of
findings or a statement of overriding considerations, as needed. Project Objective 3 reflects the
City's General Plan policy for the Banning Ranch property, including the development of up to
1,375 residential units on the site. Generally a specific number may not be as appropriate as a
range or general acknowledgment of appropriate land uses for a project objective. However, the
City's General Plan policy was very specific with respect to the maximum number of units
allocated for development on this site. Therefore, the Applicant chose to include a specific
objective (Project Objective 3) consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of
Residential Village for the Project site.
Response 2
The baseline activities associated with the oilfield producing operations are discussed in Section
3.0, Project Description (pages 3 -3 and 3 -4) and Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(pages 4.5 -5 and 4.5 -6). The oil operations are an existing use conducted by an independent
entity, West Newport Oil Company, which would continue regardless of whether the proposed
Project is approved or implemented. Baseline information regarding the oil operations was
provided in the Draft EIR in order to evaluate the proposed Project's impact on the existing
physical environment. An exhibit showing the location of existing facilities is included in the Draft
EIR as Exhibit 3 -4 in Section 3.0. Information regarding the amount of oil removed and how it is
transported was not included as this is not a part of the proposed Project. The City does not
have the ability to condition or restrict these aspects of the existing operations.
Response 3
Please refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation. In addition,
please refer to Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR (pages 4.5 -1
through 4.5 -3). Remediation procedures and methodology are described in Section 4.5 as well
as anticipated soil remediation volumes (see Table 4.5 -3).
Response 4
The opinion of the EQAC is noted. With respect to Table 3 -1, please refer to page 3 -11 which
state "Table 3 -1 identifies proposed land uses for the Project (Exhibit 3 -2) ".
Response 5
Please refer to Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR which describes
the dark sky program proposed for the Project as well as evaluates the potential impacts
associated with the introduction of night lighting on the property.
Response 6
Project Design Feature 4.11.1 in the Draft EIR requires the proposed Project to be consistent
with a recognized Green Building Program that exists at the time of final Project approval such
as, but not limited to, Build It Green, the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC's) Leadership in
RT rojedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -226 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Energy and Environmental Design — Neighborhood Development (LEED- NDTM), California
Green Builder, or National Association of Home Builders' National Green Building Standard.
The specifics of building energy efficiency may vary depending upon which particular Green
Building Program is selected to set the requirements. Each Green Building Program has its own
extensive list of potential energy- efficiency components with corresponding points or values of
each component. These lists are used as "menus" from which the final program for the Project
would ultimately combined so that the final solution (i.e., the constructed Project) can be graded.
Additionally, recognized Green Building Programs are each independently being updated and
requirements being revised over time. Therefore, although the commitment is specific, to
identify today how energy efficiency would ultimately and specifically be attained would not be
mandated at this time.
In addition to compliance with the Green Building Code and the third -party Green Building
Program, the proposed Project has a Green and Sustainable Program. As addressed in the
Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan (see Appendix D of the Master
Development Plan), the proposed Green and Sustainable Program contains a Resource
Management Performance Matrix that identifies commitments and implementing
plans /programs for various resources, including energy, air and water resources. For example
and as addressed in Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the proposed
Project would be required to have low water use indoor appliances; multimetering energy use
"dashboards" in all residences; and all residential buildings must exceed 2008 Title 24
requirements by at least 5 percent.
Response 7
Please refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation. All
remediation activities, such as excavating pipelines, are required to be conducted pursuant to
State and local requirements. As addressed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
of the Draft EIR, any contaminated soil in areas proposed for development would be remediated
to State and local standards and requirements. Remediation to State and local standards would
ensure that these soils are safe for human exposure in the future. As noted on page 3 -24 of the
Draft EIR, contaminated material that cannot be effectively remediated on site would be
transported off site and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Appendix D of the Draft EIR includes the draft Remedial Action Plan that identifies the areas
proposed for remediation. Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.5 -1 requires that a final Remedial Action
Plan be submitted to and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
and /or the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA).
Response 8
The proposed roadway system is described in detail in the Project Description in order that this
component of the Project could be accurately assessed in the overall impact analysis provided
in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of the Draft EIR. With respect to existing oilfield operations and the
proposed remediation program, these aspects of the Project are described in Section 3.0,
Project Description. However, the analysis of existing conditions related to ongoing and future
oil operations and its relationship to proposed development activities is addressed in the 38-
page Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project Description identifies that a
draft Remedial Action Plan (d RAP) has been prepared for the Project, which specifies that
remediation efforts would include oilfield facility and infrastructure removal and oilfield
remediation, as well as the consolidation of oilfield activities. The Project Description notes that
the dRAP is described in greater detail in Section 4.5.
RT,.jedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -227 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 9
As discussed in Section 4.5.7 Clean -Up Levels and Materials Reuse (see Section 4.5, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR), only soils that meet approved clean up levels for
residential development areas would be used in deep fills. The California Department of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) conducted a statewide study in 1996 that included
the West Newport Oilfield confirming that NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) is
not a serious problem in California (which confirmed an earlier 1987 study). As a part of the
proposed Project's oilfield abandonment program, comprehensive surveys would be conducted
among any salvaged and recycled oilfield equipment and soils to confirm suitability for those
purposes. As addressed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR,
should any material be determined unsuitable for recycling, it would be properly disposed of in a
licensed State facility.
As to the EQAC's concern regarding whether all of the soils may be too contaminated for use,
please refer to page 4.5 -8 of the Draft EIR that describes the results of the Phase II
Environmental Assessment (EA) soil sampling. According to the Phase II EA, "at each of the
areas tested, no contaminant levels were found to exceed the hazardous waste criteria (i.e.,
concentration levels defined by State and federal guidelines) ". Because the soils do not exceed
hazardous waste criteria levels, all of the estimated 246,000 cubic yards of remediated soil can
be treated and used on site. Table 4.5 -1 provides a summary of the soil sample results from the
Phase II EA. This estimate was based on the 2001 Environmental Assessment results of
historic sites in Potential Environmental Concern (PECS) #2 and #8, located in the Lowland
area where hydrocarbon concentrations were higher than average. The exact volume can only
be known when these sites are remediated in the oilfield abandonment, consolidation, and
remediation phase and when detailed verification testing determines when the cleanup criteria
has been achieved.
Response 10
Remediated soil disposition is addressed on page 3 -36 of Section 3.0, Project Description, of
the Draft EIR. Remediated soil would be treated and placed in deep fills consistent with the
required Final RAP and not be used in conjunction with open space grading.
Responsell
Site remediation would be initiated upon Project approval and would be complete on the Upland
area before remediation begins. To ensure efficient use of soil movement to balance landform
grading and to efficiently install site infrastructure, the Applicant proposes that major soil
movement in connection with site remediation and mass grading would be conducted in a
continual program where once remediation is completed, mass grading would commence.
Although soil remediation and mass grading may overlap in areas both would be completed
before final grading is initiated which precedes construction and occupancy.
Though the remediation may be done in one continuous process, the referenced sentence from
the Draft Remedial Action Plan states that any construction within a phase or sequence is
contingent upon the completion of the remediation work and agency closure in that phase. No
development phase would be occupied until after the remediation in that phase is complete and
signed off. With respect to the concern expressed regarding the exposure of future residents
that may live on -site in the initial phases of development to toxic air contaminants, the Draft EIR
analyzed the impact of soil movement, including potentially contaminated soils, on sensitive
receptors which include both existing offsite and future on -site residents and determined that
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -228 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
this impact would be less than significant. Please refer to Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft
EIR beginning on page at 4.10 -29.
Response 12
The opinion of the EQAC to include an additional Project Design Feature (PDF) to address soil
remediation is noted. While the Applicant has not identified such a PDF, the Draft EIR
addresses all of the issues of the EQAC with respect to hazardous materials and how the
Project site would be remediated. Please refer to Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, of the Draft EIR.
Response 13
With respect to Question 1, operational and environmental regulatory oversight is described in
Section 4.5, pages 4.5 -1 to 4.5 -3, of the Draft EIR. Reuse of any materials or soils are
monitored by the oversight agencies and must conform to the approved cleanup criteria. All
remediation and reuse materials are tested and analyzed by State certified laboratories.
Remediation methodology is described in Section 4.5.3, along with anticipated soil remediation
volumes in Table 4.5 -3 in Section 4.5. Please also refer to Topical Response: Oilfield
Regulatory Oversight and Remediation
With respect to Question 2, the reuse of any material or soil is conducted only after the approval
of the oversight agencies and confirmation that previously approved cleanup criteria is met.
Response 14
The park plan was developed by the City to best address the community's needs for additional
active parkland while taking into account development/environmental constraints found on the
Newport Banning Ranch property. Implementation of the Project would create new sources of
light and glare that are presently not found on the Project site. Nighttime sources of light would
include streetlights, vehicle headlights, and lights used within and around buildings including
residences, retail areas, and the resort inn. However, it should be noted that the Project site is
located in an urban environment. Existing development is adjacent to the Project site to the
north, south, and east with development west of the Santa Ana River.
City parks are open between the hours of 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM. Ball field lights are turned off
by 10:00 PM. The location of the sports fields is depicted on Exhibit 4.8 -3 in Section 4.8,
Recreation and Trails. General Plan Land Use Policy 5.6.3 on ambient lighting requires "that
outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or
significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location ". Lighting for athletic
playing fields in the Community Park would be required to have light control visors to control
spill and glare and to direct light downward onto the playing field. Light standards used for
lighting playing fields shall be either Musco Lighting M, "Light Structure Green" standards, or
another comparable light standard of similar design that reduces light spillage.
Because of the new light sources associated with the active sports fields and hard courts
associated with the Community Park, the Community Park would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact with respect to night lighting. Although the Project proposes to restrict
lighting in areas of the site, night lighting associated with the Community Park is proposed to
have night lighting, and the Project as a whole would introduce new light sources. The findings
of this Draft EIR analysis are consistent with the General Plan EIR's determination that the
Project's proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable nighttime lighting
impacts. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new
RAPrrpd.\Newp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -229 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
sources of lighting associated with development of the Project site, not just a park, would be
considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving
the General Plan project, the City Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
which noted that there are specific economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the
significant unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project, which included this
benefit:
The updated General Plan will improve the opportunities for parks and recreation
facilities to serve the City's residents and visitors. It provides for the development
of a new park at Banning Ranch, whether acquired as open space or partially
developed, that will provide playfields and passive recreational opportunities for
the underserved western portion of the City. Additionally, the Plan, for the first
time in Policy R 1.9, prioritizes park and recreational facility improvements.
Therefore, in adopting the 2006 General Plan Update and developing a park plan that
anticipates night lighting for the athletic fields, the City made a policy determination that the
impacts of night lighting would be outweighed by the public benefits — all of which were set forth
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City in connection with approval
of the General Plan. The alternative of eliminating the lights on the ball fields was considered,
but rejected as being infeasible because it conflicted with the City's General Plan policies
(please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 7 -7, of the Draft EIR).
Response 15
The purpose of a PC (Planned Community) Zoning District, as stated in Chapter 20.26.010 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, is "to provide for areas appropriate for the development of
coordinated, comprehensive projects that result in a superior environment; to allow
diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental
arrangement while maintaining the spirit and intent of this Zoning Code; and to include a variety
of land uses, consistent with the General Plan, through the adoption of a development plan and
related text that provides land use relationships and associated development standards'. As
such, the PC can establish building heights, setbacks, etc.
Response 16
The operations at the two oil consolidation sites are not a part of the proposed Project and
would be under the control of the oil operator. Oilfield lighting is part of the existing baseline as
the oilfield currently has safety lighting, including the proposed locations of the oil consolidation
sites. The lights would be operated from dusk to dawn.
Response 17
Please refer to the response to Comment 15. By definition, a residence with a "zero lot line" side
yard on one side of the lot (one side of residence abuts the property line of the adjacent
residence) has no setback at that lot boundary. No single - family residences are proposed
without any setbacks. The Coastal Homes would have a minimum ten - foot -wide side yard with a
courtyard on the other side of the residence.
Response18
Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR includes a Mitigation Program. The proposed
Project requires a detailed restoration program for approval by the City of Newport Beach and
RTrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -230 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
the appropriate resource agencies. The Draft EIR states that the program shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
1. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan;
2. Site selection;
3. Site preparation and planting implementation;
4. Schedule;
5. Maintenance plan /guidelines;
6. Monitoring plan; and,
7. Long -term preservation.
In terms of current site conditions, please refer to page 4.5 -8 of the Draft EIR that describes the
results of the Phase II EA soil sampling. According to the Phase II EA, "at each of the areas
tested, no contaminant levels were found to exceed the hazardous waste criteria (i.e.,
concentration levels defined by State and federal guidelines) ".
Response 19
The Applicant's Project Design Feature (PDF) 4.8 -3 states "If permitted by all applicable
agencies, a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway will be provided, as set
forth in the Master Development Plan, from the Project site to a location south of West Coast
Highway to encourage walking and bicycling to and from the beach ". As addressed in the Draft
EIR, the Project proposes to provide a system of off - street multi -use trails, on- street bike lanes,
and pedestrian paths with connections to existing regional trails for use by pedestrians and
bicyclists. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway would provide
access to bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks on the south side of West Coast Highway and to
the beach. The bridge would allow for pedestrians and bicyclists to move between the northern
and southern sides of West Coast Highway without having to cross West Coast Highway at
street level.
The physical impacts of implementing the pedestrian and bicycle bridge (PDF 4.8 -3), are
evaluated as part of the overall development Project (refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of the
Draft EIR). Most specifically, refer to Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and to
Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails. West Coast Highway is not a State- or locally designated
scenic highway nor is this segment of West Coast Highway considered historically significant on
a local, State, or federal level.
Response 20
The proposed building heights of the various Project land uses are evaluated in Section 4.1,
Land Use and Related Planning Programs, and Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources,
of the Draft EIR. Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.30.100:
...provides regulations to preserve significant visual resources (public views)
from public view points and corridors. It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to
protect views from private property, to deny property owners a substantial
property right or to deny the right to develop property in accordance with the
other provisions of this Zoning Code .... The provisions of this section shall apply
only to discretionary applications where a project has the potential to obstruct
public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -231 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor,
offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport
Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal
and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open
space.... Where a proposed development has the potential to obstruct a public
view(s) from a identified public view point or corridor, as identified on General
Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), a view impact analysis may be required by the
Department. The view impact analysis shall be prepared at the project
proponent's expense. The analysis shall include recommendations to minimize
impacts to public views from the identified public view points and corridors while
allowing the project to proceed while maintaining development rights.
It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to protect views from private property. Further, the City's
General Plan goals and policies provide directives in its consideration of aesthetic compatibility.
While Natural Resources Element Goal NR 20 is the "Preservation of significant visual
resources ", the policies of the Natural Resources Element are applicable to public views and
public resources not private views or private resources.
NR Policy 20.1: Enhancement of Significant Resources: Protect and, where
feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open
space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage
points (emphasis added), as shown in Figure NR3.
With respect to the Urban Colony, the Draft EIR does not indicate that part of the Project site is
within the City of Costa Mesa. Rather the Draft EIR states "Building heights would be a
maximum of 60 feet, which is consistent with the height restrictions in the City of Costa Mesa's
adopted Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area which is contiguous to the Urban Colony ". The
compatibility of the proposed Urban Colony with existing and planned future off -site land uses
as well as proposed on -site land uses is addressed in the Draft EIR; please refer to Sections 4.1
and 4.2.
Response 21
Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment
Response 22
Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR addresses topographical
alternations and finds that the impacts would be less than significant. The majority of the
development is proposed for the Upland mesa portion of the Project site. Topographic features
of the site are shown on Exhibit 3 -3 of the Draft EIR. A comparison of the land use plan with the
topographic and geographic features exhibit shows that the significant landforms such as the
southerly and northerly arroyo, the bluff edge, and the Lowland area are largely divided.
Response 23
The Draft EIR assumes that all new public utilities would be placed underground within the
development area and to the extent economically and environmentally feasible within the Open
Space area except for the oil consolidation sites, where utilities may be above ground.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -232 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 24
Chapter 20.70 of the City's Zoning Code characterizes accessory structures to mean "...an
attached or detached structure that is a part of, and clearly incidental and secondary to, a
nonresidential structure and that does not change the character of the nonresidential structure ".
Examples include fences, garages, gazebos, outdoor play equipment, patios and porches,
swimming pools, and walls. A "'Residential accessory structure "' means an attached or
detached structure that is a part of, and clearly incidental and secondary to, a residence and
that does not change the character of the residential structure. Examples include decks, fences,
garages, gazebos, patios, porches, and spas and swimming pools. All of these are non -
habitable structures.
Response 25
The recommended bluff setbacks for the project are 50 feet for roads utilities and other non -
habitable improvements and 60 feet for habitable structures. These setbacks meet or exceed
those contained in the City of Newport Beach's General Plan. The setbacks only apply to bluff
areas and are designed to conservatively account for potential slumping and erosion of the bluff
face. As discussed in the Draft EIR on page 4.3 -11 and in the Project Geotechnical Report on
pages 18 and 19, the historic bluff retreat rates are greatly affected by conditions which either
are currently not present and or would not be present following development. Consequently,
following development, bluff slope retreat would be significantly reduced such that rational and
normal development setbacks can be used. In this regard it should be noted that the 60 -foot
setback exceeds all governing agency requirements and would be more than adequate for the
design life of the development. The recommendation of the EQAC to increase the minimum
setback for residences to 100 feet is noted.
Response 26
These topics are addressed in Section 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR.
The Baseline Environmental Condition of the Project site is documented in the 2001
Environmental Assessment (EA) report. The 2001 EA involved comprehensive testing of the
property including all current and historic oilfield operating areas. This report was submitted to
and reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A Phase I update in 2005
and 2008 found no significant changes that warranted additional field testing. The draft
Remedial Action Plan (see Section 4.5 and Appendix D of the Draft EIR) outlines the scope of
the planned remediation, the regulatory oversight structure, the remedial processes that would
be used, and the existing soil cleanup criteria.
Response 27
Please refer the response to Comment 26. As stated on page 4.3 -17 of the Draft EIR,
"Hydrocarbon -laden soils would be treated, tested, and placed in deep fills or outside the
proposed development areas ".
Response 28
The proposed Project's storm drain facilities have been analyzed and designed in accordance
with Orange County Flood Control standards which require evaluation up to a maximum of a
100 -year flood event. Increased flows from the development condition would be mitigated on
site to reduce flooding to be less than or the same as the existing conditions for the Semeniuk
Slough which is consistent with CEQA requirements.
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -233 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 29
The proposed Project's irrigation systems would be designed to meet City standards for water
efficient landscaping, where applicable in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.17.
Smart controller irrigation systems will be installed in all public and common area landscaping,
and private residential areas as required by Municipal Code 14.17.020A.3.
Response 30
A Homeowners Association (HOA) would be formed prior to occupancy. The HOA would be
responsible for inspecting and maintaining all Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the
Project's common areas including the proposed water quality basins, in accordance with the
BMP Operations and Maintenance Plan that would be prepared as a part of the Final WQMP.
The HOA would also ensure that adequate funding is provided (and will be addressed in the
WQMP) for long -term BMP maintenance.
The proposed retention basins in the Open Space Reserve would be the responsibility of the
Applicant; the responsible party for the proposed basin in the North Community Park will be the
City. The Conditions of Approval that the City would place on the Project will detail the structure
and funding of the ownership and maintenance of these basins. It is anticipated that either a
conservancy would be formed or a qualified existing organization would be named as the land
steward, and funding for long -term maintenance would be provided by sources
including endowments, HOA fees, property transfer taxes, and other to be determined funding
sources, or some combination of all.
Response 31
Based on the proposed LID features and other source control and treatment control BMPs
consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Term MS4 Permit (Santa Ana RWQCB Order No.
R8- 2009 - 0030), the Coastal Commission and the City of Newport Beach, the proposed Project
would be required to treat runoff prior to exiting the Project site. Please also refer to Topical
Response: Infiltration Feasibility and Low Impact Development Features.
Response 32
As discussed in Section 4.4 -4 of Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, and as illustrated in
Exhibit 4.4 -3 of the EIR, the Project site is not tributary to Newport Bay; it is tributary to the
Santa Ana River. Consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Term MS4 Permit, the
California Coastal Commission and the City of Newport Beach, the Project would provide
treatment of runoff up to the 85th percentile level of treatment from a 24 -hour storm event from
all development areas prior to discharging into the Santa Ana River. In addition, the Project is
proposing to implement a water quality basin to provide low flow treatment of runoff from a 48-
acre off -site area of Costa Mesa prior to discharging into the Southern Arroyo; see page 4 -4.26
of the Draft EIR.
Response 33
No work is proposed around the existing network of pipes located at the southwest part of the
property (nor at the corner of Superior at West Coast Highway). Therefore, improvements are
not considered.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -234 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 34
Please refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation. The
continued operations of existing oilfield facilities are not a part of the proposed Project. These
operations are regulated by the State Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources
(DOGGR) and could continue to operate without City approval of the proposed Newport
Banning Ranch development project. The proposed Project includes conditions of approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 requiring indemnification of the City by the Applicant/Developer
against 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 which may arise from
or relate to the City's approval of the Project.
Response 35
With respect to the residential development areas, all oilfield operations would be removed.
Impacted soils would be removed from these areas and remediated to agency approved
cleanup criteria. Only native clean soils would remain at surface and within 10 feet below
planned development areas; only soils that meet the cleanup criteria would be used at depths
greater than 10 feet below the surface as compacted structural fill. With respect to health risks,
a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was prepared as a part of the Draft EIR. Based on
the significance criteria, no significant impacts are anticipated. Please refer to Section 4.10, Air
Quality, of the Draft EIR.
Response 36
With the exception of the two oil consolidation sites, no oilfield operations would remain on the
Project site. Please refer to the response to Comment 35.
Response 37
Please refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation.
Response 38
Please refer to the response to Comment 9.
Response 39
The two referenced exhibits show different but complimentary information. Exhibit 4.5 -1
references discrete areas of environmental concern highlighted in previous site investigations.
The area shown in Exhibit 3 -4 depicts the land area used for oil operations over time. While
these areas may have been heavily used as part of the oil production process, there may not be
contaminant impacts to all these areas. The Project requires that third -party certified
environmental professionals monitor the oilfield abandonment, the remediation, and the full site
grading phase to ensure all impacts are addressed to the approved criteria. Please also refer to
Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation.
Response 40
The comment is noted. The procedures described in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR are intended to
address the hazards associated with development on /near an oilfield.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -235 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 41
The description of plant communities within the bluff areas is provided on page 4.6 -10 of the
Draft EIR.
Southern coastal bluff scrub occurs along the exposed bluffs and cliffs at the
southern edge of the Project site overlooking West Coast Highway. These
exposed areas contain low- growing native and non - native species and some
elements of maritime succulent scrub, which can also be used to describe
components of this vegetation type. Southern coastal bluff scrub is dominated by
bush sunflower (Encelia californica), bladderpod (Isomeris arborea), California
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coastal cholla (Cylindropuntia prolifera),
coastal prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), and at some locations, locally dense
areas of California box -thorn (Lycium californicum). The most common
non - native species in this area are hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis) and
Myoporum (Myoporum laetum).
Additionally, there are also disturbed areas southern coastal bluff scrub described on
Page 4.6 -12.
Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub occurs along the exposed bluffs and cliffs
at the southwestern edge of the Project site. These areas have been invaded by
non - native species, such as hottentot fig and Myoporum, more heavily than the
areas described above. In addition, landslides and invasion by non - native
species have caused disturbance. This vegetation type is dominated by bush
sunflower, hottentot fig, California buckwheat, bladderpod, coastal cholla, and
coastal prickly pear.
Regarding the bluff shown on View 3 (Exhibits 4.2 -5a and 4.2 -5b of the Draft EIR),
approximately 15 percent of the bluff length has experienced erosion due to surface runoff.
These erosional areas would be restored as discussed on page 4.3 -21 and illustrated in Exhibit
4.3 -6 of the Draft EIR.
Exhibits 42-3b and 4.2 -5a are visual representations of the project and not reflective of the
plant species that will be planted within the landscape areas or the native habitat restoration
areas.
Response 42
As part of the Master Development Plan, a Master Plant Palette for the proposed Project based
on land use and landscaping zones was prepared for public and private areas. The plant palette
promotes native species, drought tolerant species, California friendly species, and bans the use
of invasive species. In addition, the Master Development Plan provides specifications for
efficient irrigation design that all public and private land uses must comply with. All future
homeowners would be required to follow the requirements of the efficient irrigation design and
the Master Plant Palette for the selection and implementation of their individual residential
landscaping.
Response 43
Native species and drought tolerant species are generally considered feasible within all
development areas and are consistent with the proposed Master Landscape Plan (Master
Development Plan, Chapter 5) and proposed Plant Palette (Appendix K of the Draft EIR).
R: Car .pd.wewPaeu01 srac\RTC431512.do. 3 -236 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 44
Native vegetation consistent with bluff slope habitat would be incorporated into the restoration
design.
Response 45
As discussed on page 4.6 -13 of the Draft EIR, the Project site contains native grasses
intermixed with non - native grasses and (orbs, with the non - native grasses constituting a larger
percentage of vegetation cover than the native grasses. Because the non- native grasses
constitute the dominant percentage, the mapping of small pocket of mowed native grasses was
not warranted and would not have changed the overall mapping designation of the grasslands
communities on site. The mitigation for grasslands areas has taking into consideration the
presence of remnant areas of native grasses. Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.6 -2 provides for
mitigation of both non - native grassland and ruderal vegetation at a 0.7:1 ratio through on -site or
off -site restoration and preservation. This level of mitigation is proportional with the impacts.
There is no table regarding mitigation `ratios" for plants. Mitigation for Special Status Plant
Species is found in MM 4.6 -7. This measure requires the Applicant to:
"...plan, implement, monitor, and maintain a southern tarplant restoration
program for the Project consistent with the most current technical
standards /knowledge regarding southern tarplant restoration. Prior to the first
action and /or permit that would allow for site disturbance (e.g., a grading permit),
a qualified Biologist shall prepare a detailed southern tarplant restoration
program that would focus on (1) avoiding impacts to the southern tarplant to the
extent possible through Project planning; (2) minimizing impacts; (3) rectifying
impacts through the repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of the impacted
environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the Project; and (5) compensating for
impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The
program shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach (City)
prior to site disturbance.
Impacts on southern tarplant shall be mitigated by seed collection and
re- establishment. The seeds shall be collected and then placed into a suitable
mitigation area in the undeveloped or restored portion of the Project site or at an
approved adjacent off -site location ".
Response 46
As discussed on pages 4.6 -21 and 4.6 -22 of the Draft EIR, the Project site is located within an
area that is largely constrained by urban development. Residential, office, light industrial,
institutional, and limited retail development surround the Project site to the northeast, east, and
south (separating it from the beach), and also west of the Santa Ana River. The dense urban
development (including along the shoreline) separates the Project site from open space areas
surrounding the site to all but the area adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Talbert Nature
Preserve. The Project site and these open space areas provide a regional resource area for
wildlife along the Santa Ana River area. In particular, a variety of birds would use this area to
breed while others use it during migration as a stopover site to rest and refuel.
Prior to the consideration of mitigation, the Project would contribute to the historical loss of
habitats in the coastal areas that provide habitat for wildlife. However, with implementation of
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -237 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
MM 4.6 -1 (Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Preservation and Restoration), MM 4.6 -2 (Grassland
Habitat Preservation and Restoration), MM 4.6 -3 (Grassland Depression Feature and Fairy
Shrimp Habitat Preservation and Restoration), MM 4.6 -4 (Marsh Habitat Preservation and
Restoration), and MM 4.6 -5 (Jurisdictional Resources /Riparian Habitat Preservation and
Restoration), this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Revegetation following oilfield remediation activities and Project mitigation have the potential to
result in higher long -term habitat quality (i.e., invasive species removed, human activity and
disturbance related to oilfield operations removed, and larger blocks of contiguous native
habitat) available in the open space areas.
Response 47
Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Surveys were conducted on the seasonally
ponded areas for two purposes. First, the ponded areas were surveyed to determine the
presence /absence of the San Diego fairy shrimp, a federally listed endangered species. These
surveys were performed in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols
which, as the EQAC notes, require surveys during specific seasons and for a specific number of
years. In addition, the seasonally ponded areas were evaluated in terms of whether they could
be considered either wetlands or other waters subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and /or the Coastal Act. The wetland delineation requirements for evaluation of
these areas using State and federal requirements were complied with as part of the survey
work. The mitigation values were based in part upon consultation with the USFWS and in part of
criteria used to evaluate functions and values of seasonal pond habitat (e.g., California Rapid
Assessment Method [CRAM]: Individual Vernal Pools Field Book Version 6.0, February 29,
2012). Incorporation of this guidance into the final design of the mitigation pools are intended to
ensure that the pools exhibit functions for both flora and fauna that are higher than the disturbed
artificial pools that would be impacted by the Project, resulting in a net gain in both the extent
and functions of the seasonal ponds on the Project site.
Response 48
As described on Page 3 -13 of the Draft EIR, approximately 118.4 gross acres of the Project site
are proposed for restoration as native habitat either by the Applicant as a part of the Project's
biological resources mitigation obligations or as a means of satisfying off -site mitigation
requirements. The compensatory mitigation requirements for the Project would be ultimately
determined by the regulatory agencies as permit conditions. The exact amount of acreage that
would be required to be restored as native habitat to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the
proposed Project has not been established because it would be subject to the approval of
respective regulatory agencies including the USACE, the CDFG, the USFWS, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region, and the Coastal Commission. If the
Project's mitigation requirements do not require the restoration of the approximately 118.4 -
gross -acre area, any remaining acreage requiring restoration would be placed in a reserve area
(mitigation bank) or similar mechanism and may be made available to third parties seeking off -
site areas in which to fulfill their respective mitigation obligations. The Lowland Open Space
area is first depicted in Exhibit 3 -2, Newport Banning Ranch Land Use Plan, in Section 3.0,
Project Description.
Response 49
The Housing Element identifies "very low," "low," or "moderate" income as annual household
incomes not exceeding a percentage of the median family income identified annually by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Orange County area. As
R: T,. pd.N..Partu01 5�RTORTC- 031512.do. 3 -238 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
presented in Section 4.7, Population, Housing, and Employment, the State of California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) categorizes households into the
following five income groups based on County Area Median Incomes (AMI):
• Extremely Low Income — 0 to 30 percent of the AMI.
• Very Low Income — 31 to 50 percent of the AMI.
• Low Income — 51 to 80 percent of the AMI.
• Moderate Income — 81 to 120 percent of the AMI.
• Above Moderate Income — above 120 percent of the AMI.
Extremely low, very low, and low income groups combined are referred to as "lower income
groups ". Household income is adjusted for household size. The City's 2000 Census income
distribution using the above income thresholds was as follows:
• Extremely Low Income — 7 percent.
• Very Low Income — 6 percent.
• Low Income — 9 percent.
• Moderate and Above Moderate Income — 78 percent.
Response 50
Population estimates and projections are prepared by the State of California Department of
Finance.
Response 51
The in -lieu fee and affordability criteria are established by the City's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance (Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 19.54). The proposed Project neither
specifies nor restricts the location of on -site and off -site affordable housing units. The provision
of off -site affordable housing can be accomplished through the construction of new affordable
housing units, or ensuring that affordable rental units remain so by providing funding to allow for
the imposition of an affordable covenant on existing units to ensure that they remain affordable
for a set period of time. The City has the discretion to use the in -lieu fees that are paid to
provide affordable housing through the options described above and anywhere throughout the
City. The projected sale prices cannot be determined at this time. The affordable units that are
to be constructed on site are proposed to be located in the Urban Village. They would be rental
units and pricing cannot be determined at this time but would be dictated by market conditions
at the time the units are made available.
Response 52
The Draft EIR identifies that the proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge would require
approvals from the California Coastal Commission and Caltrans. Please refer to the response to
Comment 19.
Response 53
Bluff Toe Trail would be located in the Lowland Open Space adjacent to the Oil Access Road. It
would be improved almost exclusively within the Oil Access Road easement which is the
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -239 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
location of the existing oil access road. The approximate 0.4 -mile trail would connect the South
Family Village to the Lowland Interpretive Trail. The proposed ten - foot -wide trail would be
approximately 150 feet from residences in Newport Shores which is also set back from the
Project site by the Semeniuk Slough.
Response 54
The Draft EIR does evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Community Park. Please
refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of the Draft EIR.
Response 55
Exhibit 4.9 -2 is a copy of the City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways,
which shows the future roadway system for the City at buildout. 16th Street is shown as a local
roadway within the City of Newport Beach boundaries, not a 4 -lane divided roadway.
Response 56
This condition is a standard condition of the City of Newport Beach; the City requires that all
hauling operations occur only on arterial highways. Monitoring of construction traffic for the
Project to observe construction traffic hours and volumes would be conducted at the appropriate
approaches to the construction site and is enforced by City project inspectors.
Response 57
As a part of the proposed Project, access is also proposed from 15th Street, 17th Street, West
Coast Highway, and 19th Street. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been entered
into between the School District and the Applicant that would permit these roadways to be
constructed as identified in the Draft EIR.
Response 58
Off -site improvements to West Coast Highway are addressed in Section 3.0, Project
Description, of the Draft EIR. The widening of Coast Highway along the project frontage has
been accounted for in the design of the Bluff Road access to the Newport Banning Ranch
property. Page 3 -21 of the Project Description describes the proposed improvements which are
also shown on Exhibit 3 -14, West Coast Highway Off -site Improvements.
Response 59
The description of Resort Colony Road refers to the roadway that would provide for access and
general circulation to /from the Resort Colony.. The detailed design of service driveways and
visitor and resident circulation driveways within the Resort Colony would be part of the final
design of the Resort Colony and reviewed by the City as part of Site Development Review as
required by the Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -PC)
prior to issuance of building permits for any portion of the Resort Colony.
Response 60
The opinion of the ECAC is noted. The existing emission source data is provided in Attachment
A (starting on page 3 of 30) of the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) which is included in
Appendix G of the Draft EIR.
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -240 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 61
The opinion of the EQAC is noted. The HHRA was performed according to the SCAQMD's Risk
Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 1402 following the tiered analysis approach. The
methodology is addressed in detail in Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR.
Response 62
The references to URBMEIS has been changed to CalEEMod in the Final EIR as follows:
Page 4.10 -7
Fugitive dust emissions (PM10) were calculated using the IRREMIS m a
CaIEEMod, USEPA's AP -42, and SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
Emissions from operation of the residential, commercial, and other Project development
after completion were calculated using URBMMIS CalEEMod. TAC emissions were
determined from the generated PM10 and VOC emissions.
Page 4.10 -20
The results of the I IRRIPM!S CalEEMod calculations for Project construction are
shown in Table 4.10 -7, which shows the estimated maximum daily emissions for
each construction year. Appendix G of
output details, including unmitigated and
for each construction activity for each
findings. The data are compared with the
Response 63
the EIR includes the CaIEEMod model
mitigated emissions on site and off site
year; Table 4.10 -7 summarizes the
SCAQMD mass daily thresholds.
The elements of the peak day emissions calculations by (1) construction activity (e.g.,
remediation, grading); (2) by year; (3) whether they are on -site or off -site; and (4) by source
(e.g., off -road equipment, worker commute) are included in the CalEEMod data report in
Appendix G of the Draft EIR. The data report also includes notes regarding the equipment
specified.
Response 64
It is unclear what additional information is requested by the EQAC. Please refer to Section
4.10.3, which provides the methodology used in the preparation of the air quality analysis for the
Draft EIR. Please also refer to the CalEEMod data outputs in Appendix G of the Draft EIR that
have detail similar to that described for construction in the previous response.
Response 65
The opinion of the EQAC is noted. The future emission source data is provided in Attachment A
(starting on page 1 of 10) of the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) which is included in
Appendix G of the Draft EIR.
Response 66
The purpose of screening analyses is to provide a simple, conservative test that would provide
an answer and thereby avoid an unnecessary detailed analysis. The South Coast Air Quality
R TrojedswewpoOM1& ac\RTC431512.doc 3 -241 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Management District (SCAQMD) accepts the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District ( SMAQMD) methodology for hotspot screening.
Response 67
Ambient air quality analysis for operations is appropriate when there are substantial stationary
sources of pollutants such as power plants, mining operations, or industrial facilities, or when
there is a massing of mobile sources such as a warehouse /distribution facility, bus station, or a
railroad yard. The proposed Project has none of these sources.
Response 68
The potentially significant NOx impacts described in the Draft EIR are for regional emissions.
Exposure of persons to local concentrations of NOx or NO2 would be less than significant
because they would be less than the significance thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD. Please
also see the general discussion of NOx emissions during construction. A summary of the health
risks of the national criteria pollutants is provided in Topical Response: Air Quality.
Response 69
The State of California Air Resources Board (GARB) has designated almost 200 compounds as
TACs. Of the ten tasks posing the greatest health risk in California, most are associated with
risk for various forms of cancer. Non - carcinogenic risks include but are not limited to respiratory
illness, blood disorders (from chronic benzene exposure), renal toxicity (from hexavalent
chromium), and eye, nose, and throat irritation (from formaldehyde). The Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) for the proposed Project determined that both carcinogenic and non -
carcinogenic health risks associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
Please refer to Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Appendix G of the Draft EIR explains
in greater detail the potential health risks of TACs.
Response 70
Table 4.11 -3, Estimated GHG Emissions from Construction, in Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, of the Draft EIR is based on the assumption of removal of 25,000 cubic yards (cy) of
soil. If one postulates the removal and replacement of 250,000 cy of soil, a rough estimate of
the increase in GHG emissions would be 3,300 MTCO2e (metric tons of CO2 equivalent) over
the three -year remediation period. Amortized over a 30 -year project lifetime, the increase would
be approximately 110 MTCO2e /year. Please note that the 6,000 MTCO2e /year significance
criteria is applicable to the total GHG emissions estimate (Table 4.11 -5) and not to individual
years of construction.
Response 71
As stated in Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR, for both
Alternatives A and B, GHG emissions would be less than the threshold of 6,000 MTCO2e /yr and
substantially less than the forecasted emissions for the proposed Project. A further quantitative
analysis is not required of these alternatives to perform meaningful calculations.
