HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 04_RTC Part 4Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 046
SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES
1586 iNlYR'T'LEW000 COS'T'A MESA, CA. 92626 PI10NE /RAX (714) 754 -0814
November 8; 2011
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City or Newport Beach, Community Development :Depaitment
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Via hand delivery and e -mail to: I>_nlford.Llcwporlbercllca,bov
9scoveo Op
COMMUNITY
NOV 0 S 2011
n� DEVELOPMENT
r o
OF'VCWPONZ 0�P
Subject: NewpoitBanning Ranch DEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061)
Dear Mr. Alton d:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
for the Newport Banning Ranch Project (State Clearinghouse No. 200903 106 1) located partially
within the City of Newport Beach and partially in an unincorporated area of 0range County
within the City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. These coin nients are submitted on behalf
ofthe Banning Ranch Conservancy, Slop Polluting Our Newport, and myself.
The project's location immediately to the east of the Army Corps of Engineers' saltwater marsh
restoration project and immediately to the south of Talbert Nature Reserve renders impacts to the
site more serious than if occurring at many other locations elsewhere in Orange County.
Banning Bench provides just a portion of anapproximately one Ihousand -acre system of habitats
along the Santa Ana River including the ACE marsh project, Talbert, Fairview Park, and
wetlands in Huntington Beach adjacent to the river. Habitats range from saltwater wetlands at
the mouth of the Santa Ana river; to freshwater wetlands to upland habitats. Elimination of
habitat on the project site would create a break in the chain of habitats from ocean to upland.
The project would permit the construction of up to 1,375 dwelling units, a resort hotel with
related commercial facilities, an additional 75,000 square feet of commercial development,
public parks, and other open space. Circulation improvement inchlde the construction of Bluff
Road between West Coast Highway and 194i Street, the extension of '154' So eel, I6d' Street, and
17a' Street into the project site, and construction of local roadways internal to the site. A system
of pedestrian and Bicycle trails will also be constructed.
Oil production facilities Tire planned to be consolidated in two areas of the site near Semeniuk
Slough and Newport. Shores. Pollution at existing oil production sites will be cleaned tip in
accordance with State and Federal law.
The project will involve the following discretionary approvals From the City of Newport Beach:
Page I of 24
R: Project sWewporN015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -557 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• General Plan Circulation Element Amendment
• General Plan Figure 12, Sphere ofin(luence
• Zoning Code Amendment
• Pre- Annexation Zone Change
• Newport Banning. Ranch Planned Community Zoning
• Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan
• Tentative Tract Map
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP)
• Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement
• Traffic Phasing Ordinance Approval
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 or
Program EIR addressing a general plan or master plan, with additional environmental documents
potentially prepared for specific development in the future.
Approvals needed from other agencies as part of the project include:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Section 7 Consultation and Biological Opinion.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Section 404 permit for impacts to "Waters oFlhe U.S. ".
• California Department of Fish and Game - Section 1600 Streambed Alteration
Agreement.
• Santa Ann .Regional Water Quality Control Board — Section 401 Water Quality
Certification; Waste Discharge Requirements for the fill or alteration of "Waters of the
State'; approval of the filial Remedial Action Plan for the oil well /Facility abandonment
and site remediation.
• California Coastal Commission — Coastal Development Permit.
• Stale of Calirornia Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR)- abandonment oP oil and gas wells.
• California Department of Transportation - Encroncbmenl. Permit for widening and
improvements to West Coast Highway, modifying the existing culvert in West Coast
Highway, and constructing a pedestrian /bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway.
• Orange County Health Care Agency - Approval of the filial RAP for the oil well /facility
abandonment and site remediation.
• Local Agency Formation Commission - Annexation of the project site into the City of
Newport Beach and change in water service district boundaries.
• Orange County Transporlation Authority - Amendment to the Orange County Master
Plan of Arterial Highways to redesignate proposed North Bluff Road between 17"' Street
and 19n' Street front Major (six -lane divided) to a Primary (Pour -lane divided) and
deleting the connection from 171' Street westerly to West Coast Highway from the
MPAFI.
• Newport -Mesa Unified School District - Encroachment permit for the construction of the
extension of 16"' Street and North Bluff Road on the School. District's property.
Page 2 of 24
R: Troject sWewp,MJ0I5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -558 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The EIR is intended to provide environmental information to the above responsible agencies,
trustee agencies, and other public agencies which may be required to grant approvals and permits
(DEIR p. 3 -51)
Project Descrintion
A vague or incomplete project description will render all further analyses and determinations
ineffectual As stated in McQueen v. Bocurl ofDirecmts oflhe AGicl- Peninsula Regional Open
Space District (202 Cal.App.3d 1 136, 1143; 249 Cal.Rptr. 439), "An accurate project
description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of potential, environmental effects of a
proposed activity ".
In setting aside the approval of an EIR by the City of Los Angeles For water development
facilities in Ingo County, llie court stated: "An accurate; stable and finite project description is
the is the Sine qua non of an information and legally SUM6e111 EIR" (Connry+of/rq+o v. Cite qJ'
l osAngcles (71 Cal.App.3d 193) (139 Cal.Rpn'. 401]). A stable, complete, and accurate project
description is the most basic and important factor in preparing a lawful EIR. It is the
denominator oFthe document and, thus, of the public's and decision - maker's review. p
The DEIR explains generally what is planned for the site, but certain important information is
lacking or ambiguous. This is particularly problematic regarding oil production consolidation,
landform alteration, and commercial uses at the boutique hotel.
While the DEIR repeatedly indicates that oil field operations will be consolidated in specific
locations, little information is provided as to what that will entail. Will new oil wells be chilled
at the consolidation locations? What activities and equipment would be involved? Will new
buildings be constructed? As shown on Exhibit 4.5 -1, maintenance shops, storage, offices,
changing rooms, an air compressor plant and other functions currently occur outside the
proposed consolidation areas. Will all of those functions be provided oil -site in the consolidation
areas? Where specifically?
The details of the consolidation process could have significant implications for impacts on
homes in Newport Shares. The DEIR nwst provide complete iiiforniation as what consolidation
entails and fully examine [lie associated impacts, including, but not limited to noise, vibration, air 3
emissions, visual impacts and traffic. Parlictdar consideration must be given to impacts on
Newport Shores and Semeniuk Slough both as to impacts of consolidation and ongoing impacts
clue to activities at the consolidation si(es.
Various documents for the project provide conflicting information as to when consolidation of
oil production activities might occur. On the one hand, the Master Development Plan (Section
3.4.5; p. 3 -18) states:
Upon receiving all public agency approvals required to implement the Project, the
Developer shall initiate the abandonment and remedialion of existing surface oil
operations within the Open Space Preserve areas described above in Sections a -d
Page 3 of 24
R: Troject sWewp,MJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -559 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
and consolidate the existing surface oil operations into the two Consolidated Oils
Sites described below.
Thus, one would conclude that oil operations would quickly be consolidated.
Strangely, though, the Newport Banning. Ranch Planned Conununily Development Plan specifics
in various locations (']'able 3 -3, P. 3 -28; Table 3 -4, p. 3 - -31) that structures in various
development areas would be set back from active oil well heads at least 100 feet. If all oil
production facilities were consolidated at the Iwo locations shown, this policy would appear to
be unnecessary.
The Newport. Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (Section 3.2.1, p. 3 -1) also
states:
All surface oil production facilities located in areas outside of the OF District in
existence after the effective date of the NBR -13C shall be legal non- conforming
structures and subject to NBMC Chapter 20.38, "Nonconforming Uses and
SIMCInres," and subject solely to the provisions ofNBlvIC Sections 20.38.010
through 20.38.050 of Chapter 20.38.
Under the provisions ol'Chapter 20.38, existing oil production facilities could continue to
operate indefinitely, unless the Planning Commission adopted specific findings pursuant to
Section 20.38. 100 D which would then allow up to ten years for removal. Thus, cleanup and
restoration of open space areas could be postponed indefinitely.
The DEIR does not clarify this apparent inconsistency which must be resolved. Conditions of
approval must identify a reasonable time certain within which oil operations will be consolidated
and associated cleanup will be completed. This must be related to issuance ofoccupancy permits
For development on [lie site.
The Project Description indicates that 2.5 million cubic yards of materials will be excavated on
the subject property (p. 3 -34), but no grading plan is included in the DEIR. The DEIR generally
Shows areas subject to cut and areas subject to fill (Figure 3 -17), but fails to illustrate how the
landform will be changed.
It is only when Figure 3 -17 is magnified several tines that some sense of what appear to be
tdtinnate ground contours is provided. Unfortunately, (he resohition of the map is such that
details are lacking and one has no way of knowing how much site topography will be altered at a
given location. Further, the contours shown are not consistent with those in _Figure 4.3 -6, Bluff
Restoration Plan, which shows only a portion of the site. The Bluff and Slope Restoration Plan
in the Master Development Plan (Exhibit 7 -3) likewise fails to show the entire site and fails to
include significant areas shown to be subject to cut and fill in DEIR Exhibit 3 -17. The Master
Grading Plan (Exhibit 7 -1, Master Development Plan) shows finished contours, but not existing
landfonns.
Page 4 of 24
:ont.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -560 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Based on comparisons of various maps and exhibits, it appears that the upper portion of the
Southern Arroyo will be subject to fill, an arroyo branching off loom the Southern Arroyo in a
northerly direction, the "Central Arroyo ", will be filled, and an east west trending arroyo /canyon 5
northerly of Newport Shores will be filled. This must be addressed in the DEIR. Cross sections
must be provided showing both the most extreme cases as well as representative cases.
The.DEIR repeatedly indicates ("fable 3 -I, p. 3' -12; Table 3 -2, p. 3 -27) that commercial
development will be limited to 75,000 square feet, and fimther indicates that any commercial
development in any of the residential areas would be included in the 75,000 square feel. Indeed
Objective 5 (p. 3 -8) has as an objective "Development of up to 75,000 square feet . of retail
commercial uses oriented to serve the needs of local residents and visitors utilizing the resort
inn (emphasis added] and the coastal recreational opportunities proviCed as part of the Project."
In actuality, the Resort Colony would include a 75 -room hotel and additional ancillary
commercial uses (p. 3 -16) not included in the 75,000 square feet. As described in the Planned
Community.Development Plan (Section 3.14 -2, p. 3 -34):
Commercial uses constructed as part of a resort inn facility as allowed
within the VSIUR Land Use District which may include restaurants, bars, fidl-
service spas, fitness centers, specialty shops, banquet and meeting facilities, and
similar uses which are customarily developed as part of or in conjunction with a
resort inn use shall not be counted as part of the maximum permitted 75.,000
square feet of commercial development
It would be unlikely that the guests of the seventy -five hotel rooms or even guests of the hotel
combined with residents of the eighty -seven resort residential units, would be adequate to
support the range of activities described, i.e. restaurants, bars, full- service spas, fitness centers,
and specialty shops. Indeed, the project objectives include allowing ancillary facilities to be
Open to the public, though this is not clear from the project description, and the DEIR's
calculation of traffic generation for the proposed project (Table 4.9 -7, p. 4.9 -24) includes no trips
generated due to use of resort commercial facilities by off Bile users.
The Planned Community (Table 3.5, p. 3: -36) allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in the Visitor
Serving Resort area and basic height limit of fitly feel. This would allow over 360,000 square
feet of strictures in the 5.7 -acre resort area. Assuming a generous 2,000 square feet per guest
room, that would still leave approximately 200,000 square feet ofadditional commercial
development allowed.
Ancillary commercial development must be further deleted and strictly limited to minor uses I7
needed to serve the resort itself. As currently provided, massive amounts of additional
commercial development could be provided on -site absent a comprehensive examination oP the
impacts of such development within the context of the entire Banning Ranch developine I
It is noted that the Planned Community text indicates that the same uses would be included in the
75;000 square feet limit if constructed independently of a resort inn, whether or not those uses
were located in the Resort Colony area. The impact of these 75,000 square feel has been address
Page 5 of 24
:ont.
R: Trgect sWewp,MJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -561 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
in some detail in the DEIR. The impact of potentially hundreds of thousands of square feet of
commercial development must be similarly examined.
In addition, the following questions and comments must be addressed:
I_ p. 3 -1. What is the maximum square footage of visitor serving commercial uses (flat
will be permitted at the resort inn?
2. p. 3 -I. Will any of the commercial uses at the resort inn be restricted to those
staying/i esiding at the resort, or will they all be available to [lie general public?
3. p. 3 -I. Would guests in only seventy -five rooms or seventy -five rooms combined with
eighty- seven resort residential units be adequate to support the proposed commercial
uses?
4. p. 3 -1. Will visitor serving commercial uses include one or more restaurants? Will
these all be available to the general public? Will these all be marketed to (he general
public?
5. p. 3 -1. Will the resort include a healthclob /spa? Will this be available to the general
public? Will this be marketed to the general public?
6. p. 3 -1. What constitutes "limited" meeting facilities? What is the maximum square
footage anticipated?
7. p. 3 -1. Will use of meeting rooms be limited to those slaying/residing at the resort inn,
or will the meeting rooms be available for events sponsored by and /or attended by
others?
8, p. 3 -1. Will the meeting rooms be marl(e(ed to the general public or to events
coordinators s(a rin a events for the neneral D1Ablic9
9. p. 3 -2. Would all oil production activities be consolidated, or only those currently
occurring in areas slated for development?
10. p. 3 -2. Would consolidation of all facilities be required as a condition of a) n'oval?
11. p. 3 -4. It should be noted that Talbert Nature .Reserve is a part of the Nature Reserve of
Orange County, established as part of (he Orange County Central /Coastal NCCP
process. Although a parking, lot, to( lot, and grass area have been established at Canyon
Park, the bull( of the park is in a semi - natural state, and primarily utilized for passive
activities such as hiking, picnicking, bird - watching, etc. Thus, the Banning Ranch
property is part of a larger system of contiguous relatively natural Open Space.
12. p. 3 -5. What is the agreed upon time period foi public site acquisition?
13. p. 3 -6. What are the terms agreed upon for public acquisition?
14. p. 3 -5.. When were the agreed upon time period and terms adopted?
15. p. 3 -5. Where would one find a copy of the agreement?
16. p. 3 -5, 6. If the time allowed for acquisition and terms have not been publicly agreed
upon and identified, how may the properly owner (hen pursue enlitlenten( ... "during the
time allowed for acquisition as open space"?
17. p. 3 -8, 9. Project objectives will be used as (lie hasis for evaluation of project
alternatives. Thus objectives must not be so narrow as to exclude otherwise reasonable
alteriatives. Specific numerical objectives regarding future use, i.e. 75 overnight hotel
accommodations, 75,000 square feet of commercial development are so specific they
fend to work against an even handed evaluation of alternatives. The project objective
Page 6 of 24
7 cont.
10
11
12
13
R: Troject sWewporN0l5hRTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -562 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
would more appropriately state a goal of providing for conunercial uses needed In serve
residents and visitors of the proposed development.
18, p. 3 -9. Objective 9 must be revised to include compatibility with existing off -site
development such as the homes in Newport Shores.
19. p. 3 -10. 'file project site is currently strewn with debris including what appear to be
inert materials like piles of cement as well as oil production waste. Will all debris be
removed, or only Ilia( re uirin g renlediation under the law?
20, p. 3 -10. Aller oil production ceases at (he consolidated site currently utilized by the
City of Newport Beach, how will responsibility for cleanup be assigned? Will the city
be fully responsible? Partly responsible?
21. p. 3 -10. Gas has long been burned off in flares in the West Newport area. flow is it that
methane gas is 1101 an issue here?
22. pp. 3 -11 to 14. Will public restrooms be provided in both the lowland and upland open
space? Will statues be permitted?
23. p. 3 -15. Has the owner of the 15" Street office building agreed to the proposed re-
allocation of parking?
24, p. 3 -15. Who would be responsible for maintenance of the shared parking area? How
would conflicts be resolved?
25. pp. 3 -18 to 20. Will all roadways be public? Development at the allowable residential
densities in the proposed alley areas is usually accessed of a sheet, not an alley. Aren't
the proposed private alleysjust substandard, private streets?
26. p. 3 -19. Why are pedestrian walkways planned for the inland side of Resort Colony
roads and the Scenic Drive ra(lier than (he outer; scenic side? This appears to conflict
with (lie goal of providing public access to coastal resources, i.e. views. Will alternate
trails or walkways be provided separately on the outer, more scenic side of the
roadway?
27. p. 3- 20.:I-lownu.mh NRviUSD land would be needed for the proposed street
improvements?
28. p. 3 -21. Would a fee be charged for parking at the resort inn and associated commercial
development?
29. p. 3 -24. The Coastal Act makes no provision for a "Hasler Coastal Development
Permit ". Local agencies may only approve Coastal Development Permits upon
certification of a Local Costal Program. is the City assorting that it may assume
.responsibilities for CON without a certified LCP for the subject. property? Or is tile
City asserting that the proposed development would somehow be covered under Coastal
Act Section 30610?
30. p. 3 -24. if the city somehow managed to assume the authority sought under the "Hasler
Coastal Development Perini(" how could the action be appealed to the Coastal
Commission, which normally considers appeals based oil conformance with the certified
LCP?
31. pp. 3 -24 to 26, Exhibit 3 -15. A graphic of the actual anticipated . uses, including
densities /intensities must be provided. The supposed "plan" merely provides a key to
the "village" areas described on Table 3 -2. Thus, one cannot easily determine what
density and use will be allowed where from the "plan'. An easily read graphic mapping
proposed uses must be provided.
Page 7 of 24
13 cent
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
W4
23
24
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -563 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
32. p. 3 -27. Fairview Park is not called "Fairview Regional Park" but is a City orCosta
Nlcsa Facility and is considered a community ark.
33. p. 3- 30..I-- -low will it be ensured that fultre private development, including individual
liomes, makes use of pernicable surfaces and other water quality measures?
34. p. 3 -30. Existing wetlands must not be utilized for treatment of polluted runoff.
5. p. 3-35. Where will cuts react as Much as 25 feet in teighl? All such areas must be
clearly identified.
36. p. 3 -.35. Where will fill reach as much as 60 feel in height? All areas subject to 20 feel
of fill or more must be clearly identified.
37. p. 3- 35,.36. Haul routes for earth materials and other building materials must be
identified and impacts along the routes must be addressed and mitt aged:
38. p. 3 -36. Will on -site soils be treated in place or relocated elsewhere on -site to[-
treatment?
39. p. 3 -36. if soils are not fullyremediated of the time construction of the North Village is
contemplated, where will (he treated soils be placed?
40. p. 3 -36. Will consolidation of oil production facilities involve drilling new wells?
41. p. 3 -37. Development A reemenl obligations must be briefly summarized.
42. p. 3 -44. Why would air conditioning units be needed this close to the cons(?
43. p. 3 -47, 48. As noted above the Coastal Act makes no provision For a.ivlasler Coastal
Development Permit.
44. p. 3 -48. Where would units to be provided with in lieu fees be provided?
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
This section must examine the potential to divide an established community due to increased
cut - through traffic. Areas of flarlicular concern are the residential areas along 19 °i Street and
along I6d' Street.
The DEIR provides numerous cross sections of the interface between development on the
project site and the surrounding community (Exhibits 4.1 -2 a throughj) i-lowever, fhe exhibits
fail to inform one as to the impact that would occur. Forexample, file sections showing
Newport Crest and BILIFF( toad (Exhibit 4.1 -2 g) do not include the Heen foot tall noise barrier
recommended to mitigate noise from Bluff Road. The project's interface with California
Seabreeze shows only the open space interface, not the interface with the Urban Colony to the
south.
Neither of the interfaces with the Urban Colony (Exhibit 4.1 -2 c and (1) show the maximum
height permitted under tile Planned Community and Master Plan under consideration. Section
4.1 -2 d shows only a two story building in an area where structures up to a basic height of 60
feel would be permitted with additional elements up to 72 feet. Section 4.1 -2 c shows only a
car on the adjoining lot, not the existing Structure which would Form a better basis For
comparison. hi addition, Section 4.1 -2 c shows a structure that appears to be five stories in
height, but based on the scale provided in the lower right hand corner would be only about 45
feel at the plate line, less than 55 feet at the roof peak and less than 60 feet at (he top of the
ormunental cupola. At the same lime, based on the same scale, the person shown next to the
Page 8 of 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
99
36
37
R: Troject sWewporNO1 5aRTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -564 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
building would be well over six feet tall. Sections must show the maxinnun height, including
additional elements providing up to twelve additional feet in height and all elements, including
people and vehicles, must be based on the same scale.
Impacts must be gauged based on existing conditions. Thus, sections must show (he existing 3;
and projected context of the interface, including existing ground elevations. finally, it would
have been helpful if the interface labels had corresponded with the exhibit labels in alphabetical
order instead of scrambled, with Interface K shown in 2b, Interface G in 2.e, Interface
and so Forth.
In addition, the following questions and comments Most be addressed:
I. p. 4.1 -6. In addition to the policies cited, the certified CLUP includes the following:
2.2.4 -3. The Coastal Commission shall retain permit jurisdiction in all deferred
certification areas.
The proposal fol- the City to assume authority over all discretionary permits following
approval of what is being called (lie "Master Coastal Development Permit" appears to be
at odds with this oolicv.
p. 4.1 -o. 1. tie coastal act also protects other coastal resources such as coastal vu
landforms. In that regard, (lie following language in the certified CLUP host be
nddressed-
p. 2 -25.
Banning Ranch consists of 505 acres located north of the Senteniuk Slough
and Coast Highway West and east of the Santa Ana River. Nearly all of
Banning Ranch (454 acres) is located within the City's sphere of infivence
in unincorporated Orange County. Oil and gas operations are conducted
throughout the County portion of the properly ... The properly contains a
number of sensitive habitat types, including southern coastal bluff scrub,
alkali meadow, southern coastal salt marsh, southern black willow forest,
coastal brackish marsh, and vernal pools. The property also contains steep
coastal blufl-s along the southern and western edges of the mesa.
pp. 4 -76,77
The bluffs, cliffs, hillsides, canyons, and other significant natural landforms
are an important part of thescenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone
and are to be protected as a resource of public importance... Coastal bluffs
are a prominent landform in Newport Beach.... "There are also coastal
bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniulk Slough, and
the degraded wetlands of the Banning Ranch property. Finally, there are
coastal bluffs surrounding Lower Newport Bay. These can be seen along
Coast Highway from the SCnIC1141 k Slough to Dover Drive and in Corona
del Mar above the Harbor Entrance....
Pagc 9 or
cont.