The comparison of proposed Project's GHG emissions with typical residential and commercial
developments is an extension of the basic philosophy of Assembly Bill 32, the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which is to reduce GHG emissions as compared with
"business as usual ". Business as usual assumes development without measures incorporated
for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. This concept is incorporated into the CaIEEMod
RT rojedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -242 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
model and other GHG calculation methods, as the default, and is described in the Draft EIR
as typical residential and commercial development. The Project Design Features and
mitigation measures are then used to calculate GHG emission reductions.
As noted in the response to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, "a significant
amount of VOC, CO, and GHG emissions will be emitted during the project's operational phase
from transportation sources." The SCAQMD states that, "the lead agency should minimize the
project's significant air quality impacts by incorporating the transportation mitigation measures
found in the greenhouse gas quantification report published by the California Air Pollution
Control Officer's Association ( CAPCOA)."
The following four transportation measures are included in the Project Description, implied in the
Project design, or described in Project Design Features (PDFs) 4.10 -1 and 4.10 -2. In the Draft
EIR, these measures were not specified as being correlated with the CAPCOA document.
Increase density — CAPCOA measure LUT -1
Increase diversity of urban and suburban developments (mixed use) — LUT -3
Integrate affordable and below market rate housing — LUT -6
Provide pedestrian network improvements — SDT -1
The four measures above are "mitigation measures' in the CalEEMod model and were included
in the Draft EIR emissions analysis. These measures provide emissions reductions of 29
percent VOC, 22 percent NOx, 23 percent CO, 35 percent PM10, and 32 percent PM2.5.
The Project includes PDF 4.11 -3, which requires the Project to be coordinated with Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to allow for a transit routing through the community,
and would provide bus stops and /or shelters as needed in the community to accommodate the
bus routing needed by OCTA. This PDF implements CAPCOA measure LUT -5, Increase Transit
Accessibility. The measure was not included in the CalEEMod analysis because the input
requires a single distance from the Project to a major transit facility, which is not compatible with
the Project design. However, PDF 4.11 -3 would reduce VMT and would reduce criteria pollutant
and GHG emissions below the rates shown in the Draft EIR.
The Project includes MM 4.10 -10, which requires bicycle facilities in multi - family, commercial,
and resort buildings, which corresponds to CAPCOA transportation measures SDT -6 and SDT -
7. CaIEEMod does not include emissions reductions for these measures nor does the CAPCOA
document quantify the reductions in vehicle miles anticipated from these measures; however,
reductions would be additive to those calculated in CalEEMod.
The Project includes MM 4.11 -5 which requires electric vehicle charging stations at the multi-
family buildings and at the resort inn, which corresponds to CAPCOA transportation measures
SDT -9, Provide Electric Vehicle Parking. CalEEMod does not include emissions reductions for
these measures nor does the CAPCOA document quantify the reductions in vehicle miles
anticipated from these measures; however, reductions would be additive to those calculated in
CalEEMod.
To further encourage the use of electric vehicles, MM 4.11 -5 has been revised and is
incorporated into the Final EIR as follows:
MM 4.11 -5 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for multi - family
buildings with subterranean parking and the resort inn, the
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -243 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Applicant shall submit for approval to the Community
Development Director that the plans include the 11 the
designation of a minimum of three percent of the parking spaces
for electric or hybrid vehicles and (2) installation of facilities for
Level 2 electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that
the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment
current at the time makes this installation infeasible. Prior to the
issuance of each building permit for residential buildings with
attached garages. the Applicant shall submit for aooroval to the
Community Development Director that the plans (1) identify a
specific place or area for a Level 2 charging station could be
Response 72
"Similar land uses" is used in the same context as "typical residential and commercial
development." Please also refer to the response to Comment 71.
Response 73
As addressed in Section 5.0, Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR,
because of the global nature of the climate change problem, most projects will not generate
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that individually will cause a significant impact on global
climate change. Therefore, the analysis of a project's GHG impacts is typically not considered
individually, but is analyzed against the GHG emissions of existing and proposed projects within
the region, State, and ultimately against global emissions and how the emissions can
cumulatively affect global climate change. This concept is supported in the various Attorney
General, State of California Office of Planning and Research, and SCAQMD publications.
Therefore, the analysis presented in Section 4.11, Air Quality, almost exclusively addresses
cumulative impacts. Under the significance criteria for GHG, potential cumulative impacts could
occur if the proposed Project —when combined with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects —would (1) generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (emit more than 6,000 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent [MTCO2e] of GHGs) (Threshold 4.11 -1) or (2) conflict with any
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,
but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Threshold 4.11 -2).
The total annual estimated GHG emissions for the proposed Project are 19,392 MTCO2e /yr.
The Project would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000 MTCO2e /yr
significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project —in combination with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects —would make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the global GHG inventory and would have a cumulatively significant impact on
global climate change.
Response 74
The Project would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance which apply to all projects in the City
and which regulate the days and hours during which construction may occur. Mitigation
Measure 4.12 -3 in the Draft EIR provides that advance notice be provided by contractors to
Carden Hall School, the Coast Community College District's Newport Beach Learning Center
(under construction), and residences within 300 feet of noise - generating activities prior to the
R:\Prrpd.\Newp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -244 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
start of construction - related noise - generating activities as a means of providing advance time for
the schools and residents to plan for the occurrence of these activities. The noise mitigation
measures proposed for the Project are considered the appropriate feasible measures to
minimize construction noise impacts considering the duration of noisy work near sensitive
receptors.
Response 75
Rubberized asphalt pavement has been used for more than 30 years. There have been many
studies demonstrating the noise reduction of rubberized asphalt pavement. Most studies have
found noise reductions greater than the 4 decibel (dBA) value used in the Draft EIR. This
pavement has been used extensively in California, Arizona, and other states. As stated on page
4.12 -22 of the Draft EIR, Costa Mesa has used rubberized asphalt since 2004. Of note,
CalRecycle has recently given the City of Carlsbad a $130,000 grant to continue their
rubberized asphalt program because the program would divert approximately 17,000 used tires
from landfills. Standard Condition 4.12 -4 requires the use of rubberized asphalt pavement on
Project roadways and a 4 dBA reduction was used in the analysis of traffic noise from Project
roads. Rubberized asphalt was not an element of the air quality analysis.
Response 76
The comment is noted. A detailed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must
be adopted by the City if it decides to approve the Project. The MMRP would be available for
public review prior to its adoption. Once adopted, the MMRP would be implemented by the City
to ensure that all Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and Mitigation Measures
adopted in connection with the Project are satisfied and implemented.
Response 77
Restrictions on the hours of truck deliveries are consistent with the intent of the City's General
Plan Noise Element Policy 2.3. A mitigation measure requiring a separation between loading
docks and residential units is not feasible in the mixed -use context where residences are
located directly above commercial uses.
Response 78
The comment refers to planned removal of oilfield - related infrastructure prior to grading and that
extent of impacts to CA -ORA -839 is unclear at this time. The objective is to minimize the
disturbance to the archaeological site; however, the extent of disturbance that would result
through the removal of the infrastructure cannot be determined with certainty. There is extensive
oilfield infrastructure on the Project site as the property has been an active oilfield since the
1940s. All reasonable efforts would be made to ensure minimal impact to the archaeological site
during Project grading through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.
Response 79
The EQAC is correct in stating that there are multiple entities involved in water distribution within
Southern California. However, the EQAC's summary of the last paragraph on page 4.15 -12 is
incorrect. The information in this paragraph and following paragraphs is a summary of the
Metropolitan Water District's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2010 RUWMP)
and not a summary of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The WSA incorporates information
from planning documents associated with MWDOC, MWD, OCWD, as well as the City's 2010
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -245 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Urban Water Management Plan and determined that adequate water supplies are available to
meet the needs of the Project along with the demands of future development within the City.
Response 80
Although not preferred, a lift station would be constructed as necessary to provide adequate
wastewater service. The lift station is assumed in the Draft EIR analysis and as indicated on
page 4.15 -29, the lift station could be located within the limits of disturbance assumed in the
Draft EIR. The lift station would be located in an enclosed structure and would not create any
operational noise impacts. Construction impacts associated with the lift station are assumed in
the Draft EIR analysis.
Response 81
As indicated on pages 4.15 -37 and 4.15 -38, the physical impacts related to installation and /or
relocation of electrical and natural gas infrastructure are addressed as part of the proposed
Project in the Draft EIR. The primary environmental impacts associated with on -site
infrastructure installation would be related to air quality and noise, as this component of
construction involves mainly grading, excavation, and movement and placement of the
infrastructure materials. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with
implementation of the Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and Mitigation Measures
identified in the Section 4.15.3, Energy. All Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and
Mitigation Measures including those for electricity and natural gas would be added to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
Response 82
Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.2 -1 in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft
EIR, requires use of Dark Sky Standards as identified by the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America (IES). The IES has 8,000 members and has existed for over 100 years as the
recognized technical authority in illumination in the United States (see www.ies.org). IES and
the International Dark Sky Association (IDA, see www.darksky.org) have jointly developed a
Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) intended to, among other things, provide local agencies with
outdoor lighting standards for dark sky that reduce glare, light trespass, and sky glow. With
respect to ASHREA, as referenced by the EQAC, the sole focus of ASHREA is "heating,
ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigeration" (see www.ASHRAE.org); it does not have such
standards.
The Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) was publicly released in July 2011 "to address the need
for strong, consistent outdoor lighting regulation" (see www.darksky.org /MLO). The MLO
outdoor lighting template offers several innovations to outdoor lighting regulation, including the
use of five lighting zones to classify land use with appropriate lighting levels for each. Zones
range from LZO, designed for pristine natural environments and limited outdoor lighting, to LZ4,
for limited application in areas of extensive development in the largest cities. The second
innovation limits the amount of light used for each property. The third uses the IES's new TM-
15-11 "BUG" (Backlight, Uplight and Glare) classification of outdoor lighting fixtures to ensure
that only well - shielded fixtures are used. No uplighting for area and street lighting is allowed in
any zone.
Regarding targeted darkness levels, specific maximum lighting levels are addressed in Section
4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources,
and Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -246 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 83
As addressed in Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails, the City's Park Dedication and Fees
Ordinance (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, § §19.52.010- 19.52.090) requires that the
project applicant for a residential subdivision "provide for the dedication of land, the payment of
fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both for park or recreational purposes in conjunction
with the approval of residential development ". Based on the figures from the 2000 federal
census and the City's General Plan Recreation Element identifying the amount of park acreage
in the City, the City's park dedication requirement is 5 acres per 1,000 persons (City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 19.52.040).
In addition to compliance with the City's Park Dedication Ordinance, the General Plan
specifically addresses the need for a Community Park to be located on the Project site. Land
Use Policy 6.5.2 of the City's General Plan states that the Newport Banning Ranch property
must:
Accommodate a community park of 20 to 30 acres that contains active playfields
that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods
and residents of Banning Ranch, if developed.
The proposed Project would exceed its Quimby parkland requirement of 15.06 acres with the
provision of the 26.8- gross -acre (21.7- net -acre) Community Park. In total, the Project would
include approximately 51.4 gross (42.1 net) acres of parkland that would be available for public
use.
The EQAC has not identified if the recommendation for a Project alternative with 100 acres of
parks would be in addition to the proposed development land uses or would displace some of
the proposed land uses. Further the types of parks have not been identified by the EQAC.
Should the EQAC's suggested alternative increase the proposed parkland by approximately 50
acres in addition to the proposed land uses, it is anticipated that such an alternative would result
in greater environmental impacts than identified for the proposed Project. It is expected that
increased density and intensity of development would be required and may also result in greater
nighttime lighting impacts. If the EQAC is proposing to reduce proposed land uses in order to
allow for more of the site to be used for parks, it is anticipated that there would be a reduction in
Project- specific effects such as development - related traffic and noise. Without knowing the
EQAC's thoughts with respect to the type of additional parks, it would be speculative to
determine the type of potential effects would occur with such an alternative. It should be noted
that an increase in parklands beyond that which would be required to meet the City's Park
Dedication and Fees Ordinance would not be the obligation of the Applicant.
Response 84
The Draft EIR recognizes that the propose Project would introduce new residents into the City
and would provide for additional roadways. This analysis focuses on three primary questions:
• To what extent are there areas where development could occur (planned or unplanned)?
• Would the Project provide new infrastructure that would serve future growth?
• Would the Project be sufficient to influence redevelopment of the surrounding area?
The proposed Project is in an area nearly built out with retail, commercial, and residential uses.
Most of the surrounding areas are either already developed or are within public ownership. The
only large undeveloped lands near the Project site are recreation or ecological preservation
RT r.pd.Wewp.MJ0151RTMRTC431512A.. 3 -247 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
areas. Further to the north in Huntington Beach, additional development is planned as part of
the Brightwater Specific Plan project in Bolsa Chica. However, this development has already
been approved and is under construction; it would not be influenced by the proposed Project.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan has identified other locations within the City for
expanded development and enhancements. None of these locations are immediately adjacent
to the Project site, nor do they depend on the Project's implementation to be consistent with the
vision in the General Plan. As proposed, the Project would not influence development in other
portions of the City. However, should the Project site be developed consistent with the Open
Space designation, other areas of the City may need to intensify development to meet the City's
projected housing demand. The lack of available undeveloped land limits any growth- inducing
effect of the proposed Project.
With the exception of Bluff Road and North Bluff Road, the new infrastructure that would be
constructed as part of the proposed Project is intended to only serve the Project. The utility
improvements that are being implemented are distribution lines that would serve the land uses
on site. The Project does not propose improvements that would extend services to areas that
currently are not served or provide additional capacity in these infrastructure improvements,
thereby facilitating new off -site development or intensification of land uses.
Bluff Road and North Bluff Road would provide a connection between West Coast Highway on
the south and 1g`h Street on the north that would provide capacity beyond what is needed to
serve the Project site. However, this roadway has been on the City's Circulation Element Master
Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Transportation Authority's Master Plan of
Arterial Highways for a number of years. This roadway is intended to provide an additional
north -south roadway to alleviate congestion on parallel roadways. The Project would
accommodate planned growth but would not induce growth through the provision of
infrastructure.
Response 85
As addressed on page 7 -31 of the Draft EIR, the majority of the Project site is within the County
of Orange jurisdiction, which does not have any restrictions on expanded oil exploration. Under
the No Project/No Development scenario, the property would not be annexed into the City of
Newport Beach; therefore, the City's restrictions on new oil exploration would not be applicable.
New and replacement wells are drilled, as necessary, as part of ongoing oil operations.
Although the precise number and location of new and replacement wells is not known, it is
reasonable to assume that continued oil operations including additional drilling would occur as
part of this alternative within the parameters of the Coastal Development Permit Exemption.
Further, the property owner could seek additional drilling rights. It is unknown how much
additional oil exploration would occur over the years. Section 3, Project Description, page 3 -2
states "The timing of the abandonment of the oil consolidation sites has not been determined,
but it is anticipated that oil production on the Project site would continue for an additional 30 to
40 years from now ".
Response 86
As stated on page 7 -41 of the Draft EIR, it would be speculative to estimate the magnitude of
emissions from increased oilfield activities. However, as shown in Table 4.11 -4 of the Draft EIR,
existing vehicle GHG emissions associated with oilfield operations are less than 500 metric tons
per year. Thus, even a doubling of vehicle use would result in an increase that would be
substantially less than 6,000 metric tons per year.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -248 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
A "jobs- rich" area is defined as an area where the jobs /housing ratio exceeds 1.5. Please refer
to Table 4.7 -9 of the Draft EIR and the associated text for additional information.
Response 87
Environmental laws currently in effect would be applicable to oil operations. Therefore,
compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Coastal Act would be required; however, oil
operations are covered by a Coastal Act exemption because they were in operation prior to
adoption of the Coastal Act. The removal of natural vegetation may not require agency
approvals. Such approval would be required if the vegetation supports endangered species, is
considered environmentally sensitive habitat, or is otherwise protected by existing laws and
regulations.
Response 88
As stated on page 4.12 -27 of the Draft EIR, the threshold of significance (at the California
Seabreeze and Parkview Circle residences) is 5 dBA, because the Without Project noise level
at all receptors is less than 55 dBA CNEL. The existing noise level in this area, based on
measurements at location 5 is 47.3 dBA CNEL.
Response 89
As addressed in Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, Alternative D assumes
basically the same arterial roadway network as the proposed Project. Although this Alternative
would have fewer residential units and no resort inn, it is projected that there would be an
increase in the number of AM peak hour trips.
The number of residences in the Urban Colony would decrease from 730 du to 525 du. The
resort inn in the Resort Colony would be eliminated. There would also be a redistribution of the
commercial development. The commercial use in the Urban Colony would decrease from
75,000 sf to 60,000 sf and 15,000 sf of commercial use would be allocated to the area designed
by the proposed Project as the Resort Colony. This commercial use would be visitor - serving
and is anticipated to be a combination of shopping and restaurant uses with an emphasis on
restaurants. The increase in the AM peak hour trips is anticipated because the AM trip
generation rate for restaurants is greater than for a hotel.
Response 90
The comment is noted. CEQA requires that a reasonable range of alternatives be provided, not
that every possible alternative be provided and studied. As such, the bridge is only included in
some of the alternatives.
Response 91
The No Project/No Development Alternative would preclude the significant, unavoidable impacts
associated with the proposed Project and other Project alternatives. Night lighting impacts could
be reduced should the proposed Community Park not include night lit ball fields. As noted in the
response to Comment 14, the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan Update Final EIR
found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development of the Project
site, not just a park, would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General
Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City Council approved a Statement
of Overriding Considerations, which noted that there are specific economic, social, and other
RTrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -249 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
public benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts associated with the General
Plan project, which included this benefit:
The updated General Plan will improve the opportunities for parks and recreation
facilities to serve the City's residents and visitors. It provides for the development
of a new park at Banning Ranch, whether acquired as open space or partially
developed, that will provide playfields and passive recreational opportunities for
the underserved western portion of the City. Additionally, the Plan, for the first
time in Policy R 1.9, prioritizes park and recreational facility improvements.
Therefore, in adopting the 2006 General Plan Update and developing a park plan that
anticipates night lighting for the athletic fields, the City made a policy determination that the
impacts of night lighting would be outweighed by the public benefits — all of which were set forth
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City in connection with approval
of the General Plan. The alternative of eliminating the lights on the ball fields was considered,
but rejected as being infeasible because it conflicted with the City's General Plan policies
(please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 7 -7).
Responses 92
Though the remediation may be done in one continuous process, the referenced sentence from
the Draft Remedial Action Plan states that any residential construction within a phase or
sequence is contingent upon the completion of the remediation work and agency closure in that
phase. Please also refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation.
Response 93
Table 4.5 -1 of the Draft EIR provides a listing of the range of soil sample results for assorted
contaminants at the Project site. None of the reported maximum concentration values are at
levels above the State's hazardous waste levels provided in Title 22 of the California Code of
Regulations. The dRAP does not conclude that the Project site is different from other former
oilfields with respect to the presence of human health hazards.
Response 94
The methods and criteria to be used during the Project site remediation are included in Section
4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Appendix D of the Draft EIR. Only reuse soils that
meet the agency approved cleanup criteria would be used in deeper fill areas. Soils would be
re -used on site only with the approval and oversight of the designated oversight agencies.
All pipelines and surface oilfield materials would be removed from the Project site except where
it is determined that leaving them in place in the Lowland area would be preferred over removal
(i.e., removal would be more invasive). It is important to note that in the two oil consolidation
sites, oil infrastructure would remain because oil operations would be ongoing. As noted in the
response to Comment 9, DOGGR found that NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material)
is not a serious problem in California (confirmed earlier 1987 study).
Response 95
As discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, additional vapor assessments and mitigation
measures are to be implemented after site remediation and prior to site development. The
proposed Project would be required to comply with the Orange County Fire Authority Guideline
C -03 Combustible Soil Gas Hazard Mitigation.
RAPro jest .N..p.MJ0151RTORTC431512.doc 3 -250 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 96
Table 4.5 -3 of the Draft EIR also provides a list of Project Site Recognized Environmental
Conditions, similar to that listed in Table 3 -3. All of these sites would be addressed in the
remediation program to ensure they meet the approved cleanup criteria. The mitigation
approach for these areas is described in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR.
R\ RrgedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -251 Responses to Environmental Comments
F1971
Community Development
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Latter L2
www,cityofirvme.org
City of Irvine. Ore Civic Center Plaza, PO. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623 -9575 (949) 724 -6000
C
September 21, 2011
Ms. Jennifer Y. Marks
Bonterra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200
Costa Mesa. CA 92626
Subject: Review of Newport Banning Ranch Project DEIR
Dear Ms. Marks:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Newport Banning Ranch development project.
The City of Irvine has reviewed the document and related traffic impacts and has no
comments at this time.
Sincerely,
ii
BILL JACOBS, AIGP
Principal Planner
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
R \ProjedsWewpe0U0151RTC \RTC -031512.do. 3 -252 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter L2 City of Irvine
Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner
September 21, 2011
Response1
The comment is noted.
RTrojedsWewp.MJD151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -253 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter L3
(9'�n MFSt9p
,1 I�
J• 90
November 8, 2011
CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92828 -1200
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR NEWPORT
BANNING RANCH
Dear Mr. Alford:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) prepared for the Newport Banning Ranch Master Plan. Please consider the following
comments:
TRANSPORTATION
General comments:
• The report does not have graphics showing traffic volumes at intersections and Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) on roadway segments. The City requests that these be provided in
order to conduct a complete review of the results of various land use and circulation
scenarios.
• At several occasions, the intersections at Newport Boulevard Frontage Road at Victoria
and 22nd Street are referred to as State intersections. These intersections are in City of
Costa Mesa jurisdiction and control.
Page 4.9 -3: In the discussion of Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), the report incorrectly
states that the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) MPAH defines "Orange
County freeway, toll road and arterial circulation system." The MPAH map is limited to arterial
highways only and the freeways and toll roads are included for information purposes only and
reflect existing conditions. This is based on discussions with OCTA staff and also per the OCTA
MPAH map itself, which mentions that the information on freeways, toll roads are provided for
reference only.
Page 4.9 -20: Standard condition SC 4.9 -3 requires review and approval of the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Engineer for issuance of a Haul Route permit. The report should include a
condition requiring the approval of City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Manager for use
of any routes within the City of Costa Mesa jurisdiction for construction access.
Page 4.9 -75: There are several incorrect statements in the discussion of SR -55 Freeway
Extension. The report mentions that "The Citx of Costa Mesa Circulation Element depicts the
extension of SR -55 as a freeway between 19 Street and Industrial Way. The Orange County
Building Owielan (714) 754 -5273 • Cade Enflki ,nenl (714) 75 23 - Planning Dlwsien (714) 7544245
FAX (714) 7544850• TOO (7141 750.5244 www.a.mslamesa.W.us
1
2
3
4
R \ProjedswewpartU0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -254 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
MPAH depicts the freeway portion of SR -55 ending at its current terminus at 19" Street in Costa
Mesa." As mentioned in comment earlier, the OCTA MPAH is limited to arterials only. The SR-
55 Freeway is under the jurisdiction of the State of California. Department of Transportation
( Caltrans). Caltrans has an adopted Route Concept Report (RCR) for SR -55 Freeway that
shows the extension of SR -55 Freeway south to Industrial Way. There is no mention of
Caltrans RCR in the discussion. As part of the proposed MPAH amendment study for the
Banning Ranch project, the City requested that model run and analysis of project with SR -55
Freeway as currently proposed also be included.
Pages 4.9 -81 and 4.9 -82: The buildout analysis seems to yield significantly lower Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) values compared to 2016 conditions. The City requests that the
future traffic volume projections at all intersections be provided for review.
Page 4.9 -93: MM 4.9 -2, Costa Mesa Mitigations — The City of Newport Beach should condition
that the applicant mitigate the project impacts in Costa Mesa based on terms and conditions as
agreed to by the applicant and the City of Costa Mesa,
Page 4.9 -95: Newport Boulevard — 19� Street Intersection: The recent widening of Newport
Boulevard at this location constructed a retaining wall along the west side. The primary access
road to parking garage serving the large office building at 1901 Newport Boulevard is located
immediately adjacent to this retaining wall. This access roadway will be impacted with any
widening.
Newport Boulevard — 170 Street Intersection: The proposed mitigation at this location will
require undergrounding the existing open channel along southbound Newport Boulevard south
of 17" Street to accommodate the fourth through lane. This requires construction of a concrete
box structure in the widened area south of 17' Street.
Page 4.9 -96: Superior Avenue —17" Street: The note incorrectly states that the improvement is
limited to signal operation modifications. The project also includes a westbound right -turn lane,
which will require right -of -way from the adjacent parcel. The improvement will also affect drive
thru operations of fast food restaurant, which will need to be addressed.
Page 4.9 -116: Table 4.9 -34 shows projected increase in traffic due to project traffic. The project
trip distribution exhibit stated that approximately 35% of project traffic uses 17`" Street.
Considering the project trip generation of approximately 15,000 vehicles per day, this translates
to over 5,200 vehicles per day. However, the Table 4.9 -34 shows only an increase of 3,912
vehicles. There should be an exhibit that shows clearly the level of redistribution of background
traffic with the construction of Bluff Road. Even with the forecast as provided, the volume -to-
capacity ratio is over 0.90 for 17" Street as well as 19'" Street, resulting in a need for increased
capacity on segments west of Placentia Avenue. The need for this widening and timing should
be addressed in the DEIR.
Page 7 -81: The traffic analysis should include graphics showing traffic volumes at intersections
for all scenarios. In addition, graphics showing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for all
scenarios should be included.
LAND USE
Section 4.1.7- Environmental Impacts, Page 4.1 -31
The first paragraph refers that no development or grading is proposed for the open space
between North Bluff Road and existing California Seabreeze residential community in Costa
Mesa.
4 coat.
10
11
12
R:TrgectsWewp MJO15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -255 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
This area is within the project perimeter where abandoned oil wells exist. Given the significance
of the Banning Ranch development and proximity of North Bluff Road to these residences, the
City recommends that new grading and landscaping is installed in the area where the existing
dirt berm is located. It is important that landscape restoration take into consideration any
comments from the Seabreeze community and City of Costa Mesa staff. It is also suggested
that any improvements be included with the initial phases of the project development so that
these Costa Mesa residents could potentially benefit directly from the revitalized open space
area to the fullest extent possible
Exhibit 3 -9
The street cross section is only depicting the street and not the adjacent slope. It would be
helpful to have additional information on the view impacts for the northern segment of Bluff
Road adjacent to the Seabreeze community.
AESTHETICS
The City recommends that this section address interim aesthetic impacts to Costa Mesa
communities. To minimize construction impacts to the Seabreeze community, stock piles,
construction staging and material storage shall be located away from the residential properties
of Seabreeze and Parkview Circle. It would be important to offer a 24 -hour hotline for residents
to call with any concerns during construction.
NOISE
Section 4.12.1 (Page 4.12 -8)
The City recommends that the construction hours for the development be consistent with the
City's regulations: Permitted Hours of Construction for City of Costa Mesa are from 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; no construction is
permitted on Sunday or federal holidays.
RECREATION AND TRAILS
Section 4.8.5 Community Parks (Page 4.8 -10)
The DEIR refers to North and South Community Parks with various amenities. The California
Coastal Act notes that "lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected,
encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational
opportunities are preferred." If there are any visitor fees or parking costs associated with
proposed public recreational facilities and community parks, the City recommends that Costa
Mesa residents be offered a discounted rate.
Since y,
KHANH NGUY
Interim Develop Se L or
cc: Chief Executive Officer
Interim Assistant CEO
City Attorney
Interim Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Manager
12 cont.
13
14
15
16
RTroledswewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.dec 3 -256 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter L3a City of Costa Mesa
Khanh Nguyen, Interim Development Services Director
November 8, 2011
Response1
All intersection turning movement volumes are provided in the intersection analysis worksheets
for every scenario in the Draft EIR Traffic Impact Analysis; see Appendix F of the Draft EIR (the
worksheets are provided in Appendix B to the Traffic Impact Analysis. Average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes were not evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis for every intersection traffic
study area because the impact analysis of all three cities and Caltrans are based on a project's
impact on peak hour intersection operation. However, please refer to pages 4.9 -114 through
4.9 -117 which addresses ADTs for 15th, 16th, 17th, and 19th Streets as well as Exhibits 4.9 -24
and 4.9 -25. The comment regarding the intersection of Newport Boulevard (frontage road) at
Victoria /22nd is acknowledged. This intersection was erroneously included in the list of
intersections studied as part of the State Highway analysis.
Response 2
The comment regarding freeways and toll roads on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH) is noted.
Response 3
The standard condition requires the Applicant to obtain a haul route permit from the City of
Newport Beach Public Works Department. The commenter's request would require the City to
delegate that permit authority to another jurisdiction. This would create unnecessary
complications and ambiguities in permit administration and enforcement. The City will make
every effort to consult with the City of Costa Mesa in the review of haul routes within the City of
Costa Mesa.
Response 4
The comment regarding freeways and toll roads on the Orange County MPAH is noted. The
Orange County MPAH classifies Bluff Road /North Bluff Road as a Primary from West Coast
Highway to 17th Street and as a Major from 17th Street to 19`h Street.
Response 5
All intersection turning movement volumes are provided in the intersection analysis worksheets
for every scenario in the technical appendix to the Draft EIR. The future build -out forecasts were
developed through the City of Newport Beach citywide traffic model (NBTM), which takes into
account local and regional interaction (productions and attractions pairings) between future land
uses, and accounts for the effects of internal capture, pass -by, and future network
improvements at build -out. The Year 2016 volumes are the result of a straight -line growth
increment over existing volumes, plus the addition of project traffic from numerous committed
and cumulative projects, and a modest assumption of pass -by for the project. In some cases,
this building block approach to developing interim year forecasts results in a higher volume than
the gravity model forecasts for build -out.
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -257 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 6
The City of Newport Beach has approval authority over the Project. Should the City take action
to approve the proposed Project, the City would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations to address the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a
level that is considered less than significant including traffic impacts in the City of Costa Mesa.
The City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to ensure the City of Costa Mesa
implements the mitigation. It should be noted that the Applicant and City of Costa Mesa are
working together on a good faith basis to come to an agreement on improvements in Costa
Mesa that would meet or exceed the Project's fair share of impacts to Costa Mesa intersections
identified in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. The City of Newport
Beach understands that discussions between the Applicant and the City of Costa Mesa are
ongoing. Please refer to the letter from the City of Costa Mesa to the Applicant which follows
these responses.
Response 7
The improvement identified for the intersection of Newport Boulevard at 19th Street is the
addition of a second southbound left -turn lane. The Applicant will work with the City of Costa
Mesa to adequately mitigate project impacts based on the terms and conditions of their
agreement.
Response 8
The improvement identified for the intersection of Newport Boulevard at 17th Street is the
addition of a fourth southbound through lane and an exclusive northbound right -turn lane. The
Applicant will work with the City of Costa Mesa to adequately mitigate project impacts based on
the terms and conditions of their agreement.
Response 9
The commenter is correct; the recommended improvement is not limited to signal modification.
As set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2 in the Draft EIR, the improvement identified for the
intersection of Superior Avenue at 17th Street is the modification of the westbound approach to
provide one left -turn lane, one shared through /left lane, one through lane, and one right -turn
lane. This improvement has been identified by and conditioned on the Hoag Health Center
project.
Response 10
The trip distribution exhibit (Exhibit 4.9 -7) in the Draft EIR presents a general indication of the
distribution of Project traffic to /from the Project site to various off -site destinations. However,
because the proposed Project consists of several development nodes throughout the Project
site (which are coded as separate traffic analysis zones in the distribution model), traffic follows
different paths (assignments) to and from its destinations, depending on the roadways that
provide the best route relative to each zone. For example, traffic from the resort inn /residential
areas toward the south end of the Project site would be more likely to use 15th Street or 16th
Street to get to the destinations to the east; the residential areas to the north would be more
likely to split up between 16th Street and 17th Street to get to the same destinations to the east;
and the mixed - use /residential areas that straddle 17th Street would be most likely to use 17th
Street. The final traffic volumes on any particular street represent the sum of the trips assigned
to that particular path from each of the traffic analysis zones.
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -258 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response1l
Please refer to the response to Comment 1
Response 12
As shown in Exhibit 4.1 -2b in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the
Draft EIR, proposed Project does not propose any landform grading or development within this
area of the Open Space Preserve near the California Seabreeze neighborhood with the
exception of grading for North Bluff Road. North Bluff Road would be approximately 355 feet to
the west. Landform grading to remove the existing dirt berm would result in additional impacts
not assumed in the Draft EIR.
Exhibit 3 -16 in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR identifies that there would be
limited soil disturbance between North Bluff Road and California Seabreeze to allow for soil
remediation. As depicted on Exhibit 4.14 -2 in Section 4.14, Public Services and Facilities, a fuel
management zone (Zone C) would be located within the 100 feet of the Project site adjacent to
California Seabreeze. Zone C is within the proposed habitat restoration area set forth in the
Habitat Restoration Plan. As described in Section 4.14, as proposed in the Upland Open Space
north of the Urban Colony and west of the City of Costa Mesa, a 100 - foot -wide Zone C would be
provided adjacent to existing neighborhoods, including California Seabreeze. Grasses, cacti,
succulents, and open rock areas are proposed within the first 30 feet adjacent to the existing
residences.
Response 13
The information requested is provided in Exhibit 4.1 -2b, Interface with California Seabreeze
Community, located in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the Draft EIR.
This exhibit contains a cross- section that extends east from Bluff Road to the California
Seabreeze residential neighborhood. The cross - section is explained on pages 4.1 -30 and -31,
under "Existing Land Uses to the East." The text notes that North Bluff Road would be at least
300 feet from all the residences and significantly lower in terms of vertical grade. The Draft EIR
also notes that impacts are evaluated in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources; Section
4.9, Transportation and Circulation; Section 4.10, Air Quality; and Section 4.12, Noise.
Response 14
Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, pages 4.2 -17 and -18 address grading and
construction impacts associated with the proposed Project. Although this discussion does not
specify the Seabreeze community, the analysis is applicable to this neighborhood as well as
other neighborhoods in both Newport Beach and Costa Mesa.
Please also refer to Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR which includes Mitigation
Measure (MM) 4.110 -9 which addresses the City's request.
MM 4.10 -9 Construction Complaint Resolution. The Landowner /Master
Developer shall appoint a person as a contact for complaints
relative to construction impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods. A
contact telephone number and email address shall be posted on
signs at the construction site and shall be provided by mail to all
residents within 500 feet of the Project site. Upon receipt of a
complaint, the designated contact person shall investigate the
complaint and shall develop corrective action, if needed. The
RTrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -259 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
designated contact person shall respond to the complainant within
two working days to describe the results of the investigation, and
submit a report of the complaint and action taken to the City of
Newport Beach. The designated contact person shall maintain a
log of all complaints and resolutions.
Additionally, security fence would be placed around the construction site during construction;
construction equipment and materials would be required to be properly stored on the site when
not in use; and a 24 -hour hot line number would be displayed on the Project site.
Response 15
The City of Costa Mesa's request for more restrictive hours of construction is noted. However,
the City of Newport Beach does not alter the permitted hours of construction on a project -by-
project basis. The proposed Project would be subject to the same construction noise regulations
as all other construction projects in the City. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section
10.28.040, "Construction Activity — Noise Regulations ", restricts construction activities on any
weekday to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, and on any Saturday to between the
hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and prohibits construction activities on Sundays and any federal
holiday. The City has determined that the construction noise regulations in effect for the City as
a whole are adequate and no additional restrictions are proposed. The City of Costa Mesa has
not provided reason why the hours should be changed.
Response 16
Access to City parks, recreation facilities, and parking facilities serving City parks are available
to the public at no charge. Park facility rental fees are charged for special group events in
accordance with the City's "Park and Facility Rental Policy" for the reservation of community
centers, park fields, and picnic areas. Fees are also assessed for instructional activities at
recreational facilities and repetitive athletic use of sports fields where permits or agreements are
required in accordance with Chapter 11.04 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The City,
County, and private organizations provide several educational and interpretative facilities and
programs that are either free or have a nominal charge. These include the Muth Interpretative
Center in the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, the Back Bay Science Center on Shellmaker
Island, the Newport Aquatic Center at North Star Beach, and the Newport Harbor Nautical
Museum. It is expected that the interpretative parks would be operated in a similar manner.
RTrojedsWewp.MJD151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -260 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
CITY OF COSTA RIESA
� C P.O. BOX 12M. CALIFORNIA 92MB-1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
November 21, 2011 1
Y ±.
4J � Sv
i'
REC18 fto
Br••ks S1,1
Mr. Michael Mohler NOV. Z 8 2011
Newport Banning Ranch
1300 Quail Street, Suite 100 - wend Zacb
Newport Beach, CA 92660
SUBJECT: NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT
Dear Mr. Mohler:
The City of Costa Mesa appreciates your participation in the many discussions
regarding the mitigation for the Newport Banning Ranch project. This letter summarizes
the results of our discussions with the understanding that a more formal means of
documentation will be received from your office.
The proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project which includes, 1,375 dwelling units,
75,000 square -feet of commercial uses, 75 -room resort hotel and other amenities, is
projected to have certain traffic impacts to the Costa Mesa circulation system. The
projected impacts and required mitigation were identified in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, which was prepared by the City of Newport Beach.
The proposed mitigation includes the following:
• Newport Boulevard —19th Street: Addition of a southbound left -turn lane;
• Newport Boulevard — Harbor Boulevard: Addition of a southbound through lane;
• Newport Boulevard —18th Street: Additional of a southbound through lane;
• Newport Boulevard — 17 111 Street: Additional of a southbound through lane;
• Superior Avenue — 17th Street: Addition of a westbound right -turn lane;
• Pomona Avenue — 17th Street: Signalize intersection; and
• Monrovia Avenue — 191h Street: Signalize intersection.
The City of Costa Mesa and Newport Banning Ranch have discussed the Project's
potential share of impacts to the above locations and have reviewed several options for
mitigation. There was recognition of a need for a phased approach for implementing
the mitigations based on the Project development phasing. It is also understood that
any substantial changes to the Project development plans, that would result in
elimination of need for mitigation identified above, will require a review of Newport
Banning Ranch's responsibility.
T FAIR DRIVE
PHONE: (714) 75,1 W7 - TDD: (714) 7545244 • FAX: (714)754.5330 - WNW.ci.c•sla-nl2sa.W.us
R:\Projects\Ne.port \J015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -261 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
November 21, 2011
Mr. Mohler
Page 2
In order to address the impacts of the Newport Banning Ranch Project as currently
proposed, the Newport Banning Ranch Company and the City of Costa Mesa have
agreed to a mitigation plan that requires payment of a total of $4,388,483 to the City of
Costa Mesa, per the schedule below:
• Prior to Issuance of 301" residential building permit — $500,000
• Prior to Issuance of 601sr residential building permit — $500,000
• Prior to Issuance of 901 :t residential building permit — $750,000
• Prior to Issuance of 1,201" residential building permit — $875,000
• Traffic impact fees at $1,283 per residential unit - $1,763,483
Total Payment to Costa Mesa — $4,388,483
The above mitigation plan will need to be documented and also be included as part of
the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
The City of Costa Mesa appreciates your cooperation and addressing the Banning
Ranch traffic impacts and issues.
We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions, please
contact me at (714)754 -5182.
Sibcder�_ /� l 0
PETER NAGHAVI
Interim Assistant Chief Executive Officer
cc: Chief Executive Officer
City Attorney
Interim Public Services Director
Interim Development Services Director
Transportation Services Manager
Senior Planner
R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5tRTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -262 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter Lab
Special Joint Meeting regarding B:uming Ranch
Thursday. October 20, 2011
Question from the Members of the Public who did not speak:
Aylichelle Simpson.
1 bought my hone less than 3 years ago. Why was l not told of the plan to
Costa Adesa
widen the street and take my hone at worst or put a trciic signal on my
corner?
141hen will we know what the vwdict will be on the 10 Sit eet /BhtffRoad to
19't' S•IreeO lVill it be decided upon soon?
17" Street and 19" Street have been in the City's General Plan Circulation Element as four -lane
arterials. The need for tragic signal was identified in Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEAR) as a potential mitigation. 'Ibis document was released in September 2011.
Therefore, this information %vas not available 3 years ago.
The City of Newport Beacb and other agencies such as California Coastal Commission approve
the plans for Bluff Road. llre schedule for approval is not known at this time.
Bonne Copeland,
Id %hat is the Final Cost to taxpavert in 2011 SS's of ALL land acquisition,
CostaAdeca
demolishing, road - building, resurfacing that will be the result of the
Banning Ranch development AND the subsequent implementation ofthe
O.C. Master Plan including resurfacing with .round - deadening asphalt,
I jt' Street to PCH, widening of 1.5'1', 16't', 17t', 19't' and other streets
re ar>; dless.
of whether paid through federal, county, city, state or other.ftrtding
sources fueled by taxer?
How many of the following: /tomes, Businesses. Apartments, will be the
FINAL Plan, including implementation of the count% master roadway
plan, require taking through eminent domain or other means?
Hgll Costa Adesct stake the relocation gfALL displaced Costa Adeso
residents into the Banning Ranch Development at Newport Beach's
expense a part of the deal?
The final cost being requested is not known at this time. it is estimated that Costa \4esa
mitigations could cost apr•osinntely $8 to S10 million. This does not include the cost for
widening of 17i1, and 19' Streets per the City's General Plan.
'the number of properties affected by widening of 17a' and 191' Streets is now known at this time
as design plans are not developed.
'llic City cannot legally condition relocation of displaced Costa Mesa residents to Banning Ranch.
R: Troject sWewporNO15�RTMRTC- o3rsrzdoe 3 -263 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Sandie Frankiewicz,
What will happen to au• home and its when we are out oft home, (which)
Costa Mesa
will be demolished in order to widen IV h Street to a four lane raceway?
Have you factored in the road maintenance once all this nn)TIc of
thousands of cars gain access to Costa Mesa? Answer: Our broke city will
payl Nye can't afford not to pay attention, let alone take on the cost of road
worl✓maintenanee.
As design plans for 19"' Street have not been developed; it is not known what properties would be
affected by the widening.
The maintenance and issues with additional traffic will need to addressed during the prgject design
phase.
Gerry Grotenhuis,
They speak of oil clean -ups if it is a favor to us. GVhy can't we require the
Costa Mesa
companies that create the problem to clean it tip without trading away our
streets?
What is going to be done to handle .sewage? Huntington Reach allowed
huge developments while their sewage plants were thousands ofgallons a
day short of capocity (illegible word). I see a lot of toilets planned here.
Comment: Not only does this dump a huge bunch oTtrafc onto Costa
Afeso streets, while giving its nothing, but it coincidently goes through the
poorest neighborhood in the city. This raises some clear questions of
social equality.
They allude to 'Revitalizing" the P est- .side. Ilive on the west -.side
because I like it. We, the residents, are revitalizing the area the way we
want to.
There is a small gated community at the end of 1,0 Street. Go there some
morning to get Banning Ranch in microcosm. A stream ofBV W's and
Mercedes accelerating to the maxinmm .speed (unreadable word) able to
still stop at each stop sign. Do it and report back to me.
Comments noted. These will be forwarded to Newport Beach for their response.
TeruyKoken, Costa
The 1: 75 homelcondos proposed: How Hutch will they cost the prospective
Meso
owners to buy?
lVital is the "green edge" exactly?
The price information for Banning Ranch homes is not known. Comment \vlll be forvarded to
Newport Beach for their response.
R: Troject sWewpnMJO1 5tRTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -264 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Steve Lang, Costa
Please address cut through traffic volumes.
sldesa
in regards to the percentage of open land: /low much is mater? In acres
please. Ifyou've been there it is a large anrountl I am worried the open
land is minimal.
We have a great neighborhood touring about in the freedom houses. Many
young fan flies and kids. Please help your residents preserve it. GVe re not
all brans and illegals!!
P.S. GVho cares about soccer fields.
Comments noted. These will he forwarded to Newport Beach for their response.
Casey F_vans -Lang
How much gfBonning Ranch is comprised of water? H/osld that water
Costa Mesa
stay? Is that water considered as part of the Open Space?
Who pays for all the mitigation costs for the traffic, infrastructure, signals,
and up keep of?
147hy are we helping Newport Beach with all their traffic needs to support
their development 2
All those houses (13 75) and residents o % would be the users of the proposed
parks and ball fields — how would Costa Mesa residents be guaranteed use
of such fields? Sounds like bait and .switch!
Only supporters ofseesn to be business owners? Slati.stics?
Comments noted. These will be forwarded to Newport Beach for their response.
Regarding traffic mitigation costs, the developers have indicated that they will accept financial
responsibility. However. there is no commitment as to actual funds at this time.
Site Chambers,
What schools world Banning Ranch residents to go in the Newport/Costa
Coster Mesa
Mesa school systens? Example — could (illegible word) school improve?
I live on the corner of 19r' and Parkerest (house backs onto I940. How will
noise f -ain traffic be controlled?
Also will the project and additional traffic affect pry property value?
What will the New housing project price points be? What's the range?
P. S. I think the project sounds great)
Comments noted. 1ltese will be forwarded to Newport Beach for their response.
R: Troject sWewtvMJO15�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -265 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Deborah Koken,
Is it legitimate for the developer to claim credit for preserving J/ of
Costail>lesa
Banning Ranch as open space, when in fact most of this is the wetlands and
environmentally sensitive habitat areas which they are legally required to
maintain as open .space?
These areas will rmnain undeveloped no molter whol happens to the rest of
the property, so the developer can't claim it as a gift to the public.
Comments noted. These will be forwarded to Newport Beach for their response.
Richard Robertson.
What is the value to Costa Mesa of the Banning Ranch development?
Costa Mesa
At this point information is not available to provide a response to this comment..
Terry Powell, Costa
1 have heord that there are plans for 6tcestside Costa Meso to
Mesa
"improve. " "revitalize the area, " "boost the econoln). " / hear that
increased traffic on our roads (19t', 17ih. etc) will help achieve this goal.
What exactly is going to happen?
lVitat do these terms mean? Building? Bulldozing? Be specific please.
At this point information is not available to provide a response to this comment.
Michael Grgrick,
What is Eminent Domain?
Costa Mesa
Traffic impact to 17`4 and 19r' Street Costa Mesa2
How will Costa Mesa acquire the prop sly on /7t' Sheet and 19r' Slreel to
provide roads for Banning Ranch?
Eminent domain relates to acquisition of private property for public improvements such as streets.
It is not proposed as part of Banning Ranch project.
Traffic impacts to 17 "' and 19x' Streets are documented in the DEiR. it is likely that Banning
Ranch and other projects envisioned for Westside Costa Mesa will require widening of 1Th and
191h Streets to their designated General Plan standards. However; the timing of this is unknown.
The design of 17'h and 19'h Streets will provide information on how the widening can be
accomplished. Al this point, infomlation is not available to provide a response on right -of -way
acquisitions.
10
11
12
R:Trgects\Ne.poMJOI5 \RTC \RTC- 031512.&c 3 -266 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter L3b City of Costa Mesa
Khanh Nguyen, Interim Development Services Director
November 8, 2011
Response1
The proposed Project is estimated to generate 14,989 vehicle trips per day. The Draft EIR
Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that a composite of approximately 65 percent of the Project
traffic can be expected to travel along the street system in southwest Costa Mesa. The resulting
traffic volumes do not indicate the need for widening of 15th, 16t, or 19th Street. The
Project's impact on the peak hour operation of intersections along these streets was evaluated,
and mitigation measures have been identified for any intersections that would experience a
significant Project impact.
The Traffic Mitigation Program in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR
includes the provision of a second southbound left -turn on Newport Boulevard at 19th Street and
notes that the proposed improvement is anticipated to require modifications to the medians and
incremental widening of the street at the intersection on one or both sides of the roadway
depending on the final design. Additional right -of -way may be required on one or both sides of
Newport Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to roadway
components including median hardscape and landscape. With respect to 17th Street, the
Mitigation Program proposes improvements to the intersection of Newport Boulevard at 17th
Street. The Draft EIR proposes a fourth through lane on the southbound approach and a
dedicated right -turn lane on the northbound approach. The proposed improvement in
anticipated to require modifications to the medians and incremental widening of the street on
one or both sides of the roadway at the intersection depending on the final design.
Improvements may also require modifications to the frontage road along the easterly side of
Newport Boulevard. Additional right -of -way may be required on one or both sides of Newport
Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to roadway components
including median hardscape and landscape.
With respect to the action by the City of Newport Beach and subsequent required actions by
applicable regulatory agencies regarding 19th Street, the City had not yet scheduled public
hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council at the time of this study session.
Response 2
With respect to the cost to taxpayers, the City of Newport Beach concurs with the City of Costa
Mesa's staff response that the final cost is not known at this time. As noted in the response to
Comment 1, the resulting traffic volumes do not indicate the need for widening of 15th 16th 171h
or 19th Street.
Response 3
With respect to road maintenance costs, the City of Newport Beach concurs with the City of
Costa Mesa's staff response. As noted in the response to Comment 1, the resulting traffic
volumes do not indicate the need for widening of 15th, 16th, 17th, or 19th Street.
Response 4
With respect to remediation, please refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight
and Remediation.
R: Car .pd.wewpaeu01 sRTC\RTC431512.do. 3 -267 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
With respect to wastewater service, please refer to Section 4.15, Utilities, of the Draft EIR. The
Draft EIR notes that wastewater originating from the Project site would ultimately be treated by
facilities owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Project
wastewater flows would be directed to OCSD's Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach,
which maintains a primary treatment capacity of 168 mgd and currently treats an average
influent wastewater flow of approximately 110 mgd. Currently Plant No. 2 is operating at 65
percent of design capacity. The OCSD has indicated that it has existing and future treatment
capacity to serve the proposed Project.
With respect to traffic and social equity, Table 1 summarizes census tract, cities of Costa Mesa
and Newport Beach, and County of Orange population characteristics. Census Tract 636.01 is
bound by Victoria Street to the north, 191h Street to the south, Placentia Avenue to the east and
the Santa Ana River to the west. Census Tract 636.03 is bound by 19th Street to the north, West
Coast Highway to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east and the Santa Ana River to the
west. Census Tract 636.04 is bound by 19th Street to the north, 16th Street to the south,
Placentia Avenue to the east and the Santa Ana River to the west. Census Tract 636.05 is
generally bound by 19th Street to the north, 16th Street to the south, Anaheim Avenue and
Newport Boulevard to the east and Placentia Avenue to the west. Table 2 summarizes the
income characteristics for the populations identified in Table 1. Both Tables 1 and 2 represent
the area around the Project site inclusive of roadways where Project and cumulative traffic is
expected to be distributed. The census tract least affected by traffic would be Census Tract
636.01 which is north of 19th Street.
As shown on Exhibit 4. -7 of the Draft EIR Traffic Impact Analysis distributes traffic as follows:
191h Street: 10 percent
171h Street: 35 percent
161h Street: 10 percent
151h Street: 10 percent
West Coast Highway: 20 percent
Newport Boulevard: 40 percent
While it is the case that approximately 65 percent of the traffic would join Costa Mesa roadways,
the proposed Bluff Road and North Bluff Road from 19th Street to West Coast Highway would be
constructed to serve Project and subregional traffic particularly from off -site vehicles in west
Costa Mesa. In the case of Bluff Road /North Bluff Road, it is shown on the City of Newport
Beach General Plan Master Plan of Streets and Highways and on the County of Orange Master
Plan of Arterial Highways.
The County's zoning for the 361 acres of the Project site within County jurisdiction would allow
for development of up to 2,510 multi - family dwelling units (du8), 225 single - family du,
50,000 square feet (sf) of general commercial use, 235,600 sf of general office use, and
164,400 sf of industrial uses. Development of property pursuant to the County zoning would
generate approximately 22,075 average daily trips on the circulation network; the proposed
Project would generate 14,989 average daily trips on the same circulation network.
RT,.jedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -268 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
TABLE 1
CENSUS TRACT, CITY, AND COUNTY POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
R:Tmje SWewpo0Q015 \RT0RTC -031512.d= 3 -269 Responses to Environmental Comments
Census Tract
636.01
Census Tract
636.03
Census Tract
636.04
Census Tract
636.05
City of
Newport Beach
City of
Costa Mesa
County of
Orange
Population
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Total Population
3,647
100
6,223
100
3,835
100
5,672
100
85,186
100
109,960
100
3,010,232
100
Population 0-19 Years
888
24.4
850
13.7
1,043
27.2
1,945
34.3
16,166
19
26,932
24.4
828,344
27.6
Population 20 -64 Years
2,419
66.4
3,935
69.9
2,353
61.5
3,504
61.7
52,838
62.1
72,914
66.4
1,850,211
61
Population 65+ Years
340
9.4
1,030
16.6
439
11.4
221
3.8
16,162
18.9
10,114
9.1
349,677
11.6
Median Age
37.8
N/A
37.7
N/A
33.4
N/A
28.3
N/A
44.0
N/A
33.6
N/A
36.2
N/A
Race: White
2,792
76.6
5,326
85.6
2,406
62.7
2,954
52.1
74,357
87.3
75,335
68.5
1,830,758
60.8
Race: Black or African
American
24
0.7
75
1.2
52
1.4
77
1.4
616
0.7
1,640
1.5
50,744
1.7
Race: American Indian
and Alaska Native
22
0.6
32
0.5
26
0.7
57
1.0
223
0.3
686
0.6
18,132
0.6
Race: Asian
134
3.7
281
4.5
147
3.8
99
1.7
5,982
7.0
8,654
7.9
537,804
17.9
Race: Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific
Islander
12
0.3
11
0.2
10
0.3
20
0.4
114
0.1
527
0.5
9,354
0.3
Race: Some other race
477
13.1
286
4.6
1,057
27.6
2,186
38.5
1,401
1.6
17,992
16.4
435,641
14.5
Race: Two or more races
(of total population)
186
5.1
212
3.4
137
3.6
279
4.9
2,493
2.9
5,126
4.7
127,799
4.2
Race: Hispanic or Latino
1,051
28.8
932
15.0
2,214
57.7
4,277
75.4
6,174
7.2
39,403
35.8
1,012,973
33.7
Source: U.S. Census 2010
R:Tmje SWewpo0Q015 \RT0RTC -031512.d= 3 -269 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
TABLE 2
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS BY CENSUS TRACT ADJACENT TO PROJECT SITE
R:Tmje SWewpo0Q015 \RT0RTC -031512.d= 3 -270 Responses to Environmental Comments
Census
Tract
636.01
Census
Tract
636.03
Census
Tract
636.04
Census
Tract
636.05
Total/
Average
City of
Newport
Beach
City of
Costa
Mesa
County
of
Orange
Number of Households
1,314
3,056
1,362
1,429
7,161
38,751
39,391
992,781
Median Household Income
84,959
72,884
43,493
37,000
62,349
107,007
64,864
74,344
Households with public assistance
46
34
268
418
766
304
2,155
90,144
Total Population
3,647
6,223
3,835
5,672
19,377
85,186
109,960
3,010,232
Individuals living below poverty status
209
560
625
1,842
3,236
5,246
14,266
296,846
Percentage below poverty status
5.6
10.4
16.3
35.0
16.8
6.3
13.3
10.1
Source: U.S. Census 2010
R:Tmje SWewpo0Q015 \RT0RTC -031512.d= 3 -270 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed Project would result in significant impacts
including some impacts such as traffic in Costa Mesa and noise in Newport Beach that cannot
be mitigated to a less than significant level. While the fact that future development on this
property has been forecast in County and city assumptions for traffic and population growth for
years is not intended to dismiss the fact that traffic will in part go through some neighborhoods
with families in both cities living below the poverty line, these areas were not targeted. The
traffic distribution is reflects the physical limitation for access to the Project site rather than
social equity.
Response 5
As noted by City of Costa Mesa staff, the price of proposed residences has not been
established.
The City of Newport Beach is unsure what the commenter is referring to as the "green edge'. In
summary, the 401 -acre Project site would include approximately 252.3 gross acres in an Open
Space Preserve (including the 16.5 -acre consolidated oil facilities sites) and 51.4 gross acres of
parks. The majority of the proposed developed uses on the Project site would be bound by the
proposed Bluff Top Park, a linear park which would sited between the on -site Open Space
Preserve and the on -site residential and resort inn land uses.
Response 6
With respect to traffic, the trip distribution exhibit (Exhibit 4.9 -7) in the Draft EIR presents a
general indication of the distribution of Project traffic to /from the Project site to various off -site
destinations. However, because the proposed Project consists of several development nodes
throughout the Project site, traffic follows different paths (assignments) to and from its
destinations, depending on the roadways that provide the best route relative to each zone. For
example, traffic from the resort inn /residential areas toward the south end of the Project site
would be more likely to use 15th Street or 16th Street to get to the destinations to the east; the
residential areas to the north would be more likely to split up between 16th Street and 17th Street
to get to the same destinations to the east; and the mixed - use /residential areas that straddle
17th Street would be most likely to use 17th Street. The final traffic volumes on any particular
street represent the sum of the trips assigned to that particular path from each of the traffic
analysis zones.
The Project is estimated to generate 14,989 vehicle trips per day. The Traffic Impact Analysis
indicated that approximately 5 percent of the Project traffic would travel along Placentia north of
17th Street. Project traffic is not shown to travel along Victoria in Costa Mesa since other streets
provide a more direct path of travel to off -site destinations. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates
that a composite of approximately 65 percent of the Project traffic can be expected to travel
along the street system in southwest Costa Mesa. The impact on the southwest Costa Mesa
streets was addressed in the Draft EIR Traffic Impact Analysis.
Tables 4.9 -34 and 4.9 -35 of the Draft EIR identified the trips on each of the east -west roadways
through southwest Costa Mesa that would be attributable to the proposed Project. This traffic
consists of the combination of both the traffic that would be generated by the Project as well as
existing background trips that could be expected to divert to Bluff Road /North Bluff Road via the
east -west connecting streets.
With respect to open space, the 401 -acre Project site would include approximately 252.3 gross
acres in an Open Space Preserve (including the 16.5 -acre consolidated oil facilities sites) and
51.4 gross acres of parks. If the commenter is asking about the amount of the Project site that
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -271 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
contains water - related biological resources, please refer to Table 4.6 -1 of the Draft EIR which
identifies vegetation types and the existing acreage for each of these vegetation types. For
example, the Project site has approximately 31.45 acres of marshes and mudflats.
With respect to preservation of the Project site, please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the
Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR which evaluates options to the Applicant's development
proposal.
The commenter's opinion of soccer fields is noted.
Response 7
With respect to open space and water resources, please refer to the response to Comment 6.
Table 4.6 -7 identifies the Project's impact on jurisdictional features (Waters of the United States
and Waters of the State).
With respect to traffic mitigation costs, please refer to Mitigation Measure 4.9 -2 of Section 4.9,
Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR which identifies the transportation improvement
mitigation program for traffic impacts in the City of Costa Mesa. The Draft EIR identifies that
implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered less than
significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another
jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa
Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated
concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by
the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
With respect to the proposed Project's parks, while the Project site and the associated proposed
Parks would be located in the City of Newport Beach (not the City of Costa Mesa), all parks are
proposed as public facilities.
Regarding proponents and opponents of the proposed Project, this question does not address
an environmental issue. No further response is required.
Response 8
With respect to schools, please refer to Section 4.14, Public Services and Facilities. Please
refer to Letter R5 from the Newport-Mesa Unified School District which identifies that the School
District forecasts a district -wide capacity surplus.
With respect to noise, please refer to Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR. No significant noise
impacts are anticipated along 19`h Street.
With respect to property values, the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e), Determining the
Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project, states:
Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as
significant effects on the environment. Economic or social changes may be used,
however, to determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a significant
effect on the environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or
social effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant
effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the
project. Alternatively, economic and social effects of a physical change may be
used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the
environment. If the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -272 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether
the physical change is significant. For example, if a project would cause
overcrowding of a public facility and the overcrowding causes an adverse effect
on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect.
This comment does not present or raise an issue regarding the adequacy of analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project in the Draft EIR, but states the opinion of the
commenter. No documentation has been provided to support the suggestion that vehicular
traffic negatively affects property values.
As noted by City of Costa Mesa staff, the price of proposed residences has not been
established.
The opinion of the commenter with respect to the Project is noted.
Response 9
With respect to open space, the 401 -acre Project site would include approximately 252.3 gross
acres in an Open Space Preserve (including the 16.5 -acre consolidated oil facilities sites) and
51.4 gross acres of parks. Consistent with the CEQA Statute and applicable regulatory
requirements (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game), a
project can have impacts on biological resources; however, if impacts cannot be avoided, they
must be mitigated to the greatest degree feasible.
The Project site is currently an active oilfield with no public access. The Draft EIR acknowledges
that the proposed Project would result in significant biological impacts (see Section 4.6,
Biological Resources). With implementation of the proposed Project, the site would be
remediated (see Section 3.0, Project Description and Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials); invasive biological resources would be removed to allow for restoration of many of
the habitat areas on the property that have been degraded by permitted oil operations and
invasive species (see Section 3.0, Section 4.5, and Section 4.6) — biological impacts would be
mitigated to a less than significant level; the Open Space Preserve would be publicly accessible
(see Section 3.0 and Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails).
Response 10
The City of Newport Beach is unclear as to the commenter's reference to "value ". If the
commenter could provide additional information to the City, the City will provide an additional
response.
Response11
The City of Newport Beach cannot comment on the City of Costa Mesa's proposed revitalization
for westside Costa Mesa. We would suggest that the commenter contact the City of Costa Mesa
for additional information.
Response 12
With respect to eminent domain, the City of Costa Mesa's definition is accurate. Specifically to
the proposed Project and as addressed in Draft EIR (Section 3.0, Project Description and
Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs), 15th Street currently terminates at
Monrovia Avenue located east of the Project site's eastern boundary. There is an existing office
building and associated parking lot between the Newport Banning Ranch property line and
R: Tr .pd.N.wPaeu01 &RTC\RTC431512.do. 3 -273 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Monrovia Avenue. As a part of the Project, the improvements shown on the Master Plan of
Streets and Highways from the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element would
be constructed. This would require 15th Street to be extended west through the existing parking
area for the office building to provide a connection between the Project site and Monrovia
Avenue. The segment of 15th Street between Monrovia Avenue to the boundary of the Project
site would be constructed as a two -lane roadway (one lane in each direction). As proposed,
displaced parking (approximately 25 parking spaces) associated with the existing office building
would be provided for the office building within the proposed Central Community Park area. The
right -of -way necessary for the 15th Street off -site improvements would either be acquired by the
Applicant or by the City.
With respect to 17th Street and 1gth Street, traffic volumes do not indicate the need for widening
of 15th, 16th, 17th, or 1gth Street.
RT,.jedsWewp.MJD151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -274 Responses to Environmental Comments
L�2 _K_
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter L4
City of Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
www.h anti ngtonbeach ca.gov
Planning Di i
714.536.5271
October 31, 2011
Patrick Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Draft EIR — Newport Banning Ranch Project
Dear Mr. Alford:
Building Division
714.536.5241
The City of Huntington. Beach has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the Newport Banning Ranch Project and recommends that the following comments be addressed
in the Final EIR/Response to Comments that will be prepared for this project.
Recreation
• Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR lists City of Huntington Beach parks within two miles of the
project site. Two City parks, Gisler and Bauer, were left off the list. Please see the
enclosed map for locations of the two parks. In addition, it should be noted that Bauer Park
is a newly constructed park and is not yet open to the public.
Traffic and Circulation
The following comments refer to Section 4.9 of the Draft EiR as well as Appendix F: Traffic
Impact Analysis.
• The study intersections in the City of Huntington Beach require an assumption of 1,700
vehicles per hour per lane ( vphpl) for ICU analysis. Although Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR
states that 1,700 vphpl was assumed for the City of Huntington Beach study intersections, it
appears that a value of 1,600 vphpl was used for the ICU worksheets in Appendix F. Please
clarify and, if necessary, correct this discrepancy.
• The draft EIR and 'Traffic Impact Analysis (11A) identify three City of Huntington Beach
intersections as deficient under various scenarios for the General Plan build -out analysis:
Pacific Coast Highway/Magnolia Street, Brookhursl Street/Hamilton Avenue, and Pacific
Coast H ighway/Brookhurst Street.
R: Project sWewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -275 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and TIA indicate that the Pacific Coast Highway
(PCH)/Mabmolia Street intersection would be deficient (LOS F) in the PM peak hour
under the General Plan Build -out — Without Project analysis. However, the current
Huntington Beach Traffic Model forecasts this intersection to operate at LOS C
during the PM peak hour under the General Plan.
Therefore, the traffic analysis under the l.'ollowutg scenarios would not be expected to
deteriorate to LOS F when accounting for project trip generation: General Plan
Build -out — with Project; General Plan Build -out — Bluff Road Alternative
(Alternative C); General Plan Build -out — Open Space Alternative with Bluff Road
(Alternative B); and General Platt Build -out — Open Space Alternative without Bluff
Road (Alternative B). Additionally, the analysis forecasts the intersection to operate
at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the General Plan Build -out — With Project
and Full MPAH Network scenario. However, with implementation of the MPATI, it
appears that more project hips are assigned at the critical movements than would be
expected considering the alternative routes available. Please clarify these issues in
the Final EIR.
• Under the General Plan Build -out — With Project and 191h Street Bridge and General
Plan Build -out — Bluff Road Alternative with l9a' Street Bridge (Alternative C)
scenarios, a. disproportionate number of southbound (PCH) left turns has been
assigned at PCI-I/Magnolia than at PCH/Brookhurst affecting the LOS results. Please
address why the assigned trips are not more evenly distributed and /or correct the data
and analysis as appropriate. This same issue occurs at the Brookhuust/Hamilton
intersection, which was assigned a disproportionate number of left toms compared to
the Brookhurst/19'h Street intersection during the PM peak hour.
Cumulative Impact Analysis
• Exhibit 5 -4 incorrectly denotes the location of several City of Huntington Beach cumulative
projects (see attached mark -up). Please correct in the Final EIR.
• Table 5 -2 should be corrected as follows:
• Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update: discretionary actions also
included Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendments;
• Newland Street Residential: The project has been eampleted is under
construction. Please note that this project is now commonly referred to as
Pacific Shores.
• Newland Street Widening: The project is andeF emistruetie has been
completed.
• Table 5 -3 incorrectly denotes the significance of impacts for several City of Huntington
Beach Cumulative Projects that are listed. For instance, the Beach and Edinger Corridors
Specific Plan Program ETR did not conclude Significant and Unavoidable impacts due to
Greenhouse Gases as indicated in the table. However, a Significant and Unavoidable
impacts was concluded for cumulative population impacts, which is not specified in the
table. Additionally, The Ridge project included biological mitigation measures; however,
3 cont.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I5uRTCURTC- 031512,doe 3 -276 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
the table lists the project as less than significant (assuming no mitigation per the write -up on
page 5 -23 of the Draft EIR). Please verify each of the Iuntington Beach projects in the
table with the project's impacts and correct the table as necessary. You may find most of
the environmental documents at the following link:
http:// www. huntingtonbeachca. gov /govemment/depaftments/Planning/. If you need
assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The City
of Huntington Beach looks forward to reviewing the Final EIR when it becomes available.
Sincerely,
�
J
Vi
Senior Planner
Cc: Scott Hess, Planning and Building Director
Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager
6 cord.
R\ RrgedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -277 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
7—
LO
flant A A— f
T
U-
L FB4uO)4k!
-Lj
, Awlt
c T
z
gip
Huntington Beach MINOR NAMES
IV I
V.apvw WbyiniwWbncon;,inodintheCiVcg EIIYPOUNDAqY
HuntiVtmBewh[ntpm mSGM-
STREET CENTERLINES (OCTACI.,,j
MO'm xro
N.7
E H1.10-1
Travekey
0 POW
1427 2854 ISOBATHS
ENEiiia
Ominchequ&1427W RkRBOR
R:1Projects\NewpoMJ01 51RTC\RTC-031512,dac 3-278 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Q Newpoq Banning Ranch Projed
® Projea Locabons
He t'. NewlaM Blred Raeidvnlid Project
Ha a'' NaMaw Stow Wdenow Preload
NU 1 Pard5c 0q Pmjaar
HA 41 aesch and EdhWr Cmddnn apCCPa Plan. Pmjw
Ha 5: Bnphwa:w Spvirc Pan am P Mallet P"ca
HB 0: edlvan Pre". MrY.n Pbn Pmje0.
HB 7. GaaleB Plapnny Pro2nMi4 and nMmxafen Plejee
Ha a: 4unirgloa Roach nmunleen $pooh Plan UPdMo Project
HD S oeuan v.I Imn S , Expailairn Neq.
Hal YMIIiC VIBw MIXeO U. P.m.
HU t I: Ynwide Eunlro Prgaa
HS 1L' Poroldon aeealtealen Platt Project
Ila 11, Gereral Plat Ciraalion Fecanne Vpdnlor (CI -��y�I
HB 14: Harmony Coon pavNganme Prtren
Ha %5 nor Hid'. Propel
HB 1G Beac and Warner Mix 41 Prgrl
Huntington Beach Cumulative Projects Exhibit 5 -4
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
Milos I-enan ecln nlwm_o...an. MJ
R:TrojectslNewporN015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -279 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter L4 City of Huntington Beach
Jennifer Villasenor, Senior Planner
October 31, 2011
Response1
Section 4.8, pages 4.8-4 through 4.8 -5 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR
as follows:
The City of Huntington Beach is located immediately west of and across the
Santa Ana River from the Project site. City recreational facilities within two miles
of the Project site include Gisler Park. Bauer Park, Burke Park, Sowers Park,
Edison Park, Seeley Park, Eader Park, Le Bard Park, and Hawes Park. These
park facilities offer a variety of recreational amenities including picnic areas,
athletic fields, and tot lots. While these parks are located near the Project site,
their main function is to serve the residents of the City of Huntington Beach, and
they are not intended to serve the recreational demand of residents outside of
the City.
Response 2
For the Year 2016 analyses, the base saturation flow rate entered into the Traffix software was
1,600, which is the hourly lane capacity parameter used by both the cities of Newport Beach
and Costa Mesa. For the City of Huntington Beach intersections, a factor was applied to bring
the hourly lane capacity to 1,700 ( +6 percent - this is reflected in the line labeled "Final Sat." on
the Traffix worksheets), and a 5 percent lost time factor was included, in accordance with the
City of Huntington Beach requirements.
Response 3
Both the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Newport Beach traffic models have been
approved for area -wide modeling purposes by OCTA. However, differences in modeling
parameters and assumptions can still cause different results in forecast volumes.
The only difference between the General Plan Buildout with Project and the General Plan
Buildout with Project and Full MPAH Network scenarios is the on -site roadway network. The on-
site roadway network proposed by the Project represents changes to the City's Master Plan of
Streets and Highways and to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH),
which would require an Orange County MPAH amendment. The Full MPAH Network scenario
was conducted to satisfy the cooperative study requirements of OCTA. The results of the
intersection analysis for the intersection of Magnolia Street at Pacific Coast Highway for these
two scenarios are very similar, with a difference of one percentage point in both the morning
and evening peak hours.
The peak hour volumes for the General Plan with Project scenarios are forecasted volumes
from the NBTM. Review of the ICU worksheets shows that the southbound left -turn volume at
Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway is almost 600 vehicles in the morning peak hour
and about 360 vehicles in the evening peak hour, resulting in a v/c ratio of nearly 20 percent in
the morning peak hour and 11 percent in the evening peak hour. In contrast, the left -turn
volumes at Magnolia and Pacific Coast Highway are forecast to be around 290 in the morning
peak hour and 120 in the evening peak hour, with v/c ratios of 10 percent and 5 percent,
respectively. The traffic model could be expected to assign some trips to the less congested
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -280 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
movement. The Project's contribution to either of these two left -turn movements is 30 vehicles
or less in either peak hour.
Response 4
Exhibit 5-4 has been updated and incorporated into the Final EIR to reflect changes to the
location of several City of Huntington Beach cumulative projects. The revised exhibit follows the
responses to the City of Huntington Beach's comments.
Response 5
Table 5 -2 on page 5 -18, the first two rows are modified and incorporated into the Final EIR.
Response 6
Table 5 -3 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR.
R\ RrgedsWewp .MJD151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -281 Responses to Environmental Comments
i
i
i
4
i
F
a
us Nl 111!aDtvs r; _ -IT
Seles]l eclunar weroye -� l -�
x _
H85Nw+r,tw HOB
�He 14 /M67815
r J
r�� I
He
5
¢ I
Same
emtln W INy
y h
IluTtinglon B1t&
r�tl esa �' P;r
H- .vFOr. E.�ih
b
Q Nrlpart Bannng Rant+ prupEl
i =❑ Wnzc[ _rcatloll6
H61 Hwum tman R.lranE.l Fre{.e
HE N. d Pa hq PrNlr!
HE 3 Pu/c t, P'q d
HE.. Eamon.re FAi.plr r_mlave 9,. Pln wa{.e
ME S E'g'eHh 6p1Ye 14a W Jlwatllm FiPpC
MEG 6]�vi Prh Y!� Prin hole]
HE % Cox 5aI Pe{e'di he:lorlp amAmmlae Pmla[t
H68 HuVIkPM B[ O alnlleMll>90l:6C File 1p010.hf10[t
rffi P Cries 11le Hln! BYIaY EYpYHtln
He 10
P201&
ocean
s
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
J—
hIlI -�L
�^ 7
r
TG I, d.e
— tT
_j �_ -,H
M
b
3
'I-
�Y 2[ izj
i
Het HeB —ItI_
He Fmmiwrtlslle
9.,12 17
r --
17 -e .
Hem F°eeYCYew YkeC IL. Prul[a
MG11- PlIfu16G hl1.[3
HE 12 Puedrn EtlaWtllnh!!P.Od
HEis b .ara PI[n i]muYlsnanr.[tkn.r f =ar .f
re is trniimr ma. o.�.roPrr.rt rnol.a
F@ 15 TM Rah} Fepw
F818 B.e3lNYYmp YkeF[Aa Frjrs
Huntington Beach Cumulative Projects Exhibit 5 -4
hpmxd Bxmww RarR:tr OR
"#• 1 Es o 1
.Jaw i]Lli !
R \ProjedsWewpoOt J0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -282 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
TABLE 5 -2
Newland Street
The project would develop and
21471 Newland St; south of
Final EIR was certified in August
. GP Amendment
Residential
subdivide a former industrial site into a
residential development with 204
Lomond Dr; west of Newland
St, north of the terminus of
2006. The project hpg been
completed. is under construction.
. Zoning Map Amendment
. TTM
multi - family residential units and an
Hamilton Ave; 4 miles to the
Please note that this project is now
. CUP
commonly referred to as Pacific
approximate 2 -acre public park.
northwest.
. Final Tract Map
Shores.
Newland Street
The project would widen Newland St
Newland St from Pacific Coast
IS /MND approved in April 2007. The
. IS /MND approval
Widening
from Pacific Coast Hwy to Hamilton
Ave, widen the reinforced concrete
Hwy to Hamilton Hwy; 2 miles
to the west.
project '^ unde,�- G9PstA•^"^^,_haa
been completed.
. No other discretionary
actions were identified
bridge at Huntington Channel, install
storm drain improvements in Newland
St, and raise the profile of Newland St
to improve traffic visibility. The
proposed widening would also
address stopping sight distance
deficiency by raising the road grade at
the Huntington Channel and providing
a left -turn lane at the intersection of
Newland St and Edison Way.