R: Troject sWewp,MJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,aoe 3 -565 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
3.
p. 4..1 -9. What is [lie agreed upon lime period for public site acquisition? What are the
terms agreed upon for public acquisition? When were (he agreed upon lime period and
terms adopted? If the timcallowed for acquisilion and terms have not been publicly
agreed upon and identified, how may the property owner then pursue entitlement ...
"during the time allowed for acquisilion as open space "? Wotddn't that be inconsistent
with the provisions of the adopted General Plan?
4,
p. 4.1 -14. As noted above, cut- through traffic generated by the proposed project
has the potential to divide ail established community.
5.
p. 4,1 -20. Which of the "established, traditional neighborhoods ofNewporl Beach" is the
Urban Colony intended to reflect?
6.
p. 11.1 -22 to 26. From where would height be measured? Existing grade? Approved
finished grade? This must be defined.
7.
p. L 1 -22. What sort of Conwumily.Parl< structure would reach a building height of 36
feet?
8.
p. 4.1 -23. What sort of. Wit ffParl<struc(ure would reach a building height of 18 feet?
9.
p. 4.1 -23. What sort of In(erpretive Dark structure would reach a building height of 36
feet?
10.
p. 4.1- 22 -26. "file DEIR repeatedly states a maximum height for each use, With a tiny
superscript reference to a small footnote on a different page. The EiR ants( make it clear
that while the basic height limit for an area is the number stated, e.g. 60 feet in the Urban
Colony, the actual maximum is twelve feet taller, e.g. 72 feel in the Urban Colony .
1 1.
1). 4.1 -27. What type of lighting is currently utilized for oil production operations?
12.
p. 11. 1 -29. California Seatneeze is lootted almost duc north of the proposed Urban Colony,
[tot just to the west.
13.
p. 4.1 -33. 1-low will .lighting front individual residential Units be controlled in the
compleled project? Were dwellings in the upper levels of the Urban Colony to have
outdoor balconies, lighting from such balconies could resuh in significant impacts to the
SLII'I'OUndln ,area. This must be examined in the EIR.
14.
p. 4.1 -39. When would the Lowlands Interpretive Trail be implemented? Could this be
implemented prior to abandonment ofall oil production operations al Banning Ranch,
includinu the consolidated operation with connectin" roach
15.1).
<L 145. If light is to be directed downward, won't Ihatjusl direct lighting into (he
lowlands, potentially affecting wildlife in those areas?
16.
p. 4.1 -47. Consistency with the Coastal Act requires preservation of coastal resources,
including habitat, Iandforms, and views. As determined by the Fourth District Appellate
Courtin Bolscr Chica Land D-ust v. Sul)eriar Court (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4 °i 493, resources
must be preserved at their current location. As noted by the courts, the Coastal Act does
not allow "a process by which the habitat values of an ESHA can be isolated and then
recreated in another location ... (he express terms of the statue do not provide that
protection by healing those values as intangibles which can be moved from place to place
to suit the needs of development ". Thus, habitat must be preserved in situ. Preservation
also re wires the provision ofade vale buffers.
17.
Based on to November 2, 2011 Coastal Commission hearing for Sunset Ridge Park and
access road, it does not appear that the Commission finds the proposed primacy access for
the site (0 be consistent with [lie Coastal Act. II is I'e<ILIeSted that the Staff report for that
Page III of 24
m
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
R:TrgectsWewporNOl 5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -566 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
item (W 16a,hlt :Hciocuments.coistal.ca.>oU v/ reports /2011 /I1 /1UI6a- II- 2011_pdf)be
incorporated by reference into [his EIR.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
' ['his section must examine shade and shadow generated by the proposed development based on
maxinuun building envelope. This must include impacts on existing residential uses to the 1101-111
and west, such as California Seabreeze, which is almost due north of the sixty to seventy -two
foot tall Urban Colony.
This section must address landform alteration. The EIRnulst include aclear delineation of
existing topography and cross sections ofareas to be altered along with structures built on the
altered landform. Coastal Act policies regarding landform alteration must be addressed and
Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies regarding views and landform
preservation must also be discussed, although Banning Ranch is an area ofdeferred certiticalion.
Alteration of views from Newport Crest and other residential areas due to landform alteration
must be addressed.
In accordance with Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the Guidelines for the implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), if a ntiIigalion measure would cause one or more
significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the
effects of the mitigation measure shill be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects
of the project as proposed. Thus, this section must address aesthetic impacts of any sound walls
or sound Barriers, including impacts to Newport Crest.
In addition, the following questions and comments rims( be addressed:
I. p. 4.2-11. Stating maximum building heights twelve feet lower than actual height and use
of a footnote to indicate true maximum height ofslrucwres obscures the true height and
minimizes potential impacts. All analyses must address the actual maxinmm.
2. pp. 4.2 -11 through 15. The DEIR must indicate not only the height of the proposed
suucuues in each area; but how high the roof of the struclives and additional features will
be above existing grade. It is the structure and Ilse fill taken together Ihat will affect views
of the site, notjust the structures. Absent information regarding existing grade and changes
in grade at specific locations, one cannot evalualethe impact of the project on existing
enviroinnenlal conditions.
3. p. 4.2-11. Page 4.1 -23 indicates that slruchuDes ill the Bluff.Park district would reach a
maxinuun of 18 feel, whereas p. 4..2 -1 1 indicates that structures would be 36 feet and up to
48 feel for len percent of the roof area. This must be reconciled.
4. p. 41.2-11. Footnote 5, regarding building height in the VSR/IZ District pertains to fences,
not building height. This illustrates the problems caused by failure to be fully candid
regarding building height in the text itself.
5, p. 4.2 -1 I. Will existing power poles on the site be removed? The power poles have been
observed to provide perches for raptors on the site.
Page I I of 24
51 cont.
52
53
54
55
56
57
R:TrgectsWewp MJO15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -567 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
6. p. 4.2-11. Will power poles in the Interim Oil Facilities district be removed aRcr oil
production ceases?
7. p. 4.2 -1.6. Areas where sound walls will exceed six Feel in height must be identified and
mapped in order dial the visual impact may be evaluated.
8. 1). 4.2 -17. Glass or other transparent materials must not be utilized for walls. Use of
transparent walls at the Brightwater project adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve
has resulted insignificant numbers of bird deaths. Decals placed on what has become
known as tile "Wall of Deatli' have not remained in place and the carnage continues.
Potential impacts due to transparent WAS must be addressed and fully mitigated.
9. 4.2 -28, 29. How will lighting from upper floors of residential structures be controlled,
including lighting from balconies?
Geology and Soils
I_ p. 4.3 -7. Approximately how many acres of the site are in the not inactive fault zones
and setback areas?
2. p. 4.3 -9. Approximately how many acres odic site are subject to liquefaction and lateral
spreading?
3. 1). 43 -10. How many cubic yards of unenginecred fill will be removed and /or
recompacted?
4. 1). 4.3 -10. How many cubic yards of colluvial soils would be excavated?
S. p. .3 -10. IIIHSIMIC11 as C011LIVill Soils are in ravines and washed, impacts of excavation
on bioloaical resources must be examined.
6. p. 4.3 -12. If the bluff is currently retreating at about 2 feet per year with a variation of
0.6 to 4,2 Peet (1).4.3 -11), isn't a bluff setback or60 feel. as required by PDF 4.3 -1 . rather
paltry? Bluff setbacks must be designed to anticipate erosion for at least seventy -five
ears.
7, p. 43 -13. Would any off -site grading be needed for the project, as addressed by SC 43-
2? If so, where?
8. p. 4.3 -16. Shoukln'I Fruit zones data be updated and setback limits refined in
compliance with existing State standards belbre the projert is approved???
9. p. 4.3 -16. It appears that the proposed Bluff Road play cross the mapped not inactive
faults. Ipso, the implications for emergency access must be addressed.
10. p. 4.3 -17, 21. What is meant by "blufPrestoretion "? Is the goal to restore bluffs to Bonne
former state in the past? If so, the EIR must identify the specific past bluff configuration
being, sou rht. A more realistic goal would be bluff stabilization.
11. 4.3 -I8. Where, specifically, on the site will localized cuts reach 25 feel? Cross sections
must be provided in the EIR.
12. p. 4.3 -18. Where, specifically, on fie site will till reach 30 feet and even 60 feel? Cross
section must be provided in time EIR.
13. p.. 11.3 -20. Surface drainage and bluff slope erosion control plans must be developed now
and included for analysis in the EIR, so that decision makers and the public generally
nmay be informed as to what the plans entail; their anticipated effectiveness at erosion
control and any potential impacts.
14. p. 4.3 -21. There is no Exhibit 3.22 in the DEIR as represented here.
Page 12 or 24
M
59
60
61
62
63
Al!
'M
66
67
68
69
i
70
i
71
72
R: Trgects Wewp,MJDI5mRTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -568 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
15. p. 4.3 -21. What, briefly, does Appendix Chapter A33 rc (ire?
16. p. 4.3 -22. What sort of "adaptive management practices" might be needed to mitigate
bluff instability? Is sonic sort of armature contemplated? l.f additional measures would
be required, wouldn't it make more sense to maintain a larger bluff setback to begin
with?
17, p.4.3-22 , Shouldn't additional trenching to further refine fault mapping be completed
before the project is approved? Isn't exposure of people to earthquake hazards all issue
to be examined and resolved under CEQA?
18. p. 4.3 -23. Evidence in [lie record does not support the assertion that the project is
consistent with the Coastal Act in light of the landfonn alteration contemplated.
HydroloCV and Water Quality
1. p. 4.4 -12. While the USACE- restored salt marsh basin "can be viewed as available
storage capacity for local runoff', it shouldn't be. The marsh was designed to provide
saltwater habitat in return for habitat removed elsewhere. To treat the basin as just
another flood control facility is not consistent with its primary, required purpose of
habitat mili gation.
2. p. 4.41 -12. How would flooding of lowlands affect interim oil production facilities?
Would petroleum residues or other materials associated with oil production be carried
clsewhere in the watershed?
3. p. IA -13. Oil .production facilities world be concentrated near Semeniuk Slough. [-low
would the slough be protected from spills or other release of toxic/hizardous materials?
4. p. 4.4 -21. Thresholds of significance must include alteration of the hydrologic regimen
of a wetland or riparian area in a manner dial reduces water available for the wetland or
riparian area thereby reducing the continued viability of The wetland or riparian area. The
propose([ drainage facilities must be examined in the light of potential inipac(s on
biological resources in existing drainage ways.
5. p. 4.4 -23. What is the capacity of the Caltrans RCB storm drain under West Coast
Highway? Does the storm drain have the capacity to accommodate additional flows?
6. p. 4.4 -23. It appears that the various storm drains would divert (lows from existing
arroyos fo release in (he lowlands. The EIR must address how the diversion would
affect biological resources in existing drainage areas. This must be [illy mitigated.
7. p. 4.4 -26. Rather than identify beneficial uses not provided by the tidal prism of the
Santa Ana River and Newport [sic] Slough, the EIR nulst discuss beneficial uses that are
provided, 'those include wildlife habitat, marine habitat and rare, threatened, or
endangered species.
8. p. 4A -26. Rain Event Action Plans must be prepared as a part of project review and
included ton examination in the EIR.
9. p. 41.4 -30. The Risk Assessment, Stormwater P0111.1tion Prevention Plan and neatmcnl
system design must be prepared as a part of project review and included for examination
in (he EIR.
10. p. 4.4 -33. Where on the site would materials be stockpiled? Stockpiles must be located
out of drainage ways and away from residential uses.
Page 13 of 24
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Me
81
82
83
M
R: Troject sWewp,MJ015nRTMRTC- 031512,aoe 3 -569 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
11. p. 4.4 -35. flow would use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and other chemicals be
controlled in single family housing areas? Strict limits niust be included in CC &Rs, and
highlighted at time of sale,
12. p. 4.4 -38. Who would be responsible for maintaining (he transitional area LID features?
I -tow will maintenance be assured?
13. p. 4.4 -38. What will be the retention time For landscape biocells? What has been the
demonstrated efficiency of 1heproposed system I'or specific polltnants based on that
retention time? Information must be provided 1'or heavy metals, oil residues and other
Pollutants.
14. p. 4.4 -40. How will minimization of use of impervious surfaces be assured after homes
are sold?
15. p. 4.4 -41' What will happen ifa property owners' association is NOT formed'?
. p. 4.4-4 1. The Watei Quali(y Management Plan must be prepared as a pan o project
review and included for examination in the EIR.
17. p. 4.4 -41. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, when mitigation
measures are adopted in order to reduce impacts, a Mitigation Monitoring Program
(NINIP) must be prepared which identifies responsibility ror implementing each
nnitigalion measure. Thus, responsibility for implementing nonsituctutal MIN and
maintenance of structural BM.Ps nwsl be identified in the MM.P.
18. p. 4.4 -42. The Spill Contingency Plan must be prepared as a part of project review and
included for examination in the EIR.
19. p. 4.4 -47. Isn't the entire Post flush storm event supposed to be retained or treated, not
just °almost all "?
20. p. 4.4-117. What "nourishment" %would be released into the lowlands'! s: ou c Ins
potentially result in eutrophicalion of lowland wetlands? Is "nourishment benefit" just
another wav of describine fertilizer pollutants?
21. p. 4 -4 -49. Who will inspect (he site twice a year to observe racility integrity? Who will
absorb the cost?
22. p. 4.4 -49. Who will inspect for health of vegetation, ponded water, and excess debris
quarterly? Who will absorb the cost?
23. p. 4.4 -49. Who will be responsible for ensuring implementation of all the LID features
listed?
211. p. 4.4 -53. Would vegetation in the upper arroyos receive less water? What would be the
effect of the diversion?
25. p. 4.4 -56. Would storm (lows in the Storm drain in Wes( Coast Highway be increased?
26. p. 4.4 -62. Would oil production facilities be within the 100 -year flood plain currently or
taking into consideration sea level rise over the anticipated life of the facilities? If so,
protective measures must be taken so that oil residues are not carried elsewhere in the
watershed or to the ocean.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section must address impacts to Newport Shores due to consolidation of all oil production
facilities in the Newport Shores area, operation of the consolidated facilities, and remediation. It
Page 14 of 24
85
86
87
88
89
D,
91
92
93
94
95
96
T7
Fin
99
R: Troject sWewp,MJol5�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -570 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
nmst also address hazards due to previously capped wells. In the pas(, wells improperly capped
years before have resulted in oil seeping up into local living rooms.
In addition, the following questions and comments must be addressed:
I. p. 4.5 -7. Will flaring ofexcess gases continue to be necessary?
2. p. 4.5 -10 to 12. What is the schedule for cleanup for each ot'tile sites listed m Ta le 4.5-
3? It appears that some of the sites requiring the largest amour( of cleanup will be
included in the consolidated oil productiomarea. Will polluted soils remain 1'or the next
several decades then?
3. p. 4.5 -13. Will old sewer pipes, and old trucks, drill rigs and equipment located across
the project site which are considered do minimis conditions be removed from the site? If
so, when?
4. p. 4.5 -19. When will relocation of oil production and remediation occur on portions of
the site that would not be developed? What assurances exist that those areas will be
included in the consolidation and remediation program?
5. p. 4.5 -20. What would occur irtosted materials did not meet required criteria?
6. p. 4.5 -21. To where are gases vented and with what impact?
7. p. -21. Are any habitable structw'es planned to be located within all area as close as
100 feet to an active oil well head? If so, where?
S. p. 4.5 -21. Will real estate disclosure documents identify the location of abandoned well
heads so that the 10 foot separation can be maintained?
9. p. 4.5 -24. Do the soil remediation methods result in emissions of materials into the air?
1f so, what materials are released and n what concentrations?
10. p. 4.5 -24, 25. What does (bet nal treatment entail? Is the heavy hydrocarbon burned off?
11. p. 4.5 -25. 1 -low would "impacted soils" be identified during grading? Would it
hazardous materials expert monitor grading activities?
12. p. 4.5 -26. What would be the caul route for materials removal? What sensitive uses are
located along the route? The ELR must examine impacts on sensitive uses along the haul
I outes.
Biological 12esot ces
This section appears to contemplate removal of habitat at some locations and re- establishment of
habitat elsewhere. Much orthe habitat appears (o fit criteria for Environmentally Sensitive.
Habitat. Area (ES1-IA), for example coastal sage snub supporting California gnalcatchers, or
riparian areas which suppor( special status wildlife species. All ESHA must be preserved in
place. Consistent with (he Bolso Chica decision, ESHA cannot be relocated. Any plans to do so
must be abandoned.
Based on the November 2, 201 1 Coastal Commission hearing on SLI11SCt Ridge Park and the
related access road, it appears that the Coastal Commission has identified ESHA at Banning
Ranch where the City had not. Habitat mapping mist be revised to reflect and observations and
the standards of the Coastal Commission.
Page IS of 24
99 cent
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
i[r>1
RON
109
R: Troject sWewporNO15�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -571 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The DEER must address impacts on (fie site in light of( lie system of habitats provided along the
Santa Ana River moving in rrom the ocean. This ranges from saltwater wetlands at the river
mouth; to freshwater wetlands in the lowlands and drainage ways of the project. site,. Talbert
Nature Reserve, and Fairview Park, to upland habitat at Fairview Park, Talbert Park, and the
project site. Elimination of habitat on the project site would create a break in the staircase of
habitats from ocean to upland.
This Milk must examine potential impacts on habitat due to changes in site drainage. Any
diversion of diainage away from riparian areas must be avoided to (he extent feasible.
In addition, (he following questions and comments must be addressed:
I. p. 4.6 -6. It appears that the delineation of wetlands and habitat was conducted near the
end of a three year drought, when both water and related vegetation would be long gone.
Was a comprehensive survey of the site conducted subsequently?
2. p. 4.6 -6. When (he surveys were repeated in 2008 due to drought conditions in 2007,
were conditions any better?
3, p. 4.6 -14. What percent of normal precipitation occurred in the year preceding the 2009
survey?
4. p. 4.6 -21. Were any surveys performed to determine (he presence of bats?
5. p. 4.6 -28, 34. Western spadefoot has been observed in nearby Fairview Park and could
polenliatl exist on the project site.
6. p. 4.6 -30, 38. Western snowy plovers were present in substantial numbers in Talbert
Nature Reserve just north of (lie subject property a few years ago.
7. p. 4.6 -44. Habitat restoration areas must be monitored for five years after apparent
success is achieved not just five years after the restoration is initially pursued.
S. p. 4.6 -44. Certain habitats are quite difficult to establish. What steps would be taken if a
restoration project is not clearly successful at the end of five years?
9. p. 4.6 -44. What would be the criteria for success that would be monitored?
10. p. 4.6 -44. lflight is directed downward, won't that direct light into the lowlands?
11. ). 4.6 -47. Flow many acres of (he site will be in fuel management zones?
12. p. 4.6 -53. Coastal Sage Scrub identified as providing gnatcatcher habitat must be
preserved in situ.
13. p. 4.6 -54, 55. Will drainage facilities direct less water to the riparian habitat than
curren(I occurs? With what impact?
14. p. 4.6 -65. Use of invasive species mist be prohibited in all areas of the site. This must
be included in CC &Rs with buyers provided a list of unacce table species.
15. p. 4.6 -66. 19... Street stubs out at the edge of the project site, so is not a source of light in
the area.
16. p. 4.6-66. Control of predation by domestic cats is extremely dill ncu t unless cats are
kept indoor at all times. is (here any instance where providing a brochure to residents
has reduced this impact to an insignificant level? If so, where? Mitigation measures
without demonstrated results cannot be counted upon to reduce impacts 10 an
insignificant level.
17. p. 4.6 -69. Where is it proposed that replacement riparian habitat be established?
.Page 16 of 24
ifi[11l
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
R: Troject sWewp,MJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -572 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
18. p. 4.6 -71. The existing fencing provides little impediment 10 tale movement of wildlife.
Scale fly over; some'un1 p over; some crawl under; and some Wriggle throe rh.
19. p. 11.6 -73. Development must be phased with mitigation so Ihat habitat removal for later
phases is not permitted to proceed until habitat restoration for previous phases has been
demonstrated to be successful.
20. p. 4.6 -75. Annual monitoring reports most continue for five years after the apparent
success of the restoration.
21. p. 4.6 -75, 76. Both grading and brush removal nest be prohibited in the nesting season in
areas potentially utilized by high interest avifauna. In no case shall any Flushing be
permitied doling the nesting season.
22, p. 4.6 -82. Silos must be monitored for five years after success criteria have been met to
ensure against loss of marginally successful restored habitat and loss clue to condilimts
not antici paled in the restoration prograin.
23, p. 4.6 -90. No invasive landscape species must be permitted anywhere on -site. This must
be included in project CURS.
24. p. 4.6 -90. The wildlands interface brochmre and disclosure materials must identify
appropriate coyote controls, i.e. securely covering wash, keeping pei food incloos,
keeping pets in and /or supervised. Potential homebuyers host be informed that coyotes
will be expected in the area, are an important part of the natural food chain, and
eradication would not be successful and only pursued against individual coyotes in cases
of imminent danger.
25. p. 4.6 -90. The contingency measures included in the Habitat Restotalion Plan (p. 4 -18)
must be included as mitigation measures.
Pomulaiion, H.ousine and Employment
This section must address jobs housing balance in light ofanticipated housing costs and the
anticipated employee profile of fulure project employees by income group, including extremely
low, very loco, low, median, and moderate income.
In accordance with Newport Beach Municipals Code Section I9.511.080A as Affordable Housing
Implementation plan must incluCle the following:
1. A description of fhe residential subdivision project, how the affordable housing
requirements will be met by the applicant, and whether the affordable units will be rented
or owner - occupied;
2. The number, size, and location of each affordable unit;
3. Incenfives provided by the City (if any) for density bonus;
4. Limits on income, real and sales price of affordable units;
5. Procedures for Tenant selection and the process for qualifyiag prospective households
for income eligibility;
6. Provisions and /or dO0u111ellts for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal
for owner - occupied unils, or restrictions for rental units,
7. Provisions for monitoring the ongoing affordability of the unils;
Pagc 17 of 2:1
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
R: Troject sWewpoduol5�RTMRTC- o315izdac 3 -573 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
8. Performance guarantees (e.g., a cash deposit, bond, of letter ofcredit) as required by
the review authority; and
9. Provisions for the enrorcement and penalties for violation of the agreement.
The AHIP provided on -line and dated August 2011 fails to include most of these items. This
must be addressed in the EIR. An adequate AHIP in fill conformance with Section 19.54.080
must be prepared.
In addition, the following questions and comments Must be addressed.
1. -file regulatory setting also includes the provision of Government Code Section 65590.
This must be addressed in the EIR.