R:Tmje SWewportU015 \RT0RTC -031512.d= 3 -283 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
TABLE 5 -3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Projects Where Construction Has Been Initiated or Completed
Brightwater Specific Plan and
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
N/A
LS
LS
LS
LS
Yes
Annexation
Huntington Beach Downtown
LS
S
S
S
S
S
LS
LS
U
U
U
U
U
U
S
Yes
Specific Plan Update
N/A
S
NLA
Newland Street Residential
S
U
S
U
LS
S
U
S
SU
U
N/A
S
S
U
S
Yes
Newland Street Widening
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
S
LS
LS
/
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
Yes
La
Ocean View High School Expansion
LS
NA
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
N/A
LS
N/A
I
LS
NIA
N/
Yes
LS
LS
Pacific City
LS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
U
N/A
S
S
S
S
Yes
Projects With Approved CEQA Documentation
Beach and Edinger Corridors
LS
S
S
S
S
S
LS
U
U
U
LIS
U
U
U
U
Yes
Specific Plan
UI
—
Edison Park Master Plan
LS
S
LS
LS
LS
S
LS
S
AS
LS
N/A
LS
LS
LS
LS
Yes
L
Goodell Property Pre - Zoning and
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
S
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
S
LS
LS
Yes
Annexation
Pacific View Mixed -Use
LS
LS
LAS
S
S
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
N/A
LS
LS
LS
LS
Yes
Parkside Estates
LS
S
S
S
S
S
N/A
N/A
S
S
N/A
S
LS
S
S
Yes
Poseidon Desalination Plant
LS
S
S
S
LS
S
N/A
N/A
S
U
N/A
S
S
S
S
Yes
The Ridge
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
N/A
LS
S
LS
LS
Yes
Projects Without Approved CEQA
Documentation
General Plan Circulation Element
U
LS
LS
LS
LS
U
U
LS
U
U
U
U
S
U
LS
Yes
Update
Harmony Cove Residential
S
LS
S
S
LS
S
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
S
LS
LS
LS
Yes
Development
Beach and Warner Mixed -Use
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
S
LS
LS
S
U
LS
S
LS
LS
LS
Yes
Project
R:Tmje SWewpo0Q015 \RT0RTC -031512.d= 3 -284 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
ORGANIZATIONS, COMPANIES, AND INDIVIDUALS
RTrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -285 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -286 Responses to Environmental Comments
Officers
Tarr Welch .M D
Presdmn
James Maref old
ire 11, siveid
Deborah Koken
w"retary
Jennifer Frubg. PhD
trf ,,Yff l
Steve Ray
Lxec'uilve Vva Au
Board Members
Ninon Barnes
Mark Tabben
Jan Vandersloot M.D.
In Urnkrianr
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter O'la
Banning Ranch
Conservancy
Via Email Transmission to palford(a newportbeachea.gov
November 8, 2011
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Newport Banning Ranch Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061
Dear Mr. Alford,
"The comments below and all references contained therein are
hereby incorporated vtto the official record of proceedings of this
project and its successors. "
On behalf of the Banning Ranch Conservancy. thank you for the opportunity to comment
on the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed
Newport Banning Ranch development project (NBR) that was prepared and circulated
by the City of Newport Beach (City).
Pursuant to Section 15088.5 (ax4) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, we herewith strongly request that the DEIR be immediately withdrawn, be
revised to comply with CEQA and be recirculated when it is in compliance with CEQA
statutes and guidelines and applicable case law. The currently released DEIR is so
fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public
review and comment are precluded. ( see Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game
Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
Examples of the inadequate and flawed execution of the DEIR include:
• exclusion of meaningful information from known sources and other public
agencies and comments, actions and/or decisions of other public agencies.
• omission of pertinent and available data on known and potential impacts.
• failure to identify significant environmental impacts,
• inadequate analysis of mitigation proposals and impacts,
• failure to perform studies of known and existing conditions and potential
impacts,
• a poorly organized document making search and review very difficult,
www.banningranchoonservancy.org
R \ProjectsWewpe0U0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -287 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• conclusions unsupported by facts in evidence nor reflective of facts entitled or
excluded, and
• a public review process that was inadequate, lacked sufficient access to complete
DEIR documentation and was contrary to the Notice of Availability and other J
documents and statements issued by the City regarding the guidelines and
limefinnes For review of the DETR.
The flaws of the DEIR are so numerous as to preclude the entirely of them in this letter.
However, many of them are addressed in letters /entails submitted by others. By
reference, I herewith incorporate the comments of Sandra Gcnis, Robert Hamilton, Bruce
Burtram, Teny Welsh, .Jim Mansfield, Jim Mloshey Toni M. Callaway, Maul Hagemann,
Penny Elia, Vicki Henrmukz, Dennis N40-lale, Patricia Barnes, Dorothy Kraus, Cindy
Black, Scott Thomas, Patricia Martz, Kevin Nelson, Bany Nerhus, Margarct Royall,
Suzanne Forster, Jennifer Fmtig, Ginny Lombardi, Ed Guilmenc, Paul . Cathy
Malkemus, City of Cosm Mesa, and the Shunda family (Julia, George and Sebastian).
Lxamples of issues mused by some of the above include, but are certainly not limited to:
• Extensive vernal pool data not included. -- Terry Welsh
For the record, all mitigation sites identified in the DEIR must be specified. If
habitat restoration is undertaken, this will entail changes to the existing
environment, impacting some species even if others are possibly benefitted.
CEQA requires that the project site be clearly defined, and the DEIR fails to meet
this standard.
Authorizing a massive development project on Newport Banning Ranch, on the
scale proposed in the DEIR, will have potentially significant cumulative and
growth- inducing effects resulting from the likely revival of long- shelved plans for
a 19 "'Street bridge across the Santa Ana River. A bridge at that location would
have impacts on numerous biologically sensitive species found in that area, and
would represent a major intrusion of noise into the Orange Coast River Park. --
Robert Hamilton
• The DEIR is thus somewhat of a hybrid between a project specific EIR addressing
a tract map which includes establishment of individual residential lots in some
areas and a Master EIR addressing a general plan or master plan, with additional
environmental documents potentially prepared for specific development in the
future. -- Sandra Gcnis
• Notice of Availability of DEIR failed to list significant environmental effects
anticipated as a result of the project as required by CEQA Guideline 15087(c)(4).
www.banningranchconservancy.org
cant.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015tRTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -288 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Documents referenced in DEIR not readily available for public review at the sites
listed in the notice. -- Jim \4osher
• The ongoing mowing and likely destruction of ESHA has not been addressed.
This is an omission and could possibly end up being another violation /California
Coastal Commission enforcement issue. -- Pcnny L'lia
• The Air Quality and Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections of the DEIR do
not include the impacts of TACs and criteria pollutants on human health.
The Panning Ranch oil field has been in operation nearly seven decades, yet no
radiation survey is mentioned in the DEIR. -- Suzanne Forster
• Not included is the forseeable expansion of Ticonderoga into a commuter
roadway. - -Julia Shunda
• No research into H2S gas release based on Cal OSHA reporting and engineered
Secondary Oil Recovery operations (H2S gas is by- product).
Not included in DSEIR is historic research on wells abandoned, condition of
these wells and location on the Panning Lease. -- Dennis Mcf-fale
• Significant omission of ESHA and CSS (gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren habitat)
data and information, particularly as referred to in the Coastal Commission
Consent Cease and Desist Order CCC- 11 -RO -02 and the Coastal Commission
Consent Restoration Order CCC- 11 -RO -02 and within the City of Newport
Beach's CLU P. -- Patricia Barnes
• The DEIR's omission of the under construction Coastline Community College
Newport Beach Learning Center on 15th Street and Monrovia. -- Dorothy Kraus
• The dEIR was made available in 3 different formats:
Paper copies
Multiple CDROM disks
Online available via the Internet
Paper
The paper copies were accessible at very limited, primarily City locations. Access
was limited to the facility operating hours and times. The document is 7300+
pages making it extremely difficult for a comprehensive review. There is a table
of contents, but no index, making very rudimentary searches very difficult.
www.banningranchconservancy.org
2 cant.
R:TrgectsWewp MJCI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -289 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
CDROM
The files were split into 3 separate disk because the size of the files exceeded
the normal CDROM capacity. Disk one contained the main body (Volume 1) of
the document, disk 2 the appendixes A -E and disk 3 appendixes F -M. The total
of the 3 files sizes is approximately 876 MB. The large file chunks adversely
impact computer performance, particular the disk 2 appendix — 660 MB. A high
end PC configured with 6MB of RAM and an Intel second generation i7
processor takes approximately 35 seconds to load appendix 2. Less robust
computer configurations would take considerable longer to load files this large.
The files are in pelf format and have been arranged in Adobe's portfolio format.
Searching portfolios can be extremely time consuming. A more even split in file
sizes would have been better. The Adobe Acrobat page number does not match
that of the actual document, making browsing the portfolio pages very difficult.
Internet
The entire dEIR document is also available on the City of Newport Beach
website. The City has done a relatively nice job a splitting the document into
manageable chunks. A fast Internet connection (7 -30 mbps) downloaded larger
chunks in just over 2 minutes. Slower connections would take much longer. The
files are in pdf format and use the more "traditional" Adobe format rather than
portfolios making searching much easier. Again, the Acrobat page numbers do
not match the actual document page numbers. The files on the City website are
also displayed alphabetically rather than the order that they appear the actual
document. This may confuse some reviewers.
The real problem with the dEIR is the simple fact that it contains over 7300
pages of material. Trying to review this much material in 60 days is an
insurmountable task. While there may be some technical, and accessibility
issues, does the document meet CEQA guidelines for length and readability? --
Paul K Cathy Malkemus
In summary, and as demonstrated above and in the many comment letterslemails
submitted by the individuals listed above and referenced and included herein, the DEIR is
woefully inadequate and not sufficient to serve as a valuable or reliable inforniational
document for the public, the decision makers in the Cily of Newport Beach, other
responsible public agencies or the California Coastal Commission (who retains original
jurisdiction over this area ofdefenrcd certification that is the proposed project area) and
as required under CEQA. 'fhe Banning Ranch Conservancy hereby strongly requests
that the aforementioned 1)E112 be withdrawn, revised in compliance with CEQA
requirements and recirculated.
www.banningranchconservancy.org
;ont.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015tRTMRTC- o3rstzdac 3 -290 Responses to Environmental Comments
P 0 Box 16071
Newport Beach,
CA 97659 -6071
(310( 961 -7610
Please contact the undersigned at 310/961 -7610 or via email at
steve.banninrvanchfa hotmail.com for questions or for further information.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
SteveRay Isl
Steve Ray
Executive Director
Banning Ranch Conservancy
w banningranchconservancy. org
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
R\ProjectsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -291 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 01 Banning Ranch Conservancy
Steve Ray, Executive Director
November 8, 2011
Response1
The commenter's opinion regarding the adequacy of the EIR is noted. Please refer to the
specific responses provided to the commenters referenced in Comment 1 of this letter.
Response 2
Please refer to the response to Comment 1.
Response 3
The commenter's opinion regarding the adequacy of the EIR is noted.
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -292 Responses to Environmental Comments
Patrick J. Afford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 01 b
November 7, 2011
1857 Rhodes Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
4- CE1VED ay
COMMUNITY
NOV 07 2011
Re: Recorded media in support of comments from the Banning Ranch Conservancy
Dear Mr. Afford:
Attached are four (4) DVDs cc
Banning Ranch Conservancy.
comments
o30EVELOPMENT u.Z
Op NEwpox" 0y
They are labeled:
Vandersloot File
2008 Community Development Plan + Appendices: Consent Order; SRP, Measure M EOC: NB Council letter
• Banning Ranch Vernal pools/wetlands
• Sunset Ridge Park EIR comments
Please ensure that the contents of these DVDs become part of the public record in support of comments to the Newport
Banning Ranch DEIR.
Thank you,
Sincerely. /
��M11,(�
James T Mane Id k/�
VP, Banning Ranch Con rvancy
jtmansfield@ca.rr.com
R\ Projedswewpartul )l&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -293 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 01 b Banning Ranch Conservancy
James T. Mansfield, Vice President
November 7, 2011
Response1
The commenter submitted four disks to the City. Responses to the materials on each disk are
provided below. Most of the contents of the disks are not included in the Final EIR because
these documents are publicly available City documents and Staff Reports or superseded
materials submitted by the Applicant but they are summarized here in this Response to
Comments document and are included in the Administrative Record for this project. Where the
documents are not already matters of public record, they are included as Appendix B to this
Responses to Comments document.
Disk 1: Vandersloot File
Responses to the late Dr. Vandersloot's examples are provided below. Mr. Vandersloot and the
commenter are incorrect in stating that Location B75 was incorrectly mapped as non - native
grassland. The location identified by Dr. Vandersloot in 2008 was located at the northern portion
of the area mapped as willow riparian forest, which contains mule fat as described on page 4.6-
18 of the Draft EIR.
At Vandersloot location 8152, this area was mapped accurately as non - native grassland. The
presence of small areas of Encelia is not uncommon or unexpected in this area. Page 4.6 -14 of
the Draft EIR states that there are pockets of native species that were not mapped because
they were mowed to a height of less than six inches and could not be delineated. They may also
have been considered a significantly smaller portion of the larger habitat in the vicinity and
therefore, the larger vegetation type would have dominated over a small area of Encelia.
Given the lack of evidence presented in these samples, no significant discrepancies are
present. Vegetation mapping was conducted on numerous days in 2009 and 2010 by Senior
Botanist Sandy Leatherman of BonTerra Consulting who has over 20 years of experience in
plant biology and has mapped thousands of acres of habitat throughout Southern California. All
biological data in the EIR would be subject to review by applicable regulatory agencies as a part
of the permitting process for the proposed Project.
Disk 2: 2008 Community Development Plan and Appendices: Consent Order: Sunset Ridge
Park: Measure M EOC: Newport Beach Council Letter
Disk 2 contains the following information
• Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan and technical
appendices, dated August 2008
• California Coastal Commission Staff Report and attachments to the Staff Report dated
April 1, 2011. Subject: Consent Cease and Desist Order and Consent Restoration Order.
• California Coastal Commission Staff Report and attachments to the Staff Report dated
September 23, 2011; Staff Report and attachments to the Staff Report dated October
20, 2011. Subject: Coastal Development Permit for Sunset Ridge Park.
• Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Renewed Measure M Environmental
Oversight Committee data: Appendices A through H, dated December 2009; Exhibit
R\ RrgedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -294 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Santa Ana River Mouth Core Habitat Area: Positional Priority Levels with Priority
Conservation Areas, no date; Data: Acquisition Properties Evaluation (PCA and Non -
PCA — Biological Criteria), no date; City of Newport Beach letter to OCTA, dated April
15, 2009.
With respect to the Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan and
technical appendices dated August 2008, this information was submitted to the City by the
Applicant as a part of the Project Application for the proposed Project. The information on the
disk does not reflect the most current Planned Community Development Plan and technical
appendices used for the preparation of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
With respect to the California Coastal Commission Staff Report and attachments to the Staff
Report dated April 1, 2011 regarding the Consent Cease and Desist Order and Consent
Restoration Order, please refer to Topical Response: Sunset Ridge Park and Topical
Response: Coastal Commission Consent Orders.
With respect to the California Coastal Commission Staff Report and attachments to the Staff
Report dated September 23, 2011; Staff Report and attachments to the Staff Report dated
October 20, 2011 regarding the Coastal Development Permit for Sunset Ridge Park, please
refer to Topical Response: Sunset Ridge Park.
With respect to data submitted by the commenter related to the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) Renewed Measure M Environmental Oversight Committee data, the City is
familiar with this data. It does not relate directly with the Applicant's proposed Project. Please
refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR which identifies
several alternatives to Applicant's proposal including the General Plan Open Space Alternative
which would require purchase of the property from the Applicant. This alternative also requires
the remediation of the property, the restoration of biological resources, and the construction of a
20- to 30 -acre Community Park and a north -south roadway from West Coast Highway to 19'h
Street. No further response is required.
Disk 3: Banning Ranch Vernal Pools/Wetlands
This disk contains a PowerPoint presentation, Complete Banning Ranch Mesa Vernal
Pools/Wetlands, dated June 27, 2011. No author or preparer is identified. This information was
previously provided to the City. Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools.
Disk 4: Sunset Ridge Park EIR
This disk includes the comments and responses to the comments submitted to the City of
Newport Beach on the Sunset Ridge Park Draft EIR. The Final EIR was certified and the park
project approved on March 23, 2010. No further response is required.
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -295 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 02
Banning Ranch Defenders
��W��M
Patrick. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Alford
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) (State
Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) for the proposed Newport Banning Project. These comments are
submitted on behalf of the Banning Ranch Defenders (BRD) organization.
The Banning Ranch Defenders is an organization that is working to preserve the entire parcel of coastal
open. space. The BRD has concern s that the proposed development will devastate the rich and
abundant biological habitat, increase adverse traffic congestion through the streets of Costa Mesa, and
the heights of the higher density portions of the Village Colony building are too high thus restricting and
sealing off sights, sounds, smells and breezes of the Pacific Ocean from Westside Costa Mesa. residents.
We support the option as identified in the city of Newport Beach's General Plan which is to maintain
100% of Banning Ranch as open space.
Biological
As documented bytop biologists Banning Ranch is an area where many species of interests that are
protected and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) exist. This species include the California
Gnatcatcher, Least Bell's Vireos, Cactus Wren and the Burrowing Owl. It should be noted that the
developers, to no surprise, have denied the existence of the Burrowing Owl on the Banning Ranch
property, however, evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the Burrowing Owls to thrive on the land.
The Banning Ranch property is vital to coastal scrub habitat and encelia scrub. This coastal scrub is
essential to the survival of the California Gnatcatcher. Due to the illegal mowing that has been occurring
on Banning Ranch, the aforementioned coastal and enceli a scm b was disturbed. It is this organization's
opinion that the mowing was conducted to eliminate any and all habitat; therefore, the developers
could argue the property is a barren wasteland and not the thriving ecosystem that it actually is.
1 i
R: Troject sWewpodu01 5�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -296 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The city of Newport Beach and the developers are not in compliance with the California Coastal Act
which states all ESHA's must be fully protected. The proposed Bluff Road and other proposed roads will
either fragment, or entirely destroy the ESHA's that exist on the property. This devastation is the reason
why the California Coastal Commission correctly denied any and all permits for the first section of Bluff
Road and Sunset Ridge Park.
Traffic
Placentia and Victoria Avenues cannot accommodate any increase in vehicular traffic. An estimated
34,000 vehicle trips per day will be added to our streets. An estimated 75% of project trips will be
routed through Costa Mesa. The Westside of Costa Mesa is the only area regionally that does not have
cut-through traffic. 151", 161", and 171h streets may require widening, in order to accommodate the
increased traffic flow. 17 "' and 19"' streets, in Costa Mesa, already have low LOS standards. The
increase of traffic to these intersections will result in Level -of- Service standard F.
While the Newport Banning LLC has downplayed the 19 "' Street bridge being necessary for project; the
bridge is still on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
The continuing problems with the SR -55 and Newport Boulevard will not be cured in the near future.
Current estimates have any major improvements on the SR -55 not occurring before 10 -15 years.
Therefore, the SR -55 cannot accommodate satisfactorily any increase in traffic loads.
Building Heights
The higher density portions of the development are to be abutted next to Costa Mesa. Height
requirements are 60' which equates to 4 to S story buildings. This higher density phase is being called
the "Urban Flats' however there is nothing "flat" about the project as it is a mountain sized building.
Due to the height, width, and length of the building it will block the ocean views, smells, sounds and
breezes of the Pacific Ocean. Costa Mesa is working to revitalize its Westside and is dependent on the
views of the ocean.
Truly,
Chris Bunyan
President, Banning Ranch Defenders
P.O. Box 3133
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
714.865.9746
R: Fro juts Wewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -297 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 02 Banning Ranch Defenders
Chris Bunyan, President
November 8, 2011
Response1
The Draft EIR identifies the presence of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) on site in
several locations throughout the document. The Draft EIR documented that suitable foraging
and nesting habitat is present on site and this species has been observed wintering on site in
2008, 2009, and 2010. However this species is absent for breeding based on breeding season
surveys conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Impacts on occupied and potential habitat for this
species were found to be significant in the Draft EIR (page 4.6 -62). Implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -12 would reduce the impact on this species to a less than significant
level (page 4.6 -89).
Response 2
Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification. Permitted mowing associated
with ongoing oilfield operations has not eliminated all of the on -site habitat. Please refer to
Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR which identifies that the Project site supports
native habitat (coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, grassland depression features,
marshes and mudflats, riparian scrub /forest, disturbed riparian scrub /forest, and cliff) that
provide valuable habitat for native plant and wildlife resources.
Response 3
Please refer to Topical Response: ESHA. With respect to Sunset Ridge Park, the Coastal
Commission has not taken action on the City's public park project; please refer to Topical
Response: Sunset Ridge Park.
Response 4
The Project is estimated to generate 14,989 vehicle trips per day. The Traffic Impact Analysis
indicated that approximately 5 percent of the Project traffic would travel along Placentia north of
17th Street. Project traffic is not shown to travel along Victoria in Costa Mesa since other streets
provide a more direct path of travel to off -site destinations. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates
that a composite of approximately 65 percent of the Project traffic can be expected to travel
along the street system in southwest Costa Mesa. The impact on the southwest Costa Mesa
streets was addressed in the Draft EIR Traffic Impact Analnis. The resulting traffic volumes do
not indicate the need for widening of 151h 16th 17tH or 19t Street. The Project's impact on the
peak hour operation of intersections along these streets was evaluated, and mitigation
measures have been identified for any intersections that would experience a significant Project
impact.
Response 5
Because the 191M1 Street Bridge is
part of the area roadway networ
because of the uncertainty of th
Buildout without the bridge was
informational purposes. It should
assume the 19th Street Bridge.
shown on the Orange County MPAH, it was assumed to be
k for all of the General Plan Buildout scenarios. In addition,
timing of the bridge, a separate analysis of General Plan
also provided in the Draft EIR Traffic Impact Analysis for
be noted that the Year 2016 traffic analysis scenarios do not
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -298 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 6
The traffic forecast and analysis for future General Plan Buildout conditions assume SR -55 and
Newport Boulevard improvements to be completed as shown on the Orange County MPAH. The
Draft EIR acknowledges that other alternative improvements to Newport Boulevard are currently
under study.
Response 7
The proposed 4- to 5 -story Urban Colony buildings could be located on both the north and south
side of 17th Street. As addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, and
Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, both the City of Costa Mesa's Mesa West Bluffs
Urban Plan area and the proposed Project's Urban Colony would have a maximum building
height of 60 feet. Potential future residential and live /work land uses within the Mesa West Bluffs
Urban Plan area would be similar in use and height as those proposed for the Urban Colony.
However, the Urban Colony would permit a much higher residential density (40 du /ac compared
to 13 du /ac) and non - residential intensity (2.0 to 2.5 FAR compared to 1.0 FAR) of development
when compared to the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area. The maximum lot coverage for the
proposed Project is also greater (90 percent compared to 60 percent). The Project's Urban
Colony would provide an approximate setback 28 to 40 feet or more from the adjacent off -site
industrial uses. Properties located within the boundaries of the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan
Area are located contiguous to the eastern boundary of the Project site. These properties have
a Costa Mesa General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of
General Industrial. The Costa Mesa City Council identifies the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan
area as a live /work or residential overlay area. Costa Mesa's Zoning Map was amended to
reflect this overlay zone.
It should be noted that the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan does not reference views of the Pacific
Ocean.
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -299 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 03
CC D A California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc.
PAL Sot 54173 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for
bvhw G 926194172 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources.
November 3, 2011 ,scevEo 9y
COMMON TY
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department NOV p ;
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768 cj� DEVELOPMENT
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 of 0Er
NEWPORZ
Dear Mr. Alford:
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project development
not only because it will impact significant archaeological sites, but also because of the impacts to
endangered species and habitat. Given the loss of so many significant archaeological sites in Orange
County due to development, it is tragic that only three out of I 1 archaeological sites in the Newport
Banning Ranch Project area have escaped total destruction. All three sites have been determined eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR). This makes it all the more important that the three archaeological sites CA -ORA -839,
CA- ORA -844B, and CA-ORA -906 be protected and preserved and not "mitigated ".
Having registered our opposition to the proposed project, the remainder of this letter will address the
specifics of the proposed mitigation plans. While BonTerra Consulting is to be commended for
recommending preservation of portions of two of the sites through site capping and the City is to be
commended for incorporating the recommendations into their mitigation plan, we question why all of the
remaining portions of the NRHP and CRHR eligible sites cannot be preserved.
According to MM 4.13.2, an unknown portion of CA-ORA -839 will be impacted by planned removal of
oilfield - related infrastructure prior to grading. It is not clear why, if the road will not impact the site,
"planned removal of oilfield infrastructure that may impact portions of the site." is necessary. What is the
justification for the removal? Leaving it in place is not only cost effective, as removal of the oilfield
infrastructure and archaeological data recovery are time consuming and expensive; but given the 2
magnitude of losses to the prehistoric site inventory on the property, the significance of the site, and the
inadequacy of data recovery excavations as mitigation for destruction, preservation should be mandatory.
It is also troubling that the areal extent of the impacts is not identified and therefore, the portion of the site
to be capped could be very minimal.
The MM 4.13 -2 should describe the areal extent of the portion of the site described as' the vast majority
of the site" and the areal extent that would be impacted by the planned removal of the oilfield
infrastructure. Saying that `9t should be possible to preserve the vast majority of the site in place in 3
perpetuity to avoid further disturbance to it." is not sufficient. The MM 4.12.2 should identify the extent
of the area to be preserved and state that the site will be capped following guidance provided by the
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -300 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
National Park Service's brief 45 Intentional Site Burial: A Technique to Protect Against Natural
or Mechanical Loss (NPS 1989, revised 1991).
CA- ORA -844B would not be directly impacted by the proposed development. The proposed
road would be 400 feet east of the archaeological site. It will be impacted by oil infrastructure
removal activities prior to grading. Again why does the oil infrastructure have to be removed?
What is the grading for if the road would be approx 400 ft east of the site? Also indirect impacts
from additional erosion of the unstable surface and the increased population on the site as a result
of the future development could cause further damage over time. Mitigation of the Project's
adverse effects is required. What mitigation? Data recovery? Why not preservation through site
stabilization and capping?
CA -ORA -906 will be directly impacted as a result of road construction and oilfield
infrastructure removal.
Bottom line: Out of 1 I archaeological sites, only 3 have not been destroyed to the extent that
they retain the potential to provide information important in prehistory and therefore are eligible.
But due to the proposed development, all three will be impacted. "The impact would be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MMs 4.13 -1 and
4.13 -2." This statement reflects the outdated thinking that the only value of an archaeological
site is scientific information. If you recover the information through data recovery excavations,
you are good to go. This does not take into consideration cultural, heritage, and religious
values. It also does not recognize the fact that the time and monetary constraints of
archaeological excavation, and the current science of archaeology, are not capable of recovering
sufficient information before the site is destroyed.
In recognition of this, federal historic preservation laws no longer allow a "no adverse effect
determination" or in CEQA parlance "reduction of potential impacts to a level considered less
than significant" through data recovery mitigation. Archaeological sites are fragile and non-
renewable. Archaeology as it is practiced today is a destructive process. It is essential that the
remaining areas of these highly significant archaeological sites be preserved for future
generations with advanced archaeological techniques that are non - destructive and that can
provide answers to questions that we can't answer with today's technology.
In summary, the 3 remaining archaeological sites should be avoided, capped, and preserved. If
you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 559 -6490.
Sincerely,
Patricia Martz, Ph.D. / !/
President
3 cont.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3isrzdoe 3 -301 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 03 California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance
Patricia Martz, Ph.D., President
November 3, 2011
Response1
Three cultural resources, (CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906), qualify for NRHP
and CRHR eligibility. Preservation is, of course, a form of mitigation and has been
recommended. The reason for mitigation by data recovery excavation is because the removal of
oilfield infrastructure may impact limited areas of a site. While the removal of oilfield
infrastructure fulfills other environmental mitigation measures (toxic waste), non - removal of the
infrastructure would be agreeable to Cultural Resource management if feasible. If buried oilfield
infrastructure could remain in place, there would be no impact to CA -ORA -839 and CA -ORA-
844B and they could be entirely preserved in place; however, such a determination cannot be
made until remediation activities begin. Grading for road construction would destroy CA -ORA-
906, making excavation necessary.
Response 2
The Draft EIR analysis has assumed that removal of oilfield infrastructure was necessary;
however, it may indeed be possible to leave some of it in place if its removal would impact sites.
While the removal of oilfield infrastructure fulfills other environmental mitigation measures (toxic
waste), non - removal of the infrastructure would be agreeable to cultural resource management
if feasible. If buried oilfield infrastructure could remain in place, there would be no impact to CA-
ORA -839 and CA -ORA -8448 and they could be entirely preserved in place; however, grading
for road construction would destroy CA -ORA -906, making excavation necessary.
Response 3
The specific dimensions of preservation of the site by capping are dependent on two unknown
variables. The exact location and areal extent of the oilfield infrastructure is not definitively
known, and the technique of infrastructure removal (e.g., with heavy equipment) is not known
and would affect the area of impact. If buried oilfield infrastructure could remain in place, there
would be no impact to CA -ORA -839 and it could be entirely preserved in place.
Response 4
The specific dimensions of preservation of the site by capping are dependent on two unknown
variables. The exact location and areal extent of the oilfield infrastructure is not definitively
known, and the technique of infrastructure removal (e.g., with heavy equipment) is not known
and would affect the area of impact. If buried oilfield infrastructure could remain in place, there
would be no impact to CA -ORA -8448 and it may be able to be preserved in place. The erosion
that has already occurred at the site may make capping difficult but not entirely infeasible.
Response 5
The removal of oilfield infrastructure and grading for construction of a road would destroy CA-
ORA -906. It would therefore be infeasible to preserve the site. Data recovery is the only feasible
option unless the design of the road is changed to avoid the site. Realignment of the road would
result in other environmental impacts including those related to sensitive biological resources
and topographical issues.
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -302 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 6
Mitigation by data collection is not `outdated," it is the CEQA/Section 106 preferential means of
mitigation if mitigation by preservation is not available. Oilfield infrastructure removal is required,
making mitigation of those portions of the sites necessary. If buried oilfield infrastructure could
remain in place, there would be no impact to CA -ORA -839 and CA- ORA -844B and they could
be entirely preserved in place; however, grading for road construction would destroy CA -ORA-
906, making excavation necessary.
Cultural, heritage, and religious values were considered during Native American consultation
under SB 18. No concerns regarding these values in relationship to the preservation of the sites
were brought up during consultation.
Response 7
If it is not feasible to preserve sites through capping, data recovery excavation is the only means
necessary to mitigate the sites or those portions being impacted by development. While the
proposed Project would have an adverse impact on the three significant sites, MM 4.13 -2 would
reduce the adverse effect by accommodating the needs of all concerned, serving the public
interest, and promoting the protection and preservation of the majority of the sites.
Response 8
Grading would destroy CA -ORA -906 and the removal of oilfield infrastructure would damage
portions of CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906. If feasible, and if construction plans
can be altered, the three sites would be avoided, capped, and preserved.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -303 Responses to Environmental Comments
California Native Plant Society
O R A N G E C O U N T Y C H A P T E R
The mission of the
California Native Plant
Society Is to conserve
California native plants
and their natural
habitats, and to
increase understanding,
appreciation, and
horticultural use of
native plants.
OCCNP5 focuses that
mission on the native
plants and remaining
areas of natural
vegetation In Orange
County and adjacent
Southern California.
Patrick Alford
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
RE: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
Dear Sir:
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 04
qu bo�54891
vine. CA 92619 -4891
u cnps.urg
November 7.2011
The Orange County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society has long
had an interest in Newport Banning Ranch. Despite its long - degraded
condition, it still contains quite a variety of functioning native coastal upland.
riparian and wetland habitats, including vernal pools. We are concerned that
the pools' restoration and maintenance be done correctly and result in their
forming a stable, viable native habitat.
I. The seven vernal pools on site, totaling a half -acre in area, were so
designated because they host San Diego fairy shrimp (Table 4.6 -5),
although most lack any other vernal pool indicators. At the time of the
Biological Resources studies, only the largest pool contained any native
plant species that characterize vernal pool habitat (p. 4.6 -33). MM 4.6 -3
calls for restoration by seeding/planting with appropriate vernal pool
species, incorporating on -site collected seed if appropriate. but no
species list is given. The vernal pool restoration plant palette provided in
Appendix K. Attachment 3, lists species that are mostly more
characteristic of alkali/subsaline wetlands than of vernal pools. This
palette does not appear to be appropriate for the purposes of MM 4.6 -3.
2. MM 4.6 -3 states that the vernal pool preservation/enhancement areas
total 3.58 acres. Table 3.2 lists the Vernal Pool Preservation Area (Site
Planning Area Id) as 3.2 acres. Which is right?
3. The location of the Vernal Pool Preservation Area (Site Planning Area
Id) and Vernal Pool Interpretive Area (Site Planning Area 9b) should be
specifically identified on Exhibit 3.2. Their location in relation to the
proposed plan is not clear until Exhibit 3 -15, despite being discussed in
the text that is between the two Exhibits.
4. Exhibit 4.8 -8 shows that the Vernal Pool Preservation Area is in a high -
visibility site. In that site, especially, the vernal pools are potentially a
unique community amenity and a valuable example of the subtle beauty
and seasonal changes of authentic Southern California.
1
9
E1
F1
R \ProjedsWewpe0U0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -304 Responses to Environmental Comments
September 13, 2011
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
page 2of2
5.
Appendix K. Fire Protection, Fire and Life Safegy Program, p. 5 states: 41)nc. edge of the Vernal Pool
Watershed Area will be developed with Ironies. Asir- foot -high radiant heat wall [typically a solid
masonry wally shall be constructed along this residential edge [emphasis added[. This will ... will
provide protection for the homes from a fine origuratine in that area:' Having such a wall along one
side of dnc Arca, with rooflinus immediately beyond, will destroy the "wide-open field" setting that is
an essential part of die vernal pools habitat. OCCNPS. requests that those 10 units of Planning Area
101) be removed, thus removing the fire danger and die need for the wall. '[lie vernal pools should be
surrounded by as wide an open space as possible.
6.
The Cut and Pill \dap, Exhibit 3 -17, indicates [fiat much of the Venial Pool Preservation Area will be
higher limn its immediate surroundings. Flow much higher does not appear to be included in the
DEIR documentation. It maybe inferred from the Blull'Restoration Plan, Exhibit 4.3 -6, that the
Area's northerly comer will be slightly higher than street Icvel and at its southerly comer the street
will be some feet lower. '['his perches the pools on a mesa, and limits Ihev e;dershed to the 3 +acres
ofthe.4rea. It's not clear how much area drains toward the pools at present, but Exhibit 3 -17
suggsts that it's somewhat more than 3+ acres. Since a vernal pool is a low spot into which rain
watercollects, its ability to sustainably support its plants and animals - -in this case, especially the
endangered San Diego Fairy shrimp -- depends on having a big enough catchment area. Three -plus
acres does not look like enough catclunenl for these vernal pools.
7.
N&I 4.6- -3 calls for the Vernal Pool Preservation Pu-ca watershed to be planted with native alkali
meadow or native upland grasses favorable for raptor foraging, but no species list is given. The Arca
watershed would then be `counted" as part of the overall project's required acreage for grassland
mitigation /restoration. Appendix K, Attachment 3, includes a Venial Pool Watershed Area plant
palette that lists three appropriate grasses as well as nine non -grass species. Four of these are more
likely to be found in alkali /subsaline wetlands and four are more likely to be found in coastal sage -
scrub. If these species are planted in this area instead of mostly grasses, the area will not contribute to
the overall acreage ofgrassland.
3.
The Venial Pool Walcmd ed Area plant palette in Appendix K, Attachment 3, includes coastal prickly -
pear and coastal cholla. These two species are found in grasslands and could provide raptor perches
once grown big enough, as well as habitat for various birds and small animals. And the cacti could
form an elrmtive natural barrier to deter visitors 1}om roaming oil -path. But there could be liability
issues with its presence in a public park in a high - visibility, potentially high - visitation site.
9.
A great deal of restoration fund'ung and effort will be applied to the Venial Pool Piescivalion.4rea. It
would be a waste of lhatfunding and effort if any plants known to be invasive are allowed to be
insta lied as landscaping an�ivhci c with in the avers ll development. It is good that, under NI\44.6 -14
and hLVi 4.6 -16, invasive species will be officially contraindicated and residents will be advised of
the responsibilities of living in the Wildlanl -Urban Interface in coastal Orange County.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Newport Banning Ranch MR.
Respecdolly,
Celia Kulchcr
Conservation Clnah
R:TrojectsWewpod JO15�RTMRTC- o315rzdoe 3 -305 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 04 California Native Plant Society, Orange County Chapter
Celia Kutcher, Conservation Chair
November 7, 2011
Response1
As described in Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.6 -3 in the Draft EIR, the "Applicant shall be required
to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain a vernal pool preservation /restoration program for the
Project. A vernal pool program shall be developed by a qualified Biologist and shall be
submitted for review and approval to the City of Newport Beach (City) and the resource
agencies (i.e., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and the California Coastal
Commission) prior to the first action and /or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g.,
issuance of a grading permit) ". Of particular importance here will be the review and concurrence
of the plan by the USFWS who has the regulatory jurisdiction of the areas occupied by the fairy
shrimp.
The "vernal pool restoration plant palette" provided in the Fire Protection technical report
(Appendix K, Attachment 3 of the Draft EIR), lists species that are compatible with the Fire
Protection plan. The comment is noted that several of the plant species listed may not be
suitable for the site. The ultimate plant pallet would be part of the Habitat Restoration Plan
(HRP) for the Project site that would be required to be developed as part of the Project
permitting process with the USFWS. The final plant list would take into consideration soil types
present, alkalinity of soils, site hydrology, and compatibility with the goals of long term survival
of the fairy shrimp on the site.
Response 2
The correct number is 3.58 acres, as noted in MM 4.6 -3 of the Draft EIR, which include the
preservation and restoration of these features on site. Table 3 -2 on page 3 -35 has been revised
to incorporate footnote f and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows (see following page):
Response 3
The location of the Vernal Pool Preservation Area (Site Planning Area 1d) and Vernal Pool
Interpretive Area (Site Planning Area 9b) are located on Exhibit 3.2 of the Draft EIR. The call -
outs 1d and 9b can be found within the planning areas on the exhibit.
Response 4
The comment is noted.
Response 5
Vernal pools VP -1 (0.30 acre) and VP -2 (0.02 acre) would be surrounded by an additional
3.26 acres of habitat and supporting watershed. This represents an existing habitat to
conservation ratio of approximately 10:1. This level of mitigation is adequate to reduce the level
of impact to a less than significant level.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -306 Responses to Environmental Comments
Section 3.0
TABLE 3 -2
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Response 6
During the rainy season of 2009/2010, the Applicant's consultants Glenn Lukos Associates and
Fuscoe Engineering conducted a detailed watershed mapping study for the area of Vernal Pools
1 and 2 based on a topographic survey at an accuracy of 0.1 foot contour and actual
observations of water movement in the watershed during significant rainfall events (specifically
during the period of January 18 through 21, 2010 which was part of a six -day series of storms
that accounted for 6.46 inches of rainfall). Based On the detailed topographic mapping and the
direct observation of water movement, it was concluded that the watershed for Vernal Pools 1
and 2 covered 1.85 acres. In the post- Project condition, the watershed would be increased to
3.58 acres and configured to ensure proper drainage to the features while also allowing for
restoration and expansion of pools within the 3.58 -acre Vernal Pool Preservation and
Restoration Area.
RTrojectsWewp.0uOl 1RTMRTC -031512.tlec 3 -307 Responses to Environmental Comments
Density
Gross
Net
(dul
Retail
Resort
Land Use
Site Planning Area
Acres'
Acres a
gross ac)
Units
(sf)d
Inn
Designation
No.
I Description
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
1. Upland Habitat Conservation, Restoration, and Mitigation Areas
UOS /PTF
1a
West Coast Highway Bluff Area
15.3
14.3
-
0
0
0
UOS /PTF
1b
Southern Arroyo CSS /Grassland
28.3
28.0
-
0
0
0
Area
UOS /PTF
1c
Scenic Bluff CSS /Grassland Area
13.0
13.0
-
0
0
0
UOS /PTF
1d
Vernal Pool Preservation Area
3.21
3.2'
-
0
0
0
UOS /PTF
1e
South Upland CSS /Grassland
19.4
18.1
-
0
0
0
Area
UOS /PTF
1f
Northern Arroyo Grassland Area
5.8
5.5
-
0
0
0
UOS /PTF
1g
North Upland CSS /Grassland
16.3
13.5
-
0
0
0
Area
UOS /PTF
1h
Minor Arroyo Grassland Area
1.2
1.1
-
0
0
0
Subtotal
102.5
96.7
-
0
-
0
Gross acres of site planning areas are measured to the centerline of all public roads where such roads are shown on the Master
Development Plan. Net acres of site planning areas are measured to the edge of the rights -of -way for all public roads where such
roads are shown on the Master Development Plan (i.e., net acres exclude public road rights -of -way).
The Right -of -Way Reservation for the 4' Street extension, from the Project site's easterly boundary to the Santa Ana River,
encompasses approximately 3.1 acres, including approximately 0.6 acre of SPA 1g, 2.3 acres of SPA 2a, and 0.2 acre of SPA 3b.
The Bluff Toe Trail is located within the non - exclusive access easement identified as Site Plan Area (SPA) 51b, Oil Access Road.
Up to 2,500 sf of commercial may be transferred to a Residential Land Use District in accordance with the provisions of the NBR -PC
provided the total area of commercial uses for the Master Development Plan does not exceed 75,000 sf.
Includes a water quality basin.
c The drainage area trihutary to the vernal pool contains approximately 3 6 acres and is composed not only of the 3.2 net arras in
SPA 1d. Vernal Pool Preservation Area. but 0.4 net acre of the 0.6 net acre in SPA 9b, Vernal Pool Interpretive Area. Any and all
jQJerpLefiye=plgqjmiQg within SPA 9h shall resnect the 3.6 -acre vernal Ponl trihutary drainage area_ and meet with the apnmval of th
State and federal resource agencies and the California Coastal Commission
Source: FORMA 2011.
Response 6
During the rainy season of 2009/2010, the Applicant's consultants Glenn Lukos Associates and
Fuscoe Engineering conducted a detailed watershed mapping study for the area of Vernal Pools
1 and 2 based on a topographic survey at an accuracy of 0.1 foot contour and actual
observations of water movement in the watershed during significant rainfall events (specifically
during the period of January 18 through 21, 2010 which was part of a six -day series of storms
that accounted for 6.46 inches of rainfall). Based On the detailed topographic mapping and the
direct observation of water movement, it was concluded that the watershed for Vernal Pools 1
and 2 covered 1.85 acres. In the post- Project condition, the watershed would be increased to
3.58 acres and configured to ensure proper drainage to the features while also allowing for
restoration and expansion of pools within the 3.58 -acre Vernal Pool Preservation and
Restoration Area.
RTrojectsWewp.0uOl 1RTMRTC -031512.tlec 3 -307 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 7
As discussed in the response to Comment 1, "vernal pool restoration plant palette" provided in
the Fire Protection technical report, lists species that are compatible with the Fire Protection
plan and are not necessarily the plants that would be used in the final plant pallet for the vernal
pool watershed areas. The final plant list would be part of the Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP)
for the Project site and would be consistent with the mitigation requirements of Mitigation
Measure (MM) 4.6 -3. The planting of native alkali meadow species such as saltgrass (Distichlis
spicata) or native upland grasses such as purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) would be
beneficial to raptor foraging opportunities in the area and would therefore be seasonably be
"counted" toward grassland habitat.
Response 8
The Open Space Preserve area of Planning Area ld would not have public access, except for
those areas along the walkway within the interpretive area. Any planting of cacti within this open
space area is not expected to be problematic.
Response 9
The comment is noted
RTrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -308 Responses to Environmental Comments
November 4, 2011
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 05
www.kenrredycommistion.org
17701 Cowan Ave, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949 250 0909
fm 909 263 0647
RE: Newport Banning Ranch Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Alford,
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and
community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families
earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been
successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create strategic and
effective housing and land -use policies that has led to new construction of homes affordable to
lower income working families.
The Commission would like to thank the City for providing the community an opportunity to
submit comments on the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR). As the City begins to evaluate and address the potential environmental effects of
the proposed project, the Commission would like to address a few concerns regarding the
proposed project and provide recommendations that should be taken into consideration.
Affordability for Extremely Low, Very Low and Low- Income Households
For the 2006 -2014 Housing Element planning period, the City's total Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), including the unaccommodated portion of the 2000 -2005 RHNA, for
lower income households are: 451 homes at very low - income, 319 homes at low- income and;
442 homes at moderate - income.' To address the remaining RHNA needs, the City identified
opportunity sites such as Banning Ranch as land suitable for residential development.'
It is important that every jurisdiction meet the housing needs of all income segments of the
community and the Commission commends the City's leadership for proposing the construction
of a minimum of 50percent of the required affordable homes in Banning Ranch. The development
proposes 1,375 homes and includes the following: 69 homes at very low - income (5 percent of
total homes); 138 homes at low- income (10 percent of total homes) or; 206 homes at moderate -
income (15 percent of total homes).
City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element Draw, p. 545, August 2011.
t City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element Draft, p. 548, August 2011.
' Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume 1, Newport Banning Ranch Project, City of Newport Beach, p. 4.7.15, Sept. 2011.
Working for systemic change resulting in the production of housing for Orange County's extremely low income households.
R \ProjedsWewpartU0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -309 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Mr. Patrick J. Alford
November 4, 2011
Page 2 of 4
While the City requires at least 15 percent of the total homes in Banning Ranch to be affordable
to lower income families, the Commission is concerned that the opportunity to meet some of the
City's R}INA need for very low- and low- income homes may not achieved. To meet the City's
affordable housing obligation, developers are given the option to provide: 1) 15 percent of total
units at very low- and low- income OR; 2) 15 percent of total units at moderate income OR; 3)
15 percent of total units at a combination of very -low, low- and moderate - income homes.' With
these options, developers may opt out of building homes affordable to very low- and low- income
working families and instead focus on the option of building homes for moderate- income
families.
The 2011 Orange County income limits for a moderate income four person household is $84,200
and is significantly higher than the incomes of working families earning minimum wages.5
Moderate income housing developments are generally affordable to moderate- and above
moderate- income wage earners. These housing needs are traditionally met by market rate
developments that are not affordable to low -wage earners. In particular, the proposed project
anticipates a total development capacity of 75,000 s.f. of commerical uses, a 75 -room resort inn
and an opportunity for increased economic opportunities.6 It is projected that 422 new full -time
and part-time employment opportunities (247 retail jobs and 175 resort inn jobs) will be created
with "varying salaries including minimum wage positions.s7 A majority of these jobs will be
service sectorjobs that have earnings of less than a moderate income household.
Since 2006, the City has built 270 homes and all of these homes were market -rate and above -
moderate income homes .8 Between 2010 and 2025, Banning Ranch is projected to represent 48
percent of the City's total new units and provides an opportunity to address the City's remaining
RI-INA needs for extremely low -, very low- and low- income households. To ensure the proposed
project's objective to offer a "variety of housing types in a range of housing prices, including the
provision of affordable housing to meet RHNA, "la the Commission recommends the City to
remove moderate- income homes from it's housing requirements in Banning Ranch. The City
instead should set the 15 percent affordable home requirements on extremely low -, very low- and
low- income homes in Banning Ranch.
' Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I, Newpon Banning Ranch Project, City of Newport Beach, p. 4.7 -15, Sept. 2011.
s California Department of Housing and Community Development, O.C. Income Limits for 2011, July 2011.
6 Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I, Newport Banning Ranch Project, City of Newport Beach, p. 1 -3, Sept. 2011.
' Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I, Newport Banning Ranch Project, City of Newport Beach, p. 4.7 -16, Sept. 2011
' Dmft Environmental Impact Report Volume I, Newport Banning Ranch Project, City ofNewpon Beach, p. 4.7 -15, Sept. 2011.
Dmft Environmental Impact Repon Volume I, Newport Banning Ranch Project. City ofNewpon Beach, p. 4.7 -15, Sept. 2011.
10 Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I, Newpon Banning Ranch Project, City ofNewpon Beach, p. 1 -6. Sept. 2011.
RT rojecta WawpnMJ015tRTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -310 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Mr. Patrick J. Alford
November 4, 2011
Page 3 of 4
Addressing and Mitigating Environmental Impacts
With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families,
especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live in the city they work in.
Compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significantly higher in Newport
Beach and simply out of reach for extremely low -, very low- and low- income families. In 2007,
the median home price in Newport Beach was $1,485,00011 and rents ranged from $1,099 for a
one - bedroom up to $3,040 for a three- bedroom apartment. 12 Theses impacts not only hurt
workers and families but may also have negative environmental impacts to the City. In
particular, the environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person
can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work in. With
low wages and high housing costs, many workers live in other cities and become dependant on
their automobile to commute to and from work and other destinations. These trips may increase
traffic congestion and air pollutants that not only negatively impact the environment but also the
quality of life for the community. Locating homes, specifically affordable homes, near transit,
job centers and neighborhood services will decrease the environmental impacts of traffic
congestion, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions.
In Orange County, many residents are heavily dependent on driving on a daily basis. In 2009,
the average commute time to work for Orange County residents was approximately 26 minutes
and approximately 78percent of commuters drove alone. 13 Improving location accessibility and
connectivity reduces the dependency for residents, especially for lower income households and
workers, to drive their automobiles. This will lead to decreased environmental impacts and will
contribute to Banning Ranch's objective to create "cohesive neighborhoods... a system of
pedestrian walkways and bikeways that connect residential neighborhoods, commercial uses,
parks, open space... and reduces overall vehicle miles travelled. "14 The project will also align
with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the
City implement and comply with SB 375 goals of reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions.
To ensure the impacts are identified and mitigated, the Commission would like the draft EIR to
also address the City's jobs- housing "fit." Different from jobs- housing balance, which evaluates
the number ofjobs to the number of homes in a specific geographic location, thejobs- housing fit
provides a more detailed analysis. The jobs - housing fit analyzes the discrepancies between the
types ofjobs and wages (especially for low -wage jobs) that will be created in a City and the
housing costs and opportunities that are available in the City. Simply stated, will an individual
working at a new job that has been generated from a development be able to afford to live in the
City that he /she is working in?
City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element Draft, p. 5 -30, August 2011.
10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element Draft, p. 5 -31, August 2011.
Orange County 2011 Community Indicators, Children & Families Commission of Orange County, p. 25, 2011.
14 Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume 1, Newport Banning Ranch Project, City of Newport Beach, p. 1 -7. Sept. 2011.
R:TrojectslNewpnMJ015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -311 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Mr. Patrick J. Alford
November 4, 2011
Page 4 of 4
Recommendation
The variety of residential and commercial developments in the proposed Newport Beach
Banning Ranch Project should be an environmentally sustainable, economically competitive and
opportunity rich development. The effectiveness and success of the proposed project will be
dependent on the City's leadership to thoroughly analyze and address the environmental impacts
of the proposed project. The Commission recommends the draft EIR analysis to:
I . Remove moderate - income homes from the Banning Ranch Project affordable home
requirements.
2. Set the 15 percent affordable home requirements on extremely low -, very low- and low -
income homes in the Banning Ranch Project.
3. Provide a detailed jobs- housing "fit" analysis.
4. Continue with meaningful outreach and incorporate public comments . in the Banning
Ranch Project planning process.
The Commission looks forward to hearing the City's response to our concerns and partnering
with the City to achieve our mutually beneficially goals in creating more livable and
economically competitive communities to all working families in the City. The Commission also
welcomes the opportunity to continue our dialogue that will result in the production of new 4
homes affordable to extremely low, very low and low- income working families.
Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings and proposed changes in the Newport Beach
Banning Ranch EIR. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (949) 250 -0909 or
cesarc@kennedycommission.org.
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarru ias
Executive Director
cc: Cathy Creswell, State Department of Housing and Community Development
Pauline Chow, Public Law Center
R: Troject sWewpnMJO15�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -312 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 05 The Kennedy Commission
Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director
November 4, 2011
Response1
The recommendation of The Kennedy Commission is noted regarding setting the Project's
affordable housing requirement at 15 percent for extremely low -, very low -, and low- income
units. The growth data cited is based on Center for Demographic research estimates. Adequate
housing opportunity sites that can accommodate all ranges of affordability are indentified in the
Housing Element Sites Inventory. Furthermore, HCD has identified a need for 442 moderate
units in this planning period, some of which are proposed as part of this Project.
Response 2
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) states that "a balance between
jobs and housing in metropolitan region can be defined as a provision of adequate supply of
housing to house workers employed in a defined area (i.e., community or sub - region) ". Section
4.7, Population, Housing, and Employment, of the Draft EIR does recognize that housing
demand created by these jobs would be met by (1) existing units in the City; (2) projected future
units in the City; (3) the proposed 1,375 residential units, including affordable housing
associated with Project; and (4) dwelling units elsewhere in OC and larger SCAG region.
The proposed Project anticipates the creation of 422 jobs anticipated to be created with
between 69 and 206 affordable units proposed on -site and /or off -site within the City (or in -lieu
fee for portion). These new units would address a portion of jobs created from Project. Existing
rental housing opportunities exist within the City and region to address the remaining need.
Current vacancy rates for housing in City (2010 Census) is 12.3 percent meaning there is
sufficient housing opportunities in the area. City is collecting in -lieu housing fees on other
residential projects that would contribute toward the creation of new affordable housing
opportunities in this planning period and future planning periods.
The commenter is incorrect in stating that Section 19.54.080.A of the City's Municipal Code
states that an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) must include all the noted items.
The contents of an AHIP are identified in Section 20.54.060; the draft AHIP includes these
contents. Section 19.54.080.A of the Municipal Code identifies the required contents for the
Affordable Housing Agreement, which is the legal document used by the City to implement an
approved AHIP and ensure that the approved affordable housing units are rented or sold at an
affordable price for the duration and to the income groups approved in the AHIP. The Affordable
Housing Agreement would be drafted subsequent to the approval of the AHIP and would be
reviewed as to form and content by the City Attorney's Office.
Response 3
The recommendations of The Kennedy Commission are noted. Please also refer to the
responses to Comments 1 and 2.
Response 4
The comments are noted. The Kennedy Commission has been added or maintained on the
interest list for the proposed Project to receive notices regarding future meetings, hearings, and
any Project changes.
RTrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -313 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
A111911111111�
Comment Letter 06
Lido Sands Community Association
Post Office Box 1373, Newport Beach, CA 92659
November 8th 2011
Patrick Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Dept.
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Regarding: Newport Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Alford,
On behalf of the Lido Sands Community Association ( "LSCA ") I am writing
to share our concerns about the Newport Banning Ranch Draft
Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") and to request clarification about the
impacts this project will have to our community. The Lido Sands Community
Association is an 82 home "Private Property" single family residence
neighborhood paralleling the Banning Ranch property on the other side of
PCH from 47th to 56th St.
The City has attempted to consider and address the impacts of this project
on Newport Shores and Newport Crest Communities in particular, but what
about Lido Sands? Lido Sands has been completely overlooked from the
perspective of the significant impacts this project will have.
1) What has the City done to review the impact of pollutants: noise,
emissions, light, air, etc. upon the Lido Sands Community not only
with the increase traffic flows on PCH in general, but more importantly
with a major arterial "Bluff Road" street lights, intersection and traffic
signal that is directly in line with the center of our community at Lido
2) What has the City done to review the impact oT the properties
proposed to be built along the bluff above PCH looking down into
LSCA homes? What are the easements? What are the setbacks?
What are the building height restrictions? What is being done to
protect the privacy of Lido Sands homes whose privacy will be
negatively impacted by development on the bluff?
R: Project sWewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doc 3 -314 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
3) What has the City done to mitigate and prepare for the parking and
traffic impact issues this will bring to the beach area directly below
NBR, i.e. 47th to 56th Streets? Lido Sands has long time been a target
of illegal parking issues due to the nature of our private streets in
relation to the beach. We already pay for private patrol services to
help us monitor our community however the impact of this project will
increase costs and other issues to our community. How is the City
prepared to support the Lido Sands Community? What has the City
done to better understand these issues for West Newport and Lido
Sands beach areas?
4) There is a planned pedestrian bridge that will cross PCH into West
Newport Park at 56 h Street. This is directly on the west end of Lido
Sands. From recent experience when NBPD redirected pedestrian
and bicycle traffic flow to West Newport Park for the 4th of July, LSCA
was hit with a significant amount of vandalism and unplanned
pedestrian and bicycle traffic through our calm and quiet community.
What has the City done to plan and direct pedestrian and bicycle
traffic away from and not flowing into LSCA from this bridge?
5) What studies have been done to identify any potential issues with
sight, noise and light issues into LSCA from this pedestrian bridge?
6) What is the actual size, scale and design of this bridge?
Where In West Newport Park will it exactly an
The Lido Sands Community is rightfully and justifiably concerned that Lido
Sands will be a directly impacted neighbor of the project and has clearly and
blatantly been overlooked from all aspects. Lido Sands would like the City
to address our concerns and protect the interests of our residents. We
specifically ask that the DER be expanded to include a complete section on
the impact to Lido Sand homes.
Very
Glazer
tnt. LSCA
6
R: Projects \NewportUO1&RTCC�RTC- 031512 doe 3 -315 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 06 Lido Sands Community Association
Nicolai Glazer, President
November 8, 2011
Response1
The relationship of the proposed Project to the Lido Sands community is addressed in several
sections of the Draft EIR and included throughout the environmental analysis. This includes but
is not limited to land use compatibility (see Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning
Programs); aesthetics (see Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources); traffic (see Section
4.9, Transportation and Circulation); and noise (see Section 4.12, Noise). Impacts were either
not specific to Lido Sands or did not exceed CEQA significance thresholds.
Response 2
Please refer to the response to Comment 1. Noise impacts are analyzed in Section 4.12
(Noise); air quality impacts are analyzed in Section 4.10 (Air Quality), and light and glare
impacts were analyzed in Section 4.2 (Aesthetics). The Lido Sands Community was referenced
in each of these sections and included the environmental analyses.
Response 3
Please refer to Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, which specifically
addresses the relationship of the proposed Project's land uses to Lido Sands. In summary, the
Project site is adjacent to West Coast Highway, which is a six -lane divided State highway.
Residences in the Lido Sands community are located on the south side of West Coast Highway,
approximately 180 feet south of the southern Project site boundary. An approximate seven -foot-
high noise barrier separates the Lido Sands residences from West Coast Highway providing
both noise reduction and visual separation. Proposed development on the Project site would be
separated from Lido Sands by approximately 350 feet. This includes the six -lane divided West
Coast Highway (off site), and approximate 150 foot -wide area of native habitat (on site), and
South Bluff Park (on site). Additionally, there is an approximate vertical grade separation of 50
feet with the Project site at a higher elevation than residences to the south of West Coast
Highway. Any on -site development would be set back from the bluff top edge by a minimum of
60 feet. The Resort Colony with a resort inn and residences would be the closest development
uses to off -site residences to the south. Buildings within the Resort Colony would not exceed 50
feet in height and would vary in height and massing. Exhibit 4.1 -2a depicts the Project interface
with the Lido Sands Community. The exhibit depicts the Resort Colony area of the Project
separated from the Lido Sands Community by approximately of 400 feet with a vertical
separation of approximately 50 feet. This is considered to be sufficient privacy buffer between
the Project and the Lido Sands Community. The remaining questions do not raise
environmental issues.
Response 4
Section 4.1 states that the Project proposes a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge across West
Coast Highway that would link the Project site to the beach to encourage residents to walk to
the beach instead of using vehicles. The remaining questions do not raise environmental issues.
Response 5
The pedestrian and bicycle bridge is proposed to encourage walking and bicycling to and from
the beach. The proposed bridge over West Coast Highway would provide access to bike lanes
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -316 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
and pedestrian sidewalks on the south side of West Coast Highway and to the beach. The bridge
would allow for pedestrians and bicyclists to move between the northern and southern sides of
West Coast Highway without having to cross West Coast Highway at street level. The southern
landing structure for the bridge would be within a structural pier located within the existing
boundaries of the City's 4.6 -acre West Newport Park. This landing would have a public elevator;
walkways would be constructed to connect the landing to Seashore Drive to the south allowing
pedestrians and bicyclists to continue on existing public roadways to access the public beach.
Exhibit 4.8 -18 depicts the proposed bridge landing in the West Newport Park, which is located
west of the Lido Sands Community. Vertical access to the beach is immediately adjacent at 58`h
Street. Therefore, it is unlikely that pedestrians and bicyclists from the Project would access the
beach through the Lido Sands Community.
Response 6
The physical impacts of implementing the pedestrian and bicycle bridge (PDF 4.8 -3), are
evaluated as part of the overall development Project (refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of the
Draft EIR). Most specifically, refer to Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and to
Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails. As addressed in Section 4.2, "Lighting of the bridge would
be limited to that required for public safety'. With respect to noise, Section 4.12 of the Draft EIR
addresses construction - related noise impacts associated with the proposed Project. The bridge
would be limited to pedestrians and bicyclists who do not generated significant noise impacts.
Response 7
Please refer to Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, which includes a visual simulation
(Exhibit 4.2 -4) of the proposed bridge. As described in this Draft EIR section:
As proposed, the bridge would be constructed with a steel truss structure that
would clear -span the six travel lanes of West Coast Highway on a diagonal
angle. The bridge would not have intermediate supports in the median or piers in
the State right -of -way. The landing on the Project side would be in a structural
pier located within South Bluff Park; the landing on the south side of West Coast
Highway would be a structural pier located in a turf area of West Newport Park,
northwest of the existing tennis courts and northeast of the handball /basketball
courts. The bridge abutments are proposed to be constructed with a combination
of masonry block and concrete with decorative stone accents. The length of this
span would be approximately 260 feet, with a minimum vertical clearance from
the highway of approximately 20 feet with a maximum vertical height of 50 feet
for the landings. Lighting of the bridge would be limited to that required for public
safety.
Please also refer to Exhibit 4.8 -18 in Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails, which depicts the
proposed location of the bridge with respect to West Newport Park.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -317 Responses to Environmental Comments
rnanatt
manatl I phelps I phillips
November 8, 2011
BY U.S. MAIL AND E -MAIL: palford @newportbeachca.gov
Mr. Patrick J. Alford
Planting Manager, Community Development. Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Re: Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR
(State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061)
Dear Mr. Alford:
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 07
'Susan K. Hori
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371 -2528
E -mail: shori @manatt.com
Clieno-Mmwrr 28934 -030
PEOEIVEO gY
COMMUNITY
NOV 09 2011
O DEVELOPMENT .Z-
OP NEWPOIFS 6
These comments are submitted on behalf of Newport Basting Ranch LLC (NBR), the
project proponent of the Newport Banning Ranch Project (Project) that is the subject of the
City's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Our comments are very limited and specific,
and concern those impacts that support the DER's conclusion that Land Use Compatibility is a
Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
The DEIR's conclusion regarding Land Use Compatibility is set forth as follows:
Land Use and Related Planning Programs (Sect. 4.1, p. 4.1 -49): "... the proposed
project would result in a land use incompatibility with respect to ... long-term noise
impacts and night illumination on those Newport Crest residences immediately
contiguous to the project site. "
As described in the excerpt above, . the incompatibility of placing residential uses on
Newport Banning Ranch adjacent to existing residential uses in Newport Crest is a direct result
of long -term noise and night illumination impacts. The fact that NBR's proposed residential
project is considered incompatible with existing residences is of great concern for several
reasons.
First, NBR's project is consistent with one of the alternative land uses for the Newport
Banning Ranch property. When the City prepared its General Plan and certified the EIR for the
General Plan, the City did not conclude that the voter-approved, allowed land uses in the General
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa. California 92626-1924 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax: 714.371.2550
Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C.
R: rProject s\Newpodu015tRTCtRTC- 031512,doc 3 -318 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
mat aft
manall I phelps I Phillips
Patrick Alford
November 8, 2011
Page 2
Plan (i.e., precisely what is being proposed by the NBR project) would cause a land use
compatibility issue. The NBR DEIR supports this conclusion when it states:
Sect. 4. 1, p. 4.7 -47, Land Use Policy Consistency Analysis
'..,the General Plan EIR determines, 'if development occurs, policies in the proposer!
General Plan Update would ensure compatibility behveen proposed uses, on -site open
space areas, and the adjacent existing residential -uses. ' Given that the General Plan
provides for the option of the uses proposed by the Project, the Project implements the
policies in the General Plan. Development on the site evould reflect a continuation of
development similar in nature to the urban development in the communities surrounding
the Project site, this change in character of the site would not be considered a significant
impact firom a land use consistency perspective. -
Given the above statement, the fact that the proposed Project is consistent with the
General Plan, the proposed Project provides both open space and residential . uses adjacent to
existing residential, and the General Plan EIR did not find Land Use Compatibility to be a
significant environmental impact, we question the City's conclusion in the DEIR that the Project
will result in a significant and unavoidable land use impact. Given that this Project implements
the General Plan, the same findings that are set forth in the City's certified General Plan EIR
should be applied to a project that is consistent with and implements the General Plan.
The conclusion that NBR's Project results in a significant land use incompatibility impact
apparently stems from two other significant impacts resulting from implementation of two other
General Plan land use components: an active park in this area of the City, and Bluff Road.
Although we understand that the City's own General. Plan EIR found that the impacts from night
lighting at the park are significant and unavoidable, it seems that there are two points of analysis
that should be applied to the environmental impacts of the NBR Project and potential mitigation.
First, as the General Plan EIR analyzed the impact of night lighting in the park and did
not find a significant land use impact, this same conclusion should also be applied to the NBR
Project which implements the City's General Plan, and the same finding regarding land use
impacts should be made for the NBR Project.— thus eliminating the finding that the Project has a
significant and unavoidable land use impact due to night lighting.
Second, it seems that there is a feasible mitigation measure that would eliminate this
impact. As CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 require the City to consider all
feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid significant impacts, the City should consider the
following feasible mitigation measure: restricting the hours the lights are used, or eliminating
them entirely. If the City were to adopt this measure, the impact could be reduced to less than
1 cont.
R: Project sWewponu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -319 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
manatt
manatt I Phelps I phlllips
Patrick Alford
November 8, 2011
Page 3
significant. As park lighting is not a component of the NBR Project, NBR as the Project
proponent cannot unilaterally choose not to install the lights or turn them off. This, however, is
in the power of the City to implement, and we believe, consistent with CEQA's mandate that all
feasible mitigation measures be implemented to reduce significant impacts, that a measure
requiring either restricting the use of night lighting or not installing night lighting be adopted to
reduce this significant impact to less than significant. While we understand that this does not 1 cont.
meet the objectives of the General Plan that state as a goal to have a lighted park at Newport
Banning Ranch, it would avoid the impact and therefore must be considered as required by .
CEQA.
With respect to the noise impacts, noise is a significant issue because the NBR Project is
required under the City's General Plan to construct Bluff Road. When the City certified the EIR
for its General Plan, it was aware of the proximity of Bluff Road to existing and proposed
residential uses, but did not make a finding that this was a significant and unavoidable land use
compatibility impact. For the same reasons set forth above regarding night lighting, we believe
that the conclusions in the City's General Plan EIR must be applied to a project that is consistent
with the General Plan and implements the land uses and circulation improvements identified in
the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
We appreciate your consideration of these comments, and our team are available to
provide additional information or answer questions with respect to these comments and our
Project.
Very truly yours,
Susan K. Hori
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Michael Mohler, Newport Banning Ranch LLC (via email only)
George Basye, Newport Banning Ranch LLC (via email only)
300998393.1
R \ProjedsWewpartU0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -320 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 07 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
Susan Hori
November 8, 2011
Responsell
The opinions of the Applicant are noted. It is recognized that the City's General Plan did not find
that development of the Newport Banning Ranch property under the General Plan Residential
Village designation would result in a significant land use impact. However, the General Plan EIR
assessed the potential impacts associated with buildout of all General Plan land uses at a
programmatic level. The Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR addresses the potential
environmental impacts associated with the Applicant's proposed Project at a greater level of
detail. It is also recognized that there can be differences of opinion.
As addressed in the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code (October 2010) defines
compatibility as "The characteristics of different uses or activities that permit them to be located
near each other in harmony and without conflict. Elements affecting compatibility include:
intensity of occupancy, pedestrian or vehicular traffic generated, volume of goods handled, and
environmental effects (e.g., local concentrations of air pollution, glare, hazardous materials,
noise, vibration, etc.) ". The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element also includes goals
and policies directed at land use compatibility. As applicable to the proposed Project, these
goals and policies are used in the evaluation of compatibility.
The Draft EIR finds that, overall, the proposed Project is compatible. "When evaluating the
Project as a whole, it would be considered generally compatible with the existing and proposed
future off -site land uses as well as compatible with land uses within the Project site. There is
one legally non - conforming single - family home located on industrially zoned property in the City
of Costa Mesa where there may be potential impacts (shade /shadow, night illumination, and
noise); however, the required site plan review process (SC 4.1 -1) would ensure these impacts
would be less than significant ".
With respect to the issue of lighting, the Draft EIR evaluates potential nighttime lighting impacts
not only associated with the proposed Project's Community Park but also with the other
proposed land uses. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the
introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development of the site —not just a park —
would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and
approving the General Plan project, the City Council approved a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, which notes that there are specific economic, social, and other public benefits
that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project.
The Draft EIR's finding is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR. Although
the Project proposes to restrict lighting in areas of the site, night lighting associated with the
Community Park is proposed to have night lighting, and the Project as a whole would introduce
new light sources.
Response 2
The opinions of the Applicant are noted. It is recognized that the City's General Plan did not find
that development of the Newport Banning Ranch property under the General Plan Residential
Village designation would result in a significant land use impact. However, the General Plan EIR
assessed the potential impacts associated with buildout of all General Plan land uses at a
programmatic level. The Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR addresses the potential
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -321 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
environmental impacts associated with the Applicant's proposed Project at a greater level of
detail, including the analysis of noise.
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -322 Responses to Environmental Comments
November 7, 2011
Patrick Alford - Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 08
1,60WIFIZUP &,,
COMMUNITY
NOV 092011
DEVELOPMENT .r
Dear Mr. Alford: /- �G
OP aVEWPOpS 6
The members of the Board of Directors for the Newport Condominium Association (also known as Newport Terrace), wish to go on
record as to our collective comments and concerns as representatives of the Newport Terrace residents, in reference to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Banning Ranch Project.
Afler a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, discussion amongst ourselves and the homeowners represented at our recent
homeowners association meeting, we wish to submit the following comments and/or questions regarding said project.
Our goal at this time is to only bring up our most important concerns regarding this project, and we may at a later (line, expand on
some of the more important items that will affect our community. However, we did want to get our general consensus in before the
November 8, 2011 deadline. In addition and as already pointed out, these are our comments and concerns as they relate m our
collective representation of the general community of Newport Terrace, but naturally individual residents are free to submit their own
particular concerns.
We herby reject to the approval of the project in its current form. We respectfully request that a revised Environmental Impact Report
be prepared to adequately address the deficiencies and comments discussed below, and to adequately address (he deficiencies
discussed in the comments raised by others:
• We feel the overall project would better serve our community, and surrounding areas far more effectively, if it were downsized in
residential density to no more flan a total of 1,100 home. In other words, regarding this downsize in overall density, would not
this project still serves its purposejust as well with (his residential reduction, and as already pointed out as a possible alternative
in the Draft Environmental Impact Repon? (Section 4.1 / Land Use)
• In addition, we feel Bluff Road should completely be eliminated from 17th to 19(h Streets, thus terminating at 17(h Street. 'file
original plans for Banning Ranch did have the major ingresslegress points for Banning Ranch at 16th, 16th, 17th Streets and
Pacific Coast 1-lighway, so why the need for this particular Bluff Road extension to Pith Street now, when many times at related
presentations, it is pointed out, Ihm the overall project does not call for it? (Section 4.9 / Transportation and Circulation)
• Likewise, and even though not seemingly pan of the present Drali Environmental Impact Report, we see no need for the 19th
Street Bridge, original slated to connect at Brookhurst at Banning. In fact, if this Bridge is net crucial to the overall project as
claimed at all the presentation meetings, why are steps not being taken by the City of Newport Beach to have it removed from the
Master Plan of Arterial Highways? (Section 4.9 / Transportation and Circulation)
Sincerely,
Newport Terrace Board of Directors
Newpon Beach, California 92663
CC'
John.Moorlach
Supervisor 2nd District
County of Orange
Philip Campa, President
Monica Kerr, Vice President
Ross Minion, Treasurer
Ethan Young, Secretary
Sara Barnett, Member at large
Mike Henn
Mayor, Newport Beach
R: rProject s\Newpodu015tRTCnRTC- 031512,doc 3 -323 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 08 Newport Condominium Association
Newport Terrace Board of Directors
November 7, 2011
Response1
The opinions of the commenters are noted.
Response 2
Section 7.0, Alternatives to the proposed Project, of the Draft EIR addresses several Project
alternatives. Similar alternatives to the commenter's suggested alternative of 1,100 residential
dwelling units (compared to 1,375 units for the proposed Project) area addressed in the Draft
EIR. For example, Alternative D would allow for 1,200 units. Alternative E assumes the same
number of residential units as the proposed Project but within a reduced development footprint;
the development area (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses) would decrease from
97.4 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres. Alternative F assumes the same number of residential
units as proposed by the Project within a reduced footprint; the development area (residential
and commercial) would decrease from 97.4 gross acres to 84.0 gross acres, an approximate 14
percent reduction compared to the proposed Project.
It is important to understand that the significant environmental impacts of the Project are not
necessarily related to the number of proposed residential units nor would impacts be
substantially lessened or avoided by reducing the number of units to 1,100. A reduction in
residential density does not necessarily result in reduced impacts as suggested by the
commenter. A reduction in development (whether residential, commercial, or other use) can
result in reduction in traffic generation and related air quality emissions and noise depending on
the on -site interaction of trips (how much traffic is captured internal to a project site). However, a
reduction is density would not mean a reduction in impacts related to topics such as biological
resources. It could result in an increase in impacts if a larger area were to be disturbed.
The criteria for selection of alternatives to the proposed Project are discussed in Section 7.3 of
the Draft EIR, and reflect the guidance set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
including that the range of alternatives selected for consideration are those that would "feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project ". The alternatives selected for consideration in the Draft EIR,
include the mandatory No Project Alternative, as well as alternatives that could meet the criteria
set forth in Section 15126.6.
The significant impacts of the Project are identified in Section 7.3.2. The land use and aesthetic
impacts are related to night time illumination of the Project site including the proposed
Community Park. A reduction in dwelling units would not avoid or substantially lessen this
impact. While the noise impacts associated with Bluff Road and North Bluff Road may be
incrementally reduced by a reduction in dwelling units, the majority of the traffic on Bluff Road
and North Bluff Road is as a result of forecasted local off -site traffic using the road as another
option to existing roadways. Traffic impacts in both the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa
can be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, because the City of Newport Beach
cannot impose or guarantee timely implementation of improvements in an adjacent jurisdiction,
traffic impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Reducing the number of units
on the Project site would not assure implementation of traffic improvements in another
jurisdiction. Finally, while air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are, in part, the result of
vehicular emissions and a reduction in the number of units would incrementally reduce these
emissions, the impacts are as a result of cumulative impacts and would not be avoided or
R: Car .pd.Wewpartu01 srac\RTG431512.do. 3 -324 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
substantially lessened. In conclusion, because the significant impacts of the Project are not
entirely attributable to the number of dwelling units proposed, and would not be substantially
lessened or avoided by reducing units from 1,375 to 1,100, a reduced density alternative would
not be required.
Response 3
Please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, which evaluates several
Project alternatives including Alternative C: Proposed Project Without North Bluff Road
Extension to 19`h Street.
Response 4
The construction of the 19th Street Bridge is not a part of the proposed Project. As addressed in
Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, both the Orange County MPAH and the City of
Newport Beach General Plan Master Plan of Streets and Highways reflect the extension of 19th
Street from its current terminus in the City of Costa Mesa, over the Santa Ana River, connecting
to Brookhurst Street at Banning Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. As such, the proposed
Project General Plan Buildout scenario assumes the completion of the 19`h Street Bridge,
consistent with the assumptions of the City's General Plan and the Orange County MPAH.