2. The Al-1113 indicates an understanding that provision of the full number of required
affordable units would not be feasible on -site. What evidence in the record supports that?
3. "file AFIfP indicates an Understanding that provision only of moderate income dwelling
units would be feasible on -site. What evidence in the record su )orts that?
4. p. 4.7 -16. The project would generate 2,17 retail jobs and 175 jobs at the resort inn. Jobs
in retail and the hospitality industry are typically low paying. Where are these employees
expected to live?
5. p. 4.7 -I6. How would the additional employees affect the demand for lower income
housing in the subregion?
Recreation and Trails
The El nwst address how trails would be phased with development and with consolidation and
eventual removal of oil production operations. Would lowland trails be available for use in the
area set aside for oil production and the connecting roadway?
Traffic and circulation
I. p. 4.9 -I. The regulatory setting also includes Callrans authority over West Coast
Highway.
2. p. 4.9 -17. "file levels of service in Table 4.9 -5 appear to be much better than those shown
for many intersections in Table 4.9 -4 and much better than is normally experienced at
such intersection as Newport and Harbor; Newport and Rochester, and Newport and 17 "i.
How is it that the alternate methodology gives such different results? Results not born
out by experience!
3. p. 4.9 -24. Table 4.9 -7 shows no trip generation for commercial uses developed in
conjunction with the resort inn. Due to the small size of the hotel, additional customers
would be needed from elsewhere to support the potential restaurants, bars, and shops.
Ti i Vs Mencraled by these uses must be included.
4. p. 4.9 -24. Is the reduction for internal capture in Table 4,9 -7 realistic considering the
large size of the project site and the sloping terrain which would discourage shoppers
Pagc 18 or 24
133 Cont.
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
R: Fro je�i swewponu015�RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -574 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
from walking to commercial areas in the Urban Colony from other areas of Banning
Ranch?
S. p. 4.9 -24. To what extent would pass by trips be generated by traffic originating or
ending. at Banning Ranch? Wouldo'lthose be included as illICIoal captrii'e and potentially
be double - dipping trip teduclions7
6. p. 4.9 -25. Did file analysis include trips diverted from Coast Highway onto Bluff Road,
going on to I9 "' Street to Irvine/Mariners? How would that affect the residential
nei rhborhood along Gast 19"'?
7. p. 4.9 -27. The EIR must address how the proposed project would increase cumulative
demand for the 19"' Street Banning Avenue Bridge.
S. p. 4.9 -32. The tulure condition included in Table 4.9 -8 shows Bluff Road as extended to
Victoria in Costa Mesa. There are currently no plans to construct the road, and the
roadway would nm through an area enrolled in the NCCP program. Thus it is highly
unlikely that the roadway would be built by the time the project is full operational, if
ever. "traffic analyses must be revised to reflect no further extension of BlUfT Road.
9. p. 4.9 -87. ]'Ile EIR must examine effects of construction activities on emergency access.
t0. The GI.R mist also examine the effect of project traffic on emergency access. Already
fire (rucks are observed wailing to gel across Newport Bordcvard to respond to
emergencies in Gast Costa Nlesa. The EIR most examine how project traffic would
exacerbate the pioblern.
11. p. 4.9 -93. What effortshave been made to reach an agreement with Costa Mesa whereby
the applicant would take full responsibility for mitigating project impacts?
12. p. 4.9 -95. Whcrc additional right of-way would be required, what elTorts has the
applicant made to induce the owners to sell on the open market?
13. p. 4.9 -95. Would any businesses or homes be lost due to the need to acquire additional
rights of way?
14. p. 4.9 -95. Why hasn't hnproventenl No. 37 at Newport and 18 ' been completed yet?
15. p. 4.9-114 to 132. The aria ysis of Special Stm y Issues was helpful, t toug p
discouraging.
Air Quality
This section must examine impacts ofTACs, particulates and other emissions on nearby
residents and other sensitive receptors due to Consolidation of oil operations in the Newport
Shores area and ongoing operaliori of the consolidated facilities. Impacts due to remedial ion and
construction on adjacent off silo uses must also be examined.
Construction inlpacls must include equipment involved in the consolidation of oil production in
addition to standard equipment utilized for residential and commercial construction.
In addition, the following questions and coriopents host be addressed:
I. p. 4.10 -9. Cancer is not the only adverse health effect of air contaminants. Other impacts .
include asthma, emphysema, miscarriage, birth defects, reduced king capacity and other
Pagc 19 or 24
141 cons
142
143
144
145
146
i
147
148
149
150
151
152
R: Troject sWewp,MJoI5tRTMRTC- o315tzdoe 3 -575 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
chronic and acute problems. Iinpacts must not be considered solely on the basis of cancer
cases.
2. p. 4.10 -14. To what extent will the consolidation or oil operations near Newport Shores
concentrate emission of the substances identified in Table 4.10 -5? How will this affect
residents of Newport Shores?
3, p. 4.10 -15. Instead of providing solar ready root's, why not provide the solar panels
installed as original a ui x»ent?
4, p.. 4.10 -28. What year is represented by the lrarfic volumes shown it Table 4.10.6?
5. p. 4.10 -32. Would hydrogen sulfide be released during project construction?
Greenhouse Cases
World greenhouse gases be released due to remediation? This must be addressed in the EFR.
Noise
This section must analyze noise and vibration from consolidation and operation of oil production
Facilities in the Newport Shores area and the impact on residents due to the consolidated
facilities. Operation of both consolidated facilities nmst be addressed along with heavy trucks
traversing the connecting road. Analyses mist include noise and vibration at the northerly end of
Newport Shores its well as the more southerly area where noise readings were taken.
In addition, the following questions and comments must be addressed:
I_ p. 4.12 -15. is the list ofequipment provided in Table 4.12 -8 typical of the equipment
needed to consolidate oil operations, or would additional ec ui orient be needed?
2. p. 4.12 -14 to 17. The EM must examine construction generated vibration as well as
noise.
3. p: 4.12 -17. On what basis is it concluded that up to twenty truck trips per day by a
vehicle generating noise up to 84 dBA (Table 4.12 -8) would not be significant in an
otherwise quiet environment? Haul routes have not been identified but could potentially
travel past homes, schools, or other sensitive uses. An 84 dBA noise every hill f hour or
so would be more than significant for those ex lenencin , the noise.
4. p. 4,1.2 -27. It appears that planning For DluffRoad will have to be adjusted due to habitat
concerns demonstrated by the Coastal Commission on November 2, 2011. Alignment of
the road at a location Further from Newport Crest nwsl be considered at the same time.
5. p. 4.12 -27. Combination of noise barriers with a.6iuff Road located Further from homes
must be utilized to fully mitigate impacts on Newport Crest.
6. p. 4.12 -32. Loading docks must not be located on the side of the project nearest existing
residences at California Seabreeze.
7. p. 4.12 -33. Why are air conditioning units being proposed at a location this close to the
ocean? This is not consistent with a" green' approach.
8. p. 4.12 -33. Outdoor eating establishment with amplified nuisic must not be located on
the northerly side of the building facing residences at California Seabreeze.
Page 20 of 24
152 cant
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
17
R:TrojectvNew,v,MJ 15 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -576 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
9. p. 4.12 -41. What is the useful life of a rubberized asphalt surface? What is the cost
compared to ordinary asphalt? Will the City of Costa B4esa be lilted with ongoing costs
to maintain the rubberized asphalt? If so, funds must be deposited by the applicant to
cover ally future costs.
10. p. 4.12-42. The El R must examine the aesthetic impact of any noise barrier, including
blocked views.
Cultural Resources
Even (hough the site is highly disturbed, it is disappointing that richer resources weren't found,
especially considering resources identified at the Castaways site, Fairview Park, Newporter
North and other coastal sites. It is still very important for all grading to be monitored by in
archaeologist with the atthority 10 stop work if resources are found.
In addition, the following questions and continents itusl be addressed:
I. p. 4.13 -9. Why are only Jivaneno /Acjachnnen on the Contact list? Weren't any
Gabrieleno /Tongva contacted? If no(, they must be contacted pursuant to SB 18.
2. p. 4.13 -.21. How old is the ranch house on the site? Is it old rancho structure, or merely a
structure typical of the post World War II era.
3. p. 11.13 -25. To the extent feasible, avoidance must be Utilized as a strategy for rei.TuciiiT
impacts.
4. p. 4.13 -25. The paleontology survey nwst be C011CILIGted as a part o I lis envlronmenla
review so that decision nnakers and the public generally may clearly assess . potential
impacts.
5. p. 4.13 -26 to 31. All grading must be monitored by a qua shed arctaeo ogrst. 'otlust
grading in areas on previously identified resources.
Pnblieservices and hacililies
This section nest analyze the effect of the proposed project on emergency response tinnes in both
Newport Beach and Costa fvlesa. This must include both operational and construction impacts
on -site and off -site for construction of roadway mitigation.
Costa Mesa fire trucks have been observed waiting to cross Newport Boulevard at Rochester and
at 19a' Street. Emergency personnel have expressed fitistration about Yaffe impeding (heir
ability to respond. This is a truly critical for East Side residents in Costa Mesa.
Ill addition, The following questions and contitents must be addressed:
I. ). 4.14 -7. What will happen if plantings are changed in fuel modification areas?
2. p. 4.14 -7 Maintenance in sensifiveareas must not be COndUcted during [le
nesting/breeding season for sensitive wildlife.
3. p. 4.14 -12. Where would a temporary fine station be located?
Page 21 of 2:1
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
R: Troject sWewporNO15�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -577 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
4.
p. 4.14 -13. Will the applicant contribute to funding For fire station replacement?
5.
p. 4.14 -15. The EIR must examine the potential for increased police response times clue
to o hemdonal and construction traffic. generated by the proposed project.
6.
p. 4.14 -21 to 23. Inasmuch as several schools are operating at or near capacity and
existing, facilities are aging, why is no new school proposed?
7.
p. 4.14 -29. Will multi - family and commercial developments be provided areas for
deposit of recyclables?
Utilities
I .
p. 4.15 -9. Why is the water analysis in the appendix to the EIR based on the 1999 and
2005 UWMPs, when a new UWlAP was adopted five months ago?
2.
p. 4.15 -9. What additional growth not included in the UWNIP would occur in the
Newpoi( Beach wafer service area?
3.
p. 1L15 -9. The water analysis in Appendix L identifies several issues racing writer
suppliers, such as reduced delta pumping, and then concludes that addressing the issue
was beyond the scope of the analysis so the project analysis would rely on the old
oulda(ed, unrealistic UWNLP. An updated analysis relying on the updated plan must be
provided and the updated plan must be provided as part of this EIR, supplementing the
old, outdated plan.
4.
p. 4.15 -10, 16. h should be noted that the Orange County Groundwater Basin has long
experienced saltwater intrusion due to groundwater overdrafts. Future planning must be
based on realistic calculation of sustainable pumping levels.
5.
p. 4.15 -14. hi evaluating water supplies by a new, Delta conveyance, was it assumed that
a new State water bond would pass? Irnot, how is (he conveyance to be financed?
6.
p. 4.15 -17. The project most be designed so that recycled water could be used if lines
were extended to the project at -ea.
7.
p.. 41.15 -21. Are existing off -site water lines large enough to provide adequate fire flows?
8.
p. 41.15 -21. Would any off-site water fztcility improvements be needed to serve the
project site?
9.
p. 4.15-24. Oil what basis are NIWDOC supplies anticipated to increase above (he
normal dry year level in the future? Where will the water come from, and how nwch new
development will be competing . to use it?
10.
p. by has it not been investigated whether a. wastewater pump station wog, c
be needed or not?
I L
p. 41.15 -28. Where would the lift station be located?
12,
p. 4.15 -28, 29, Do project analyses or Factors such as noise, energy use, and air
emissions take into account the lift station? If not, analyses must be revised to include
(he lilt station.
13.
p. 4.15 -29. Do off -site sanitary sewer lines have the capacity to serve the proposed
project? What lines exist? What are aurent peak flows? What capacity remains?
14.
p. 4.15 -35. SC 4.:10 -1 addresses resses dust control. How does it relate to energy?
15.
p. 4.15 -36. SC 4.12 -1 addresses construction noise. How does it relate to energy?
Page 22 or 24
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
R: Troject sWewporN0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -578 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Cumulnfive Imnacts
The Ihoughlfid approach to analysis of cumulaliveprojects and cumulative impacts by topic is
appreciated. However, the inclusion only of projects that have been previously subject to ail
environmental document in some areas will lend to minimize impacts. The city is reminded
that "environmental damage often occurs incrementally From a variety of small sources. -These
sources appear insignificant, assuming threatening dimensions only when considered in light of
the other sources with which they interact." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City qI'l -larfard
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692. quoting Selmi's .Judicial Development gjCEQA)
As stated in San Franciscans• For Reasonable Growlli v. 01y crud Counly oJ'San Francisco
(1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61:
It is vitally important that an EIR avoid minimizing the cumulative impacts.
Rather, it must reflect a conscientious Otto[( to provide public agencies and the
general public with adequate and relevant detailed information about them ... A
cumwlative impact analysis which understates information concerning the severity
and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful l)ublic discussion and
skews the decision - maker's perspective concerning the environmental
consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the
appropriateness of project approval. (Son Franciscans• for Reasonable Gron9ll v.
City and County of,SonFrancisco, (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 80, 198 Cal.Rptr.
634.)
Thus even projects which do not result in significant impacts individually may create more than
de minimis impacts which, when considered together, result in "havoc in virtually every aspect
of (he urban environment." (San firrncisccnsfor Reasonable GiowlhJ
Growth Inducing Imnacts
The EIR nits( examine how Bluff Road would induce growth by removing a barrier to growth.
In addition, the EM must address the cumulative increase in pressure to construct the 19 "' Slrceu 11�
Banning Avenue Bridge and extend Bluff Road to Victoria clue to the proposed project along
with other past, present, and reasonably anticipated probable Fuawe projects.
Couelusion
As currently presented, the DBIR is inatilequale to FLIIhII the purposes of CGQA. The document
must be revised and re- circulated in accordance with Guidelines Section 15088.5(1) (4) in order
that the public and decision makes may be fully informed ofthe impacts of the proposed
project. A key failing is the lack . of a clear, complete, unambiguous project description.
However, each of the issues discussed above is ilsell'so basic that each must be addressed in
order for the EIR to be considered legally adequate and to provide decision makers and the
public with the informations necded to evlluate the proposed project and its impacts.
Page 23 of 2J
R:TrojectsWewpn J0l5�RTMRTC- o3i5izdoe 3 -579 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please keep me informed regarding
the progress of this project, including but not limited to any hearings or release of additional
documentation.
Yours truly,
Sandra L. Genis
Page 24 or 24
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -580 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 046 Sandra Genis
November 8, 2011
Response1
The Project's location, and proximity to other open space areas such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers restoration site or Talbert Marsh, was discussed throughout Section 4.6, Biological
Resources, of the Draft EIR.
The commenter is incorrect that the "Elimination of habitat on the project site would create a
break in the chain of habitat from ocean to upland ". All habitat types currently represent on the
Project site would remain on the site after Project implementation. There would be no
elimination of habitat, only impacts to portions of habitats present as discussed in detail in
Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Regarding the "break in the chain ", the
commenter describes this area as a continuous area of habitat that transitions from the ocean to
the upland areas. The areas of coastal open space that the commenter describes are currently
fragmented and in some instance significantly altered by human development including, but not
limited to Magnolia and Brookhurst Streets fragmenting the Huntington Beach Wetlands; Pacific
Coast Highway crossing the Santa Ana River; concrete and rip -rap lining of the Santa Ana
River; northbound and southbound bike /pedestrian trails along the Santa Ana River; Hamilton
Avenue over the Santa Ana River; and the Orange County Sanitation District Plant and
associated facilities /outlets at Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa Ana River. The proposed
Project would not significantly impact the connection to the other open space area in the region
beyond that which it is already fragmented by existing uses.
Response 2
In paragraph 3 of the comment, the commenter states that important information is lacking or
ambiguous with respect to three areas of activity: Iandform alteration, commercial uses at the
resort inn, and oil production consolidation. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR
comprehensively describes the components of the proposed Project including Iandform
alteration and development of the resort inn. Landform alteration is described in the Project
Description; please also refer to Exhibit 3 -16, Soil Disturbance Map, and Exhibit 3 -17, Cut and
Fill Map. These exhibits show the areas of the Project site that would be impacted by grading
and disturbance activities associated with land development, bluff restoration, soil remediation,
and open space grading. The analysis of the physical impacts of the Iandform alteration
activities are discussed throughout the Draft EIR, including Section 4.3, Geology and Soils,
Section 4.6, Biological Resources, and Section 4.10, Air Quality. With respect to ancillary
facilities and services in the proposed resort inn, the specific uses have not been determined by
the Applicant. However, Project Objective 4 in the Draft EIR Project Description notes that the
resort inn may have "...a spa, meeting rooms, shops, bars, and restaurants that would be open
to the public." The Draft EIR analyzes the physical environmental impacts of developing a 75-
room resort inn. The physical impacts of any retail uses within the inn are included within the
physical development footprint. Other operational impacts, such as vehicle trips generated by
ancillary resort inn uses are assumed within the trip generation numbers. Please also refer to
the subsequent response to Comment 6 regarding trip generation assumptions.
With respect to oil production and consolidation, it may be helpful to distinguish what
components of the oil operations are considered a part of the proposed Project, and what
components are not. The drilling and operation of oil wells on the Project site, including on the
proposed oil consolidation sites, are currently allowed uses and considered part of the existing
uses on the site. Therefore, drilling and operation of oil wells is not a component of the
proposed Project. This fact does not change with the implementation of the proposed Project.
R:T rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -581 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The removal of existing oil facilities and site remediation are a component of the proposed
Project because absent those activities, the property could not be developed for the uses
proposed by the Applicant which are consistent with the General Plan.
The Draft EIR analyzes the physical environmental impacts associated with removal of the
existing oil facilities (except from the proposed oil consolidation sites). The Draft EIR does not
analyze the impacts of oil operations because they are (1) considered existing conditions; (2)
not a part of the proposed Project; (3) conducted by an independent third -party, not the
Applicant; and (4) do not require discretionary action by the City of Newport Beach. While the
City is the lead agency for consideration of approval of the Newport Banning Ranch Project, the
oilfield and its operations are not a part of the proposed Project and could continue to operate
without City approval of the Newport Banning Ranch development project. The oilfield operator,
West Newport Oil, is a separate entity from the Applicant, Newport Banning Ranch LLC, and
while agreements between the mineral rights owner, HDLLC, and oilfield operator, West
Newport Oil, and Newport Banning Ranch LLC establish the rights of the surface owners to
develop on the Project site, the oil operations within the oil consolidation sites are wholly within
the control and discretion of West Newport Oil.
The oil consolidation sites are currently active oil producing and handling areas for both the
West Newport Oil Company's and City's oil operations. Both sites currently contain oil wells and
main oil treating facilities: the northern site contains the West Newport Oil Company main oil
facility and the site near West Coast Highway contains the City's main oil facility. No new main
facility sites constructed at these locations. Both West Newport Oil Company and the City are
currently able to drill new wells and construct supporting facilities as needed within these areas.
This would continue in the same manner upon approval of the proposed Project, and could
occur even if the Project were not approved.
Response 3
The potential environmental impacts associated with the removal of oil production equipment
and remediation of the Project site with the exception of the oil consolidation sites are
addressed in the Draft EIR. The activities are described in Section 3.0, Project Description, and
the impacts are analyzed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and further
described in the Draft Remedial Action Plan (see Appendix D of the Draft EIR). For example,
the impacts of soil remediation activities are discussed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, and Section 4.10, Air Quality. Where these equipment removal and remediation
activities would affect biological resources, those impacts are addressed in Section 4.6,
Biological Resources. However, the continued operation of oil wells on the Project site are not
analyzed in the Draft EIR because they are not impacts of the Project but are an existing
condition including the oil consolidation sites. It should be noted that oil operations have
historically been and would continue to be conducted within the two oil consolidation sites.
Adjacent land uses, including residential development in Newport Shores, already co -exist with
these operations and would continue with or without the proposed Project.
Response 4
The differences in the language on oil production facilities are due to the different functions of
each document. As explained in Section 3.6.4 of the Draft EIR, the Planned Community
Development Plan (NBR -PC) provides zoning regulations for the Project site. The Master
Development Plan addresses the NBR -PC requirement of plans for grading roadways,
infrastructure, restoration, and development activities and development activities and design
criteria at a sufficient level of detail to guide the review of subsequent development approvals as
required by this Chapter prior to issuance of construction -level permits.
R:T rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -582 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
If the proposed Project is approved, all oilfield operations within the Project site (with the
exception of the two oil consolidation sites) would be removed and remediated. Removal would
include the abandonment of the facilities and remediation. Page 4.5 -19 of the Draft EIR states
that comprehensive oil facilities consolidation, abandonment, and remediation at the Project site
would be a multiple -step process that would likely span a period of approximately two to three
years. The minimum 100 -foot setback from active oil wells refers to the minimum setback from
oil wells within the two consolidated oil sites. All operations outside of the two oil consolidation
sites must cease activity within 10 years of the date of annexation.
Response 5
The comment is noted. The exhibits noted by the commenter, specifically Figure 3 -7, are
available in full size plan format as part of the Project submittal on file at the City.
Response 6
As explained in Section 4.9.7 of the Draft EIR, the trip generation rates for a Resort Hotel
include trips associated with all aspects of the hotel, including the rooms, the administrative
areas, and the shops and ancillary facilities. The land use description for a Resort Hotel in the
Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation publication (8th Edition) reads, in part, "Resort
hotels... provide sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops and guest
services ". Trip generation rates are based on trip counts at the hotel driveways, and account for
all traffic to and from the hotel, regardless of the trip purpose. The ITE rates for the resort inn
are based on case studies of land uses with similar characteristics, including amount of ancillary
uses. Therefore, the trips generated by ancillary uses are factored in trip generation rate for the
resort inn.
Response 7
The General Plan land use designation of Residential Village allows for up to 75,000 square feet
of commercial uses. The City does not include ancillary/accessory uses in square footage
calculations. An ancillary/accessory use is a use that is at all times a part of and clearly
incidental and secondary to the principal use; in this case, the resort inn. Such uses do not
change the character of the principal use and they must remain subordinate to and serve the
principal use.
Response 8
The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets land use intensity for visitor accommodations in
terms of rooms and residential densities in terms of dwelling units. The Project's Master
Development Plan specifies that the Resort Colony would be located in Site Plan Areas 13a and
13b and would be developed with visitor - serving uses to include a 75 -room resort inn with
ancillary visitor - /guest - serving uses and recreation facilities, and with 87 resort residential
dwelling units. The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -PC)
provides for visitor - serving commercial uses in the event a resort inn is not developed. These
visitor - serving commercial uses would be counted as part of the maximum 75,000 square feet of
commercial area permitted within the Project.