However, because the timing of construction of the bridge is uncertain, an analysis of future
General Plan Buildout conditions with the Project but without the 191h Street Bridge is provided
in the Draft EIR for informational purposes. It should be noted that the Year 2016 traffic analysis
scenarios do not assume the 19`h Street Bridge.
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -325 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 09
NEWPORT CREST
NEWPORT BEACH
November 4, 2011
Dear Mr. Alford:
The Newport Crest Homeowners Association's Board of Directors has several concerns regarding the
adequacy of the Draft EIR for the Banning Ranch development. Newport Crest is the residential
condominium project adjoining the eastern perimeter of the proposed development.
The DEIR Air Quality section (4.10) describes the history of air, soil and water sampling and various
clean -up operations of the oil field. It appears that no soil or water sampling has been done since
2001, and in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section (4.5.) there is no mention of a radiation
survey ever having been done. If there was such a survey, please advise as to when it was done, the
results of the survey and why wasn't it covered in either the Banning Ranch DEIR or the Banning
Ranch Draft Remedial Action Plan (DRAP), prepared by Geosyntec for the Project Ani3licants in 2
Do the Project Applicants plan to do a current radiation survey of the oil field operations to determine
the level of radioactive wastes? If so, what is the remediation plan to deal with these wastes? Does
e Project Applicant plan to teat the current disposal areas being used for toxic oil wastes for leaks or
fugitive emissions? Do any of the original oil sumps shown on the "Historic Oil Fields Impact Map"
(Figure 3, DRAP), still exist and will thev be tested?
Ambient air analyses have been done for the DEIR criteria pollutants, with the exception of nitrogen
oxide (NOx). Also, such an analysis could not be found for benzene, a known carcinogen and highly
toxic air contaminant (TAC). Why weren't analyses done for NOx and benzene and why is there no
mention in with the Air Quality section or the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the known
health hazards associated with benzene and the other criteria pollutants? Any environmental impact
report should include impacts to human health.
Up -to -date and comprehensive testing for TAC pollutants, oil waste toxins and radioactive wastes
must be done before any DEIR can be considered complete and certainly before it can be approved.
Please advise as to what testing will be done and which independent consultants will be used that
have no prior or current contractual relationship with either the Project Applicants or the City. in
order to verify the reliability and accuracy of the results. Also, please provide a list of city or country
experts who have independently reviewed each section of the Project Applicant's DEIR.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
201 Intrepid Street • Newport Beach, CA 92663 - 949.631.0925 • Fax 949.63 1.5433
www.NewportCrest.org
1
2
57
4
5
6
R\ P, ojedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -326 Responses to Environmental Comments
00E1VEO ay
COMMUNITY
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
NOV 08 2011
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Dept.
3300 Newport Blvd.
n OEVELOPMENT
4y 01
P.O. Box 1768
Or- Or�P
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
November 4, 2011
Dear Mr. Alford:
The Newport Crest Homeowners Association's Board of Directors has several concerns regarding the
adequacy of the Draft EIR for the Banning Ranch development. Newport Crest is the residential
condominium project adjoining the eastern perimeter of the proposed development.
The DEIR Air Quality section (4.10) describes the history of air, soil and water sampling and various
clean -up operations of the oil field. It appears that no soil or water sampling has been done since
2001, and in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section (4.5.) there is no mention of a radiation
survey ever having been done. If there was such a survey, please advise as to when it was done, the
results of the survey and why wasn't it covered in either the Banning Ranch DEIR or the Banning
Ranch Draft Remedial Action Plan (DRAP), prepared by Geosyntec for the Project Ani3licants in 2
Do the Project Applicants plan to do a current radiation survey of the oil field operations to determine
the level of radioactive wastes? If so, what is the remediation plan to deal with these wastes? Does
e Project Applicant plan to teat the current disposal areas being used for toxic oil wastes for leaks or
fugitive emissions? Do any of the original oil sumps shown on the "Historic Oil Fields Impact Map"
(Figure 3, DRAP), still exist and will thev be tested?
Ambient air analyses have been done for the DEIR criteria pollutants, with the exception of nitrogen
oxide (NOx). Also, such an analysis could not be found for benzene, a known carcinogen and highly
toxic air contaminant (TAC). Why weren't analyses done for NOx and benzene and why is there no
mention in with the Air Quality section or the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the known
health hazards associated with benzene and the other criteria pollutants? Any environmental impact
report should include impacts to human health.
Up -to -date and comprehensive testing for TAC pollutants, oil waste toxins and radioactive wastes
must be done before any DEIR can be considered complete and certainly before it can be approved.
Please advise as to what testing will be done and which independent consultants will be used that
have no prior or current contractual relationship with either the Project Applicants or the City. in
order to verify the reliability and accuracy of the results. Also, please provide a list of city or country
experts who have independently reviewed each section of the Project Applicant's DEIR.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
201 Intrepid Street • Newport Beach, CA 92663 - 949.631.0925 • Fax 949.63 1.5433
www.NewportCrest.org
1
2
57
4
5
6
R\ P, ojedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -326 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Newport Crest Homeowners Association
Draft EIR for the Banning Ranch development
Page 2 of 2.
The document speaks in section (4.10 -5) of'fugitive dust' during grading and of measures to minimize
fugitive dust that will include not grading in wind gusts exceeding 15 miles per hour, applying water
and /or chemical suppressants to ensure that emissions do not extend to residences. In section (4.10-
10) "Sensitive Air Quality Receptors" are identified as structures /residences where people including
children, elderly persons, persons with pre- existing repertory or cardiovascular illness, athletes and
others who engage in frequent exercise. Further that some members of the general population are
especially sensitive to air pollutant emissions and should be given special consideration when
evaluating air quality impacts from projects.
What effect could these emissions have on pets?
What mitigation measures should residents and their pets take to minimize the impact of emissions?
Should persons with repertory conditions, cancer, immune deficiencies, etc. consult with their
physicians regarding exposure to the emissions?
Should these people plan to be out of their homes during this time?
Should the various vendors for Newport Crest, including landscapers and construction workers or
others take special precautions during this time?
The Draft DEIR must be revised to consider the above and to consider alternative mitigations
that might include:
1. Installing filtering devices in homes to protect residents and pets.
2. Cleaning the homes, decks and common areas of Newport Crest of any contaminated debris. 8
3. Relocating "Sensitive Air Quality Receptors" during the mass grading phase.
4. Constructing fencing or other structures to help contain and deflect the contaminated air
and toxic particles from Newport Crest.
We hereby object to approval of the project in its present form. We respectfully request that a revised
Environmental Impact Report be prepared to adequately address the deficiencies and comments
discussed above, and to adequately address the deficiencies discussed in the comments raised by
others.
Thank you.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NEWPORT CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Sharon Boles, Member -At -Large
cc: Board of Directors
R: Troject sWewporN015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -327 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 09 Newport Crest Homeowners Association
Board of Directors
November 4, 2011
Response1
The Base Environmental Condition of the Project site is documented in the 2001 Environmental
Assessment (EA) report; see Appendix D of the Draft EIR. The 2001 EA involved
comprehensive testing of the property including all current and historic oilfield operating areas.
This report was submitted to and reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). A Phase I update in 2005 and 2008 found no significant changes that warranted
additional field testing. The California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
(DOGGR) conducted a statewide study in 1996 that included the West Newport Oilfield
confirming that NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) is not a serious problem in
California (confirmed earlier 1987 study). As a part of the proposed Project's oilfield
abandonment program, comprehensive surveys would be conducted among any salvaged and
recycled oilfield equipment and soils to confirm suitability for those purposes. As addressed in
Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, should any material be
determined unsuitable for recycling, it would be properly disposed of in a licensed State facility.
Response 2
Please refer to the response to Comment 1.
Response 3
Please refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation. All current
operations are conducted by the oilfield operator, West Newport Oil Company, pursuant to State
and local requirements. As addressed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the
Draft EIR, all remediation activities, including disposal areas and historical areas, such as
sumps, would be conducted pursuant to State and local requirements. With the exception of the
oil consolidation sites, any contamination would be remediated to State and local standards and
requirements as well. Remediation to State and local standards would ensure that these areas
are safe for human exposure in the future. As noted on page 3 -24 of the Draft EIR,
contaminated material that cannot be effectively remediated on site would be transported off site
and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Appendix D of the Draft
EIR includes the draft Remedial Action Plan that identifies the areas proposed for remediation.
Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.5 -1 requires that a final Remedial Action Plan be submitted to and
approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and /or the Orange County
Health Care Agency (OCHCA).
Response 4
Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during
construction, which explains that local exposure to NOx during construction would be less than
significant. The potentially significant NOx impacts described in the Draft EIR are for regional
emissions. Exposure of persons to local concentrations of NOx or NO2 would be less than
significant.
Criteria air pollutants are generally measured in concentrations of parts per million and
micrograms per cubic meter whereas toxic air contaminants JAC) are generally measured in
parts per billion and nanograms per cubic meter. Therefore, the common definitions of TACs
use the term "extremely low levels ". The State of California Air Resources Board (GARB) has
R TrojedswewpaMJ01& TC\RTC431512.doc 3 -328 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
designated almost 200 compounds as TACs. Of the ten tasks posing the greatest health risk in
California, most are associated with risk for various forms of cancer. Non- carcinogenic risks
include but are not limited to respiratory illness, blood disorders (from chronic benzene
exposure), renal toxicity (from hexavalent chromium), and eye, nose, and throat irritation (from
formaldehyde). The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the proposed Project
determined that both carcinogenic and non - carcinogenic health risks associated with the
proposed project would be less than significant. Please refer to Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the
Draft EIR.
Response 5
Please refer to the response to Comment 4. The 2001 Environmental Assessment involved
comprehensive testing of the property including all current and historic oilfield operating areas.
A Phase I update in 2005 and 2008 found no significant changes that warranted additional
testing. Additional testing and verification sampling will be conducted during the remediation
program.
Response 6
Preparers and contributors to the Draft EIR are identified in Section 8.0 of the Draft EIR.
Response 7
Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, and Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR, which explain
that localized impacts to nearby residents would be less than significant. No measures or
precautions are necessary for residents to protect their health or that of visitors or pets. Analysis
of air quality impacts to domestic pets is not prescribed by CEQA. However, a brief literature
search indicates that most concerns relative to pet health and air pollutants are related to indoor
air quality and the effects of chemicals used in the household. An impact to pets from an
outdoor pollutant was noted for fluoride compounds occurring in agricultural areas, which is not
relevant to the proposed Project.
Response 8
Please refer to the response to Comment 7
Response 9
The opinion of the commenter is noted.
RTrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -329 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comments Pertaining to Draft EIR - Banning Ranch Comment Letter 010
A
Newport Height, Improvement Association
and Donald Krotee
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Page - 1 -
These comments are made on behalf of Newport Heights Improvement
Association, a o-3 not for profit California Corporation, and all who join and
consult with it. The Corporation is afforded the protections under the laws of the
State of California and the corporate protections and strengths offered it by the
laws of the United States of America. The comments made herein are offered
and sent before the deadline of 5pm, November 8, as indicated in the City of
Newport Beach's CEQA notice signed 9 -6 -11.
The comments ask that the City respond to each inquiry/interrogatory/ comment
with a CEQA and or legal response as the implications of each question provide
foundation and guidance for the State's CEQA environmental process but, also
for the future remedies affecting this Association, and all that join it in all regard
to this development of land and any significant impacts associated with that
development. The responses to each comment shall be offered for each
alternative. The following are those comments:
1.
The traffic from auto travel across the intersections at Newport
Boulevard and into Newport Heights will most probably bring school
children to Newport Heights Elementary, Ensign Middle School and
Newport Harbor High School. Showthe impacts to each intersection.
2.
In regard to the same traffic, provide a statement from the Newport
Mesa Unified School District indicating their plans to receive those
students and the current student population(s).
3.
In regard to the same traffic, based on that statement and any other
data accumulated or relevant, provide a before and after accounting
using the 2003 -2005 ADT computed as part of the St. Andrews
development, wherein the City provided a public record of the then
current ADT across the neighborhood of Newport Heights.
4.
In regard to the same traffic, compare the cumulative development totals
projected under the project and show the actual ADT acquired with all
other contemporary public record data gathering that the City may have,
in the general project area.
b.
In regard to density and aesthetics, show clearly e architectural an
massing impact to all adjacent development with site cross sectional
drawings (or view simulations) showing the typical heights of such
densities and the manner in which the projected developments will be
S 5PR O,ECTS•CumentExpert`DE IRcomBngRnchl l- 8- 2011k.doc
R \ProjedsWewpe0U0151RTC \RTC -031512.dec 3 -330 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comments Pertaining to Draft EIR - Banning Ranch
111 Arli,
Newport Heights Improvement Association
and Donald Krotee
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Page - 2 -
constructed. Compare to any and all existing development that borders
the development. For example, If larger densities might require 4 or
more stories over two levels of sub - terrainean parking (to achieve
reasonably a stated density), show sample existing developments
achieving those densities and show cross sectional drawings next to the
proximity of the existing development showing the impact of each
density above 20 units per acre for each of the follovNng:
a. Loss of light
b. Comparative height as it impacts aesthetics
c. general size difference
d. Sound and noise
e. The'onto site views' form Pacific Coast Highway, Hoag Memorial
Hospital and all intersections on the development.
6. In regard to the environmental maintenance and the continuing expense
of its upkeep, for all alternatives, show the amount of resources
committed by the developer for the next 10 years, for the reasonable
maintenance and stewardship of all items intended to be serviced, the
cost of that service, any personnel contemplated in regard to the
reasonable maintenance of all remaining open space.
7. In regard to natural habitat, please state the distance from which all
development must respect or stay from any of the many natural habitats
shown in the EIR. Please provide these distances in table formfor each
species experiencing impact.
8. In regard with the CEQA development of alternative, provide an
explanation for or the lack of a development alternative of 'no
development. In consideration of present economic circumstances and
the real value of the property. The value and expense of acquiring the
land shall be provided examination as contributing to the selection of an
alternative in CEQA and be examined based on the current real
assessment of land value and not aged estimates.
S:W R 0,ECTS`Current•ExpertUE IRComBngRnehI 1 -8- 2011k.tloc
5 cunt.
RTrojectsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -331 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 010 Newport Heights Improvement Association
November 8, 2011
Response1
The Project trip distribution assumptions took into account the component of residential traffic
that would travel across Newport Boulevard to and from the schools mentioned. The Project
traffic volumes and the analysis include the impacts of this traffic distribution.
Response 2
Please refer to Letter R5 from the Newport-Mesa Unified School District which identifies that the
School District forecasts a district -wide capacity surplus.
Response 3
The Traffic Impact Analysis is based on peak hour intersection operations, as required by the
City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and the traffic study requirements of the City
of Newport Beach, and the other jurisdictions who have participated in the scoping for this
study. The component of the residential traffic that would be associated with the schools is
included in the traffic forecasts, and has been accounted for in the analysis. The Traffic Impact
Analysis for this Project would not address 2003 -2005 ADT data compiled for another project in
Newport Heights.
Response 4
The Year 2016 analysis takes into account the peak hour traffic totals assuming all known
Committed and Cumulative projects. The Buildout analysis assumes buildout of all General Plan
land uses in the City and the surrounding areas. Project's Traffic Impact Analysis is based on
peak hour intersection operations, in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport
Beach, and the other jurisdictions who have participated in the scoping for this study.
Response 5
The Draft EIR addresses the compatibility of the proposed Project with existing and planned off -
site land uses as well as internal land use compatibility (within the Project site). Most
specifically, please refer to Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, Section 4.2,
Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and Section 4.12, Noise. Cross - sections and visual
simulations are provided in the Draft EIR.
Response 6
The comment does not address an environmental issue rather the costs to the Applicant for
Project maintenance activities.
Response 7
Development setbacks are identified in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs,
of the Draft EIR. The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR-
PC) Chapter 3, Land Use and Development Standards, includes tables with all applicable
setback requirements. Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR includes a Mitigation
Program to address significant impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed
Project. The Mitigation Program would reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -332 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
without the need to establish separate buffer distances for each and every sensitive species
found on the Project site.
Response 8
The City is unclear the commenter's question or request. Please refer to Section 7.0,
Alternatives to the Proposed Project, which addresses several alternatives to the Applicant's
proposed Project. These alternatives include Alternative A: No Project and Alternative B:
General Plan Open Space Designation. Alternative A assumes no development of the Project
site; it would remain as an active oilfield. Alternative B assumes the site is developed under the
City's General Plan Primary Use of open space.
In July 2005, the City of Newport Beach contracted with a consultant to provide services in
connection with the potential acquisition of the Project site as permanent open space. The
Newport Beach City Council set the following as a priority for 2008 and 2009 "Conduct an
appraisal of the Banning Ranch property and assess funding available for the purchase of the
property for open space ". In February 2008, the City Council appointed the Banning Ranch
Appraisal and Acquisition Ad Hoc Committee to oversee the appraisal process for the Project
site and the assessment of funding availability for its purchase as open space. In January 2009,
the City Council authorized the City to request Measure "M" environmental mitigation funding to
acquire the Project site and that request was submitted to Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA). In August 2009, the City Council received the report on the feasibility of
funding acquisition of the Project site for open space, which estimated the cost of property
acquisition at $138,000,000.00 to $158,000,000.00. The City Council directed staff to continue
exploring open space acquisition possibilities as the City moves forward with review of the
property owner's development application and to continue to monitor funding opportunities and
explore potential new alternatives for open space acquisition.
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -333 Responses to Environmental Comments
November 8, 2011
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
Oty of Newport Beach Community Development Department
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach Ca. 92658
RE; Comments on the Draft EIR for Banning Ranch
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 011
410) O R A N G E C O U N T 1
COASMEPER'
3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F -110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone 714 - 850 -1965
Fax 714- 850 -1592
www.Coastkeeper.org
Orange County Coastkeeper ( "Coas&eeper") is an environmental organization with the mission to preserve,
protect and restore the watersheds and coastal environment of Orange County. After careful review of the
Banning Ranch Draft EIR we are submitting the following comments.
The most important concern we have with the EIR is the use of off site property for stormwater storage. The
ACOE developed wetlands were specifically developed as wildlife habitat areas and not as flood control
facilities. It is our opinion that all pre and post construction stormwater and nuisance flaws should be contained L 1
and treated onsite with no use of the wetlands as storage/detention basins as currently planned. Keeping and
treating all stormwater on site will assure the continued function of the wetlands as designed for wildlife habitat
and reduce the chance of water quality degradation from project stormwater and nuisance flows.
Another concern is that the use of LID principals in the project is confined to the major streets in the
development. Coastkeeper believes that this project, being built very near a sensitive habitat area, should fully
implement LID principals throughout the project to reduce or eliminate nuisance and stormwater flows to the
maximum extent possible.
Water quality is a major concern in the project area. Beach postings related to bacteria concentrations in the
Newport Slough have been reduced over the period from 2001 to 2009 from 324 posing days to 6. The
construction of a new residential development with its associated impacts from landscaping, pets, and other
residential uses has the potential to reverse this progress. Additionally the use of the wetland areas as
stormwater storage area is likely to change the salinity in the wetlands and Newport Slough during wet weather,
possibly impacting the function and productivity of the wetlands. To address these issues Coastkeeper
suggests the implementation of a water monitoring program that will document the baseline conditions for all
standard water quality parameters in the before project condition, during construction and for three years
following completion to assure that the project does not degrade water quality in the slough and wetlands.
Thank You,
n
Ray Hiemstm
Associate Director
Orange County Coastkeeper
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ01&RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -334 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 011 Orange County Coastkeeper
Ray Hiemstra, Associate Director
November 8, 2011
Response1
As shown on the "Existing Condition Hydrology Map" (Volume III, Technical Appendix C, Exhibit
1 of the Draft EIR), storm water runoff and nuisance flows originating in off -site areas (east of
the Project site) and in the Project site's bluff areas (where proposed development would occur)
currently drain to the Semeniuk Slough, Salt March Basin, and Lowland areas (SS /SMB /LA)
west of Project site where there are wetland areas. When the two tidal gates along the Santa
Ana River levee are closed and a storm event occurs runoff is temporarily stored in the
SS /SMB /LA areas under the existing condition. This drainage pattern would not be modified in
the post - development condition and it is appropriate for post - development condition storm runoff
and nuisance flows to continue to drain to the SS /SMB /LA areas. Additionally, water quality
treatment of Project site runoff is planned and discussed in Section 4.4 and Technical Appendix
C ofthe Draft EIR.
Response 2
In addition to the landscaped biocells located in the parkways, the Project would also
incorporate smaller water quality basins (biotreatment) throughout the property to provide water
quality treatment in addition to the green street features. These features are outlined in the
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the Project. The Preliminary
WQMP is hereby incorporated into the Final EIR and is provided as Appendix A to this
Responses to Comments document. Please also refer to Topical Response: Infiltration
Feasibility and Low Impact Development Features.
Response 3
The comment is noted. The Applicant accepts the recommendation for a storm water monitoring
program that establishes a pre - project baseline condition, monitoring during construction
activities consistent with the General Construction Permit, and a post - project condition for three
years.
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -335 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 012
0GEIYEOer Residents of The Costa Mesa Buff
COMMUNITY Res iJentsOfTkeCostaMesa51Uff @email.coin
NOV 0 7 2011 1151 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa, Califomia, 92627
1151 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa, Califomia, 92627
DEVELOPMENT 1133 GleneaAes Terrace, Costa Mesa, California, 92627
OP Oy
N 1085 Sea Bluff Drive, Costa Mesa, California, 92627
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Re: Comments pertaining to the draft environmental impact report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse
No. 2009031061) for the Banning Ranch Project
Dear Mr. Patrick J. Alford,
This letter is in reply to your attached "Notice Of Availability' dated September 6, 2011. We are
responding with our comments prior to the November 8, 2011, 5:00 PM deadline that you have
set.
This letter notices you that the residents of Costa Mesa Bluff are opposed to this project in its
present form. The draft environmental impact report does not address several crucial and legal
environmental issues.
Some of the issues that have not been adequately addressed are:
1. Our interests under section 30001 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 have not been
addressed and protected.
2. Visual analysis and aesthetics for the Costa Mesa Bluff residents have not been adequately
considered and addressed.
3. The existing conditions of contamination on the Banning Ranch have not been adequately
and scientifically stated. The first step would be to clean the Banning Ranch property of all
its environmental hazards, which have been long- standing (since the 1940s). Prior to
embarking on any construction and creating complications after the start of construction, it
would be prudent to embark and complete the cleaning process prior to submitting any plans
for this project to the public especially when it involves 1375 residential units, 75 resort units
and 75,000 sq. ft of commercial use.
R: �ProjectsUNewportu0151RTCC\RTC- 031512 .doe 3 -336 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
4.
This project will have substantial adverse effect on our scenic vistas.
5.
The project will degrade the visual character and quality of the surrounding site which
includes the Costa Mesa Bluff area.
6.
The project will create a new source of substantial light and/or glare which would adversely
affect day and nighttime views in the area. This sky glow will change the quality of life for
the Costa Mesa Bluff residents.
7.
The project would be in conflict with other existing regulations, plans, local coastal
programs, ordinances and environmental regulations.
8.
The noise pollution especially from the proposed 13 years of project implementation would
adversely impact the Costa Mesa Bluff residents.
9.
Assembly Bill 32 and its provisions have not been adequately addressed.
We feel that the city of Newport Beach, in its role as lead agency, has come up short in hiring
professional consultants to address the serious environmental impacts pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
With its 1375 residences, 75 resort units and 75,000 sq. ft. of commercial use, prior to putting
forth any plan to the public, it is in the interests of the citizens and the City of Newport Beach to
hire a responsible third -party to thoroughly investigate the existing highly contaminated ]aid on
which this project is proposed. Once this soil and environmental investigations are complete and
a cleanup plan has been approved a method of payment to clean up the site environmentally
along with a bond should be obtained from the developer. Then and only then should this project
even be considered.
We reserve the right to address these and other related issues regarding the project in the future.
We request you send all your communications to the four addresses listed above and
the email address listed above.
Sincerely,
Residents of the Costa Mesa Bluff.
Enclosed: 3 signature pages
Notice of draft EIR requesting comments
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -337 Responses to Environmental Comments
NAME ADDRESS
WMA9,4 0 UA %/
'Ell 4v,) 6�. cA M��►
SIGNATURE
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
DATE
43 ILL I \ 154Wi Jl,j
Pc
SLR &Upf- OQ
,66z�
do f I l lrl 43_m 4
C•t •.
►1 -z -I
-2 -11
it -3 -t/
,i3�/
tl •3 if
//
/ 17S CLGG1:-, /GLa "i
JCL
CA" V� G.� 6� O•� 5 \ r1 J N eQ\7i rt - L y o- .,.
6
01 f207
A44 v aArk
.11 it l 1117 Gtct ✓liaittr T�_CGdT�+ Yir.4 // Z —//
R: Project sWewpotlu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,aoe 3 -338 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
// 3 � C ^C E �✓fr /r;LE
W-k
`1 12111
uV "< Avlc.moa& -re FI�4�11
M -ti 1135 Ayio-�oac Tr— — 11�4�11
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -339 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1131 Cv+`wtte� T� 1fct3�RT- �EFnErz 11 -� �c 11
/)C/175Z AI )E R i��*ll�IJWr+a'4�e2 !lbGay�l 1( -S �c�l
If-6-11
i 1.7, /I
R \ProjedsWewpartU0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -340 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT
Notice is hereby given that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) for
the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project is available for public review and comment pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with
implementation of the Newport Banning Ranch Project.
Project Location: The Project site is approximately 401 acres. Approximately 40 acres of the Project site are
located within the incorporated boundary of the City of Newport Beach, and approximately 361 acres are in
unincorporated Orange County within the City's Sphere of Influence, The entire site is within the Coastal Zone, as
established by the California Coastal Act
Project Description: The Project would allow far the development of the approximately 401.1 -acre site with 1,375
residential dwelling units (du): 75,000 square feet (sp of commercial uses, a 75 -room resort inn with ancillary resort
uses, and approximately 51 .4 gross acres for active and passive park uses including a 26 8-gross-acre public
Community Park. Approximately 252 .3 gross acres (approximately 63 percent) would be retained in permanent
open space. The Project site's existing surface oil production activities located throughout the site would be
consolidated into approximately 16 .5 acres The remaining surface oil production facilities would be abandoned/re-
abandoned, remediated for development, and/or remediated and restored as natural open space . The proposed
Project includes the development of a vehicular and a non - vehicular circulation system for automobiles, bicycles,
and pedestrians, including a pedestrian and bicycle bridge from the Project site across West Coast Highway.
Project approvals required from the City include a General Plan Circulation Element Amendment, Pre - zoning, Zone
Change, Planned Community Development Plan, Master Development Plan, Tentative Traci Map, Development
Agreement, and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. The Project would also require a Coastal Development
Permit from the California Coastal Commission.
The Draft EIR examines the potential impacts generated by the proposed Project in relation to the following CEQA
Checklist categories: aesthetics and visual resources, land use and planning programs, geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, population, housing, and employment, transportation and circulation, air quality, green
house gas emissions, noise, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, recreation and trails,
hazards and hazardous materials, public services, utilities, and alternatives
The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this Draft EtR. Copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices
are available for public review at the following locations'
• City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California 92658
• City of Newport Beach, Central Branch, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach. California 92660
• City of Newport Beach, Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach. California, 92661
• City of Newport Beach, Mariners Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, California 92660
• City of Newport Beach. Corona del Mar Branch. 420 Mangold Avenue, Corona del Mar, California 92625
• City Website - http: //www.newportbeachca.gov
All interested parties are invited to submit written comments pertaining to the Draft EIR. The comment period for
the Draft EIR will be 60 days beginning September 9, 2011 and ending November 8, 2011. Your comments should
be sent at the earliest possible date, but must arrive no later than 5 00 PM on November 8, 2011. Please direct any
questions regarding the Draft EIR to Patrick J. Alford at (949) 644-3235 or email at patford@newportbeachca.gov.
Written comments should be sent to:
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
If email comments are submitted with attachments d is recommended that the attachments be delivered in writing
to the address specified above. The virus protection measures and variety of formats for attachments can limit the
ability for the attachments to be delivered.
Patrick J. Afford, Planning Manager Date
RT ro jectsWewp .MJ0151RTMRTC -031512.do. 3 -341 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
t DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
P. O. BOX 1799
,c NEWPORT BEACH, CA
'r rpix ° 92959-9915
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
RTrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -342 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 012 Residents of the Costa Mesa Bluff
November 7. 2011
Response1
Section 30001 of the California Coastal Act states:
(a) That the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable resource of vital
and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced
ecosystem.
(b) That the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a
paramount concern to the present and future residents of the state and the
nation.
(c) That to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public
and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources,
and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance
of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction.
(d) That existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully
planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are
essential to the economic and social well -being of the people of this state and
especially to working persons employed within the coastal zone.
The Project's consistency with the applicable policies of the Coastal Act is addressed in
Sections 4.1 through 4.15 and Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR.
Response 2
The residences noted in the comment letter were not specifically addressed in the Draft EIR
because of the distance from the Project site to the residences. The noted residences are
approximately 0.4 mile or more north of the Project site. Talbert Nature Preserve is located
between the Project site and these residences. There is no existing or planned physical
connection between the Project site and this residential community, the latter which is accessed
from Victoria Street in the City of Costa Mesa. At its most proximate location to the commenters'
residences, the northern portion of the proposed Project site (near 1g`h Street) would be in open
space. The only development improvement in this area would be the proposed extension of
North Bluff Road to 1gth Street. The only lighting in this portion of the Project site would be at the
intersection of 1gth Street at North Bluff Road; it should be noted that there is existing street
lighting along 1 gth Street. Because of the distance of the Project site to the commenters'
residences and limited development proposed in the northern portion of the property, no
significant visual impacts would be anticipated.
Response 3
Please refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation.
Response 4
The opinion of the commenters is noted. As a point of clarification, the Project site is not
contiguous to the residences noted by the addresses attached to the comment letter.
Residences at the noted addresses are separated from the Project site by Talbert Nature
Preserve. Further, no development land uses are proposed in the northern part of the Project
site adjacent to Talbert Nature Preserve; this portion of the site would be in open space.
RT rgedsWewp .MJ0151RTORTC431512.do. 3 -343 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 5
The opinions of the commenters are noted. Please refer to Section 4.1, Land Use and Related
Planning Programs, and Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, which address both land
use compatibility and visual resources including night lighting effects to surrounding land uses.
Response 6
Please refer to the response to Comment 5.
Response 7
The commenters have not identified what "existing regulations, plans, local coastal programs,
ordinances, and environmental regulations" that the Project would be in conflict with. The
proposed Project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan land use
designation. The City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) identifies Banning Ranch, which
includes the Newport Banning Ranch site and the Newport-Mesa Unified School District
property, as a Deferred Certification Area (DCA) because a project plan is necessary in order to
address land use, public access, and the protection of coastal resources. Neither the City of
Newport Beach nor the County of Orange has a certified Local Coastal Program that includes
the Newport Banning Ranch site.
Response 8
Potential construction - related and long -term noise impacts are assessed in Section 4.12, Noise,
of the Draft EIR.
Response 9
The opinion of the commenters is noted. Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft
EIR (pages 4.11 -1 through 4.11 -40) specifically addresses the Project and cumulative effects of
greenhouse gas.
RTrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -344 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 013
Ojea I&' P.O. BOX 5447, IRVINE, CA 92616 -5447
age Q..,Yudu&n
November 7, 2011
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
RE: DEIR Newport Banning Ranch Project No 2009031061
Mr. Alford
Please accept these comments on behalf of the Sea and Sage Audubon Society in
response to Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), for the Newport Banning Ranch
Project No 2009031061. Sea & Sage Audubon Society is an Orange County chapter of
National Audubon Society with nearly 3,000 local members dedicated to the protection
and appreciation of birds, other wildlife, and their habitats through education,
conservation, scientific research, and volunteer opportunities. We appreciate the
opportunity to respond to the DEIR.
found the DEIR to be insufficient and fails to identify all of the impacts related to the
nosed project, especially to wildlife. Additionally we find the language used to
tribe habitats and impacts to habitats, to be unfairly bias towards the project and
-fore does not provide the reader with a full understanding of the project and/or its
acts as required by CEQA. The DEIR under rates the value of the property to existing 1
llife features, especially birds.
We agree with inadequacies pointed out in responses to the DEIR from Robert Hamilton,
Barry Nerhus, and Terry Welsh Examples of our concerns are as follows
Resident and Wintering Raptors
The bird list in section 4 -6 -20 fails to recognize raptors as year round residents. This can 12
only be explained by a lack of adequate surveys and investigation during the breeding
season.
R \ProjedsWewpartU0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -345 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Raptors common to the area as residents that are known to nest regularly in adjacent .
properlies to the Banning Ranch include Red - tailed Hawks, Red- shouldered Hawks, and
White - tailed Kites. In fact all three can be observed and heard vocalizing over the
Banning Ranch Property during the nesting season in most years. A Red - tailed Hawk nc:
was visible for several years in the willows, which are observable from the 161' street
tenninus area. There is no reason to suspect that these and other raptors are not residents
on the properly and would be impacted by the proposal.
Because of the lack of knowledge about the density and frequency of raptors nesting on
the properly, some of which may he special status species, but all protected, the DEIR
cannot adequately access the impacts.
The DEIR routinely down grades the importance of wintering raptors such as Burrowing
Owls. However, the coastal areas of southern California are very important to wintering-
birds and have become rare and irreplaceable. As a local resource impacts to wintering
and rare raptors should be considered significant. 3
'the DEIR needs to identify the densities and frequencies of nesting, foraging, and
wintering hawks, kites, and owls on the property.
Fairy Shrimp
In Section 4 -6 -3 the DEIR states that San Diego fairy Shrimp were discovered, but that
the pool was not adequate to support [his species. This is contradictory, obviously
because the species was detected. 'there is no explanation given in the DEIR to support
any other reason for the shrimp to be in the pool other than it is supported by the habitat.
Fairy shrimp populations, of almost any species, are von, difficult to access because so
many factors, that are often poorly understood, influence which years they will be press
as adults in a particular venial pool. Fairy slu-imp cysts can survive for many years, in
some cases for decades and longer, and will only hatch under very specific conditions
including specific temperature regimes, ph and other pond conditions, as well as rain
levels.
And, just because the pool was not fall for 14 days in relatively wet yeas, as staled in the
DEIR, does not preclude the possibility that it could be full for 14 or more days in years
where the rains comes in very shop time periods, but very heavily in Flood conditions.
The pool may only till properly in very odd years but still support the San Diego Fairy
Shrimp, as it must since the species was detected
The DEIR should recognize and clearly state that venial pools found to contain any fairy
shrimp species are viable pools, and that it is likely, given the proximity to each other the
all viable pools may contain more species than have been identified.
:ont.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015rRTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -346 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
CC$ Restorntimr and Birds.
The DEIR employs a common strategy of separating each and every parcel of CSS into
disparate conunun» tics of CSS, such as disturbed Encelia Scrub and Disturbed M1dcfd
Scrub. And while these are legitimate designations, it is very important to understand the
contest in which the habitats are described. It would be equally legitimate to describe
habitats as mixed, a mosaic, or a diverse CSS mix. The continued and frequent use of the
term "disturbed" in the DEIR unnecessarily presents a negative view. This results in a
bias towards the need to restore or fix a problem that does not necessarily exist
To access the impacts of the project, the DEIR should more adequately recognize that the
habitat on the Banning Ranch cun-ently supports a healthy population of CSS obligate
species, such as Coastal Cactus Wrens, that often prefer habitats with mosaics or some
open areas, and can conversely struggle in very dense CSS.
The DEIR does not clearly identify the risks of failure of CSS restoration for CSS
obligate birds, especially Coastal Cactus Wrens. And the DEIR should clearly recognize
that restoration attempts for one species will likely impact other species.
For instance; most raptors, such as rcd- tailed hawks, red - shouldered hawks, and while -
tailed kites, forage well in the "disturbed' habitats that exist currently on the property.
Raptors are present in large numbers on the Banning Ranch, and similar nearby coastal
habitats, because the mosaic of habitats, including non - native grasses and open areas that
provide for the best possible foraging opportunities. "Restoring" these habitats to dense
CSS will limit foraging opportunities and impact the local populations.
Converting mixed CSS, non - native grasslands, and open areas to dense CSS in an attempt
to mitigate for impacts to CSS obligate birds will result in reduced habitats for other
species such as raptors, and should be fully indentified ht the DEIR.
The DEIR must recognize that due to the loss of acreage and the lack of nearby, oll =site
opportunities, the project cannot simultaneously mitigate for California Gratcatchers,
Cactus Wrens, :aid raptor species. Given the status of the CSS birds, the DEIR must
recognize that it would result in an unavoidable impact to raptors.
And, the DEIR. must clearly state that the mitigation efforts for California Gnatcatchers
and Coastal Cactus Wrens are only projections and may fail to meet expectations
Conclusion
The DEIR trailed to fully investigate all ofthe biological resources on the Newport
Banning Ranch property and fails to identify all of the impacts from the proposal.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015rRTMRTC- 031512,aoe 3 -347 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Thank you for your consideration,
Scott Thomas
Conservation Chair
Sea and Sage Audubon Society
(949) 261 -7964
staudubon@,gmail.com
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -348 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 013 Sea and Sage Audubon Society
Scott Thomas, Conservation Chair
November 7, 2011
Response1
Please refer to the responses to Comment Letters 050, 073, and O90a through O90d.
Response 2
It is unclear why the commenter indicates that Draft EIR fails to recognize raptors as year round
residents. Page 4.6 -20 states that `raptors (birds of prey) observed on the Project site include
osprey (Pandion haliaetus), white - tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus), sharp- shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red -
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco
sparverius), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) ". There is no limitation to season in this
statement. There is an additional detailed discussion in Section 3.3.4 (Special Status Wildlife) of
the Biological Technical Report of 15 various special status raptor species that are known to
occur in the region and their potential to occur on the Project site. The wildlife compendia for the
proposed Project also identified 11 raptors as occurring on site (see Appendix A to the
Biological Technical Report in the Draft EIR).
The evaluation of potential impacts to raptor and other nesting bird species is discussed in
several locations of the Draft EIR including page 4.6 -56:
Prior to the consideration of mitigation, the Project would contribute to the
historical loss of habitats in the coastal areas of the region and may contribute to
local extirpation of some wildlife species from the Project site. Unmitigated
impacts to habitats in the coastal area would be considered significant. However,
with implementation of MM 4.6 -1 (Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Preservation and
Restoration), MM 4.6 -2 (Grassland Habitat Preservation and Restoration),
MM 4.6 -3 (Grassland Depression Feature and Fairy Shrimp Habitat Preservation
and Restoration), MM 4.6 -4 (Marsh Habitat Preservation and Restoration), and
MM 4.6 -5 (Jurisdictional Resources /Riparian Habitat Preservation and
Restoration), this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
and
Nesting birds are protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (50 CFR 10.13). Suitable
habitat for birds protected by the MBTA occurs throughout the Project site. The
intentional loss of any active nest through Project implementation would be
considered significant. Impact on active nests would be reduced to a less than
significant level with the implementation of MM 4.6 -6, which establishes protocols
for vegetation removal during the migratory bird nesting season.
In addition, impacts to special status raptor species are discussed in detail on pages 4.6 -62 and
4.6 -62 of the Draft EIR:
Although suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present on the Project site for
the burrowing owl, it is only expected to winter on the Project site based on the
results of focused surveys conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Two owls were
observed wintering in 2008, and one owl was observed wintering in 2009 and
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -349 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
2010 (GLA 2010a, 2009) (impacts shown on Exhibits 4.6 -6a and 4.6 -6b). The
burrowing owl is a species of local concern because its occurrences are limited in
the County. The proposed Project would impact approximately 100.13 acres
(97.26 acres permanent, 2.87 acres temporary) of grasslands and ruderal habitat
on the Project site. Impacts on occupied and potential habitat for this species
would be considered significant. Implementation of MMs 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -12 would
reduce the impact on this species to a less than significant level. These
measures require the restoration of grassland habitat at a ratio of 0.5:1 (totaling
approximately 50.07 acres). In addition, the Project would preserve
approximately 20.27 acres of grassland areas and include construction
avoidance measures to minimize grassland impacts to the greatest extent
practicable. Moreover, PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the designation and
methodology of habitat restoration /preservation and indirect effect minimization
measures which would provide conservation and avoidance value to the
grassland areas and associated wildlife species including, but not limited to, the
burrowing owl.
Although potentially suitable foraging habitat is present on the Project site for
golden eagle and Swainson's hawk, these species are not expected to occur on
the Project site because (1) the site is outside the currently known range for
these species and (2) of the extensive urbanization in the Project region. The
bald eagle is not expected to occur on the Project site because of the lack of
suitable foraging and breeding habitat. Therefore, there would be no impact on
these species, and no mitigation would be required.
Suitable foraging habitat is present for a variety of raptor species including
Cooper's hawk, sharp- shinned hawk, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, white -
tailed kite, merlin, prairie falcon, American peregrine falcon, and short-eared owl.
While there is no suitable foraging habitat for the osprey on the Project site, there
is foraging habitat adjacent to the Project site within the USACE salt marsh
restoration site and the Santa Ana River; the osprey was observed perching on
the Project site following foraging. The permanent loss of approximately 124.83
acres of foraging habitat for these raptor species would contribute to the ongoing
regional and local loss of foraging habitat. This impact would be considered
significant. However, revegetation following oilfield remediation activities would
result in higher - quality habitat due to invasive species removal; removal of
human activity and disturbance related to oilfield operations (oil activities would
be consolidated into two on -site locations); and availability of larger blocks of
contiguous native habitat for these species in the open space area. Therefore,
with implementation of MMs 4.6 -1, 4.6 -2, 4.6 -4, and 4.6 -5, this impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level. These measures require the restoration
of coastal sage scrub, grassland habitat, marsh habitat, and riparian areas at a
ratio from 0.5:1 to 3:1 for approximately 119.56 acres of restoration. In addition,
the Project would preserve approximately 85.97 acres of additional habitat on
site. The Project also includes PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4, which require the
designation and methodology of habitat restoration /preservation and indirect
effect minimization measures which would provide conservation and avoidance
value to the raptor foraging areas.
Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, and white - tailed kite have the potential to nest
on the Project site. The loss of an active nest of these species, or any common
raptor species, would be considered a violation of Sections 3503, 3503.5, and
3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, the loss of any active
RT rojedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -350 Responses to Environmental Comments
raptor nest would be considered significant.
be reduced to less than significant levels
which provides for construction avoidance
the greatest extent practicable.
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Impacts on active raptor nests would
with implementation of MM 4.6 -13,
measures to minimize the impact to
The Draft EIR adequately addresses the potential impact to raptor species as described above.
Response 3
The Draft EIR does not down grade the importance of wintering raptors, especially the
burrowing owl. Focused surveys to document the wintering population of this species were
specifically conducted on site in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Draft EIR found that the Project
impacts on occupied and potential habitat for this species would be considered significant.
The Draft EIR and Biological Technical report acknowledge the presence of various raptor
species on site and their use of onsite resource for foraging and nesting. The request by the
commenter for the Draft EIR further identify the densities and frequency of nesting and foraging
activities of common raptor species not required to determine potentially significant impacts.
Conducting additional surveys and presenting this additional information would not provide
results that cannot already be evaluated by the knowledge of expected use patterns and
existing literature. The new data /information would not result in any greater finding of
significance than that which is already presented in the Draft EIR.
Response 4
In Section 4.6 -3, Methodology, of the Draft EIR, does not state that "the pool was not adequate
to support this species ", when the species was identified as present within a given pool.
The survey protocol issued by the USFWS to determine the presence /absence of federally
listed vernal pool branchiopod species is very specific (Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees
for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed
Vernal Pool Branchiopods ( USFWS 1996). The protocol states that a wet season survey begin
after initial storm events to determine when pools /swales have been sufficiently inundated to
begin the surveys (i.e., greater than 3 centimeters of standing water for 24 hours after a rain
event). Following rainfall events, the hydrology of the pools are monitored. Once the pools are
sufficiently inundated, surveys will begin no later than two weeks following the initial inundation
and continue once every two weeks until pools are no longer inundated or until they have
experienced 120 days of continuous inundation. The length of time for monitoring is based on
the USFWS protocol, and is not arbitrary.
With respect to on -site fairy shrimp, please refer to page 4.6 -33 of the Draft EIR:
Suitable ponding habitat for this species is present on the Project site, and this
species was observed in two vernal pools (VP1 and VP2) and five temporary
pool features (AD3, and pools E, G, I, and J) during focused surveys.
Response 5
Because physical disturbance and /or invasion of an area by non - native species can play an
important role in the biological value of an area, it is relevant to describe an area as "disturbed"
to accurately describe the resource issue. Areas that were described as "disturbed" included
such clarifying statements as (1) "areas have been invaded by non - native species, such as
hottentot fig and Myoporum "; (2) "heavily disturbed by oilfield activities; (3) "concrete debris
RT rojedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -351 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
piles from oilfield activities, and has been subject to maintenance along the edges "; (4)
"disturbed by the low -level mowing "; (5) "vegetation type is comprised of goldenbush, pampas
grass (Cortaderia selloana), and sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) "; (6) "contains debris piles
from oilfield activities and is surrounded by a dirt road "; (7) "consist of opportunistic native and
non - native species that have colonized soil piles and open areas within and along the edges of
the debris piles'; and (8) other descriptive terms. Using the terms suggested by the commenter
such as "mixed ", "mosaic ", or "diverse" would imply greater biological significance than exists for
these areas.
On page 4.6 -53 of the Draft EIR, the document acknowledges that fragmentation issue of the
coastal sage scrub on site and the biological value as follows:
Much of the scrub habitat on the site occurs in small fragments and in many
cases is highly degraded by invasive species. However, impacts on coastal sage
scrub (disturbed and undisturbed) vegetation types are considered significant
because (1) the loss of these vegetation types in the Project region would be
considered a substantial adverse effect on the coastal sage scrub community15
and (2) impacts to these areas would reduce the habitat for the coastal California
gnatcatcher and other wildlife species.
Response 6
The Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Preservation and Restoration program has safeguards built
into it to ensure its success. Specifically, the Applicant is required to plan, implement, monitor,
and maintain the program which would be approved by the City of Newport Beach (City) and the
resource agencies (i.e., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [ USFWS] and the California Coastal
Commission). The program would be maintained and monitored for five years to ensure
successful sage scrub habitat establishment within the restored and created areas. The
Applicant would be responsible for implementing the coastal sage scrub revegetation program
until the restoration areas have met the success criteria outlined in the program and the City
and the resource agencies (i.e., the USFWS and the California Coastal Commission) shall
signed off on the mitigation areas.
The Draft EIR acknowledges the loss of foraging habitat as significant on page 4.6 -53:
The proposed Project would impact approximately 100.13 acres (97.26
permanent, 2.87 temporary) of grassland and ruderal vegetation, including areas
mapped as non - native grassland, non- native grassland /ruderal, and ruderal.
These areas generally have low biological value for most species because they
are vegetated with non - native species. However, these areas may provide
suitable foraging habitat for a variety of raptor species, including wintering
burrowing owls. Additionally, the non - native grassland includes localized areas
with low densities of native bunch grasses that could not be delineated
separately due to a variety of factors including the scattered distribution, low
densities, and mowing operations on the Project site. The loss of grassland
function for foraging raptors in the region is considered significant because of its
decline in the Project region. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a
potentially substantial impact on raptor foraging habitat without mitigation.
15 Impacts to individual subcommunities may not have been considered significant if evaluated separately;
however, all subtypes of coastal sage scrub were considered cumulatively for this analysis.
R:T ro j .dsWewp.MJ0151RTORTC- 031512.d.c 3 -352 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
While the non - native grasslands and ruderal area may be important for the local foraging
raptors, it must also be acknowledged that populations of native annual forbs and native
grasses are declining because of competitive suppression by non - native grasses16. The
California Native Plant Society states that "aggressive exotic plants are unacceptable in natural
areas because they can exclude native plants, degrade, alter or displace natural plant
communities, promote faunal change, reduce biological diversity, disrupt ecosystem processes,
alter fire frequencies, restrict economic return, reduce recreational values, threaten endangered
species and fundamentally alter the unique character and physiognomy of california ".17
To allow and encourage the existence of invasive, non - native species, is not in the best interest
of all plant and wildlife resources on the Project site.
As stated on page 4.6 -77 of the Draft EIR, the grassland "mitigation shall occur entirely in one to
two locations to provide the maximum habitat value for the raptors, burrowing owls, and other
wildlife species that require contiguous blocks of open habitat types. The site(s) shall consist of
level or gently sloping terrain, soil types, and microhabitat conditions suitable for occupation by
raptors and burrowing owl, as determined by a qualified Biologist'. The goal of the mitigation is
to provide 70 acres of higher value habitat, which contain a higher percentage of native plant
species and is less fragmented than currently exists by the existing oilfield operations.
Response 7
As discussed on pages 4.6 -62 and -63 of the Draft EIR, suitable foraging habitat is present for a
variety of raptor species on site. The Draft EIR acknowledges the permanent loss of foraging
habitat for these species, and that the impact would be considered significant. However,
revegetation following oilfield remediation activities would result in higher - quality habitat due to
invasive species removal; removal of human activity and disturbance related to oilfield
operations (oil activities would be consolidated into two on -site locations); and availability of
larger blocks of contiguous native habitat for these species in the open space area. Therefore,
with implementation of MMs 4.6 -1, 4.6 -2, 4.6 -4, and 4.6 -5, this impact would be reduced to a
less than significant level. These measures require the restoration of coastal sage scrub,
grassland habitat, marsh habitat, and riparian areas at a ratio from 0.5:1 to 3:1 for approximately
119.56 acres of restoration. In addition, the Project would preserve approximately 85.97 acres
of additional habitat on site.
As summarized on Table 4.6 -8, the implementation of the Mitigation Program would result in a
net increase over existing conditions of approximately 67 acres of those habitat types that
warranted mitigation. This is possible because of the high occurrence of disturbed /developed
areas (e.g., access roads) that would now be available for restoration. Although there would be
a decrease in grasslands areas for foraging raptors by 50 acres, there would be an increase of
coastal sage scrub by approximately 25 acres, vernal pool habitat by approximately 3 acres,
and approximately 33 acres of marsh and riparian areas. This is a net increase in value of
native habitat types that would benefit all onsite plant and wildlife species, not just raptor
species.
Response 8
The opinion of the commenter is noted.
16 Reducing Competitive Suppression of a Rare Annual Forb by Restoring Native California Perennial Grasslands,
Tina M. Carlsen, John W. Menke, and Bruce M. Pavlik, Restoration Ecology, Issue 1 Page 18 -29.
77 hftp: / /www.cnps.org /cnps /archive /exotics.php
RAProjedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3353 Responses to Environmental Comments
$oulhem
Calilolnla
Gas Company
A �j Sempra Energy utility'
September 23, 2011
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3300 Newport Blvd
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Attention: Patrick Alford
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 014
1919 5, State College Blvd.
111anawm. CA 92906 6114
�&OEIVEO gr
COMMUNITY
SEP 282011
C DEVELOPMENT GZ
� 4P
O,9 NEWPOIA1 6
Subject: Program Environmental Impact Report For Newport Banning Ranch Project
mk you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document. We arc pleased to inform you
Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is
posed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various
rtions. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with
California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made.
letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an
national service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and
uory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the
mnia Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be effected by actions of federal
uory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under
I service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions.
letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as
onmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if
dons wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be
mined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has began.
mates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and
obtained from the Commercial- IndustriaVResidential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000
mmerciaVlndustrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several
;rams, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient
liances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy
servation programs, please contact this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Mike Harriel
Technical Services Supervisor
Orange Coast Region - Anaheim
MR,
R \ProjectsWewpe0U0151RTC \RTC -031512.noc 3 -354 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 014 Southern California Gas Company
Mike Harriel, Technical Services Supervisor
September 23, 2011
Response1
This comment letter states that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the
Project area and that gas service can be provided from an existing gas main located in various
locations. In addition, the Southern California Gas Company states that this letter is not a
contractual commitment to serve the proposed Project. Laws and regulations affecting the
construction of a main and /or service line extension would be determined at the time of actual
contractual commitments have begun. The comment is noted.
RT,ojedsWewp.MJD151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -355 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 015
SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION
7 November 2011
To: City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: Patrick Alford
Surfrider Foundation Newport Beach Chapter and Huntington/Seal
Beach Chapter Position on Newport Banning Ranch Development
The Surfrider Foundation Newport Beach and Huntington/Seal Beach chapters support an
environmentally sensitive plan to maximize public space, improve water quality, clean polluted
run off and protect natural and sensitive habitat and species. Such a plan must address the
existing conditions of concern including: untreated urban runoff to the ocean, destabilized bluffs,
existing mineral rights of oil companies and appropriate assessment and cleanup of abandoned
oil drilling operations and equipment and site remediation. Our concems also include the plans
for roads on the property, which would carry additional pollutants and untreated urban runoff to
the ocean and local beaches.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is required to select an Environmentally Superior
Alternative from the several alternative actions that are analyzed within the scope of the Report.
The DEIR lists Alternative B — General Plan Open Space Designation as the Environmentally
Superior Altemative. This is consistent with the primary use for the property as listed in the City
of Newport Beach General Plan approved by the voters on November 6, 2006.
Regarding the project alternatives presented in the DEIR, our chapters see Alternative 8 —
General Plan Open Space Designation as our preferred plan for Banning Ranch, assuming all
concerns for water quality, untreated run off and land remediation are addressed in this
alternative.
Surfrider Foundation comments onNewport Banning Ranch DEIR
A. Property Acquisition
On pages 1 -2 of the Executive Summary and 3-5 of the Project Description, under the City of
Newport Beach General Plan, approved by the voters November 6, 2006, the Primary Use of the
subject property is Open Space, with an Alternative Use stated as follows:
"If not acquired for open space within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City
and property owner, the site may be developed as a residential village containing a mix of
housing types, limited supporting retail. visitor accommodations, and active community parklands.
with a majority of the property preserved as open space."
1. What steps has the City taken to acquire the property?
2. What is the time period for the City to acquire the property?
3. What terms and conditions has the City considered, negotiated or discussed for the
acquisition of the property?
R \ProjedsWewp.OIJW S1RTMRTC431512.do. 3 -356 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
-2-99
SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION
4. Please provide any and all information regarding any discussions the City has had with
the proposed developer, property owner(s), third parties or any other entities, public or
private, regarding acquisition of the property for the primary purpose of maintaining it as
Open Space, consistent with the City's General Plan.
B. Water Quality Impacts
Regarding water quality impacts of the proposed project. Section 4 of the DEIR, we note
that very little data are provided to support the general conclusion that the proposed
project will have no significant impacts on the water quality of the receiving waters
(Semenuik Slough, Santa Ana River and Pacific Ocean). Please provide a quantitative
analysis to support the conclusions made in Appendix C regarding pollutant
concentrations or the expected removal efficiencies of BMPs.
2. With regard to individual classes of pollutants, the paragraph on Bacteria & Pathogens
(Appendix C, page 123), unlike the similar paragraphs for other pollutants, does not
conclude with a statement such as "As a result, it is anticipated that water quality
standards will not be exceeded, and potential impacts from bacteria and pathogens are
less than significant" Was this an oversight? What are the possibilities that the water
quality standards will be exceeded in regards to bacteria and pathogens?
C. Residential Landscaoina
1. Appendix C, Part 2 of the DEIR, page 867 of 877 has text that reads:
"Use Efficient Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design
Projects shall design the timing and application methods of irrigation water to
minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the municipal storm drain
system. (Limited exclusion: detached residential homes.) The following methods
to reduce excessive irrigation runoff shall be considered, and incorporated on
common areas of development and other areas where determined applicable
and feasible by the City-
This suggests that exclusion exists for detached residential homes concerning the
landscaping and garden management programs. Are there any restrictions or incentives
for residential property to create sustainable and low water use gardens and landscaping
that is consistent with the design concepts and source BMPs?
D. Comments From Surfrider Foundation's OFG Coordinator, Paul Herzoa
Appendix C Part 1 of the DEIR, pp. 117- 5.3.3 Interior Water Quality Features
1. Rain barrels, at about 55 -70 gallons, are more a tool to slow down the first flush (the first
3/. " -1" of rein after a dry period) than a water harvesting vehicle. It is better to create a
"sponge" by infiltrating rain water into healthy soil and utilizing native plants than focus on
capturing water for irrigating climate inappropriate plants. Note that clay soils can infiltrate
water, but just at a slower rate. See Milagro CoHousing Project (28 units) as an example
- htto: /Aw .milaarocohousina.oro /milaaro 009.htm
2. W2h regard to Storm Water Planters, is infiltration in vegetated soil and utilizing these
planters when that is not possible prioritized?
2 cont.
R \ProjedsWewpartU0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -357 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION
3.
Regarding Tree Box Filters, these are typically considered an expensive "tree in a box,"
primarily used to filter runoff. Is infiltration and aboveground bio- filtration prioritized?
4.
In regard to Pocket Rain Gardens: When tied into a system of tools, there is not a need
for one, large solution, i.e., piece of land (as alluded to on pp.127'In those instances
where the LID features are not sufficient to handle treatment requirements independently,
water quality calculations will quantify how much the additional treatment is required by
the next downstream LID feature or water quality basin. "). There is not a need for an
underdrain with healthy soil and an exit to another permeable area Has this been
considered?
5
In regard to Appendix C 5.3.4 Transitional Phase Water Quality Features, to build healthy
soils, deeper infiltration (than suggested in the drawing on p. 127) is required. What is the
basis for the depth of infiltration suggested and where is the data to confirm this?
Appendix C Part 2, pp. 859 Site Design and LID BMPs.
6.
Have currently available pervious pavers been considered?
7.
With regard to PDA activity restrictions. has consideration been made to include
requirements for PDA's to comply with AB 1881, the State or municipality's Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the County Water Conservation Resolution?
8.
Regarding Common Area Landscape Management has consideration been made to
encourage the building of healthy soil through organic methods and regular aeration of
any turf areas, restricting or preventing the application of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides
or fungicides?
9.
With regard to Vehicle Wash Areas, have recommendations and requirements been
made to restrict the use of saps to those that are biocompatible (no salts)?
10.
Regarding LID/Treatment Control BMP Sizing Calculations what is meant by "amended
soil layer?
11.
With regard to Vegetated BioCll Sizing, What is a Biocell?
Dudley Tabakin
Vice Chairperson
Surfrider Foundation
Newport Beach Chapter
P.O. Box 12754,
Newport Beach CA 92663
dud lev0surfridernb. om
949.933.3429
Tony Soriano
Chairperson
Surfrider Foundation
Huntington Beach and Seal Beach Chapter
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
R\ Pro jedsWewp ertU0151RTMRTC -031512.do. 3 -358 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 015 Surfrider Foundation, Newport Beach Chapter
Dudley Tabakin, Vice Chairperson
Tony Toriano, Chairperson
November 7, 2011
Responsel
The opinion of the Surfrider Foundation is noted.
Response 2
The City of Newport Beach has not expressed interest in purchasing the property. Section 7.0,
Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR addresses several alternatives to the
Applicant's proposal including Alternative B: General Plan Open Space Designation. The
acquisition process for purchase of the property for open space is addressed as a part of the
analysis of Alternative B. In July 2005, the City of Newport Beach contracted with a consultant
to provide services in connection with the potential acquisition of the Project site as permanent
open space. The Newport Beach City Council set the following as a priority for 2008 and 2009
"Conduct an appraisal of the Banning Ranch property and assess funding available for the
purchase of the property for open space ". In February 2008, the City Council appointed the
Banning Ranch Appraisal and Acquisition Ad Hoc Committee to oversee the appraisal process
for the Project site and the assessment of funding availability for its purchase as open space. In
January 2009, the City Council authorized the City to request Measure "M" environmental
mitigation funding to acquire the Project site and that request was submitted to Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA). In August 2009, the City Council received the report on the
feasibility of funding acquisition of the Project site for open space, which estimated the cost of
property acquisition at $138,000,000.00 to $158,000,000.00. The City Council directed staff to
continue exploring open space acquisition possibilities as the City moves forward with review of
the property owner's development application and to continue to monitor funding opportunities
and explore potential new alternatives for open space acquisition.
Response 3
As part of this responses to comments document, a Preliminary Water Quality Management
Plan (P -WQMP) has been prepared consistent with the stormwater management and water
quality BMP features set forth in the Draft EIR (Section 4.4 and Appendix C). In addition,
quantitative modeling of the proposed stormwater management and water quality BMP features
have been prepared to support the conclusions previously reported in Appendix C and is
included as an appendix of the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix G).
To analyze the effectiveness of the proposed bioretention features and the extended detention
basin for off -site runoff, water quality modeling was conducted to predict anticipated changes in
storm water runoff quality and quantity for proposed versus existing conditions (see Preliminary
WQMP, Appendix G). The model does not take into account hydrologic source controls, storm
drain routing, Time of Concentration, storm drain pipe storage or other drainage design features
that would reduce the predicted storm water volumes.
The results of the planning -level water quality modeling demonstrate improved calculated water
quality (i.e., reduced concentrations) in the post - development condition given the change in land
uses and implementation and maintenance of Project Design Features (PDF). A summary of the
predicted calculated average annual pollutant concentrations are provided below.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -359 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
PREDICTED CALCULATED AVERAGE ANNUAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS:
ON -SITE PLUS OFF -SITE
Parameter
Units
Existing
Conditions
Developed
Conditions
w/o PDFs
Developed
Conditions
w/ PDFs
Change
TSS
mg /L
171
117
72
-99
Total Phosphorous
mg /L
0.3
0.3
0.2
-0.1
Dissolved Phosphorus
mg /L
0.18
0.26
0.15
-0.03
Nitrate -N
mg /L
1.0
0.9
0.6
-0.4
Ammonia -N
mg /L
0.5
0.6
0.3
-0.2
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
mg/L
2.0
2.3
1.6
-0.4
Dissolved Copper
pg /L
6.1
10.1
5.9
-0.2
Total Copper
pg /L
20
23
12
-8
Total Lead
pg /L
8
8
5
-3
Dissolved Zinc
pg /L
111
100
60
-51
Total Zinc
pg /L
150
149
69
-81
Note: Model results are rounded per the following convention: results are rounded to a uniform level of precision for each
parameter such that at least one significant figure is reported for each value, or such that numbers are rounded to the
nearest integer, whichever results in greater precision. The number of reported significant figures is intended to prevent
introduction of rounding errors; it is not intended to imply model prediction certainty.
The appropriate form of data for use in water quality load modeling are flow composite storm
event samples, which are a measure of the average water quality during the event. To obtain
such data usually requires automatic samplers that collect data at a frequency that is
proportionate to flow rate. Some pollutants of concern, such as pathogens, hydrocarbons,
pesticides, and trash and debris, are not amenable to this type of sampling either because of
short required holding times (e.g., pathogens), difficulties in obtaining a representative sample
(e.g., hydrocarbons, trash and debris), or low detection levels (e.g., pesticides). Therefore,
these pollutants were not modeled due to the lack of statistically reliable monitoring data for
these pollutants.
Response 4
In accordance with the 2011 Model WQMP, the biotreatment BMPs selected for the Project are
able to treat bacteria /pathogens to a medium to high effectiveness level. Source control
measures would also be implemented, such as common area litter control, pet waste education
for homeowners, and landscape maintenance activities to reduce the potential for pathogen
concentrations coming into contact with in storm water runoff. Based on these considerations,
the pathogen runoff potential is considered less than significant.
Response 5
Appendix C of the Draft EIR, page 867, summarizes Source Control Best Management
Practices from the 2003 DAMP. Please refer to Topical Response: Irrigation, Landscape
Design, and Common Area Landscape Management for specific requirements and
commitments for public and private landscape areas associated with the proposed Project.
Response 6
Harvest and reuse BMPs, such as cisterns and rain barrels, were discussed in Appendix C of
the Draft EIR and are evaluated in more detail in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix A to this
Responses to Comments document). Both the Draft EIR and the Preliminary WQMP reach the
RAProjedsWewpart J0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -360 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
same conclusion. The land uses and associated landscaping irrigation demand were compared
with the design capture volume to determine if the irrigation demand can reuse the storm water
within a timely manner and meet the minimum annual capture efficiency of 40 percent. With the
exception of turf dominated community park areas, the design capture volume significantly
exceeds the irrigation demand and cannot be used within the required timeframe. Therefore,
harvest and use systems are not considered feasible with the exception of the Community
Parks with sufficient turf area based on the criteria in the 2011 Technical Guidance Document.
However, the Project recognizes rain barrels can be a useful localized tool to help homeowners
conserve water and promote sustainable strategies for water conservation and would be
encouraged.
Response 7
Please refer to Topical Response: Infiltration Feasibility and Low Impact Development Features.
The overall approach for water quality treatment as outlined in the Preliminary WQMP includes
the use of biotreatment LID features that function similar to storm water planters (landscaped
biocells and water quality basins) in lieu of infiltration features for the on -site development
areas, consistent with the requirements of the MS4 Permit and 2011 Model WQMP.
Response 8
Please refer to the response to Comment 7.
Response 9
Please refer to Topical Response: Infiltration Feasibility and Low Impact Development Features.
Due to slope stability concerns and the migration of infiltrated flows along the bedrock and out of
the bluff face underdrains would be required for all biotreatment LID features in the Upland area
of the Project site. Infiltration in the Lowland area is generally considered more feasible
following the proposed biotreatment BMPs within the Upland development area.
Response 10
Please refer to Topical Response: Infiltration Feasibility and Low Impact Development Features.
Response11
Pervious pavers for the Project site have been considered. However due to the constraints for
infiltration on the mesa within the development area, the use of pervious pavers is considered
limited and other BMPs have been selected.
Response 12
Irrigation systems would be designed to meet City standards for water efficient landscaping,
where applicable in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.17, which was developed in
accordance with AB 1881. Please refer to Topical Response: Irrigation, Landscape Design, and
Common Area Landscape Management.
Response 13
Please refer to Topical Response: Irrigation, Landscape Design, and Common Area Landscape
Management.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -361 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 14
At this time, no vehicle wash areas are proposed on the Project site. If added in the future, wash
areas would be designed to eliminate dry weather runoff in accordance with City and
Countywide Model WQMP guidelines, and documented in the Final WQMP(in accordance with
the approved Model WQMP) as part of the Coastal Development Permit application package
submitted to the California Coastal Commission.
Response 15
The planting and storage media selected for the BMP can be amended (or altered) in
composition to allow it to absorb and retain more runoff, filter pollutants, and support vegetation
more effectively than soils without amendments. Sand, compost, soil conditioners, and fertilizers
are examples of soil amendments. The Countywide Model WQMP provides criteria for amended
soils. Use of amended soils in BMP design would be consistent with the requirements outlined
in the 2011 Model WQMP, the proposed Project's Preliminary WQMP, and further documented
in the Final WQMP (in accordance with the approved Model WQMP) as part of the Coastal
Development Permit application package submitted to the Coastal Commission.
Response 16
Biocells are a form of bio- treatment BMPs that function similarly in nature to bioretention cells
and rain gardens but tend to have shallower depths based on a higher reliance on sand -based
soil amendments. Biocells are small, vegetated depressions to promote infiltration and filtration
of storm water runoff. These features function as a soil and plant -based filtration device that
removes pollutants through a variety of physical, biological, and chemical treatment processes.
R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -362 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 016
SWAP Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
2503 Eastbluff Dr., Suite 206
Newport Beach, California 90405
Fax: (949) 717 -0069
Matt Hagemann
Tel: (949) 887 -9013
Email: mhaaemannCo7swaoe.com
November 8, 2011
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach,
Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Subject: Comments on the Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Alford:
We have reviewed the September 9, 2011 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the Newport Beach Banning Ranch Project ( "Project ") on the behalf of the Banning
Ranch Conservancy. The Project is to be located on a total of 401 acres in Newport
Beach, California and unincorporated Orange County. The Project will construct 1,375
residential units, 75,000 square feet of commercial space, a 75 -room resort hotel, a 51-
acre park, and provide 252 acres of open space.
Our review focused on Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Thresholds 4.5 -1
and 4.5 -2) which were found to have less than significant impact after mitigation. We
have concluded that the DEIR has made this finding on the basis of soil, soil vapor and
groundwater data that have yet to undergo regulatory agency review. Therefore, in our
opinion, the DEIR defers assessment of environmental conditions and fails to disclose
baseline conditions which may pose health hazards, unless mitigated, to: (1) workers
during construction; (2) adjacent residents during construction; and (3) future residents
and the public.
The Project site has a long history of use for oil exploration and production, beginning in
the early 1940s. Approximately 489 producing and abandoned wells are located at the
RTrojectsWewpartU0151RTC \RTC431512.dec 3 -363 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Project site along with related pipelines, sumps, storage tanks, roads, above - ground
crude oil storage tanks, processing equipment, service buildings, and other facilities.
A private oilfield operator, West Newport Oil Company, and the City of Newport Beach
operate oil wells on the Project site. The City also operates an oil processing facility at
the West Coast Highway entrance area to the Project site. Some historical uses of the
Site include agriculture, a military coast watch station, equipment storage and
maintenance, and areas leased to welders, pipe storage, and equipment operators.
The most current assessments of the environmental conditions at the Project site are
included in the following documents, prepared by the developer's consultant, which we
reviewed in the preparation of these comments:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update (Phase I ESAU), Newport Banning
Ranch, Orange County, California prepared by Geosyntec Consultants (April
2008).
• Draft Remedial Action Plan (DRAP), Newport Banning Ranch, Orange County,
California prepared by Geosyntec Consultants (August 2009).
We also reviewed what was identified as a "limited and preliminary" vapor intrusion
investigation which was attached to the Phase I ESA Update.
After review of these documents, we have concluded that baseline soil, soil vapor and
groundwater conditions are uncertain over large areas of the site because of the lack of
regulatory agency review of the documents that have been prepared by the developer's
consultants. Because of what we believe to be uncertain baseline soil and soil vapor
conditions, construction workers and future residents may face risks without further
assessment under agency oversight and implementation of any required mitigation and
remediation.
Until additional investigations are conducted under agency oversight, the baseline soil
conditions will remain uncertain. It is my professional opinion that a revised DEIR needs
to be prepared to include agency- approved soil and soil vapor investigations, and an
assessment of human health risks.
A map, included as Figure 4.5 -1 in the DEIR (Attachment A), shows 27 Potential
Environmental Conditions (PECs) that were used for the production of oil, including
gasoline storage tanks, and petroleum and diesel tanks and transformers. Below is a
summary of all the PECs and the contaminants found in soil and /or groundwater.
=t.
R: Troject sWewpnMJC15�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -364 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• PEC 1: Maintenance Shop/Warehouse; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs);
• PEC 2: Drill Site Tank Farm -- petroleum hydrocarbons, free product;
• PEC 3: Air Compression Plant -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 4: Steam Generation Plant -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 5: Water Softening Plant -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 6: Secondary Tank Farm -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 7: Pilot Scale Biotreatment Cell -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 8: Former Sumps and Clarifiers -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 9: Electrical Transformer Storage Area -- metals (Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu),
petroleum hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
• PEC 10: Transformer Mounts -- petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs;
• PEC 11: Offices /Changing Rooms -- septic wastes;
• PEC 12: City of Newport Beach Tank Farm -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 13: (consolidated with other PECs)
• PEC 14: (consolidated with other PECs)
• PEC 15: Underground Storage Tank and Fuel Pump -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 16: Coast Watch Station -- municipal solid waste;
• PEC 17: Oil and Gas Production Equipment Storage;
• PEC 18: Debris Stockpile;
• PEC 19: Abandoned Shack -- possible chemical spills;
• PEC 20: Debris and Soil Stockpile -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 21: Debris Stockpile -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 22: Soil Stockpiles;
3
4 cont.
R:TrgectsWewp MJD15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -365 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• PEC 23: Equipment Storage -- potential oil leaks;
• PEC 24: Main Office -- septic wastes;
• PEC 25: Oil Well Pads and Linear Features -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 26: Drilling Mud Sumps /Oil Well Sumps -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
• PEC 27: Sublease areas -- petroleum hydrocarbons;
The PECs were identified on the basis of samples collected in 2001 during a Phase II ESA.
Section 4.5 of the DEIR fails to mention that the Project site is under a Regional Water
Quality Control Board Cleanup and Abatement Order (No. 01 -77, issued to West
Newport Oil, Armstrong Petroleum Corporation, Aera Energy LLC, and Rancho Santiago
Partnership). To date, under this Order, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was approved to
govern efforts to recover "an isolated pocket of crude oil located on top of the shallow
brackish groundwater in the Main Drill Site Tank Farm" (DEIR, p. 4.5 -1). The remainder
of the Project site, including the 27 PECs, has apparently not undergone regulatory
review and the Phase I ESA and the DRAP have not been reviewed.'
According to the DEIR "prior to the issuance of the first City- issued permit," the RWQCB
will receive a final Remedial Action Plan (final RAP) to "allow for site disturbance
unrelated to oil remediation activities" (DEIR, p. 4.5 -28). Therefore, under what is
outlined in the DEIR, no agency review of the contaminants and plans for cleanup will
occur until after EIR certification.
In summary, our review shows that except for an area of limited soil excavation, the
RWQCB has not reviewed environmental data nor has the RWQCB reviewed and
commented on the Phase I Update and the Draft Remedial Action Plan. The conclusions
about the extent of contaminants made by the Project developer have not been
validated by an objective third party review. Therefore, we have concluded that the
DEIR defers assessment of environmental conditions at the site and therefore fails to
disclose baseline conditions which may pose health hazards, unless mitigated, to: (1)
workers during construction; (2) adjacent residents during construction; and (3) future
residents and the public. A revised DEIR needs to be prepared to include agency review
of the documents that have been prepared and agency comments on the adequacy of
the mitigation that is proposed in the DRAP.
Personal communication, Kamron Saremi, Regional Water Quality Control Board, November 2, 2011
4 Cont.
R: Pro juts Wewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -366 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Sincerely,
,it llzex,"s -
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
RTrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -367 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 016 SWAPE
Matt Hagemann
November 8, 2011
Response1
The Baseline Environmental Condition of the Project site is documented in the 2001
Environmental Assessment (EA) report. The 2001 EA involved comprehensive testing of the
property including all current and historic oilfield operating areas. This report was submitted to
and reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A Phase I update in 2005
and 2008 found no significant changes that warranted additional field testing. The draft
Remedial Action Plan (see Section 4.5 and Appendix D of the Draft EIR) outlines the scope of
the planned remediation, the regulatory oversight structure, the remedial processes that would
be used, and the existing soil cleanup criteria.
Response 2
Please refer to the response to Comment 1. Additionally, Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous
Waste, of the Draft EIR include Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.5 -1 which requires a comprehensive
final Remedial Action Plan (final RAP) be submitted to and approved by the Orange County
Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and
initiated for the oilfield clean -up and remediation prior to the issuance of the first City— issued
permit that would allow for sit disturbance unrelated to oil remediate activities. Preparation of
and compliance with regulatory agency requirements set forth in the final RAP are intended to
ensure that baseline soil and soil vapor conditions are fully reviewed and appropriate
remediation is conducted.
Response 3
The opinions of the commenter are noted. Please refer to the responses to Comments 1 and 2
as well as the Human Health Risk Assessment in Section 4.10, Air Quality.
Response 4
Please refer to the responses to Comments 1 and 2.
Response 5
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
rescinded on March 6, 2006. The base condition of th e
Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs), was reviewed
evaluation.