Response 9
The following responses address the individual questions in Comment 9.
2. The resort inn uses would be open to the general public.
RT rojedsWewparWlSRTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -583 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
3. The question does not raise an environmental question. No further response is needed.
4. Please refer to Table 4.1 -1 in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of
the Draft EIR which identifies allowable and conditionally allowable land uses.
Restaurants that do not serve alcohol are permitted in the Resort Colony and Urban
Colony; restaurants in the Resort Colony and Urban Colony that would serve alcohol
would require a Conditional Use Permit. All would be subject to further development
approvals. Restaurants would be open to the public.
5. Please refer to page 4.1 -26 of the Draft EIR which states "The resort inn (Site Planning
Area 13a) is planned to include 75 guest rooms, restaurants and bar, gift and sundry
shops, business center, fitness center, spa /salon /treatment rooms, meeting /conference
rooms, and back of house areas (e.g., food and beverage, administration,
housekeeping, maintenance, employee facilities) ". Should a health club /fitness center be
developed, it would be available to the public.
6. Meeting facilities would be established at the time of development and regulatory review
of specific building plans for this specific land use
7. Meeting rooms may be available to others.
8. Meeting rooms can be marketed to the general public or to event coordinators.
Response 10
As addressed in the Draft EIR, all oil production activities and facilities currently outside of the
two consolidation sites would be removed and consolidated within those sites to allow for
implementation of the Project as proposed by the Applicant.
Response11
The commenter's opinion is noted.
Response 12
The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not establish a time period or terms for public
acquisition of the site. However, on August 11, 2009, the City Council directed that the
exploration of acquisition of open space continue as the review of a development proposal
proceeds. There are no terms established for public acquisition except those terms and
conditions set forth by Applicant in the January 8, 2010 "Willing Buyer" letter to this specific
suitor (Note: the letter follows the responses to the commenter's letter). The Applicant is
proceeding with entitlement in accordance with the conditions of the Newport Beach General
Plan.
Response 13
The opinion of the commenter is noted. Because the Applicant's proposed Project is consistent
with the Alternative Use General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Village which
includes a provision for up to 1,375 residential dwelling units, the Applicant's objectives reflect
this General Plan assumption.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -584 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 14
All oilfield materials and debris outside of the two oil consolidation sites would be removed as a
part of the Project.
Response15
The property owner would be responsible for oil and gas wells to be abandoned or re-
abandoned in accordance with the current requirements of the California Department of
Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Documentation of
final abandonment approval from the DOGGR would be provided to the Orange County Fire
Authority and the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Building
Division.
Response 16
As discussed starting on page 4.5 -20 of Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, one wetland site in the
Lowland area was observed; testing determined it had small amounts of soil gas. That site was
not near an oil well, and is assumed to be a natural occurrence in the wetlands. Although there
were no indications of soil gas in the proposed Upland development area, methane controls, as
defined in the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Guideline C -03, would be implemented
throughout the development area. This OCFA Guideline provides detailed measures for
mitigating potential impacts due to methane and vapor intrusion in and around developments
and has been implemented in most recent Orange County developments within former oilfield
areas.
Response 17
No restrooms would be provided in the Open Space Preserve. Proposed uses within the
Lowland are habitat conservation, restoration, and mitigation; public interpretive trails; a water
quality basin; and a planting buffer around a portion of the northern oil consolidation site. The
proposed uses within the Upland are habitat conservation, restoration, and mitigation areas;
public interpretive trails, and a water quality basin. Although statues are not specifically
prohibited, none are proposed or contemplated.
Response18
The Applicant and the owner of the 15th Street property have not yet entered into an agreement
for relocation of the parking. Responsibilities for maintenance of any shared facility have not yet
been determined.
Response 19
With the exception of the private alleys, the proposed on -site roadways described on pages 3-
18 and 3 -19 of Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR are proposed to be public. The
proposed roadways described on page 3 -20 are and would continue to be public. Development
of residential densities in the proposed alley areas can be served from private streets or alleys.
Final site design and the use of alleys or private streets would be determined during the site
review process subject to City building and Fire Department standards. Typical alley sections
are shown in the City of Newport Beach Standard Plans. Private street sections are not shown
in the City standards but are typically similar to the City of Newport Beach's local street standard
in character.
RT rojedsWewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -585 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 20
Pedestrian walkways are planned for both sides of the Resort Colony Road as shown on Exhibit
3 -10e, Section GG. Page 3 -19 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows:
Resort Colony Road and Local Road Adjacent to the South Family Village
Resort Colony Road is proposed as a public Local Road that would be accessed from
Bluff Road and North Bluff Road. The loop road would provide access to the proposed
Resort and Residential land use areas in the southern portion of the Project site. This
roadway adjacent to the vco/o and usp ape-a. Resort Colony is proposed with one travel
lane in each direction, a pedest^^^ walkway OR the !R!aR' side (adjaGeRt to
,t,,yele..,, eRt) Gf the F ad Rd . .,,t,.., g tFail .,,t;..GeRt to the 91-4 P@Fk and eiaht-
foot-wide walkways on each side of the street (Exhibit 3 -10e; Cross - Section G -G).
Resort Colony Road joins the Local Road adjacent to the Re6ideRtla tot and one) land
use T outh Family Village located north of the vcoto lARd „Ro We Resort Colonv-
This roadway would be constructed as a public Local Street with one travel land and one
parking lane in each direction and four - foot -wide walkways on each side of the street
(Exhibit 3 -10f; Cross - Section 1 -1).
A public Bluff Park is proposed to extend along the length of the outside perimeter of the
Resort Colony and the South Family Village adjacent to the roadways. The public Bluff
Park would include a 10- foot -wide multi -use pedestrian and bicycle trail where adjacent
to the Resort Colony and a six - foot -wide pedestrian trail where adjacent to the South
Family Village.
Response 21
Road construction would require approximately 1.41 acres of the Newport-Mesa Unified School
District's vacant parcel. Of the 1.41 acres, approximately 0.46 acre is needed for the widening of
16`h Street, adjacent to the School District's property. Approximately 0.95 acre of the School
District's property would be needed for the construction of North Bluff Road.
Response 22
Resort inn and any commercial uses in the resort inn parking arrangements would be
determined at the time of consideration of the Conditional Use Permit by the City and
subsequent Coastal Development Permit review by the Coastal Commission.
Response 23
The EIR will be changed to reflect that the Applicant intends to request a "Coastal Development
Permit" rather than a "Master Coastal Development Permit" from the Coastal Commission to
implement the proposed Project. Because the City of Newport Beach (City) does not have a
certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) it lacks the ability to issue Coastal Development Permits.
The City does not intend to request approval of a LCP at this time for the proposed Project. It
should be noted that as a part of the Coastal Development Permit process before the Coastal
Commission, the Coastal Commission has at times allowed local jurisdictions, such as Newport
Beach, to implement specific portions of a project for which a Coastal Development Permit has
been approved, including the issuance of subsequent building permits. (See Coastal
Development Permit 5 -06 -145 in which the City of Newport Beach would issue permits subject
to specific design standards and criteria approved by the Coastal Commission.) The ability to
RT rojedsWewpar ftAl51RTORTC -031512.doc 3 -586 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
allow a local agency to issue subsequent permits that implement a project approved pursuant to
a Coastal Development Permit is wholly within the discretion of the Coastal Commission.
The Project proposes that a Coastal Development Permit be approved by the California Coastal
Commission (Coastal Commission) for all plans within the Master Development Plan designated
as "Project Development Plans ", which would serve the function of a Coastal Development
Permit for each development plan. The NBR -PC provides that if the Coastal Commission
approves a Coastal Development Permit that varies from the approval granted by the City for
the Master Development Plan, the Coastal Development Permit must be resubmitted and
reviewed by the City as a new application. The Project's Master Development Plan provides that
the Coastal Development Permit would also include provisions authorizing the City to be the
final review authority for any subsequent planning development permits and construction level
permits, as required by the NBR -PC, and as described in the Master Development Plan without
additional Coastal Development Permits, provided the subsequent permits are consistent with
the NBR -MDP "Project Development Plans ". Subsequent required planning development
permits and construction -level permits include Site Development Review, Use Permits, Final
Tract Maps, final grading permits, model home permits, building permits, and other required
permits.
Because the Coastal Development Permit proposes to designate the City as the final review
authority for all actions subsequent to the approval of the Coastal Development Permit by the
Coastal Commission, any appeal of a decision of the City acting pursuant to the authority
granted by the Coastal Commission in approving the Coastal Development Permit would be
made to the City pursuant to the appeal process described in the NBR -PC for each action.
Response 24
Table 3 -2, Master Development Plan Statistical Table, in Section 3.0, Project Description of the
Draft EIR identifies the proposed residential densities and intensities for all Site Planning Areas
within the Villages and Colonies. Section 4.1 Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the
Draft EIR provides an 87 -page description of residential land use densities and intensities by
location and housing type, as well as descriptions of the intensity of the Resort, Community
Park, and Bluff Parks. Individual Development/Conceptual Development Plans are provided by
for the four Villages and Colonies. A Community Transitions and Interface Key Map is provided
along with ten exhibits showing plan views and cross - sections around the perimeter and within
the Project site.
Please also refer to Exhibit 6 -1, Architectural Summary Matrix, of the NBR Master Development
Plan which provides detailed architectural square footages, and statistics on each type of
housing proposed as a part of the Project. Additional information on density and intensity is
provided in the text and other exhibits with Chapter 6, Architectural Design Guidelines, of the
NBR Master Development Plan and Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft
EIR.
Response 25
Page 3 -22 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows:
The Project proposes a Master Plan for Trails and Coastal Access comprised of
public pedestrian paths, on- street bicycle trails, and off - street multi -use trails to
provide coastal access and public mobility within the Project site. The proposed
pedestrian and bicycle trails would provide connectivity among open space,
parks, residential, resort, commercial, and mixed -use on -site land uses as well as
RT rojedsWewpaTJ0151RTORTCA31512 .doc 3 -587 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
public access and connections to existing off -site public trails, including the Santa
Ana River and trails located in the Talbert Nature Preserve, Fairview Regiena4
Park located further to the north, and existing walks and trails extending along
West Coast Highway and the beach located to the south. A Multi -use Trail, Open
Space Interpretive Trails, the Bluff Park Trail, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge,
On- Street Bicycle Trails, and Pedestrian Walkways are proposed as a part of the
Project.
Response 26
Soils within the proposed development areas on the mesa are classified as type "D" soils which
are predominantly clay, have very low infiltration rates, and are underlain by a bedrock layer.
The use of permeable pavement within "D" soils is generally considered infeasible due to
insufficient infiltration rates although individual homeowners would be allowed to implement
permeable surfaces if they choose. Community bictreatment BMPs would be provided
throughout the development to provide treatment of individual homes and road runoff.
Response 27
The comment is noted. No wetlands are proposed to provide treatment of Project runoff.
Response 28
The proposed cut and fill limits for the proposed Project are shown in Exhibit 3 -17 in the Draft
EIR. In order to depict the relative depths of cut and fill and their relative locations analyzed in
the Draft EIR, Exhibit 3 -17 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR. The exhibit
follows the responses to the commenter's letter). Cross sections will be provided as part of the
rough grading plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Response 29
Standard Condition 4.9 -3 requires that the Applicant provide a Traffic Management Plan prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to the City of
Newport Beach for approval, and must identify, among other things, the routes that construction
vehicles would use to access the Project site. The condition also requires that advanced written
notice of any traffic disruptions be provided to emergency service providers and affected
businesses at least two weeks prior to disruptions.
Response 30
With respect to the commenter's Question 38, the on -site soils that are proposed to be
remediated would be treated on site at a centralized treatment area. Regarding Question 39,
although the remediation process would be phased across the Project site, it is planned that soil
placements would be complete prior to the construction of the North Village.
Whether new wells would be required to be drilled in the two consolidation sites is within the
discretion and control of the oil operator, West Newport Oil Company. The oil operations are
under the control of the oil operator and they currently have the discretion to decide whether
wells are to be drilled or re- drilled on the entire oilfield site as part of its ongoing operations.
Should the City approve the proposed Project or an alternative to the Project, any additional oil
wells could only be placed within the oil consolidation sites.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -588 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 31
The terms of the draft Development Agreement were made available (posted on the City's
website) upon release of the Draft EIR for public review. The Development Agreement is under
preparation and will be available for public review prior to public hearings on the Project. The
terms and conditions of the Development Agreement will reflect following public benefits:
1. The dedication and improvement of a 12.4 -acre North Community Park and a 4.5 -acre
Central Community Park.
2. The payment of a public benefit fee for each dwelling unit in an amount to be negotiated
No other in -kind public benefits are proposed.
Response 32
The text on page 4.12 -33 of the Draft EIR is not "proposing" air conditioning; the analysis is for
noise impacts where HVAC units, which could include air conditioning, are installed. Each
builder will make a determination of which environmental management amenities will be
included in each future dwelling unit consistent with California Energy Code requirements, site
conditions, City building regulations and the goals of the Green and Sustainable Plan.
Response 33
Please refer to the response to Commenter 23.
Response 34
In -lieu fees are deposited into the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The Affordable Housing Fund
monies are used in compliance with the General Plan Housing Element to construct,
rehabilitate, or subsidize affordable housing or assist other governmental entities, private
organizations, or individuals to provide or preserve affordable housing. The City Council
established an Affordable Housing Task Force that works with developers and landowners to
facilitate the development of affordable units and determines the most appropriate use of in -lieu
fee funds. The Task Force and staff continually investigate and research potential new
affordable housing opportunities. No determination has been made as to where units might be
purchased or constructed.
Response 35
The requested analysis is provided in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of
the Draft EIR.
Response 36
The cross - section locations, shown on Exhibits 4.1 -2a through -2j were chosen to represent
areas of concern related to proposed land use and adjacent existing land uses. The proposed
sections illustrate site relationships and the limits of work that were used for impact analysis.
The exhibits identify 11 "before" and "after" plan views and cross - sections to illustrate the
interface between the Project and surrounding community. The "after" visual simulations do not
depict any mitigation features that may be imposed on the Project. As a point of clarification to
the commenter, the Noise Mitigation Program does not address or propose 15- foot -high noise
walls. As addressed in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR, mitigated noise levels were
modeled for a 12- foot -high noise wall adjacent to Bluff Road and for 6- foot -high and 8- foot -high
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -589 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
noise walls at the rear of the Newport Crest property. As stated on page 4.12 -25, "Noise barriers
taller than eight feet were not evaluated because they are not considered reasonable for
relatively shallow residential yard spaces such as those at Newport Crest ". Mitigation Measure
(MM) 4.12 -6 states:
Prior to the approval of a grading permit for Bluff Road and 151h Street, the
Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach that the Project plans
and specifications require the construction and installation of a noise barrier to
reduce future traffic noise from the Bluff Road and 15`h Street to the Newport
Crest residences. The Applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis prepared by
a qualified Acoustical Engineer, of the proposed barrier, which may be a wall, an
earth berm, or a berm -wall combination. The noise barrier, at a minimum, shall
reduce forecasted future ground floor residential exterior noise levels to 60 dBA
CNEL and second floor residential noise levels to 65 dBA CNEL. The barrier
shall be solid from the ground to the top with no decorative cutouts and shall
weigh at least 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area. The barrier may be
constructed using masonry block, '/4 inch thick glass, or other transparent
material with sufficient weight per square foot.
MM 4.12 -7 requires the Applicant to offer the installation of dual pane windows /sliding doors on
the fagade facing the Newport Banning Ranch property. The offer of retrofit applies to the
owners of the residences (Owners) with rear elevations directly adjacent to the Newport
Banning Ranch property in the western and northern boundaries of Newport Crest
Condominiums impacted by significant noise levels (significant being a cumulative increase over
existing conditions greater than 5 dBA) associated with the Project as determined by a licensed
Acoustical Engineer.
All of the Newport Crest condominium units which border the Project site where Bluff Road is
proposed have an existing solid landscape wall on the Newport Crest Homeowners Association
(HOA) property. Should it be deemed feasible and acceptable to the Newport Crest HOA and
affected homeowners, it may be possible to increase the elevation of the existing solid wall to
add masonry block, glass, or another transparent material. Although these measures are
feasible and would mitigate the significant noise impact, improvements would be implemented
on private property thereby requiring the permission of private property owners and the Newport
Crest HOA. At this time it cannot be guaranteed that this permission would be granted. The City
cannot mandate improvements on private property.
The proposed Project's interface with the California Seabreeze residential neighborhood is best
shown in Exhibit 4.1 -1 which shows that almost the entirety of the interface would be Open
Space. At the most southern area of California Seabreeze, the existing off -site residences would
be adjacent to North Bluff Park; the proposed Urban Colony would be adjacent to and south of
North Bluff Park. Exhibit 4.1 -2b illustrates the relationship of the Open Space Preserve with the
California Seabreeze residential neighborhood. Although the Draft EIR does not include an
exhibit of California Seabreeze in relationship to North Bluff Park and the Urban Colony (to the
south), the Draft EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts to these off -site residences
associated with the proposed Project. Most specifically, please refer to Section 4.1 and Section
4.2 of the Draft EIR.
Response 37
With respect to maximum building heights, the NBR -PC regulations (see Exhibits 3 -2, 3 -3, 3 -4)
provide that chimneys, towers, and other non - habitable architectural features, not exceeding 10
percent of the roof area, may exceed the maximum structure height restriction by up to 12 feet.
RT rojedMewparftMl &RTMRTGA31512.doc 3 -590 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
This additional height does not allow for the height of an entire structure to be increased by up
to 12 feet. Similar provisions permitting limited architectural features to exceed structure heights
are relatively common in city and county zoning ordinances in California, and do not conflict with
provisions establishing the maximum heights, which apply to the primary volume of the
structure. Interfaces are presented to give context of the proposed land uses. The structures
shown are meant to be representative of the types of structures permitted and are depicted at the
maximum permitted heights.
Response 38
The EIR will be changed to reflect that the Applicant intends to request a "Coastal Development
Permit" rather than a "Master Coastal Development Permit" from the Coastal Commission to
implement the proposed Project. As stated in the Draft EIR, because the City of Newport Beach
(City) does not have a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) it lacks the ability to issue Coastal
Development Permits. The City does not intend to request approval of a LCP at this time for the
proposed Project. It should be noted that as a part of the Coastal Development Permit process
before the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Commission has at times allowed local
jurisdictions, such as Newport Beach, to implement specific portions of a project for which a
Coastal Development Permit has been approved, including the issuance of subsequent building
permits. (See Coastal Development Permit 5 -06 -145 in which the City of Newport Beach would
issue permits subject to specific design standards and criteria approved by the Coastal
Commission.) The ability to allow a local agency to issue subsequent permits that implement a
project approved pursuant to a Coastal Development Permit is wholly within the discretion of the
Coastal Commission.
Response 39
As addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the Draft EIR, 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 is inclusive of the Newport
Banning Ranch site and the Newport-Mesa Unified School District property, is designated as a
Deferred Certification Area (DCA). The quotations from pages 2 -25, 4 -76, and 4 -77 of the City's
Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) are descriptions of the Banning Ranch acreage, vegetation
communities and habitat types, and landforms, including coastal bluffs in various areas of the
City. The City's CLUP sets forth policies with respect to Banning Ranch as a DCA:
Policies:
2.2.4 -7. 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 -8. Depict the boundaries of deferred certification areas on the Coastal
Land Use Plan Map and other applicable LCP maps.
The Draft EIR does address applicable Coastal Act policies with respect to coastal views and
landform. Coastal views are fully addressed in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources.
Bluffs are fully addressed in Section 4.2 and in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils.
RT rojedsWewparWlSRTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -591 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 40
Please refer to the response to Comment 12
Response 41
Please refer to the response to Comment 35
Response 42
Page 4.1 -20 of the Draft EIR referenced by the commenter states "The Project's design is
intended to reflect the established traditional neighborhoods of Newport Beach with distinct
neighborhoods in a coastal setting. The Project clusters development to retain the majority of
the site in open space ". This characterization is drawn from the Master Development Plan and
refers to the fact that Newport Beach is composed of different neighborhoods and districts,
known by name, identified by historic subdivisions, and characterized by different street
patterns, housing types, building heights, and densities. The Draft EIR narrative is not intended
to characterize any area of the Project or to compare it to a specific area of the City. Rather, it is
intended to characterize the Project as a total planned community reflective of the City's distinct
neighborhoods and coastal setting.
This concept reflects the Vision statement in the Newport Beach General Plan which states in
part on pages 2 and 3:
We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique
residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value
our colorful past, the high quality of life, and our community bonds. The
successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors has
been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a
residential community.
We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of
life —a strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies and that
cherishes and nurtures our estuaries, harbor, beaches, open spaces, and natural
resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and
beneficial to both the economy and our character. There is a range of housing
opportunities that allows people to live and work in the City. Design principles
emphasize characteristics that satisfy the community's desire for the
maintenance of its particular neighborhoods and villages. Public view areas are
protected. Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved.
The proposed Project includes four Villages and Colonies with different types and densities of
housing. The Urban Colony is proposed at the intersection of North Bluff Road at 17th Street,
and adjoins the City of Costa Mesa's "Mesa West Bluff's Urban Plan" area. The Urban Colony is
by far the most intensive of Project's Villages and Colonies, proposed to contain 730 units in a
vertical /horizontal mixed -use format with convenience retail and services on site. There are no
existing residential projects in Newport Beach which specifically characterize the proposed
Urban Colony component of the Project. Architectural design guidelines for the Urban Colony
are proposed as part of the Master Development Plan to maintain the compatibility of design
between the Urban Colony and the adjacent development in Costa Mesa's Mesa West Bluffs
Urban Plan area and consistency with other established neighborhoods in Newport Beach of a
similar scale including Bayview Landing and The Colony.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -592 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 43
Building height would be measured as set forth in the NBR Planned Community Development
Plan (NBR -PC). Generally, building height would be measured from approved finished grade,
not from existing grade.
Response 44
With respect to the height of structures in the Community Park, early in the planning process, a
Community building with a gymnasium was considered for the proposed North Community Park.
Such a building would have required a height in excess of 25 feet in order to accommodate
basketball courts. However, the Community building was removed from the Project
development plan for North Community Park just prior to the publication of the Draft EIR.
With respect to structures in the Bluff Park, the Draft EIR uses the example of a shade structure
with respect to maximum building height (see page 4.1 -23).
With respect to structures in the Interpretive Park, please refer to page 4.1 -24 of the Draft EIR.
The Nature Center (Site Planning Area 9a) would be located northwest of North Bluff Road and
north of Scenic Drive. The approximate 2.2- gross - /net -acre site is proposed as a passive
interpretive park to include a nature center building and amphitheater for indoor /outdoor
educational programs and would include public parking.
With respect to maximum building heights, the NBR -PC regulations (see Exhibits 3 -2, 3 -3, 3 -4)
provide that chimneys, towers, and other non - habitable architectural features, not exceeding 10
percent of the roof area, may exceed the maximum structure height restriction by up to 12 feet.
This additional height does not allow for the height of an entire structure to be increased by up
to 12 feet. Similar provisions permitting limited architectural features to exceed structure heights
are relatively common in city and county zoning ordinances in California, and do not conflict with
provisions establishing the maximum heights, which apply to the primary volume of the
structure.
Response 45
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 46
The comment is noted. Section 4.1 assesses the compatibility of the proposed Project with the
California Seabreeze residential community in the City of Costa Mesa.
Response 47
The Dark Sky Lighting Program for the Project, including compliance with Section 3.4.5,
Outdoor "Dark Sky" Lighting Standards of the NBR -PC, would regulate lighting from individual
residential units adjacent to the Bluff Parks and Open Space Preserve, including those in the
Urban Colony. Section 3.4.5(8) of the NBR -PC requires that the design of outdoor lighting
fixtures be approved as part of Site Development Review ". The HOAs would be responsible for
the enforcement of lighting restrictions.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -593 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
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.
The 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.
Response 48
There are no plans to implement any future public amenities until all regulatory requirements
have been met and the project cleanup, remediation, and construction can proceed.
Response 49
As addressed in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR, lighting along
the South Bluff Park would be limited to bollard lights or similar low- height dark -sky lights with
fixtures that are shielded to confine light rays to the trail area, so there is no spill over into the
natural open space areas. Page 4.2 -14 of the Draft EIR states:
Restricted land uses within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve and within the
Bluff Parks would be required to have:
• Full cutoff luminaires and /or City- approved "dark sky" light fixtures /bulbs
similar in design and function as defined by the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA) to minimize the amount of lighting
emitted upward directly from the luminaire.
• Shielded and direct exterior lighting confined to the respective area upon
which the exterior lights are to be installed so that adjacent Open Space
land use districts are protected from any significant light spillage,
intrusion, and glare.
• No skyward casting lighting allowed.
• Pathways and trails within the Bluff Parks would be lit with low - profile
(e.g., bollard or other similar dark sky lighting) which cannot exceed three
feet in height and which confines lighting to the trail area.
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -594 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 50
Consistency with the Coastal Act requires protection, not preservation, of coastal resources,
including habitat, landforms, and views. The commenter cites the decision in Bolsa Chica Land
Trust v. Superior Court. The case addressed the interpretation of Coastal Act Section 30240 as
it pertains to environmentally sensitive habitats (ESHA) as defined in Coastal Act Section
30107.5. The Coastal Commission will determine what vegetation communities on the Project
site are considered ESHA. For any areas determined to be ESHA, Coastal Act Section 30240
would apply to ensure that "Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against
any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall
be allowed within those areas ". Whether protection pursuant to Section 30240 requires
preservation in situ is a matter to be determined by the Coastal Commission. Where ESHA has
been protected, the Coastal Commission has required that the ESHA be appropriately buffered.
Response 51
Please refer to Topical Response: Sunset Ridge Park.
Response 52
The analyses in the Draft EIR, including the heights shown in the visual simulation Exhibits 4.2-
3a through 4.2 -11 b, are based on the actual maximum structure heights, including the fact that
the Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -PC) regulations
provide that chimneys, towers, and other non - habitable architectural features, not exceeding 10
percent of the roof area, may exceed the maximum structure height restriction by up to 12 feet.
Similar provisions permitting limited architectural features to exceed structure heights are
relatively common in city and county zoning ordinances in California, and do not conflict with
provisions establishing the maximum heights, which apply to the primary volume of the
structure.
Response 53
The discussion of landform alteration is contained in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, of the Draft
EIR. The Project's master grading plan is discussed in Section 3.6.10 of the Project Description
which provides references to the Project's Soil Disturbance Map showing areas that are
proposed to be graded. In addition, the Project proposes areas of bluff restoration along the
south- and west - facing bluffs to restore them from impacts due to oil operations, drainage,
erosion, and soil degradation. This is discussed on pages 3 -35 and 3 -36 of the Draft EIR. The
Coastal Act policy referred to by the commenter is Section 30253 of the Coastal Act which
states that "New development shall do all of the following:... (b) Assure stability and structural
integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or
destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective
devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs ". As discussed in
the Draft EIR, the proposed Project does not propose alteration of natural landforms along bluffs
but would conduct bluff restoration work to ensure "stability and structural integrity" and repair
impacts due to erosion consistent with Section 30253. Because the Project site is an area of
deferred certification, the policies of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan do not govern the
development of the Project site. The Applicant proposes to apply for a Coastal Development
Permit from the California Coastal Commission, and the policies of the Coastal Act, including
Section 30253, would govern the Coastal Commission's consideration of the application. Finally,
the Draft EIR includes a view analysis (see Draft EIR pages 4.2 -18 to 4.2 -27).
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -595 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 54
Please refer to the response to Comment 26. The analysis of aesthetic impacts as it pertains to
views was conducted from public viewpoints (see Draft EIR at 4.2 -18 to 4.2 -27). As it pertains to
views and as addressed in 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
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.
Response 55
Please refer to the response to Comment 52. The visual simulations contained in the Draft EIR
are based on a three dimensional computer model of the proposed grading plan and the
proposed structures. Therefore, for the areas identified on Exhibit 4.2 -2, Visual Simulations Key
Map, each of the Draft EIR's Exhibits 4.2 -3a through 4.2 -11b depicts both the existing grade
and other site conditions as the area appears today (i.e., the "Existing View" photograph) as well
as the proposed grading and structures as it would appear with the proposed development (i.e.,
the "Proposed View" visual simulation created by merging the computer model and photograph).
This comparison allows for the aesthetic and visual evaluation of Project impacts on existing
environmental conditions.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -596 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 56
Page 4.2 -11 has been corrected and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows:
BP District and IP District Regulations
• Maximum IP District Building Height — 36 feet22
• Maximum BP District Building Height — 18 feet
• Maximum Building Coverage — 48 5 percent of total rg <?s site area
Response 57
Structures and other features that would be present on site, after Project implementation, that
would be expected to be used by raptor species for perching include, but are not limited to, light
poles, street and other signs, various fence types, native trees and large scrubs in the open
space areas, landscape trees, and roof /chimney tops.
Response 58
Yes. The power poles in the Interim Oil Facilities district would be removed after oil production
ceases.
Response 59
Please refer to the responses to Comment 26 and 54.
Response 60
The City does not have standards for bird -safe buildings. However, as a part of the City's Site
Development Review process, the appropriateness of the use of transparent glass walls would
be addressed. Alternative materials would be required where transparent glass is not
appropriate.
Response 61
Please refer to the response to Comment 47.
Response 62
The "Fault Setback Zones" as discussed on Page 4.3 -7 and illustrated on Exhibit 4.3 -5 which
include the fault segments and a conservative setback limit are approximately 11.5 acres.
The only area subject to liquefaction and lateral spreading is the Lowland area. The number of
acres of the lowlands area is approximately 147 acres. For this purpose, the Lowland Open
Space and Interim Facilities land uses areas identified in Table 3 -1 of the Draft EIR were used.
22 Elevators, mechanical space, chimneys, towers and architectural treatments, intended to add interest and
variation to roof design, and that do not exceed 10 percent of the roof area, or exceed the height restriction by
more than 12 feet, are permitted.
RT rojedsWewpaTJ0151RTORTCA31512 .doc 3 -597 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 63
The larger areas of unengineered fills are mapped on Exhibit 4.3 -3 of the Draft EIR. Additionally,
smaller pockets of unengineered fill are also anticipated to exist. Approximately 217,000 cubic
yards (cy) of unengineered fill (i.e., approximately 1.5 percent of the total corrective grading) are
estimated to be removed and recompacted. This amount is included in the 1,455,100 cy of
corrective grading referenced in Table 4.3 -2.
The colluvial soils limits are also mapped on Exhibit 4.3 -3. Approximately 160,000 cy of colluvial
soils (i.e., approximately 1.1 percent of the total corrective grading) are estimated to be removed
and recompacted. This amount is included in the 1,455,100 cy of corrective grading referenced
in Table 4.3 -2.
Response 64
All grading /soil removal impacts are included within the biological resource impact areas
described in detail in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR.
Response 65
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.
Response 66
Limited grading is anticipated for construction of off -site improvements. Exhibits 3 -11, 3 -12, 3-
13, and 3 -14 in the Draft EIR depict the proposed footprint of the improvements. Excavation to
allow for the construction of these off -site areas has been included in the earthwork volumes
and the impact evaluations. Exhibit 8 -7 from the Master Development Plan shows the proposed
connection of North Bluff Road at 19`h Street. Exhibit 8 -7 follows the responses to the
commenter's letter. The earthwork and other related impacts were assumed in the Draft EIR
evaluation.
Response 67
All fault setback zones are in conformance with State standards
Response 68
Faults that could not be proved inactive have low apparent slip rates and low recurrence
intervals. Significant local ground displacements from a single earthquake event are not
anticipated. Consequently, emergency access is not anticipated to be compromised.
Response 69
As discussed in the Draft EIR on page 4.3 -22 and in the Project Geotechnical Report on pages
36 and 37, bluff restoration would consist of repair of existing significant erosion gullies. Large
gullies would be repaired by filling the erosion gully and creating a manufactured slope face that
RT rojedsWewpaTJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -598 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
ties in with the natural bluff face. In cases where the existing slope face is steeper than 2:1,
slope reinforcement would be required such as geogrids or geofabrics. The goal of the repair is
to mitigate the potential for future headward erosion in the gully areas. Therefore, it is a form of
bluff stabilization.
Response 70
Please refer the response to Comment 29. Cross sections will be provided as part of the rough
grading plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Response 71
The surface drainage and bluff erosion control measures have been developed at a conceptual
level and the general footprint of the proposed measures is reflected as part of the development
area for use in calculating impacts. Detailed plans will be prepared in conjunction with grading
plans and permit, as noted in SC 4.3 -1 (see response to Comment 70).
Response 72
The reference to Exhibit 3 -22 has been deleted; the first sentence in the paragraph identifies
that the Bluff Restoration Plan exhibit is provided in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, of the Draft
EIR.
The proposed locations for bluff restoration are depicted on Exhibit 4.3 -6, Bluff
Restoration Plan Bluff restoration in areas where erosion damage to the existing
bluff is not readily evident would consist of carefully removing invasive plants and
asphalt -like material where feasible and revegetating the bluff face with native,
drought - tolerant species..., POtRRtiAl AARtiORS s t, „fr PtRhi ,,RtiQ . aGt;.,,ti8S plan
(see Exhibit 3 22, Bluff ResteratieR RaR, iR SeGtiOR 3.0, PFojeGt DesGription).
Consistency with the City's General Plan requires that slope designs adhere to
the standards contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of
the City's Building Code.
Response 73
Appendix Chapter A33 contained the grading and excavation code at the time of the Draft EIR's
publication. It is now contained in Chapter 15.10 of the City of Newport Beach Building Code.
This code addresses aspects of grading including cuts and fills and requirements for soils
reports, etc.
Response 74
As stated on page 4.3 -22 of the Draft EIR, adaptive management practices could include the
protection of the lower three feet of the face of the slopes against erosion for a future sea level
rise scenario through the installation of rip rap or coating the area with soil cement and /or
geofabric.
Response 75
Sufficient fault trenching has been completed to define the setback zones. Additional trenching
is only required if the setback zones are desired to be reduced. The development has been
planned around conservative setback zones including the assumption that Newport Mesa North
and south segments are connected (i.e., no habitable structures are planned in this area).
R TroledsNewparWl&RTMRTC- 31512.dee 3 -599 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 76
The Coastal Act policy referred to by the commenter is Section 30253 of the Coastal Act which
states that "New development shall do all of the following:... (b) Assure stability and structural
integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or
destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective
devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs ". As discussed in
the Draft EIR, the proposed Project does not propose alteration of natural landforms along bluffs
but would conduct bluff restoration work to ensure "stability and structural integrity" and repair
impacts due to erosion consistent with Section 30253. All of these measures are designed to
assure the stability of these landforms consistent with Section 30253. Please also refer to the
response to Comment 53.
Response 77
As shown on the "Existing Condition Hydrology Map" (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 of the Draft EIR.
Response 78
Oilfield operations occur in the Lowland area of the site today. The oil consolidation sites are
currently active oil producing and handling areas for both the West Newport Oil Company and
City oil operations. Both oil consolidation sites currently contain oil wells and main oil treating
facilities: the northern site contains the West Newport Oil Company main oil facility and the site
near West Coast Highway contains the City's main oil facility. No new main facility sites are
proposed to be constructed at these locations. Both West Newport Oil Company and the City
are currently able to drill new wells and construct supporting facilities as needed within these
areas. This would continue in the same manner whether or not the City should approve the
proposed Project. All oilfield operations are governed by regulations of DOGGR. All current and
future regulations would be implemented appropriately as per State and local standards. Please
also refer to Topical Response: Oilfield Regulatory Oversight and Remediation.
Response 79
Please refer to the response to Comment 78.
Response 80
Water balance budget calculations were performed for the North Arroyo and South Arroyo
vegetation in order to evaluate the existing and proposed conditions. Through Project Design
Features, the stormwater management system has been designed to match the existing water
budgets for the existing drainage ways (see Appendix C, Section 4.0, of the Draft EIR). No
water balance budget impacts to the existing habitat within the drainage ways are anticipated.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -600 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 81
Pre- and post - development peak flow discharge rates for multiple storm events have been
analyzed at three separate modal locations (16, 17, and 18) inside the Caltrans reinforced
concrete box (RCB) along West Coast Highway. The results of the analysis are shown in
Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, Tables 4.4 -23 and 4.4 -24, of the Draft EIR. The
results indicate that post - development peak flow rates are less than pre - development rates at all
modal location except Node 16 Oust south of the proposed Project entrance from West Coast
Highway). In all cases, the design capacity is greater than the projected flows. At Node 16, post -
development peak flow discharges have increased under all studied storm "event' conditions
(10 -year, 25 -year, and 100 - year). The largest increase is +1.5 cfs during the 100 -year event or
a 0.75 percent increase. However, as shown in the second column of Table 4.4 -24, the capacity
of the RCB at this location (213 cfs) would accommodate the slightly increase 100 -year peak
flow rate (204.9 cfs).
Response 82
The proposed drainage diversions have been designed to match existing flow rates and
volumes within each primary drainage way to avoid impacts to biological resources.
Response 83
As described under page 4.4 -29 of the Draft EIR, Rain Event Action Plans (REAPs) are
documents required under the Construction General Permit to be prepared within 48 hours prior
to any forecasted precipitation event (50 percent chance or greater) that describe the actual site
specific field details of construction at that time. Since the proposed Project is not currently
under construction, it is not feasible to produce a REAP that accurately describes the
construction activities that have not yet commenced. The required elements of a REAP have
been identified in Section 4.4 and Appendix C of the Draft EIR; an example REAP form is
provided in Appendix A to this Responses to Comments document. A detailed SWPPP and site -
specific Risk Assessment must be based on the final construction documents and cannot be
performed at this time because detailed excavation and grading information is not available. A
preliminary Risk Assessment is included in the Draft EIR; see pages 4.4 -28 and -29 and
Appendix C, Section 5.3.1. A summary of the BMPs applicable to the various phases of
construction have been provided.
Response 84
Stockpiles would be located away from drainage courses in accordance with the requirements
of the General Construction Permit. Specific locations would be determined when detailed
grading and construction phasing is known, and documented in the SWPPP. Please also refer
to the response to Comment 83.
Response 85
Please refer to Topical Response: Irrigation, Landscape Design, and Common Area Landscape
Management.
Response 86
The Homeowners Association would provide maintenance for transitional BMPs located in
private common landscape areas. In areas within the public right -of -way, the City of Newport
Beach would be responsible for maintenance. The Final Water Quality Management Plan
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -601 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
(WQMP) developed for the Project would describe the parties responsible for ongoing
operations and maintenance of each structural BMP, including copies of any agreements. The
North Orange County MS4 Permit (Section XI1.1.5) requires cities, as part of their local storm
water programs, to verify ongoing operations and maintenance of post- construction BMPs
installed after adoption of the Order.
Response 87
In accordance with the 2011 Model WQMP and CASQA BMP Handbook, bioretention facilities,
such as landscaped biocells, are designed with a maximum drawdown time of 48 to 72 hours to
reduce the potential for mosquito breeding. The proposed water quality features were modeled
for pollutant removal performance based on the required minimum footprints and volumes
treated. Results of the modeling are included in the appendix to the Preliminary WQMP.
Response 88
Minimization of impervious surfaces is a site design BMP applied early in the site planning
phase while considering local ordinances for road widths, building setbacks and accessibility
requirements. These principles are observed in the site plan in the clustering of the residential
areas, use of buffer zones adjacent to the bluff areas, and creating open space land use areas
throughout the Project site. All the proposed BMPs are conservatively sized based on the
maximum impervious estimate for each lot, street, and common area. In addition, the
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) would require a minimum amount of front
yard landscaping.
Response 89
A Homeowners Association is a mandatory component of the proposed Project.
Response 90
In accordance with the 2011 Model WQMP, a Preliminary WQMP consistent with the technical
data provided in Appendix C of the Draft EIR has been prepared and is hereby incorporated into
the Final EIR; please see Appendix A of this Responses to Comments document.
Response 91
In accordance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit and 2011 Model WQMP, the Final
WQMP would include an operations and maintenance plan that details the responsible party
and required activities and frequencies for maintenance of the structural and non - structural
BMPs. The North Orange County MS4 Permit Section XI1.1.5) requires cities, as part of their
storm water programs, to verify ongoing operations and maintenance of post- construction BMPs
installed after adoption of the Order. The responsibilities for monitoring each individual BMP
would not be identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program because responsible
parties cannot be determined until the WQMP is approved by the City of Newport Beach.
Response 92
The spill contingency planned referred to in the Draft EIR is a best management practices for
water quality required to be implemented at the time of Project implementation.
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -602 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 93
For all on -site Project development areas, 100 percent of the "first flush" or the 851h percentile
24 -hour storm event would be treated in accordance with the requirements of the North Orange
County MS4 Permit, City of Newport Beach, and Coastal Commission requirements. The water
quality basin located near 16th Street to treat 48 acres of off -site Costa Mesa runoff that does
not co- mingle with Project flows is not a stormwater requirement and is considered a Project
Design Feature. Due to sizing limitations and other physical constraints, it is not feasible to
design this basin to treat the entire 85th percentile 24 -hour storm event nor is it a requirement of
the Project. The basin would be designed to treat as much as can be physically accommodated
at this location and provide a reduction in peak flows to reduce scour potential within the
Southern Arroyo.
Response 94
Nourishment refers to additional surface inflow water that has been treated by LID BMPs
upstream. Based on the projected storm water volumes for existing and proposed conditions,
the storm water volumes within the Lowland area would differ by no more than 1.5 percent when
compared to existing conditions. Please refer to Topical Response: Infiltration Feasibility and
Low Impact Development Features, and Topical Response: Overall Storm Water Management.
Response 95
The Homeowners Association would be responsible for maintaining the LID features proposed
for the on -site areas under its ownership. Any BMPs in the public right -of -way and public parks
would be maintained by the City. Details on BMP ownership and maintenance, including copies
of any maintenance agreements, would be documented in the Final WQMP (in accordance with
the approved Model WQMP) prepared in conjunction with the Coastal Development Permit
application package submitted to the Coastal Commission and final grading plans.
Response 96
A water budget analysis was performed for the Project, and results are summarized in Section
4.0 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. The water budget analysis estimates the water demand and
supply for the Northern Arroyo and Southern Arroyo habitats and further determines the
ecological condition of the habitat from a water balance perspective. Overall, the existing water
budgets would be maintained and the existing arroyos would not be subject to increased runoff
due to the proposed Project. Drainage diversions would be incorporated to match existing flow
and volume conditions. Impacts to the water budgets on the arroyo habitats would be
considered less than significant.
Response 97
Please refer to the response to Comment 81.
Response 98
Please refer to the response to Comment 78. Oil operations currently lie within the 100 -year
floodplain and must take measures to reduce the potential for oil residuals to discharge
downstream during flood events in accordance with current operating regulations. The impact of
sea level rise would only increase the frequency or potential for flooding of the facilities which
these facilities must already protect against.
RT rojedsWewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -603 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 99
Please refer to the response to Comment 2. The City is not aware of any improperly capped
wells or oil seeping into local living rooms.
Response 100
The oil operator does not flare gas in its operation.
Response 101
The schedule for remediation and clean -up of the Project site would be set forth in the final RAP
(see MM 4.5 -1). With respect to "polluted soils remaining for decades," please refer to page 4.5-
8 of the Draft EIR which 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) ".
Response102
The materials referenced in the comment (old sewer pipes, trucks, drill rigs, etc.) would be
removed as part of site remediation for the proposed Project. Site remediation would commence
once the Project receives all required approvals. Page 4.5 -19 of the Draft EIR states that
comprehensive oil facilities consolidation, abandonment, and remediation at the Project site
would be a multiple -step process that would likely span a period of approximately two to three
years. The remediation portion of this process is expected to take most of this time. Oilfield
clean up and remediation applies for the entirety of the Project site with the exception of the
consolidated oil sites. In the Open Space Reserve, there may areas where oil facilities, such as
pipelines, may be left in place if the resource agencies determine that retention of these
materials to be clean and pose no hazards. Should this acceptable to the oversight agencies,
the retention of pipelines, etc., this action would reduce habitat and cultural resources
disturbance.
Response 103
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)." 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. If tested
materials do not meet required criteria established by State and federal requirements described
in the Draft RAP and Final RAP, they would either be treated until acceptable levels are
reached, or if they are determined to be too contaminated and cannot be successfully
remediated, they would be disposed of off -site at an approved location.
Response 104
No soil gas has been detected in the proposed Upland development area. The Orange County
Fire Authority Guideline C -03 outlines measures, such as vents, that would be installed so that
in the unlikely event any soil gas was to occur it would be safely vented to the atmosphere. A
Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was conducted to determine potential exposure to air
contaminants (see Section 4.10 and Appendix G of the Draft EIR) emitted from future oilfield
operations and from the combination of emissions from the oilfield and the proposed residential
and commercial development. No significant impacts are anticipated.