Response 6
Cleanup and Abatement Order was
entire Project site, including the 27
by the RWQCB and considered in its
Please refer to the responses to Comments 1 and 2. Appendix D of the Draft EIR, Draft RAP,
details the findings of both a Phase I and Phase II EA, which contain initial findings of
contaminants on the Project site. As noted by the commenter, MM 4.5 -1 requires "a
comprehensive final Remedial Action Plan (final RAP) shall be submitted to and approved by
the Orange County health Care Agency (OCHCA) and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) and initiated for the oilfield clean -up and remediation prior to the issuance of
the first City— issued permit that would allow for sit disturbance unrelated to oil remediate
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -368 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
activities..." which ensures further agency review of any identified contaminants and plans for
clean -up.
Response 7
Please refer to the response to Comments 1, 2, and 6. MM 4.5 -1 requires a comprehensive final
RAP which would mandates further agency review of any identified contaminants and plans for
clean -up. With respect to the concern expressed regarding the exposure of construction
workers, adjacent residents and future residents that may be near or on -site in the initial phases
of development to toxic air contaminants, the Draft EIR analyzed the impact of soil movement,
including potentially contaminated soils, on sensitive receptors which include both existing
offsite and future onsite residents and determined that this impact would be less than significant.
Please refer to Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.10 -29.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -369 Responses to Environmental Comments
&' _►A
Pruidenr:
CMig B91W
Absenree Ownm Lravon
949;1934630
VittN rdenr.
Shwon Bala
94964919604
5 Aw Liaison
4)52
Ch,u G4,Memdeah,p
Cbu rber
919166-0605
3lmrarn
Borboa 3hibou /r
Newpor,
949 442-5843
Hisrorinn:
W ,Johuon
Nar Ocea 25
WO 611 -3/IS
Di ,om
Mary Bryan,
Numbe smear
9196 +14266
Gory Clark
N.wMn Share
919001.9355
Jury Cobb
War Gcmnlronr
9196+64301
Nlmlai Glaser
uda sand
9+9,306.83J9
Jim Millo
Newport islaod
919:933-9827
Am O'Flym
8a1baa Coves
999.615-8233
E.,,,, Phillips
Newpan Shares
9191650.7528
Roger, Ruh
Rime N".r,
949,645-2977
G" ,g' Sahroede
Nambertd&melr
919,616 -2628
P. 7h.
Num6ab
9(9,6773 -3744 34332
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 017
WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 1471
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659
www.westnewport.org
November B. 2011
Via Email and Hand Delivery
Patrick Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Alford,
RECIJt,,
eDMMU IS
Na N p tk
%& �82ell
0 '0"
ti NT
nr 6EP0\
The West Newport Beach Association ( "WNBA ") representing the interests of "West Newport
Beach residents" respectfully requests the City extend the deadline for comments on the Banning
Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "NBR DEIR ").
The NBR DEIR is over 7,000 pages long, very complicated and difficult to navigate and
understand. It has taken years for this document to be compiled and yet we, the public, are
expected to read these complicated and confusing documents in sixty days, not to mention
understand the document and make our comments and concerns known to the City.
The public comment period is an essential and vital part of the process. It provides information to
all parties involved and contributes to mitigating issues. Therefore, it is our opinion that the
process should be extended for an additional 60 days. It would also be most helpful if there could
be an Executive Summary in 50 pages or less In plain English that can be digested by the general
Thank you for considering our request.
cc, WNBA Board of Directors
Sincerely, l�
Qd�— /I J Cyr
Craig Batley, Pr !den U
WNBA Board of Directors
R\ ProjedsWewportU015 \RTCIRTC-031512.6oc 3 -370 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 017 West Newport Beach Association
Craig Batley, President
November 8, 2011
Response1
The opinions of the Association are noted. Section 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines
requires that the minimum public review period for a draft EIR shall be 30 days. When a draft
EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review (as was the case for the Newport
Banning Ranch Draft EIR), the period is 45 days. Except under unusual circumstances should
the review period be longer than 60 days. The City of Newport Beach provided a 60 -day public
review period.
RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -371 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 018
Alford, Patrick
From:
John Allen jjearlingallen @gmail.comj
Sent:
Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:17 AM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Cc:
Kiff, Dave; Steven Rosansky; michael @jkd4insurance.com;
michael .wellborn @rdmd.ocgov.com; jane.dick @ocgov.com; kenniejo @hotmail.com; Sinacori,
Mike; district2 @oogov.com
Subject:
Noise Regulations for the Banning Ranch Development - Let's Not Repeat the Oil Drilling
Noise Problem"
Pat.
wife, Leslee Allen, wrote to you last week about some issues with the Banning Ranch Development. I
Id like to add more information about one of those concems - the concern about drilling and oil field
�ation noise.
it meeting on the Banning Ranch held at Newport Shores last week, we were told that the City of
I Beach would annex the Banning Ranch property, although it was stated that there was some
my whether the "oil islands" that would remain on the property would also be incorporated. I WOULD
IGLY RECOMMEND THAT THESE OIL ISLANDS BE INCORPORATED INTO NEWPORT
L AND THAT WE MAKE SURE" THAT THE NEWPORT BEACH NOISE REGULATIONS LIN41T
ING OPERATIONS TO DAY TIME ONLY. Here are my reasons:
s some ol'you may remember, fiom July through September ol'2006, a new oil well was drilled in the oil
rcralionsjust. off Pacific Coast Highway, in the oil island just across what we call "Sleepy Lagoon" foul our
wse. This drilling operation of this "new" oil well was a 24/7 operation. It was very different from the drilling
tcralions that we see about every month in which a drill rig operates during the day to clean out existing wells.
iiis 24/7 drilling operation was very disturbing to our Newport Shores neighborhood, to put it mildly. I bought
meter and recorded the sound level from nay property and started writing emails. I am very grateful for the
tention and efforts of Steve Rosansky, Dave Kif. . and may City Officials. After finding out that the property
as not under the jurisdiction of Newport Beach, we enlisted the support ol'Ortnge County. Again, we received
'eat support from Jane Dick in Supervisor Silva's office, as well as a lot of help from Mike Wellborn of the
range County Enforcement Division. We noticed that through even' ones collective efforts, a temporary
,laid wall was erected during the course of time. However, that did not stop the noise. Orange County even
red a professional noise engineering company, which set up it% operations in our front yard. But, the bottom
rte was that the noise continued and no one was able to stop the noise until the oil well was completed and the
ill left the area.
e big problem was that the Codified Ordinances of Orange County, specifically -title 7, Division R Article 1:
it Drilling and Production Regulations" have an area designated as area'O' which allows 24/7 drilling
-rations. However, the OC Noise Ordinances (.Section 4 -6 -1) say that drilling operations (or for that matter, any noise
rce) cannot crate sounds louder than 55 dBa for any 30 minutes in an hours period between the hours of 7:OOAM to I O:OOPrN'I and
der than 50 dBa from I O:OOPM to 7:OOAM. There are some other provisions that allow higher limits for shorter periods of time.
instance they are allowed to create noise SdBa louder for under I5 minutes, 10 dBa louder for 5 less than 5 minutes and I5 dBa
less than I minute. They cannot create noise for any time period greater than 20 dBa higher than the amount allowed during the
/night time period.
measured noise in excess of these OCNoise Ordinance limits until the end of the drilling operation.
noise from the drilling operation modulates. There is an overall lower noise level that is constant, but there are short times of
ally increased noise each time they put in a new section of pipe (about every couple of minutes). These bursts of noises exceeded
OC regutations. However, even bursts of noises that were less than 1 minute, every couple of minutes all night long are very
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015tRTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -372 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
(even if they don't exceed 20 dBa louder than allowed during the period). My neighbors will all attest to how disturbing it
believe that if the Banning Ranch development goes through ,the City of Newport Beach should annex all of Banning Ranch,
ncluding the'oil islands'. That Newport Beach ought to set noise regulations that prohibit drilling from 7:00PM to 7:00AM - no
rceptions. Taking these actions will protect the current residents of Newport Shores as well as the new residents of the Banning
anch development. These actions will also be fair to the oil operations, because they will understand the limitations and expectation:
efore any new drilling. It is unfortunate that the oil operator probably over spent his budget trying to quiet his operations. If he had
nown up front that he could only drill during the day, he would have the opportunity to budget and plan ahead - which is much more
:onomical than trying to change things on the fly. I think that if Newport Beach takes over jurisdiction, we have the opportunity to
range the noise regulations, and enforce them in our own city.
also suggest that the City of Newport Beach work with the County of Orange before the annexation to make sure no OC drilling
emits on the Banning Range are issued before annexation. We don't want another three months of disturbed sleep for Newport
Thank you for your balanced approach and your commitment to publishing all the facts about this project.
John Allen
251 61st Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949-671 -7670
R\RrojectsWewp.MJD151RTC \RTC431512.tlec 3 -373 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 018 John Allen
November 8, 2011
Response1
The opinions of the commenter are noted.
R\RrojedsWewp.MJD151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -374 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter O19a
Alford, Patrick
From:
Brandt, Kim
Sent:
Sunday, November 06, 2011 10.16 AM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Subject:
FW: DEIR concerns for Banning development
From: parandiamOaol.com ailto:parandiam4aol.coml
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 20115:59 AM
To: Iesleeallen20020vahoo.com
Cc: Brandt, Kim
Subject: Re: DEIR concerns for Banning development
Leslee:
By copy of this e-mail I am forwarding this e-mail to Kim Brandt, our Community Development Director, so that your
comments can be included in the DEIR record for Banning Ranch.
Steve
- -- Original Message - - - --
From Leslee Allen clesleeallen2002(Qvahoo com,
To: Steve NS Rosansky <parandiom(Caaol.com�
Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 7:37 pm
Subject DEIR concerns for Banning development
To the Newport Beach City Council
Attn: Steve Rosansky
From: Mrs. Leslee Allen 25161" St. Newport Beach, CA 92663
After attending the Banning meeting at Newport Shores, I have a few concerns:
1- That the 24 hour drilling that occurred a few years ago be regulated better, so it will not be 24 hrs. with
high noise levels for those living on the Newport slough.
2- Many of us in NS like the idea of having the oil wells underground, rather than the pumps exposed. if
they must be above ground, there must be planting to camouflage it.
3- If the Banning development goes in, what will happen to the area on the other side of the Newport
slough- will bushes, fence be removed?
4- The bridge over PCH connecting the parks and open area in the new development would be a nice
access for West Newport. I am in support of it.
(Is there someone else I should direct concerns regarding the Nov 8`h DEIR concerns ?)
RTrojedsWewpartMl&RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -375 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O19a Leslee Allen
November 1. 2011
Response1
Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR identifies that the drilling of wells requires some periods of
24 -hour activity. Drilling noise, consisting principally of diesel engines and tool maneuvering,
could occur during the nighttime for periods up to five consecutive days. Without noise
reduction, intermittent noise levels at receptors 200 feet away could be 75 dBA, although it is
likely that the source to receptor distance would be greater. MM 4.12 -11 would be incorporated
into the Project to use noise reduction strategies to minimize drilling noise. With the
implementation of MM 4.12 -11 and the consideration of the limited noise generation time, the
impact would be less than significant.
Response 2
As addressed in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR, the existing oil
facilities in the proposed southern oil consolidation site are visible from and would remain visible
from Newport Shores; the Semeniuk Slough is in the foreground. The perimeters of both the
southern and northern oil consolidation sites would be planted with native plant materials,
including native trees and shrubs. Although Project improvements would not completely screen
views of the oil facilities, the native plantings would provide some visual buffering.
Response 3
Section 4.2 provides visual simulations of the Project site from Newport Shores. Please refer to
Exhibits 4.2 -5a and 4.2 -5b and Exhibit 4.2 -6.
Response 4
The opinion of the commenter is noted.
Response 5
All environmental comments provided to the City of Newport Beach on the Draft EIR have been
compiled and are addressed in this Responses to Comments document. This information will be
provided to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and City Council members.
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -376 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick Comment Letter O19b
From:
Leslee Allen [Iesleeallen2002@yahoo.coml
Sent:
Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:13 AM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Cc:
John Allen;'KennieJO' NS bd 7; Steven Rosa nsky;'Michael NS Daily';'Mike S NS
Sinacorihome'
Subject:
DEIR concerns for Banning development
To Patrick Alford
From: Mrs. Leslee Allen 25161" St. Newport Beach, CA 92663
After attending the Banning meeting last night at Newport Shores, I have some strong concerns:
1- That the 24 hour drilling that occurred a few years ago be regulated better, so it will not be 24 hrs.
with high noise levels for those living on the Newport slough. Will the city of Newport Beach
incorporate the area so that they have control over the drilling, rather than the county of Orange?
2- Having a 50 foot (6 story ?) boutique hotel in the location looking down at Newport Shores will be
very visible and offensive to the natural view of those who live in Newport Shores and who use the
parks at the end of 61st Street. Mike Moyle from Banning development said they favored having the
hotel overlook the Newport Pier unless the bridge is built. Why does that make a difference? Those
who use the beach / park off of 61st Street would much rather have the 5 or 6 story hotel facing away
and landscaped with tall trees.
3- caving the oil wells underground, rather than the pumps exposed. If they must be above ground,
there must be planting to camouflage the oil islands.
4- If the Banning development goes in, what will happen to the area on the other side of the Newport
slough- will bushes, fence be removed? They shelter Newport Shores from the dirt of the oil
operations and from seeing the trucks as well.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -377 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O19b Leslee Allen
November 2, 2011
Response1
Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR identifies that the drilling of wells requires some periods of
24 -hour activity. Drilling noise, consisting principally of diesel engines and tool maneuvering,
could occur during the nighttime for periods up to five consecutive days. Without noise
reduction, intermittent noise levels at receptors 200 feet away could be 75 dBA, although it is
likely that the source to receptor distance would be greater. MM 4.12 -11 would be incorporated
into the Project to use noise reduction strategies to minimize drilling noise. With the
implementation of MM 4.12 -11 and the consideration of the limited noise generation time, the
impact would be less than significant.
Response 2
The Draft EIR assesses potential environmental effects associated with the resort inn should it
be developed in Site Planning Area 13a or 13b. The opinions of the commenter regarding the
location of the resort inn are noted.
Response 3
As addressed in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR, the existing oil
facilities in the proposed southern oil consolidation site are visible from and would remain visible
from Newport Shores; the Semeniuk Slough is in the foreground. The perimeters of both the
southern and northern oil consolidation sites would be planted with native plant materials,
including native trees and shrubs. Although Project improvements would not completely screen
views of the oil facilities, the native plantings would provide some visual buffering.
Response 4
Section 4.2 provides visual simulations of the Project site from Newport Shores. Please refer to
Exhibits 4.2 -5a and 4.2 -5b and Exhibit 4.2 -6.
RT,.jedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -378 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick Comment Letter 020
From:
Patricia Barnes [mezzohiker @msn.coml
Sent:
Monday, November 07, 2011 10:10 PM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Subject:
Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Comments to be Included in the Official Record
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: Patrick Alford
RE: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
Dear Mr. Alford,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Newport Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR). Please include the following comments into the official record.
CEQA Guideline Section 15121(a) states that (an) "EIR is an informational document which will inform the
public agency decision- makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project,
identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the
project The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which
may be presented to the agency." In light of this section of the CEQA guideline, it is readily apparent that
the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR has not met the conditions of adequately informing public agency
decision - makers and the public of the Coastal Commission's discoveries regarding ESHA as specified in the
Coastal Commission Consent Cease and Desist Order CCC- II -RO -02 and the Coastal Commission Consent
Restoration Order CCC- II- RO -02. There exists a significant amount of data from these Orders that is not
included in the DEIR, including ESHA existing in what is described as the NW and SE polygons. CEQA
Guideline 15121(a) also stipulates the inclusion of information and data regarding ESHA contained in the
1) Planned Community Development Plan for Banning Ranch and Technical Appendices; 2) Coastal
Commission Consent Cease and Desist Order CCC- II -CD -03 and Coastal Commission Consent Restoration
Order CCC- II -RO -02 and attachments; 3) Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Measure M
Environmental Oversight Committee (EOC) reports; and 4) information contained within the City's own
Letter dated 4/15/09, originating from the Newport Beach City Council in support of the application for
Measure M funds to be used towards the purchase of the entire Banning Ranch (information that was
included in determining Newport Banning Ranch's compliance with CEQA) and 5) information within the
City's General Plan.
ESHA protection provisions are also contained within the City of Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan.
Section 4.1.1. within the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) asserts the following policies regarding
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA):
Policies 4.1.1 -1. Define any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially
valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed oit
degraded by human activities and developments as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). 2
Using a site - specific survey and analysis by a qualified biologist, evaluate the following attributes when
determining whether a habitat area meets the definition of an ESHA:
A. The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
B. The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or
endangered under State or Federal law.
R: Troject sWewpnMJC15�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -379 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
C. The presence or potential presence of plant or animal species that are not listed under State or Federal
law, but for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity, such as designation as a 1B or 2 species by
the California Native Plant Society ..
According to the City's CLUP Policies ESHA is entitled to such protections as:
"4.1.1 -4. Protect ESHAs against any significant disruption of habitat values.
4.1.1 -6. Require development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas to be sited and
designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas, and to be compatible with the
continuance of those habitat areas.
4.1.1 -7. Limit uses within ESHAs to only those uses that are dependent on such resources.
4.1.1 -9. Where feasible, confine development adjacent to ESHAs to low impact land uses, such as open
space and passive recreation."
The City of Newport Beach's CLUP also states:
"Another important habitat within the City of Newport Beach is coastal sage scrub (CSS). Although CSS has
suffered enormous losses in California (estimates are as high as 85 0/6), there are still thousands of acres in
existence and this community type is no longer listed as rare by CDFG. Nevertheless, where CSS occurs
adjacentto coastal salt marsh or other wetlands, or where it is documented to support or known to have
the potential to support rare species such as the coastal California gnatcatcher, it meets the definition of
ESHA because of its especially valuable role in the ecosystem. CSS is important transitional or edge habitat
adjacent to saltmarsh, providing important functions such as supporting pollinators for wetland plants and
essential habitat for edge- dependent animals like several species of butterflies that nectar on upland
plants but whose caterpillars require wetland vegetation. C55 also provides essential nesting and foraging
habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a rare species that is designated threatened under the
Federal Endangered Species Act."
Another species which depends extensively on CSS is the California Coastal Cactus Wren, a native species
that is a California Species of Special Concern. Significant populations of these birds have been found
existing on the Banning Ranch project site. The preservation of CSS in coastal salt marsh areas such as
that on the Banning Ranch site is especially significant in that large numbers of Cactus Wren were
displaced from other areas within Orange County because of the loss of habitat resulting from wildfires
that recently occurred in those areas.
It is therefore clear that the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR is also in violation of the City of Newport
Beach's own Coastal Land Use Plan in its omission of a significant amount of data pertaining to
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat and species such as the California gnatcatcher and the Coastal Cactus
Wren, both of which are known to exist within and depend upon habitat found on the Banning Ranch
project site.
I respectfully request that the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR be extensively revised to conform to the
CEQA guidelines cited above as well as to the policies asserted in the City's own Coastal Land Use Plan.
Thank you.
Patricia Barnes
10736 Lynn Circle
Cypress, CA 90630
mezzohiker@msn.com
M
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,aoe 3 -380 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 020 Patricia Barnes
November 7, 2011
Response1
Please refer to Topical Response: Coastal Commission Consent Orders; Topical Response:
ESHA; and Topical Response: Sunset Ridge Project. With respect to the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) Renewed Measure M Environmental Oversight Committee
data, the City is familiar with this data. It does not relate directly with the Applicant's proposed
Project. Please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR which
identifies several alternatives to Applicant's proposal including the General Plan Open Space
Alternative which would require purchase of the property from the Applicant. This alternative
also requires the remediation of the property, the restoration of biological resources, and the
construction of a 20- to 30 -acre Community Park and a north -south roadway from West Coast
Highway to 19th Street. The City's General Plan does not make an ESHA determination for the
Project site. No further response is required.
Response 2
The comment is noted
Response 3
The comment is noted
Response 4
As stated on page 4.6 -37 of Section 4.6, Biological Resources, two cactus wren territories were
observed during focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher in spring 2009 including
one breeding pair and one solitary male. However, two territories do not represent "one of the
largest populations of cactus wrens in Orange County' as stated by the commenter18. The Draft
EIR acknowledges that the proposed Project would impact southern cactus scrub, southern
cactus scrub /Encelia scrub, disturbed southern cactus scrub, and disturbed southern cactus
scrub /Encelia scrub which provides potential habitat for this species. The Draft EIR also states
that because of this species declined in Orange County (following the loss of habitat by
wildfires), impacts on this species would be considered potentially significant.
Response 5
As addressed in the Draft EIR, Banning Ranch, which includes the Newport Banning Ranch site
and the Newport-Mesa Unified School District property, is designated as a Deferred Certification
Area (DCA). A DCA refers to an area where both the land use plan and implementing actions
plan have been deferred to some future date in order to avoid delay in certifying the balance of
the LCP. The Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction in all deferred certification areas.
Existing oil and gas operations are conducted throughout the Project site (West Newport
Oilfield) pursuant to California Coastal Commission South Coast Regional Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission Claim for Exemption No. E- 7 -27 -73 -144 (March 24, 1975).
1e http:// www. naturereserveoc .org /projects.htm
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -381 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The City's CLUP sets forth policies with respect to Banning Ranch as a DCA:
Policies:
2.2.4 -3. Designate the Banning Ranch property as an area of deferred
certification until such time as the future land uses for the property are
resolved and policies are adopted to address the future of the oil and
gas operations and the protection of the coastal resources on the
property.
2.2.4 -4. Depict the boundaries of deferred certification areas on the Coastal
Land Use Plan Map and other applicable LCP maps.
Response 6
The opinion of the commenter is noted.
R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -382 Responses to Environmental Comments
BRUCE E. BARTRAM
Attorney at Law
2 Seaside Circle
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Tel. (949) 650 -8682
Fax (949) 515 -1589
October 14, 2011
Sent via US Mail and email
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Comment 1
Dear Mr. Alford:
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 021a
RfcsivEo gl-
COMMUNITY
OCT 172011
DEVELOPMEN-r Z.
G
oF'VtY✓POnt Or�P
According to the Newport Banning Ranch draft Environmental Impact Report Sections
2.0 introduction:
"This Environmental Impact Report. (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts associated with the construction and implementation of the proposed
Newport Banning Ranch Project (Project). The EIR has been prepared in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRCj
Sections 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Chapter 3, Sections 15000 el seq.)...
The City of Newport Beach (City) is the "public agency which has the principal
responsibility for currying out or approving the project" and as such, is the "Lead
Agency" for this Project under CEQA (14 CCR 15367). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to
consider the information contained in an EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. This EIR is
intended to provide information to the Lead Agency and other public agencies, the general
public, and decision makers regarding the potential environmental
impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed Project.
The City, as the Lead Agency, will review and consider this EIR in its decision
to approve, revise, or deny the proposed Project... Pursuant to CEQA, "the purpose of the
environmental impact report is to identify the siynificant effects on the environment of a proiect
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -383 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
to identify alternatives to the proposed nroicct, and to indicate the manner in which sienificant
environmental effects can be mitigated or avoided,(PRC 21002.1(a)." (Emphasis added)
PRC 21002.1 contains policies the State Legislature declares "shall apply to the use of
environmental impact reports" prepared under CEQA. PRC 21002.1(b)contains another such
mandated policy: "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so."
(Emphasis added)
In the Newport Banning Ranch (NBR)dlraft Environmental Impact Report (13E1R)
Section 4.1 Land Uses and Related Planning Programs slates that CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines require that land use issues be evaluated as part of the environmental impact analysis
process." One such land use issue is the impact the California Coastal Act (PRC 30000 et seq.)
will have on the Project. The California Coastal Act provides a comprehensive scheme to govern
land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. One of its goals is to protect,
maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone. The
Coastal Act creates a shared responsibility between local governments and the Calilornia Coastal
Commission for the planning of coastal development.
The Coastal Act reflects a strong rule of policy, adopted for the benefit or the public that
implicates matters of vital interest. The Act provides heightened protection for areas that are
designated enviro uncntally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and establishes strict preferences and
priorities that guide development in them (PRC 30240). Hines v. California Coastal Commission
(2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 830; McAlister v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 169 Cal.
App. 41h 912.
Public Resources Code Section 30240 states:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be prolecled again,( any sigrr {scant disruption
of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be
allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to habitat areas and parks and
recreation areas .shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which
would significandy degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance ofdtose
habitat and recreation areas.
Given the mandate under the Coastal Act regarding protections to environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and the restrictions on development in and adjacent to then
described above one should expect a detailed analysis regarding the presence, extent, project
impacts on and mitigation measures concerning ESHA in the project site in the NRR DEIR.
Instead, on Pg. 4.1 -6 of the Land Use and related Planning Programs Section of the DEIR, it
states as follows:
"California Coastal Act Environmentally Sensitive Habilat Areas and Guidelines
The California Coastal Act protects important coastal biological resources including wellands,
riparian habitats, and other areas defined as envirotmnentally sensitive habi(at areas (ESHAs) by
the Coastal Commission. Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act defines ESHA as "any
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -384 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because
of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded
by human activities and developments." Because [lie Projcct site is within (he boundary of the
Coastal Zone, the Coastal Commission world evaluate the proposed Project relative to (1)
potential impacts to ESHAs (as defined under Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act and
(2) guidance from the Newport Beach CLUP. The Coastal Commission determines whether a
properly contains ESHA." (Emphasis added)
The NBR DEIR, thus "defers" the determination of any ESHA on the Project and of any
Project enviromnental impacts on such ESHA for another public agency -the Coastal
Commission- to another environmental review proceeding- the requirement that the NBR Project
obtain a coastal development permit (CDP) from the Commission under the Coastal Act. This
ESHA avoidance position of the NBR DEIR is further confirmed NBR DEIR Biological
Resources Section 4.6. As part of Section 4.6, Table 4.6 -10 Summary on Pg. 4.6 -102 lists the
project's consistency with regarding biological resources with the Coastal Act specifically
Section 30240. Once again, Section 30240 protects ESHA and restricts adjacent development.
Not surprisingly, it finds the project consistent with the Coastal Act's Section 30240 ESHA
protections. However, as you can sec the key "qualifier /loophole" is stated at the end. It slates:
"The determination of what areas would be regulated as ESHA would be made by the Coastal
Commission as part of the CDP process for the Project." (Emphasis added)
The NBR DEIR's ESHA determination delegation to the Coastal Commission flies in the
face of that state legislature mandated policy of PRC 21002.1(b) discussed above that "F..ach
public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of m•oiects that it
carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so." (Emphasis added). Thus, the City of
Newport Beach must consider the Project's potential environmental impacts on any ESHA areas
in the project site as part of its review process. The NBR DEIR lack of any ESHA analysis
violates PRC 21100 (b)(1) which slates "[T]he environmental impact report shall include a
detailed statement setting forth all of the following: (1) All significant effects on the environment
of the proposed proiect." Additionally, it violates CEQA Guideline 151262(a) which states an
"EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project."
The NBR DE.IR's ESHA determination avoidance further violates long standing
California court decisions regarding adequacy of EIR contents and the timing of environmental
assessment under CF..QA. [n Borzung v. Local Agency Formation Conn. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263,
282, the Supreme Court approved "the principle that the enviromnental impact should be
assessed as early as possible in government planning." In short, "the determination of whether a
project will have significant environmental impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate
Those measures, must occur bgfora the project is approved. "(Emphasis in the original) California
Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal. App 4th 603, 621.
As noted above, the NBR DIER mentions that the City of Newport Beach's Coastal Land
Use Plan (CLUP) is to provide "guidance" to the Coastal Commission regarding EShIA
determination as part of NBR's CDP process. The wcblink to the City's website containing its
CLUP is as follows: lift p:Hwwwancwoorlbeachca goy /index aspevpage =107.
1 cont.
R: Troject sWewporN015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -385 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
A review of the CLUP reveals it requires the City to conduct an ESHA determination of
the NBR Project in this proceeding as part of its review. In Section 1.3 General Policies it states
that "[T]Ire policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (PRC Sections 30200 - 30265.5) shall be the
guiding policies of the Coastal Lund Use Plan." Further, it states "[Wjhere there are conflicts
between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan and those set forth in any element of
the City's General Plan, zoning, or any ordinance, the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall
take precedence."
In the CLUP's Section 4. 1.1 states the following policies regarding Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas:
"Anolher important habitat within the City ofNeuporl Beach is coastal sage scrub (CSS).
Although CSS has sgffer•ed enorrnons losses tit California (estimates are as high as 85910),
there are still thousands of acres in existence and this community type is no longer listed as rare
by CDFG. Nevertheless, where CSS occurs adjacent to coastal salt marsh or otter
wellands, or where it is documented to support a• known to have the potential to .support ran e
species such as the coastal California gnalcatcher, it meets the definition of FSHA
because of its especially valuable role in the ecosystem. CSS is important transitional a• edge
habitat adjacent to .sallotarsh, providing important functions such as supporting
pollinators for wetland plants and essential habitat for edge- dependent animals like several
species of butterflies that nectar on upland plants but whose caterpillars require Welland
vegetation. CSS also provides essential nesting andforaging habilal fu the coastal California
gnalcatcher, a rare species designated threatened under the Federal
Endangered Species Act.
Policies 4.1.1 -1. Dente any area in which plant at- aninhal life or their habitats are either rare at-
especially valuable because of their special nature m• role in an ecosystem and which could
be easily disturbed a• degraded by bunion activities and developments as an environmentally
sensitive habitat area (ESHA). Using it site-specific survey and analysis by
a qualified biologist, evaluate the following attributes when determining whether a habitat area
nneels the definition ofan ESHA:
A. The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by the C'ali/ornia
Department of Fish and Gcnne.
B. The recorded a• potenntial presence ofplant a• animal species designated as rare, threatened,
or endangered under Slate a• Federal law.
C. The presence at- potential presence ofplant a- aninal species than are not listed under State
or Federal la ,' but for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity, such cis
designation as a I B at- 2 .species by the California Native Plant Society...... "
Under the City's CLUP Policies ESHA is entitled to such protections as:
"43.1 -4. Protect ESiiAs against any significant disruption of habilal values.
I cunt.
R: Troject sWewpnMJOt5tRTMRTC- o3hslzdoe 3 -386 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
4.1.1-6. Require development in areas adjacent to enviravnentally sensitive habitat areas to be
sited and designed to prevent impacts that would signfficandy degrade dense areas,
and to be compatible with the continuance of those habitat areas.
4.1.1 -7. Limit user within ESHAs to only those uses that are dependent on such resources.
4.1.1 -9. Where feasible, co fine development adjacent to ESHAs to low impact land user, such
as open space and passive recreation. "
In short, the City is required to make a determination of the presence ESHA in the NBR
Project site under the City's own CLUP's Policies listed above in addition to such requirements
under CE-QA.
Lastly, what makes the NBR DEIR ESHA determination avoidance request so egregious
is that both the NBR Project applicants Newport Banning Ranch, LLC (NBR) and the City of
Newport Beach know that ESHA is present on the NBR Project site. Indeed, both know it is
present on the adjoining Cily -owned properly which is the site of the proposed Sunset Ridge
Park Project. Both the City and NBR as property owners were the subjects of an enforcement
action for violation of the California Coastal Act brought by the Commission. The violation
involved the unpermiticd removal of major vegetation including vegetation comprising native
plant communities and habitat for the federally threatened California gnatcatcher; placement of
solid material, including pipes, vehicles and construction equipment; and grading.
The above Coastal Act violation was the subject of a Coastal Commission hearing
conducted on April 14, 2011 al the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors 105 E. Anapamu Street.
Santa Barbara, CA 93 10 1. According to the Staff Report prepared for the hearing, the
unpermitted development occurred in three areas totaling 1.01 acres (referred to by their relative
locations as "Northwest Polygon," "Northeast Polygon," and "Southeast Polygon ") (Exhibit 114
of the staff report for the Consent Cease and Desist Order and Consent Restoration Order) of
portions of land owned by NBR and the City property (which is continuous to the southeast)
(Exhibits 41 and 42 of the staff report for the Consent Cease and Desist Order and Consent
Restoration Order), all of which are located immediately inland of the 5000 block of West Coast
Highway, Orange County, California. A copy of the April 14, 2011 Staff Report will) the
aforementioned exhibits is attached.
At the April 14, 2011 hearing, the Coastal Commission approved Consent Cease and
Desist Order No. CCC -1 I -CD -03 and Consent Restoration Order No. CCC -1 I - RO -02, Under tlue
terms of the Consent Orders the City and NBR are, among other actions, to restore the Northwest
and Southeast Polygons on the subject properties by planting coastal sage scrub vegetation native
to Orange County that will provide foraging and breeding habitat f'or the coastal California
gnatcatcher. As part of the Consent Orders the City oil([ N13R agreed that for purposes of the
enforcement action the Northwest all([ Southeast Polygons constituted environmentally sensitive
habitat areas (ESHA) as defined by the Coastal Act.
As part the CCC Staff Report, attached is the Memorandunn prepared for the Coastal
Commission by Dr. Jonna Engels dated March 31, 2011. The Menun'andum concerns "Newport
Banning Ranch NOV (Notice of Violation) Subject Development FSHA Determination. On Pg.
:ont.
R: Troject sWewp,MJ0I5rRTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -387 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
7 of the Memorandum, Dr Engels indicates that the United Stales Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) in 2007 "designated all of Newport Banning Ranch as critical habitat for the
California gnatcatcher'', a federally protected endangered species under Endangered Species Act.
The Memorandum further states that 1,Ijn designating Newport Banning Ranch as critical
habitat, (he USFWS noted that the area was occupied by gn tcatchers at the time of the listing
and at the lime of designation of critical habitat and the area "contains all of the features essential
to the conservation of the coastal California gnatcatcher." A copy of the California Onatcatcher
Critical Habitat Map designating both Newport Banning Ranch and the City's Sunset Ridge Park
properties is attached for your review.
The USFWS designation of all of Newport Banning Ranch as critical habitat certainly
qualifies under the City's CLUP Policy 4.1.1 -1(B) as "fTlhe recorded or potential presence of
Plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law."
Thus, the City is bound by its own Coastal Land Use Plan and the statutory and case law
regarding CEQA cited above to demand the NBR DEER contain a full determination of ESHA
present on the NBR Project site. As noted above, "ftlhe nurpose of the environmental impact
report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project to identify alternatives
to the proposed proiecl, and to indicate the manner in which si pnificant environmental effects
can be mitigated or avoided.(PRC 21002.1(a)." (Emphasis added) In its deliberate avoidance in
determining the presence of ESHA on the NRR Project site, the NBR DEIR fails in fulfilling the
basic purpose of its preparation under CEQA.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Bartram
2 cunt.
R: Troject sWewpnMJO15�RTMRTC- 031512,aoe 3 -388 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
LetterO21a BruceBartram
October 14, 2011
Response1
As addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the Draft EIR, the
City has received approval for its Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) which is one -half of the
required components of a Local Coastal Program (LCP), and is currently working on its
Implementing Actions Plan. Section 4.1 notes that the CLUP establishes goals, objectives, and
policies that govern the use of land and water in the Coastal Zone within the City of Newport
Beach and its Sphere of Influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Newport Banning
Ranch. Banning Ranch, which includes the Newport Banning Ranch site and the Newport-Mesa
Unified School District property, is designated as a Deferred Certification Area (DCA). The City's
CLUP sets forth policies with respect to Banning Ranch site as a DCA:
Policies:
2.2.4 -5. Designate the Banning Ranch property as an area of deferred
certification until such time as the future land uses for the property are
resolved and policies are adopted to address the future of the oil and
gas operations and the protection of the coastal resources on the
property.
2.2.4 -6. Depict the boundaries of deferred certification areas on the Coastal
Land Use Plan Map and other applicable LCP maps.
Because Banning Ranch is a DCA in the City's CLUP, the policies in the City's CLUP are not
applicable to the Banning Ranch property. Correspondence from the Coastal Commission
during its review of the City's CLUP requested that references to the Banning Ranch property
be removed. Because the City does not have a certified LCP, and the City's CLUP does not
include the Banning Ranch property, the City acknowledges that any consideration of a Coastal
Development Permit for the Project site would require a finding of consistency with the Chapter
3 policies of the Coastal Act. The Draft EIR provides an analysis of the proposed Project with
the California Coastal Act as required by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. Please
refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of the Draft EIR.
The City acknowledges the commenter's reference to Section 30240 of the Coastal Act and the
importance of buffers for ESHA as well as the fact that both the Coastal Act and the City's
CLUP identify the importance of protecting ESHA and avoidance of impacts to ESHA.
Consequently, while the CLUP may provide guidance, it is not binding on the Banning Ranch
property.
The purpose of the Draft EIR is to analyze a proposed project's impact on the physical
environment. It is not, in and of itself, a policy consistency analysis. Section 4.6, Biological
Resources, of the Draft EIR analyzes the proposed Project's impact on biological resources,
including federal and State listed endangered and threatened species, sensitive plant and
animal species, and specific habitats such as wetlands and vernal pools. Whether any or all of
these constitute ESHA under the Coastal Act was not a part of the analysis in the Draft EIR, and
application of the policies of the Coastal Act to the existing conditions on the Project site would
be undertaken as part of the Coastal Commission's Coastal Development Permit process.
Please also refer to Topical Response: ESHA.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -389 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 2
Please refer to Topical Response: Coastal Commission Consent Orders, Topical Response:
Sunset Ridge Park, and Topical Response: ESHA.
Response 3
The purpose of an EIR is to analyze the impacts of a proposed project on the physical
environment. The Draft EIR analyzes the proposed Project and its impact on biological
resources including coastal sage scrub vegetation and the coastal California gnatcatcher; see
Section 4.6, Biological Resources, Section 5.0, Cumulative Impacts, and Section 7.0,
Alternatives to the Proposed Project. In so doing, the City has fulfilled its obligation under CEQA
to analyze the significant impacts of a project on the physical environment. To what extent these
areas constitute ESHA — a concept unique to the Coastal Act — is a finding within the discretion
of the Coastal Commission, or a local agency as part of its LCP certification process. While the
Draft EIR must identify a project's impact on the environment, including biological resources
such as sensitive species and sensitive native vegetation, it is not required to make a finding
pursuant to the Coastal Act. That would be within the discretion and authority of the California
Coastal Commission when this Project comes before them.
R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -390 Responses to Environmental Comments