RT rojedMewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -604 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 105
No habitable structures are proposed within 100 feet of an active oil well. Disclosure of the
location of abandoned wells will be required in the sale of homes on the Project site.
Response 106
Soil remediation would take place throughout the grading of the Project site and potentially after
portions of the Project are occupied. The Draft EIR analyzed the impact of soil movement,
including potentially contaminated soils, on sensitive receptors which include both existing off-
site and future on -site residents and determined that this impact would be less than significant
(see Draft EIR beginning on page 4.10 -29). Remediation activities would be monitored to
ensure compliance with appropriate site emission control requirements and would implement
compliance measures, such as appropriate moisture controls, to prevent emissions. Section
4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR addresses the construction and operational air quality
emissions anticipated from the proposed Project. The air quality analysis determined that there
would be less than significant impacts related to emissions during remedial activities on the site.
Thermal treatment technologies heat excavated soil in an enclosure, a process which
transforms the contaminants in the soil into vapor, which is then recovered and treated, as
needed, to meet appropriate site emission control requirements of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
Response107
As stated in the dRAP, Section 5, environmental monitoring (third -party consultants) would
present to monitor grading activities. Procedures to identify impacted soils may include visual
(e.g., change in color, consistency, grain size), olfactory (e.g., odors) and photoionization
detector (PID) test information.
Response 108
As stated in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR, a Construction Area
Traffic Management Plan would be prepared prior to site disturbance and submitted to the City
of Newport Beach for the issuance of a Haul Route Permit. The Traffic Management Plan would
identify the routes that construction vehicles must use to access the Project site, the hours of
construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas. The
precise haul route for removals would be dependent on the material and the suitable
destination. As addressed in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR, impacts to sensitive
receptors are expected to be less than significant due to the immediate proximity of the site to
major and secondary highways that currently allow truck traffic.
Response 109
Please refer to Topical Response: ESHA and Topical Response: Sunset Ridge Park
Response110
Please refer to the response to Comment 1.
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -605 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response111
This issue is addressed in Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality and Appendix C of the Draft
EIR. Please also refer to the response to Comment 96.
Response112
With respect to mapping, the Mediterranean climate of Southern California has resulted in a
varied vegetation complex that has adapted to seasonal and periodic droughts common in the
area. Xerophytes (plants that adapt to dry habitats) occur throughout the region and on the
Project site. These and other common drought tolerant plant species are visible year- round,
even during, or after, periods of limited rainfall. The time period when the vegetation surveys
and the jurisdictional delineation were mapped on site was biologically adequate to describe
Project site resources.
With respect to the special status plant surveys, as described on page 4.6 -6 of the Draft EIR,
focused plant surveys were conducted in fall 2006 with a focus on southern tarplant
(Centromadia parryi ssp. australis). Focused surveys were also performed in spring 2007.
However, because of limited rainfall in 2007 and because this species is an annual herb, the
Project botanists determined that it would be appropriate to repeat survey in 2008.
Based on data for the City of Newport Beach 23, the average rainfall per year is 10.8 inches. In
2008, it rained 7.35 incheS24, which is 68 percent of normal.
Response113
Surveys for commonly occurring or special status bat species were not conducted for the
Project. No bat species listed as either Threatened or Endangered (or meeting the criteria as
such) has the potential to occur on site. Therefore, suitability for bat species to occur on site
was based on habitat types present, known occurrences of bat species in the region, and range
maps of bat species in the region.
Response114
As stated on Page 4.6 -34 of the Draft EIR, suitable habitat for the western spadefoot (Spea
hammondii), a California Species of Special Concern, occurs on the Project site; however, this
species has not been observed during focused fairy shrimp surveys and during hydrological
monitoring on site from 2000, and 2007 through 2011 (Bomkamp 2009). Therefore, the potential
for western spadefoot to occur on the Project site is considered low ".
Response 115
This information is currently not listed with the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)25 for the wintering and breeding season from
2006 to 2010. Any additional specific information the commenter could provide on this reference
would be helpful including observation contactlexpertise, date of observation, specific location of
observation, population numbers, behavior, and habitat present at observation location.
23 http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =601
24 http: / /www.wrh. noaa.gov /sgx/obs /rtp /rtp_NEW_08
25 http:// www. fws. gov /arcata /es /birds/WSP /plovechtmi
RT rojedsWewpaTJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -606 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response116
As stated in greater detail in Draft EIR Section 4.6.8 (Mitigation Program), the Applicant would
be fully responsible for the implementation of the revegetation programs until the restoration
areas have met the success criteria outlined in the program. The sites would be monitored and
maintained for five years to ensure successful establishment. The City and the resource
agencies (i.e., the USFWS and the California Coastal Commission) have final authority over
mitigation area sign -off. If areas have not met the required criteria established by the agencies,
the maintenance and monitoring period would be extended accordingly.
Success criteria vary with the habit types, soil resources, resource agency requirements, and
other factors. Typical success criteria that may be incorporated in to the detailed mitigation
plans for the Project site include, but may not be limited to, (1) growth of plants within Project
area, (2) diversity of plants within Project area, (3) coverage of native species, and increase in
wildlife use /diversity.
Response117
Please refer to the response to Comment 49.
Response118
There are approximately 48.72 acres of Fuel Management Zones within the Project site. There
is approximately 13.84 acres in Zone A; 15.33 acres in Zone B; and 19.55 acres in Zone C.
Note that portions of the zones overlap public streets and street rights -of -way and landscape
areas within development lots.
Response119
The opinion of the commenter is noted. Neither CEQA nor the Federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA) (under which this species is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [ USFWS])
requires coastal sage scrub occupied by gnatcatchers to be "preserved in situ ". As discussed on
page 4.6 -75 of the Draft EIR, if the Project impacts coastal sage scrub occupied by the coastal
California gnatcatcher, the Applicant would be required to obtain Take Authorization through
Section 7 of the FESA.
Response 120
Please refer to the response to Comment 96.
Response 121
The Mitigation Program for biological resources (starting on page 4.6 -90 of the Draft EIR)
includes several mitigation measures that address the potential indirect impacts from invasive
species and other human activities. These include MM 4.6 -14 (Invasive Exotic Plant Species)
that requires the Applicant to submit Landscape Plans to the City of Newport Beach (City) for
review and approval by a qualified Biologist. The review is required to ensure that no invasive,
exotic plant species are used in landscaping adjacent to any open space and that suitable
substitutes are provided. When the process is complete, the qualified Biologist shall submit a
memo approving the Landscape Plans to the City. In addition, MM 4.6 -16 (Urban Wildlands
Interface) requires the Applicant to educate residents of the responsibilities associated with
living at the wildland interface, through the development of a wildland interface brochure. The
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -607 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
brochure would also address invasive species that shall be avoided in landscaping consistent
with MM 4.6 -14.
Response 122
There are existing light standards along the north side of 19th Street adjacent to the Project site.
Response123
A good source of information on wild birds and domestic cat interactions can be found on the
American Bird Conservancy (ABC) website26. The ABC acknowledges that birds are better off
when cats stay indoors. In addition, life for outdoor cats is also risky (hit by cars, attacked by
dogs /coyotes, get lost, and other dangers). Outdoor cats lead considerably shorter lives on
average than cats kept exclusively indoors. In light of these risks to native birds and domestic
cats, in 1997, the ABC launched the "Cats Indoors!Campaign for Safer Birds and Cats to
educate cat owners, policy makers, and the general public that cats, wildlife, and people all
benefit when cats are kept indoors, confined to an enclosure when outdoors, or trained to go
outside on a harness and leash ". The ABC has developed a very useful brochure which can be
modified to meet the needs of the Project. The link to the brochure is
http: / /www. abcbi rds.org /abcprog rams /pol icy /cats /materials /cat_broch u re. pdf.
Response 124
As discussed on page 4.6 -84 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project is required to restore
riparian habitat either on site, or immediately off site. The mitigation sites would be determined
in coordination with the City and the resource agencies (i.e., the USFWS, the CDFG, the
RWQCB, and the California Coastal Commission). The sites would either be located on the
Project site in a dedicated open space area or a suitable adjacent off -site open space to be
obtained /purchased. Selected sites would not result in the removal of a biologically valuable
resource (e.g., native grassland).
Response125
The comment is noted
Response 126
The opinion of the commenter is noted. Remedial measures would be in place with the approval
of the restoration plans with the resource agencies to provide the safeguards necessary to
ensure restoration sites meet the necessary criteria standards.
Response127
Please refer to the response to Comment 116.
Response 128
All on -site vegetation removal would be conducted in compliance with the State Endangered
Species Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Vegetation
removal would take place during the appropriate season for the various habitat types and listed
avian species that are present and the resource agency mandated restrictions.
26 http : / /www.abcbirds.org /abcprograms /policy /cats /index.htmi
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -608 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The flushing of avian and other mobile species from habitat areas immediately prior to brush -
clearing and earth- moving activities is a common and requested practice from the resource
agencies.
Response 129
Please refer to the response to Comment 116.
Response 130
Please refer to the response to Comment 121.
Response 131
Please refer to the response to Comment 121.
Response 130
Please refer to the response to Comment 116.
Response 133
With respect to jobs- housing balance, 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.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -609 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 134
A policy consistency analysis of the Project with Coastal Commission policies regarding low and
moderate income housing in the Coastal Zone is contained Section 4.1, Land Use and Related
Planning Programs, and Section 4.7, Population, Housing, and Employment, of the Draft EIR.
Response 135
The commenter's interpretation of the draft AHIP is incorrect. Both the Draft EIR and the draft
AHIP require a minimum of 50 percent of the affordable units for the Project be located on the
Project site.
Response 136
The commenter's interpretation of the draft AHIP is incorrect. Both the Draft EIR and the draft
AHIP indicate that the number of required affordable housing units is based on income
category. As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description,
The Newport Banning Ranch AHIP proposes the construction of a minimum of 50
percent of the required affordable housing on the Project site. The remaining
affordable housing obligation would be met through the payment of in -lieu fees;
the construction of off -site affordable housing including the rehabilitation of
existing off -site housing that would contribute to meeting the City's Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements; land dedication; or a
combination thereof.
• Very Low Income: 5 percent of the total units (69 units); or
• Low Income: 10 percent of the total units (138 units); or
• Moderate Income: 15 percent of the total units (206 units); or
• Some combination of the three income categories.
Very Low Income is defined as households with income from 31 to 50 percent of the County
median income adjusted for family size. Low Income is defined as households with income from
51 to 80 percent and Moderate Income is defined as households within incomes equal to or less
than 120 percent ".
Response137
The trails would be constructed in accordance with the Proposed Implementation Plan
referenced in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR. Open space trail construction would occur following
remediation and restoration. Trails within the development would be constructed in accordance
with the Proposed Implementation Plan referenced in Section 3.7 and in the sequence identified
in Exhibit 3.18. Trails would not be available for use within the area set aside for consolidated oil
production and the connecting roadway until after oil production activities cease.
Response 138
The Draft EIR identifies that activities located within Caltrans right -of -way would require an
Encroachment Permit. An Encroachment Permit would be required for widening and
improvements to West Coast Highway, modifying the reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert in
West Coast Highway, and constructing a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -610 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Highway. The Methodology discussion of Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR identifies that Caltrans
requires the use of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection analysis methodology to
analyze the operation of signalized intersections on a State Highway controlled by Caltrans
(Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002). In the
vicinity of the project, Pacific Coast Highway /West Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard are
Caltrans facilities (see Table 4.9 -1 of the Draft EIR). Therefore, traffic study intersections on
State Highway facilities are also analyzed using the HCM intersection analysis methodology.
Response 139
The differences are based on the different methodologies used by the State (Caltrans) and the
cities (Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach) within the traffic study area for the
proposed Project. There are some significant similarities, and also some significant differences
between the ICU and the delay (HCM) intersection methodologies. Both methodologies take
into account the number of lanes on each approach to the intersection and the volume of traffic
on each approach. The ICU methodology compares the volume of traffic to the overall capacity
of the lanes to develop a volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio. The HCM methodology is based on
optimum usage of each lane and optimum signal timing and phasing on each approach. The
ICU methodology is required by the City of Newport Beach, and is also the methodology used
by the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. The delay methodology (HCM), which is
required by Caltrans, measures the average delay per vehicle, in seconds, and takes into
account signal timing and phasing. The resulting measure of delay can sometimes result in a
better Level of Service than the capacity measurement (ICU calculations), and can sometimes
result in a worse Level of Service, depending on the intersection layout, signal timing, and signal
phasing.
Response 140
Please refer to the response to Comment 6.
Response 141
Internal capture refers to any trip that stays on a project site, regardless of travel mode. As an
example, a trip between the resort inn or the residential at the south end of the Project site and
the proposed commercial center at 17th Street would be an internal capture trip regardless of it
was a walking, bicycle, or vehicle trip. These trips would not impact off -site intersections.
Pass -by trips are different from internal capture trips, in that they are trips that have one or both
trip ends outside a project. They are pass -by in that they would be trips already on the roadway
system that stop to patronize a business in the commercial center, and then continue on. A very
conservative pass -by rate of 10 percent was assumed. The ITE Trip Generation publication
provides a 34 percent pass -by rate for shopping centers.
Response 142
The analysis includes diverted trips on not only 19th Street, but also the other east -west streets
that would connect to Bluff Road (17th, 16th, and 15th). The trip diversion assumptions were
based on select link runs conducted with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM),
which isolate the trips using a particular roadway segment to help identify the origins and
destinations of those trips.
RT rojedsWewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -611 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 143
The General Plan buildout analyses assumed buildout of the surrounding area roadway
network, based on the Orange County MPAH, which assumes the 19th Street Bridge would be
constructed across the Santa Ana River as a four -lane Primary Road. Since the timing for the
bridge is uncertain, the Traffic Impact Analysis also includes analysis of a No Bridge scenario
for informational purposes. It should be noted that the Year 2016 traffic analysis scenarios do
not assume the 19th Street Bridge.
Response 144
The General Plan buildout analyses assumed buildout of the surrounding area roadway
network, based on the Orange County MPAH, which also assumes the extension of Bluff Road
from 19th Street to Victoria Street as a six -lane major roadway. This roadway segment is also
shown on the City of Costa Mesa Master Plan of Highways. As proposed, the Project would not
build nor preclude the completion of this roadway segment. In order to delete this roadway
segment from either plan, the City of Costa Mesa would need to initiate and complete a
cooperative study for an amendment to the Orange County MPAH.
Response 145
Standard Condition 4.9 -3 in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR requires that the Applicant prepare a
Traffic Management Plan for construction traffic. The condition includes the provision that
advanced written notice (two -week) of temporary traffic disruptions be provided to emergency
service providers. The condition also provides maximum truck volumes on West Coast Highway
allowed per hour, depending on the time of year, to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist
traffic; and specifies that construction traffic will be monitored and additional restrictions may be
imposed by the City Public Works Department if traffic congestion problems arise due to
construction traffic.
Response 146
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.
Response 147
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 16rh 17th 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.
RT rojedMewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -612 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
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 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
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.
Response 148
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, 16th, 17th, 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.
Response 149
The commenter's question does not address the proposed Project. This improvement has been
identified by and conditioned on the Hoag Health Center project.
Response150
The comment is noted.
Response 151
The air quality analysis of exposure of nearby residents to criteria pollutants and TACs during
construction addresses includes the equipment used in remediation and it is assumed that the
remediation activities include the consolidation efforts
Response152
Chronic and acute non - cancer impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR. The results are shown in
Table 4.10 -18. No significant health impacts are anticipated.
Response153
The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) addressed receptors in all directions from the
Project site, which would include Newport Shores. Impacts were found to be less than
significant, as described in Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR.
RT rojedsWewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -613 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 154
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
Energy and Environmental Design — Neighborhood Development (LEED- NDT"), California
Green Builder, or National Association of Home Builders' National Green Building Standard.
Additionally, solar reflectivity or other types of cool roofs can be an effective tool in reducing
warming and energy consumption in buildings generally. It is often among the tools recognized
and positively rated in third -party Green Building Programs — among various other techniques —
for its value in providing cooling. While providing certain types of benefits, white roofs, reflective
pavement, and other cooling techniques would also have to be evaluated in terms other factors,
for example their aesthetic qualities and visual impacts (e.g., reflectivity and glare for Project
residents and neighbors). Any such proposals and evaluations would occur during Site
Development Review of individual construction -level development projects. The installation of
solar panel equipment would be up to individual residents. Project Design Feature 4.11 -4g
notes that single - family detached residential roofs, commercial building roofs, and HOA owned
public building roofs, which have adequate solar orientation shall be designed to be compatible
with the installation of photovoltaic panels or other current solar power technology.
Response 155
It is assumed that the commenter is referring to Table 4.10 -16. The traffic volumes are those
forecast for the General Plan Buildout plus Project scenario. The City's General Plan assumes a
projected year 2030 buildout year.
Response 156
There would be negligible hydrogen sulfide emissions during Project construction. No significant
impacts would be expected.
Response 157
The greenhouse gases emitted from construction equipment used in remediation are included in
the Draft EIR analysis. Please refer to Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Response 158
The Draft EIR includes analysis of noise from future operations at the consolidated oilfield sites
to the nearest sensitive noise receptors. Noise impacts were found to be less than significant.
The volume of truck traffic related to oilfield operations on the road connecting the consolidation
sites would not be substantially greater than the existing truck traffic on the southwestern part of
the site.
Response 159
Table 4.12 -8 provides noise levels typical of equipment that would be used in the consolidation
of oil operations.
Response 160
Construction vibration impacts are addressed in the Draft EIR on pages 4.12 -38 and 4.12 -39.
RT rojedsWewpaTJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -614 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 161
The Draft EIR acknowledges that construction truck noise may be noticeable. However, 20 truck
passbys per day is not considered a substantial increase in noise impacts.
Response 162
Please refer to Topical Response: Topical Response: Coastal Commission Consent Orders.
Response163
Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. As
addressed in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR, a reduction of future traffic noise to the
Newport Crest community could be accomplished by realignment of the four -lane Bluff Road to
a location farther from the existing homes. Realignments would result in greater impacts to open
space and biological resources, and would result in additional grading and alteration of natural
landforms. To move the roadway a sufficient distance to avoid significant noise impacts to the
Newport Crest development would require that the roadway veer to the west through the area
designated for the Resort Colony (Site Planning Area 13a) and the South Family Village (Site
Planning Area 11a and 11 b). As a result, the roadway would bisect the open space area
adjacent to West Coast Highway (Site Planning Area 1a) and necessitate grading into the bluff
proposed for preservation. In addition, the roadway would bisect the open space in Site
Planning Area 1 b. This would result in impacts to the Southern Arroyo. To connect back to 15th
Street, Bluff Road would bisect the Community Park (Site Planning Area 7c), which may
constrain the effective development of the active use component of the park. Both Site Planning
Areas 1a and 1b contain sensitive biological resources that would be adversely impacted with
the realignment of the roadway.
Response 164
Please refer to Mitigation Measures (MMs) 4.12 -9 and 4.12 -10 in the Draft EIR which are
included in the Project to avoid a significant impact to the California Seabreeze community. MM
4.12 -10 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows:
MM 4.12 -10 Loading docks shall be sited to minimize noise impacts to
adjacent residential areas. If loading docks or truck driveways are
proposed as part of the Project's commercial areas within 200 feet
of an existing home, an 8- foot -high screening wall shall be
constructed to reduce potential noise impacts.
Response 165
The text on page 4.12 -33 of the Draft EIR is not "proposing" air conditioning; the analysis is for
noise impacts where HVAC units, which could include air conditioning, are installed. Each
builder will make a determination of which environmental management amenities will be
included in each future dwelling unit consistent with California Energy Code requirements, site
conditions, City building regulations and the goals of the Green and Sustainable Plan.
Response166
The commenter expresses the opinion "Outdoor eating establishments with amplified music
must not be located on the northerly side of the building facing residents in California
Seabreeze". Any future outdoor dining associated with any eating or drinking establishment in
R:Tr.pd.N..Pom.01 5 RTOR-roo31512.do. 3 -615 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
either the MU /R (Mixed Use /Residential) District or the VSR/R (Visitor - Serving Resort/
Residential) District would require a Minor Use Permit (MUP) as set forth in Exhibit 3 -1,
Allowable Uses, of the Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -
PC) regulations.
Any eating and drinking establishment, whether outdoor or indoor, with sit down dining serving
alcohol, as well any lounge, bar, or nightclub, in either the MU /R (Mixed Use /Residential) District
or the VSR/R (Visitor- Serving Resort/Residential) District would require a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) as set forth in Exhibit 3 -1, Allowable Uses, of the NBR -PC regulations.
Any specific proposal to establish an outdoor eating establishment in the northerly side of the
building facing residences at California Seabreeze would require City approval of either a Minor
Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit as set forth in Section 4.9, Use Permits, of the NBR -PC.
This, in turn, would require compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter
20.52.020, D through G, "Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits," which requires
public notice and a hearing before either the City's Zoning Administrator or Planning
Commission. This provision would afford the commenter the opportunity to comment on any
proposal for an outdoor eating establishment with amplified music on the northerly side of a
building facing residents in California Seabreeze, when and if such an establishment on the
north side of a building is ever proposed.
Response 167
Rubberized asphalt pavement has been used for more than 30 years. Such roads have
performed without maintenance for 14 years and have a life expectancy of 18 years, according
to an Arizona study. Arizona is a state that has pioneered the use of asphalt rubber roads. As
stated on page 4.12 -22 of the Draft EIR, Costa Mesa has used rubberized asphalt since 2004.
Response 168
Please refer to the response to Comment 36.
Response 169
The number and quality of cultural resources of Newport Banning Ranch may be considered low
when compared to other, regional, coastal developments. However the degree of preexisting
impacts from massive grading resulting from quarrying, road building, and oil related activities
far surpasses the initial conditions of the other development sites. The "richer" resources that
remain (CA -ORA -839, CA- ORA -844B, and CA -ORA -906) would be considered in the planning
process, and mitigation measures are in place to reduce the impact to the sites to a less than
significant level. Monitoring of grading is planned under Mitigation Measure 4.13 -1.
Response 170
Pursuant to SB 18 (Government Code 65352.3), the initial contacts with Native American
groups were conducted "government to government" by the City of Newport Beach. The City's
inquiry to the Native American Heritage Commission included both Juaneno /Acjachemen
contacts as well as Gabrielino/Tongva contacts, all of whom were contacted by the City via
certified letter. The Draft EIR reference to the Juaneno /Acjachemen groups was referencing
them being the only groups who chose to formally consult under SB 18 and initiate
communication with the City. The letters documenting these contacts are not included in the
Draft EIR are on file at the City of Newport Beach.
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -616 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 171
Building 5, a "ranch -style house' is currently used for the offices of the West Newport Oil
Company and is a recent, mobile structure. It was likely built after 1960 but prior to 1965.
Research has not revealed any direct association between this property and persons or events
important either regionally or nationally. It was not constructed by a known architect nor was it
designed in an exceptional architectural style. Therefore, under the National Register of Historic
Places or California Register of Historical Resources criteria relating to the West Newport Oil
Banning Ranch sites' association with persons of historic importance, the property does not
qualify as a significant resource.
Response 172
Avoidance and protection of cultural resources is the preferred approach in both CEQA and
Federal Section 106 law, and is the basis of mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. Only the sites
where complete preservation is not feasible is data recovery excavation recommended.
Response 173
A paleontological records search and survey were conducted on the property simultaneous to
archaeological activities. BonTerra Consulting conducted a Phase II paleontological study,
which consisted of a records search, literature review, and limited field reconnaissance in order
to evaluate the sensitivity of the substrate underlying the proposed development for the
presence of fossil resources and to make recommendations to mitigate the effects of the Project
on those resources (p. 4.13 -25).
Response 174
The proposed grading specifications noted under Mitigation Measure 4.13 -1 state no spatial
limitation as to the nature or degree of archaeological monitoring. The mitigation measure states
that the Archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grade conference; shall establish procedures
for archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish, in cooperation with the
Applicant /Contractor, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as appropriate (see page 4.13 -27).
Grading areas at present are undetermined and are not limited to simply "grading ". Monitoring
would also include areas of oilfield infrastructure removal.
Response 175
Please refer to the response to Comment 29. The measures that have been identified to
mitigate the proposed Project's impact at the intersections of Newport Boulevard at 19th Street
and Newport Boulevard at Rochester would provide additional capacity on Newport Boulevard,
to better accommodate the movement of traffic through the intersections.
Response 176
Section 4905.1 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires that all elements of the fuel
modification plan be maintained in accordance with the approved plan. Violations of the
Municipal Code are subject to citations and progressive fines.
RT rojedsWewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -617 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 177
The comment Master Development Plan will be revised to specify that fuel modification
maintenance will not be conducted during the nesting /breeding season for sensitive wildlife.
Response 178
No specific location has been identified but the temporary fire station would be located within
the areas of disturbance of the Project site.
Response 179
The Project would be conditioned to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the construction of
a replacement station for Fire Station 2.
Response 180
As described in Section 4.14, Public Services and Facilities, in the Draft EIR, the City of
Newport Beach Police Department was contacted to determine the potential impact of the
Project on police protection services. The Project would increase demand for the City's Police
protection services but would not require the construction of new facilities nor would it require
the expansion of existing facilities that would result in physical vernal impacts. Although the
exact number and frequency of calls cannot be calculated since there is no development is
currently, implementation of the Project is expected to result in an increase in calls for service
for non - residential development. The proposed Project is reflected in the 2006 Orange County
Projections' growth estimates and has been taken into account in long -range planning efforts,
including the Police Department. Based on information received from the Police Department,
police protection services can be provided to the Project site without significantly impacting
existing and planned development within the City. No information from the Police Department
was provided that would indicate an increased demand for police protection services in the
West Newport Beach Sub Region (WNBSR), as defined by the commenter. In addition,
implementation of Standard Conditions 4.14 -4 and 4.14 -5 would ensure adequate police
protection services can be provided to the Project site.
Response 181
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 182
The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -PC) requires all
development to comply Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage) of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Section 20.30.120 requires all new development projects to
provide adequate, enclosed areas with solid roofs for collecting and loading solid waste and
recyclable materials.
Response 183
As addressed in Section 4.15, Utilities, of the Draft EIR, the Project's Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) (Water Supply Assessment, Newport Banning Ranch, prepared by AECOM, May 2010)
was approved by the Newport Beach City Council on October 12, 2010. Therefore, the WSA
used data available at the time of its preparation. The City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water
R:T,.pd.N.wPam.misraMRTCc 31512.do. 3 -618 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on June 14, 2011.
The 2010 UWMP indicates a much lower projection of water use as opposed to the 2005
UWMP due to water conservation and climate. These new updated estimates would indicate
there is adequate infrastructure and supply.
As addressed in Section 4.15 of the Draft EIR, the water demand for the Project site was
included in the City's water demand forecasts and is reflected in the City's 1999, 2005, and
2010 UWMPs and in MWDOC, OCWD, and MWD planning documents. The 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan identifies that the City is capable of meeting the water demands of its existing
and projected customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years for the 25 -year planning
period (through 2035).
The Project's WSA does acknowledge statewide water supply issues such as reduced Delta
pumping. Additionally, the commenter is referred to Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts of the
Proposed Project, starting on page 5. -78, which addresses statewide water supply and
availability.
The Orange County Groundwater Basin is managed by the Orange County Water District
(OCWD). The City is a member agency of the OCWD. Saltwater intrusion is not experienced in
the basin because of the seawater barrier that is operated and maintained by the OCWD. The
WSA, 2005 UWMP, and 2010 UWMP all include accurate calculations and projections that take
in account basin levels. Basin Pumping Percentages are set by the OCWD board and discussed
with member agencies to maintain overdraft levels and pumping capacities.
With respect to statewide water issues, please refer to Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts of the
Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR. The City purchases import water from the MWDOC.
MWDOC is a member agency of the MWD. In evaluating import water supplies, data from
MWD's Regional Urban Water Management Plan as well as MWD's Integrated Resource Plan
was used.
Response 184
The comment is noted.
Response 185
As described in the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach adopted a Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) for the Project in October 2010. The WSA was prepared based on data provided from
water service providers to the City, one of which is MWDOC. Subsequent to the adoption of the
WSA, the City of Newport Beach adopted its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan on June
2011. The Project WSA is consistent with the assumptions used in the City's 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan. Both the WSA approved for the Project and the City's 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan incorporate the data on water supply and demand provided by the City's
water providers including MWDOC.
Response 186
Limited off -site water improvements are necessary to connect the proposed on -site water
system to existing water mains. As depicted in Exhibit 4.15 -2 of the Draft EIR, water line
connections are proposed at the existing terminus of 16th Street, from intersection of 15th Street
and Monrovia Ave., at Ticonderoga and at West Coast Highway.
RT rojedsWewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -619 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response187
As described in the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach adopted a Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) for the proposed Project in October 2010. The WSA was prepared based on data
provided from water service providers to the City, one of which is MWDOC. Subsequent to the
adoption of the WSA, the City of Newport Beach adopted its 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan in June 2011. As addressed in the Draft EIR, the Project WSA is consistent with the
assumptions used in the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Both the WSA approved
for the Project and the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan incorporate the data on
water supply and demand provided by the City's water providers including MWDOC. The WSA
is provided in Appendix L to the Draft EIR; the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan is available
at the City of Newport Beach.
Response188
The preference of the City and the Applicant would be that the proposed Project not need a
pump station. However, because the gravity system design necessitates sewer mains through
the proposed open space, it has been prudent to include impacts of a pump station if it is
required. The pump station would be located within the proposed development footprint and
would comply with City of Newport Beach requirements.
Response 189
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 190
The proposed sewer connection point for the project is immediately upstream of the Bitter Point
Pump Station. Adequate capacity in the connection line exists to serve the proposed project.
The existing sewer lines are illustrated in Figure 3 of the Sewer and Water Facilities Plan
included in Appendix L. OCSD has recently completed testing of the Bitter Point Pump Station.
The test results show that the station has a rated capacity of 39.43 mgd, and OCSD estimated
that the total projected max peak inflow to the pump station for Year 2020 was 37.95 MGD.
Thus, the pump station has sufficient capacity to serve the Project. Please refer to Letter R7
from the Orange County Sanitation District.
Response 191
With respect to energy, the references to SC 4.10 -1 and SC 4.12 -1 have been deleted.
Response 192
The commenter is incorrect that the cumulative analysis only addresses projects with completed
environmental documentation. Further, the analysis takes into consideration General Plan
buildout levels of development. The comment is noted.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -620 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response193
Please refer to the response to Comment 144.
Response 194
The opinions of the commenter are noted.
RA Pro j .cWNewp.MJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -621 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
RAProjdlrll �2'RYIAS`d81512tloc
3 -622 Responses to &, ifoprpe(italrCq- l6lefts
1Bnseea
3
a
^
�
r�e
IBM Street
T
l
M
17M Street
S .
15M
IEGEIII)
.Va�t�ICYeelbiwl
_ 30B0
Y
W25
Ca1a
3
-1 -d
Q -5- -lo
-10- -IB
PACIFIC
M -1e -a3
OCEAN
RAProjdlrll �2'RYIAS`d81512tloc
3 -622 Responses to &, ifoprpe(italrCq- l6lefts
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
ICI <<
I �\
19TH STREET
C ELM
av uw u �
KM
i(dY[l 'ENL<IY' (ail
• JOIN NORTH BLUFF ROAD INPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING 19TH
STREET AIPROVEMENTS WITHIN FXISTW RIGHT -OE -WAY.
• C f9TH STREET RIGNT -OF -WAY RESERVATION AREA,
Exhibit 8 -7
»,- 19th Street and North Bluff Road
"`"°° " " "� NG R�`" Entry and Off -Site Improvements
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN VIII I ® pd e,�< rtl�ti1
�er.,r. <..... -�., ;rt. nom. . <ti�v.<.•.,....,�.�..... »...... r -.....
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -623 Responses to Environmental Comments
�
I
av uw u �
KM
i(dY[l 'ENL<IY' (ail
• JOIN NORTH BLUFF ROAD INPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING 19TH
STREET AIPROVEMENTS WITHIN FXISTW RIGHT -OE -WAY.
• C f9TH STREET RIGNT -OF -WAY RESERVATION AREA,
Exhibit 8 -7
»,- 19th Street and North Bluff Road
"`"°° " " "� NG R�`" Entry and Off -Site Improvements
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN VIII I ® pd e,�< rtl�ti1
�er.,r. <..... -�., ;rt. nom. . <ti�v.<.•.,....,�.�..... »...... r -.....
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -623 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
J. Edward Guilmette Comment Letter 047
P.O. Box 1187
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
949.645.7322 E- mail. chivatoed @yahoo.coin
November 6. 2011 OevEU ar
COMMUNITY
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard NOV 07 2011
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: Patrick Alford DEVELOPMEN717
OF voy
RE: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR — Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Qdafflroo
Dear Mr. Alford,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Newport Banning Ranch (NBR) Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Please include the following comments and
concerns in the official record. I have also attached a copy of my April 16, 2009 letter
that presented Newport Banning Ranch NOP comments. Many of my current comments
are similar. but include additional cites from the DEIR.
Flooding is a serious issue evidenced by numerous citations in city documents and
Coastal Commission requirements. Flood risk is not confined to the project site. Storm
runoff into property adjacent to the project has serious impacts and in this case 1 am
referring to the probability of flooding in the Semeniuk Slough (Newport Slough and
Oxbow Loop [OIL] ) and the community of Newport Shores (NS). Here are some
citations and issues from the NBR -DEIR:
1. The OIL portion of Semeniuk Slough (SS) provides only a 2 -year level of storm
runoff protection when the tidal gates are closed. This amounts to 1.5 feet of
available flood storage capacity (section 4.4- page 14). Since flood storage
capacity in the slough only accommodates a 2 -year storm, the risk of flooding in
Newport Shores is very high. Subwatershed A (S W -A) which includes most of
the Banning Ranch (BR) land scheduled for development (houses, commercial
space, etc.) creates an existing (currently - without development) 17.3 ac -ft
runoff volume for a 2 -yr storm and — 67 ac -ft of runoff for a 10 -year storm that
will greatly exceed the holding capacity of the slough.
2. The development of 149 acres of the BR site will increase the amount of
impervious surfaces (roads. parking lots. driveways etc) by — 45% in SW -A
(4.4 -22). Section 4.4 does not provide any calculations of the amount of
additional runoff produced from this 45% increase. The 17.3 ac -ft of runoff
from of 2 -year storm multiplied by 45% is 25 ac -ft (10 year= 97 ac -ft). Both of
these storm events (with development) will exceed the storage capacity of OIL
and produce a high probability of flooding Newport Shores.
Pile: cadocuments and settings \jeg\my dowments\my documents \mrd\riverpark\br deir wmments.doc
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC \RTC- 031512.doc 3 -624 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
3. Storm runoff from SW -A will be only slightly reduced by 1.14 ac -ft (likely
overestimated) by BMP and LID design protocols for the development (4.4 -39).
A small portion of runoff from SW -A (— 8 %) will be diverted from OIL (4.4-
52) into the ESHA wetlands North of OIL. The wetlands and SS are all
interconnected and the storm runoff that drains to the wetlands ends up in SS
(4.4 -56), which only has a flood storage capacity of 28 ac -ft (greatly reduced
when the tidal gates are closed since the water level is already 3.5 feet above
mean sea level (mil)).
4. In contrast to these citations the amount of runoff estimated for the vroposed
dc%elo m nt (4.4 -57) is only 18.3 ac -ft for a 2 -year storm event (estimates for a
10 -year storm are not provided) based on the runoff reductions discussed above
in #3. The impact of a 45% increase in impervious surfaces is not discussed in
any justification of these runoff estimates. Obfuscation seems to be the intent of
the estimates provided and a calculated attempt to downplay the amount of flood
risk in SS and Newport Shores (disingenuous would be another tern for the
information presented).
The amount of storm water draining into OIL and the Caltrans storm drain, which drains
into OIL (4.4 -61), must be clearly discussed based on the high level of flood risk to SS,
OIL and Newport Shores (NS). The impact of the 45% increase of impervious surfaces
in SW -A and the small runoff reductions from BMP's. LID's and SW -A runoff are not
clarified based on reductions to flood risk. Most of the discussions of flood risks are
focused on the development itself (uplands) and not the lowlands (SS, OIL and NS).
Residents of NS deserve a simple and clear explanation of the flood risk associated with
the BR development and risks to their safety and property values.
Additional comments pertaining to Section 4.4
Please refer to my letter dated April 16, 2009 for additional comments that pertain to this
section.
Sincerely,
Z
J. Edward Guilmette
File: c:ldocuments and settingsyeg\my documentstrny documents\wordviverparftr deir comments.doc
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -625 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 047 J. Edward Guilmette
November 6, 2011
Response1
As shown in Tables 4.4 -19 and 4.4 -20 of the Draft EIR, the existing and proposed condition 2-
year rainfall volumes delivered to the Semeniuk Slough /Salt Marsh Basin are 26.6 acre -feet (ac-
ft) and 27.6 ac -ft, respectively. When the tidal gate in the Santa Ana River levee is completely
closed, there is approximately 28 ac -ft of storage capacity in the Semeniuk Slough /Salt Marsh
Basin (see page 4.4 -56 of the Draft EIR), which is approximately equal to the 2 -year rainfall
event delivered to the Semeniuk Slough /Salt Marsh Basin. Because the runoff volume delivered
(pre- and post — development are less than the flood storage capacity in the Semeniuk
Slough /Salt Marsh Basin, a 2 -year level of protection is provided. Recognizing the existing
constraints posed by this storage deficit, the proposed Project's drainage plan was developed
with the objective of avoiding any increase in storm water runoff conveyed to the Semeniuk
Slough /Salt Marsh Basin while preserving its 2 -year storage capacity limit. Consequently, a
portion of Sub - watershed A would be diverted away from the Semeniuk Slough under the
proposed Project's drainage plan and would discharge to the Lowland area via propose storm
drain systems. Currently, larger storm events ( >2 -year) exceed the storage capacity of the
Semeniuk Slough /Salt Marsh Basin; this condition would not change in the post- development
condition.
Response 2
Proposed condition runoff volumes tributary to Semeniuk Slough and Salt Marsh Basin are
presented in Table 4.4 -20 of the Draft EIR and are reflective of impervious characteristics
created by proposed land use conditions. Backup calculations for the surface conditions can be
found in Appendix C, Watershed Assessment Report, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in the
response to Comment 1, a 2 -year level of protection is provided to the Newport Shores
residences in the post - development condition, which is consistent with the current level of
protection.
Response 3
As shown in the table, the 2 -year runoff volume delivered to the wetlands (Lowland area) is 32.8
ac -ft. Calculations identify that there is approximately 70 ac -ft of storage capacity available in
the Lowland area. Because available storage capacity in the Lowland area exceeds the 2 -year
runoff volume tributary to the area, a minimum 2 -year level of protection is provided.
Lowland Area
Proposed Condition: 2 -Year Expected Value Runoff Volume
Subwatershed
Drainage Area
(ac)
2 -Year Volume
(ac -ft)
100 -Year Volume
(ac -ft)
B
120.70
12.0
34.7
C
97.50
5.2
25.5
D
22.40
1.7
5.6
E (Same as Existing)
97.2
6.8
27.8
Lowland Area
114.8
1 13.7
42.9
Total
452.6
39.4(+6.6)
136.5 ( +9.0_
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -626 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
For the Lowland area, the runoff volume is estimated by: (Prec) x (Area) /12
The available storage in the Lowland area only: 113,000 W .1,e 7094Ac a�rra lac _ FP
g y f t lay lay
For the Lowland area, the runoff volume estimated by (Prec) x (Area) /12
Response 4
The 18.3 ac -ft runoff volume referenced by the commenter is the 2 -year runoff volume from
Sub - Watershed A delivered to Semeniuk Slough /Salt Marsh Basin. The size of Sub - Watershed
A is 322.0 acres of which 185.3 acres is off site (57 percent) and 136.7 acres from the Project
site (43 percent). The runoff volume from Sub - Watershed A combined with the runoff volume
produced from the Newport Shores residential area and the Semeniuk Slough /Salt Marsh Basin
footprint area produces a proposed condition runoff volume of 27.6 ac -ft to the Semeniuk
Slough /Salt Marsh Basin, and produces a 2 -year level of protection to the residences which is
similar to existing conditions. As discussed in the response to Comment 2, proposed condition
hydrologic results are reflective of impervious characteristics created by proposed land use
conditions. Backup calculations for the surface conditions can be found in Appendix C,
Watershed Assessment Report, of the Draft EIR.
Response 5
The flood risk assessment of the Semeniuk Slough, Salt Marsh Basin, and Newport Shores'
residents is discussed on pages 4.4 -56 and 4.4 -57 of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to the
responses to Comments 1, 2, 3, and 4. As stated in the responses, storm water runoff peak flow
rate and volumes in the post - development condition would provide a 2 -year level of protection
which is consistent with the level of protection present in the pre - development condition.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -627 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 048a
Alford, Patrick
From:
olwen hageman [o- hageman @sbcglobal.net]
Sent:
Monday, November 07, 20118:22 AM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Subject:
DEIR and Nov 3 Planning Commission mtg
This message was e- mailed to you on Friday with a typo in the address and, of course, it did not go
through. Sorry for the delay.
Dear Mr. Alford,
rewritten so that the public can understand it, and in a much shorter version, i.e. no more than 300
pages total, and that the deadline for comments to be received by the City be extended.
At close of the meeting, Commissioner Hillgren agreed with Mr. Mosher and suggested to Mr. Mike
Mohler that Mr. Mosher's request be complied with.
I agree with Mr. Mosher and Commissioner Hillgren and, if an extension is granted but the document
is not rewritten, I would ask for an extension of at least six months. It has taken years for this
document to be compiled by professionals and yet we, the uneducated public, are expected to read
this complicated, confusing rhetoric in sixty days whilst we work and care for our families, etc.
Studying the DEIR is a full time job and the majority of people cannot participate in this heavy
burden, though they want to, because it is way too time consuming and they simply do not have the
time.
The land in question has been vacant forever, another six months or more won't hurt matters. Plus,
I don't think Exxon is hurting for money, do you?
Thank you for your patience and willingness to help.
Respectfully,
Olwen Hageman
7 Goodwill Court
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949 642 -1998
R:TrojectsWewpn JO15�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -628 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O48a Olwen Hageman
November 7. 2011
Response1
The opinion of the commenter is 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.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -629 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 048b
November 8, 2011
To: Mr. Patrick Alford
From: Olwen Hageman, 7 Goodwill Court, N.B.
Re: DEER comments.
I wonder how this DEIR can be accomplished when roads that would lead to the development have not
even been approved.. How can Hotspots be determined without this information? I believe that this
DEIR is premature and makes a lot of assumptions. My comments are below, listed by page number. I
have not read all of Air Quality because I needed more time. I wanted to study 1 -H -IRA but we don't
really need to know the 7 criteria pollutants and the other 4 to know that this project will be bad for the
health of the people who already live here. All one has to do is look at the close proximity of Newport .
Blvd. to Superior and Placentia and, if it is ever approved, to Bluff Road with all of the extensions and
extra traffic coming into this area, plus PCH. Pollution will be concentrated in this area and it will take
time to disperse into the Basin. Newport Crest will be sandwiched between Superior and Bluff Road?
And in close proximity to Newport Blvd, Placentia and PCH. Taxpaying homeowners of 30 plus years
are being thrown under the bus. It's interesting to note that the authors refer to Newport Crest as
"additional residential uses south of 15" Street" when, in fact, we are impacted, I believe more than
anybody else.
Page 4.10 -6 Local Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants from On -Site Sources
2 "d paragraph, last sentence "The worst -case on -site construction emissions were obtained from the
CalEEMOd analysis details (Appendix G)."
Why is this important information not included in this section?
Page 4.10 -9
4.tO -4 Existing Conditions
Climate and Meteorology — "The SoCAB is and with abundant sunshine .......(drives the
photochemical reactions that form pollutants such as ozone) provides conditions especially favorable to
smog formation. ..... mountains ...which trap pollutants in the basin. The unfavorable combination o
meteorology, topography, and emissions from the nation's second - largest urban area result in the
SoCAB having THE WORST AIR QUALITY 1N THE U.S. Why are the most stringent
methods not being taken to improve the air quality. 137,�a 75 -room hotel and
commercial space will not improve the air quality. What is happening to our beautiful. Newport
Beach?
Page 4.10 -11
Table 4.10 -2 Ambient Air Quality at Costa Mesa and Mission Viejo Monitoring Stations
2008 03 was exceeded for 3 days (Federal)
2008 03 was exceeded for 5 days (State)
2009 03 was exceeded for 3 days (State)
oEIVFD a), PM 10 was exceeded for I day in 09 (State) for 24 hrs. and annual
PM2.5 was exceeded for I day in 09 (Federal) cOMMUMr't
Why is the City overriding CARB's requirement for standards? zun
Table 4.10 -1 states that these standards are not to be exceeded NOV
DEVELOPMENT �V
Op NJlWdpcc 0
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -630 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Page 4.10 -12
Table 4.10 -3 — Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin
State Federal
03 Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment SeriousNonattaimnent
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
NO2 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
Please justify adding more emissions in tight of the above?
Page 4.10 -13 Project Design Features and Standard Conditions
PDF 4.8 -3 if permitted ...a bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway will be provided.....
Who will build and pay for this bridge and how much will it cost?
Page 4.10 -15. Project Design Features and Standard Conditions
PDF 4.11 -3 The Master Development Plan and ......require the Project to be coordinated with OCTA.
to allow for a transit routing through the community.
Will Ticonderoga be part of OCTA's transit route and if OCTAso desires, would the City give
permission to OCTA for use of Ticonderoga?
Page 4.10 -16 Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.10 -1. Dust Control During construction .....SCAQMD rule 402 requires that air pollutant
emissions not be a nuisance off site.
What would be considered a "nuisance ".
Page 4.10 -1.7
4.10 -6 A significant impact related to air quality would occur if the proposed Project would:
4.10 -3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant..... many times these
pollutants will have significant impact because they exceed standards.
Does this put the project . in a nonattainable position?
4.10 -4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Why are stringent measures not being taken to protect sensitive receptors from significant
impacts? In other words, why are they allowed to be "unavoidable "? Land can be remediated
but people's health cannot.
4.10 -5 Create objectionable odors affecting substantial number of people.
What will be done about the odors if people can smell them and they are offensive?
Page 4.10 -19 - Construction Emissions
......The oilfield remediation work would overlap with site development and construction . of the first
two building phases. The buildoutof each of the first two phases would overlap with the construction
of the subsequent phase."
Given the verdict "significant and unavoidable ". Why cannot remediation be done by itself, prior
to construction? And why cannot the first two phases be completed prior to the subsequent
phase beginning?
The fact that this land needs to be remediated makes this project no ordinary development
project. The sensitive receptors should be given every consideration during the construction,
even if it takes longer for the developer to complete the project. As I have said previously, I don't
think Exxon is hurting for money. At the completion of this project, after 5 whatever years of
living with the dust and the noise, the sacrificial Iambs of Newport Crest, et al, can then settle
10
R: Troject sWewpnMJO1 5rRTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -631 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
down to the long -term discomforts of pollution, noise and lighting that the completed project
would expose them to. The least the developer and city can do is protect the people during
construction.
Page 4.10 -21
"Although the data in Table 4.10 -8 shows that emissions of all pollutants would be less than the
SCAQMD CEQA thresholds with approximately 50% Tier 3 equipment and no Tier 4 diesel engine
equipment, the availability of sufficient numbers of Tier 4 equipment in 2014 and the following Years
cannot be assured. Therefore, ... significant and unavoidable impact."
Why cannot the availability of Tier 4 equipment be assured? And under these circumstances,
Why cannot the acreage to be worked be reduced to the amount where toxic emissions would not
be significant? In this instance, they would be avoidable.
Surely, it is more important to protect the health of the sensitive receptors than it is to finish the
project in less time. Land can be remediated, but a person's health cannot. Emphysema, chronic
bronchitis and lung cancer are not pretty ways to exit this life, or to live in it.
Page 4.10 -23 Mass Emissions Thresholds (last paragraph)
"As shown . in the tables ......In 2023, calculated regional emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO ...would
exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds."
Please justify the verdict "significant and unavoidable" given when CARB, Table 4.10 -1 states
that 03, CO, S02, PM10, PM2.5 ...are not to be exceeded. All others are not be equaled or
exceeded.
Page 4.10 -27 — Ambient Air Quality — Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
— Many of the 1375 (at least) people who would live on the proposed Banning Ranch
Development could likely wort: at Fashion Island, on the Peninsula or in Huntington Beach.
— Many of the people who would work at the proposed hotel or in the proposed retail stores could
travel from Fashion Island, the Peninsula or Huntington Beach.
— When Sunset Ridge Park becomes open to the public, people will come from Corona Del Mar,
the Balboa Peninsula, and possibly from Huntington Beach.
Why is there no mention of the intersection of Superior /PCH/Balboa Boulevard? And what is the
LOS for this intersection now?
Respeclllly submitted
��/��a�r -mss- -�
Olwen Hageman
10 cont.
11
12
13
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -632 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 048b Olwen Hageman
November 8, 2011
Response1
The comment is noted. It is also noted that the Draft EIR does not forecast any significant local
air quality impacts to the Newport Crest community.
Response 2
The worst -case construction emissions are shown in Tables 4.10 -7 and 4.10 -8 of the Draft EIR.
Response 3
The comment is noted. The comment is not relevant to a project -level environmental issue.
Response 4
The ambient air quality standards (AAQS) shown in Table 4.10 -1 are pollutant concentrations,
that is, the amount of pollutant per volume of air .27 The forecasted exceedances in the Draft EIR
for VOC and CO during operations are emission rates, that is, the amount of pollutant emitted
per day. The emission rates exceed SCAQMD's guidance CEQA significance thresholds, not
the State AAQS. Footnote "a" in Table 4.10 -1, including "not to be exceeded ", refers to the
AAQS, not to the SCAQMD thresholds. The Draft EIR does not indicate that the Project
Applicant will likely exceed the AAQS thresholds. Based on the revised emissions analysis
using new California Air Resources Board (CARB) data relative to construction equipment
emissions, Tier 4 equipment is not required to reduce forecasted nitrogen oxide (NOx) mass
emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, no revision of MM 4.10 -1 is required. It is
further noted that, based upon further inquiries to contractors, the City has determined that it
would be reasonable to expect that Tier 4 equipment would be available after January 2015 and
that, as required by MM 4.10 -1, would be included in the Project's construction equipment
inventory.
Response 5
Nonattainment of State and federal standards is a regional issue. There are programs at all
levels to reduce pollutant emissions. The proposed Project is an infill project, thus
accommodating growth with a project that would generate less vehicle miles and corresponding
emissions than a similar project built in a less developed area. Many other Project features to
minimize emissions while accommodating growth are described in Section 4.10 -5 of the Draft
EIR, Project Design Features, and Standard Conditions.
Response 6
The pedestrian and bicycle bridge are proposed by the Applicant as a part of the Project. If
approved by the required parties (see Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.8,
Recreation and Trails, in the Draft EIR), the Applicant would be responsible for the construction
of the bridge. The cost of the bridge does not raise an environmental issue.
21 One exception, not a concentration standard, is for Visibility Reducing Particles, which are not analyzed in the
Draft EIR.
RTrojadMewparfiAl 5 ,RTCIRTCA31512.doc 3 -633 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 7
On May 14, 1984, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution No. 84 -38,
which vacated Ticonderoga Street. As part of the recitals adopting the resolution, the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach found that Ticonderoga Street "is unnecessary to present
or prospective public use." While a condition of the vacation does allow Ticonderoga Street to
be extended and connected to 15th Street at such time 15th Street and Bluff Road are
connected, such an extension is neither proposed by the Project nor provided for in the Master
Plan of Streets and Highways of the Circulation Element of the City of Newport Beach General
Plan. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that an extension of Ticonderoga Street to
15th Street is proposed, contemplated, desired, or necessary. Therefore, an extension of
Ticonderoga Street to 15th Street is speculative and not a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the Project.
Response 8
SCAQMD Rule 402 does not define nuisance. The Rule states, "A person shall not discharge
from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause
injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the
public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the
public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or
property." The Draft EIR does not forecast any significant local air quality impacts to the nearest
sensitive receptors.
Response 9
a. Nonattainment is a classification applicable to regional air quality and not to projects.
b. There would be no significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
c. Complaints about offensive odors may be reported to the City and to SCAQMD. The
following mitigation measure is proposed and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows:
hall be provided to prospective buyers /tenants of residential
development regarding the potential of odors from the Protect.
Response 10
Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality,
construction), which explains that the Project
equipment and NOx emissions would be less
and grading activities.
Response 11
Please refer to the response to Comment 10.
with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during
has been revised to include Tier 4 construction
than significant with the concurrent remediation
RT rojedsWewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -634 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 12
Please refer to the response to Comment 4
Response 13
The intersection of Superior /Pacific Coast Highway /Balboa Boulevard is not mentioned in the air
quality analysis because there are no forecast "With Project' conditions of LOS E or F at this
intersection. Please see Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. Table 4.9-
4 shows the existing LOS B for both AM and PM peak hour conditions.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -635 Responses to Environmental Comments
Patrick Alford, Planning Dept. Mgr.
City of Newport Beach Ca.
E Mail delivery PALFORD @NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV
Re: BANNING RANCH DEIR
Dear Mr Alford,
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 049
8 November 2011
0,�x\JED BY
P�
oov,q"girri
Nov oa2ou
r
nEVF10PN'ENS T
LETS FACE IT, the Banning Ranch Environmental Impact Report (purchased by and for the
which report, in all its breadth andlength,doesn't address two of the most important. issues:
- -- BEFORE —or, the 401 acres "as is ",
- -- AFTER -- the 401 . acres paved over plus effects on adjoining developed existing properties
First the BEFORE: We have Newport Beach a town with no particular sign of environmental. restraint
( ?) that I believe is built out to its perimeters on the western edge. It has a few B -Ranch acres that with
the authority to manage land ceded from the County adds to a total of approximately 401 acres. It's
never touched by plow and is covered with rare flora and fauna — though it has been pierced by the oil .
driller's bit, but not a permanent impact; other than poisoned soil, nor is the drill generally perceptible.
Is it too much for the conservationist, the naturalist, the geographical historian, the Newport Beach,
Costa Mesa and county populations, plus the occupants of hundreds of homes, to say, whoa, what are
you doing to our fair and rare lands and our lives. The last west end bluff outlook to the Grand Pacific!
The EIR should be addressing the impact of an uber upset of an environment that has a historical
presence.
AFTER: What is the Exchange rate? A few hundred homes, not enough to justify retail stores, a hotel
of unknown character or ownership,or for that matter, the tremendous cost of attempting to re mediate.
Perhaps some additional wealth for EXXON MOBIL versus the destruction of a 460 Townhouse
Development and peripheral properties, road additions and changes including the 55 Freeway, Highway
101, and major Costa Mesa streets and intersections. What other undetected and unintended
consequences will surface. Does the Planning Dept. have a Futurist to assess the true impact and add a
new chapter?
Lets take the 460 town home development (mown as Newport Crest Some 100 units with ocean
views, views of mountains, Palos Verdes Peninsula,. the Ranch and it's wild life, and many more with
partial and secondary views. All with the security and integrity of a private compound and
convivially clustered around famous local sailing yacht names. This property is split by a City owned
"backbone" street known as Ticonderoga. It will no doubt become opened up based on full developers
desires. Thus, this organic community becomes split with a loss of all the benefits a community
association provides. Its financial integrity would become impaired, its unity and strength would be
split and its private streets inundated with outsiders. Resale during construction development time will
be impossible!
That Sir, is ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -636 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
EIR Questions:
-- Re: Sect. 4.5, Pg. 4.5.1
Hazardous Materials Is there a suggestion that safety waivers might be obtained that
would soften the criteria for permitting?
— Re: Sect. 4.5, Table 4.5 -3, Pg 4.5.12 Hazardous Materials
Advises there are 138,000 cu. yd. Of petro. Soil to refine. This is an abandoned oil field.
The entire field must be refined to at least a depth of 9 feet. 100 acres or so, How much
additional over what time period?
Re: Sect. 4.1.9 or 4.149 Level of significance after Mitigation
How many instances and where in the DEIR are "Overriding Considerations"
" invoked? The Sacramento Delta smelt must have a vowerful lobby!)
It might be interesting to know how the DEIR advisor's methods compare to the Huntington Beach
approach to abandoned oil fields. Below is an extract from there opening page on this subject
Thank you, r. hags 4w' '
cc 13hilleren(a ),HiehRhodes.com (re: shorter DEIR)
City Specification No. 429
Reference to HBMC Section 17.04.085
HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
Methane District Building Permit Requirements
"The City of Huntington Beach strongly recommends NOT building structures over or near abandoned
oil wells or hydrocarbon contaminated soil. If abandoned wells can be proven SAFE and/or
hydrocarbon contaminated soils conform to Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard 431 -92,
construction may be allowed at the discretion of the Fire Chief. The presence of abandoned wells and
approved non -re mediated soils shall be disclosed to future property owners"
end
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -637 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 049 R. Hageman
November 8, 2011
Response1
The Draft EIR and 2001 Environmental Assessment (see Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials) provide a comprehensive description of the "as is" condition of the Project site. In
addition, the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the following "after" conditions, potential
impacts, and their mitigation programs; please refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.15.
Response 2
No waiver of permitting responsibility is sought by the Applicant.
Response 3
Table 4.5 -3 in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR provides an estimate of the volume of soil to be
managed at each Potential Environmental Concern (PEC) site. The remediation process would
include sampling materials within PEC sites to verify the extent of removal needed.
Response 4
The commenter's refers to the Newport Beach City Council approval of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the
Newport Beach City Council to describe the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or
other considerations that supported the decision to adopt the 2006 General Plan Update even
though all of the identified impacts are not mitigated to a less than significant level. Both the
unavoidable significant impacts and the economic, social, and other benefits or other
considerations relate to the entire City of Newport Beach. The General Plan Update's Findings
of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in the Staff Report to the City
Council dated July 25, 2006. The Staff Report can be accessed from the City of Newport Beach
website.
In approving the General Plan 2006 Update and certifying the Final EIR, the Newport Beach
City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 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.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations has no relationship to the "Sacramento Delta
smelt ".
Response 5
No structures are proposed over or within 10 feet of a properly abandoned oil well.
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -638 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 050
HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL 1 By
4r 0
November 8, 2011 O�
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City N p rt Boulevard B ach, Community Development Department
N �oo���oQM` m�
P.O. Box 1768 C OF tat
Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON NEWPORT BANNING RANCH DEIR
Dear Mr. Alford,
On behalf of the Banning Ranch Conservancy (BRC) and Hamilton Biological, Inc., I
provide these comments on the Draft EIR for the proposed Newport Banning Ranch
Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) to the City of Newport Beach (City). The
Project would allow for the development of the approximately 401.1 -acre site with 1,375
residential dwelling units; 75,000 square feet 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. Project approvals re-
quired from the City include a General Plan Circulation Element Amendment, Pre -
zoning, Zone Change, Planned Community Development Plan, Master Development
Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and Affordable Housing Imple-
mentation Plan. The Project would also require a Coastal Development Permit from the
California Coastal Commission.
I submit these comments as a professional biological consultant with 23 years of experi-
ence working primarily in Orange County and surrounding jurisdictions. I am qualified
to provide expert review, having prepared the biological resources section for numer-
ous CEQA documents throughout Orange County and the wider region, and also hav-
ing reviewed many such documents; my Curriculum Vitae is attached. In the early
1990s, as an employee of LSA Associates, 1 conducted numerous surveys of the New-
port Banning Ranch property, then the West Newport Oil property. This included fo-
cused surveys for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californirn californirn) un-
der my federal permit (TE- 799557), trapping for small mammals, nocturnal surveys for
coyotes and other wildlife, and general biological surveys. From this work I have first-
hand knowledge of the property and resources that were present there approximately
18-20 years ago. I am aware that the Banning Ranch Conservancy has collected large
volumes of information on vernal pools /seasonal ponds on the Newport Banning
Ranch property. As I have not had the opportunity to closely inspect the areas of the
property where ponding is observed, I will allow others to make most of the comments
pertaining to vernal pools and seasonal ponds.
316 Monrovia Avenue -/ Long Beach, CA 90803 -/ 562. 477 -2181 -/ robbehamiltonbiologicakom
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -639 Responses to Environmental Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
November 8, 2011
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 2 of 16
The Newport Banning Ranch project site has been subject to numerous biological eval-
uations over the years, with reports prepared and submitted to the landowners. Yet if
any historical reports were reviewed, this is not specified in the DEIR. None of the older
reports is cited in Section 4.6 or Appendix E to the DEIR. A 2009 biological technical re-
port on the property prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) is not listed among the
References used to prepare the DEIR (although the GLA report is cited in Section 4.6).
Given that an EIR is required to base its analyses upon the best available information,
failure to consult biological technical reports prepared by investigators dating back to
the early 1990s represents a failure on the part of the EIR preparers to comply with an
important mandate of CEQA.
'Die preparer of the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR, BonTerra Consulting, also prepared
the Sunset Ridge EIR, which the City recently certified. Since Sunset Ridge was largely
on public land, I was able to review BonTerra's plant community mapping, and I doc-
umented numerous mapping errors. As noted in my comments on the Sunset Ridge
EIR, all of BonTerra's mapping errors were made in the direction of under - representing
sensitive native communities and over - representing disturbed or non - native communi-
ties. The City was forced to have parts of the Sunset Ridge site re- mapped before it
could apply for a Coastal Development Pern- t from the California Coastal Corr nission,
and the project had to undergo costly major revisions in order to avoid coastal wetlands
and other sensitive habitat areas identified in my EIR comments. Given these costly and
ultimately failed results, it is interesting that the City and Newport Banning Ranch con-
tinue to rely on BonTerra to prepare the current CEQA document. Since the Ranch is
private property, and the landowners have not granted access to critically review the
mapping presented in the DEIR, I have not been able to evaluate BonTerra's mapping of
plant communities in this case. 1 do note that Exhibit 4.6 -1 (Parts a and b) fails to show
numerous seasonal ponds that I am aware of on the property. Perhaps the most obvious
example involves the large pool visible from the end of Ticonderoga Avenue, shown in
Figure 1 on the following page.
Based upon very limited field- checking, accomplished from outside the property limits,
it is my conclusion that BonTerra's mapping of Newport Banning Ranch requires thor-
ough independent review before it can be relied upon as being objective and accurate.
Figure 1 on the following page shows an obvious example of a major mapping error in
the DEIR. Before the EIR is certified, 1 request to review BonTerra's plant community
mapping during a single -day visit, accompanied by representatives of the City and /or
landowner. In the absence of a credible independent review, and given the obvious
mapping error shown on the following page, the public must assume that the DEIR in-
accurately reflects the biological resources present on the project site, with the inaccura-
cies heavily weighted toward under- representing biologically sensitive resources (as in
the Sunset Ridge EIR). Failure to accurately and credibly establish the existing condi-
tions will invalidate this CEQA document's analyses and conclusions.
3a
3b
3c
R: Troject sWewpnMJO151RTMRTC- 031512,doc 3 -640 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc.
November 8, 2011 Page 3 of 16
seasonal pools not mapped by BonTerra Consulting. The pool covers approximately 18,000 square feet
(0.41 acre). Exhibit 4.6 -1b in the DEIR incorrectly depicts this area as "Non- native Grassland" and Exhibit
4.6-3c does not show this area as even a "single - parameter wetland" under Coastal Commission jurisdiction.
The project biologists consistently argue that any human action resulting in improved
habitat conditions should be discounted as "artificial," whereas avoidable habitat -
degrading actions — such as the widespread mowing of scrub and grass far from any
oil facility — represent existing conditions that cannot be avoided. In these ways, the
DER shows bias in favor of project implementation. For example, the DEIR at Page 4.6-
15 states, "The record rainfall in 2009 -2010 and 2010 -2011 created areas of ponding
within artificial depressions." The question of whether dozens of seasonal pools on the
site were created artificially or naturally is irrelevant to the impact analysis, and how the
project biologists purport to know the origins of all of the pools is not stated. Some
pools were clearly created by human manipulations whereas others appear to be natu-
ral, as is typical of mesas on the coastal slope of southern California. Since CEQA re-
quires analysis of the existing conditions, without regard for whether these types of ex-
isting features were created naturally or otherwise, the question is moot.
The Banning Ranch Conservancy possesses photographic evidence showing the inten-
tional filling of one or more seasonal ponds that had developed in undeveloped portions
of the project site. At least one of these ponds was not close to a road, and represented
no possible impediment to oilfield operations. Consistent with its pattern of promoting
the project by minimizing disclosure of relevant information to the public that may not
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -641 Responses to Environmental Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
November 8, 2011
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 4 of 16
reflect well upon the project proponent, or further the City's interest in approving this
project, the DEIR makes no mention of any pools having been filled without the re-
quired permits in recent years.
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, impact-
ing 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 190` 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.
The Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularin), a California Species of Special Concern, is rare
in Orange County due to large -scale development of nearly all of the county's suitable
grasslands, especially near the coast. The project sites grasslands are among the most
suitable habitats for Burrowing Owls remaining in Orange County or anywhere along
the coast of southern California. In January 2008, Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) found
two Burrowing Owls in the site's southern grasslands and a third individual 212 feet
west of the site. A map of their sightings was included in GLA's 2008 biological tech-
nical appendix, and because that report was posted to the City's web page I do have a
copy of that report. Since GLA's 2008 sightings are not mapped on Exhibits 4.6 -2a, 4.6-
2b, 4.6 -6a, or 4.6 -6b, I will reproduce GLA's own map below, to make this relevant in-
formation part of the public record:
r f
r �
— Figure 2. This map is Exhibit 7 in the 2008 draft biological report pre-
- pared by Glenn Lukos Associates for Newport Banning Ranch I.I.C. It
shows the point locations where Glenn Lukos Associates documented
the occurrence of three wintering Burrowing Owls in January 2008.
The DEIR briefly mentions two of these records, but not the third,
i —� which was just outside the eastern edge of the property.
_ u�
4 cont.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015tRTMRTC- 031s12,dac 3 -642 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Review of Newpon Banning Ranch DEIR hlamillon Biological, Inc.
November 8, 2011 Page 5 of 16
Numerous biological studies have been conducted on the project site over a period of
nearly 20 years. Relevant data from those surveys should be incorporated into the EIR's
analyses, not discarded. By omitting these observations, and the locations of other spe-
cial- status species observed on the site before 2009, from the DEIR's exhibits, the EIR
preparer creates a misleading impression of the environmental effects of the proposed
project. Please provide revised exhibits that include all known sightings of special sta-
tus species made on the project site (including all biological reports that have been pre-
pared for the property in the past 20 years). Readers may evaluate the relative im-
portance of a given sighting based, in part, upon the number of years that have elapsed
since the sighting was made. What is gained by withholding this relevant information
from the public?
Also, please include species observed during earlier studies in the plant and wildlife
compendia, and distinguish those observed on previous survey efforts from those ob-
served during the current studies by GLA and BonTerra Consulting.
The DEIR identifies permanent impacts to 97.3 acres of grasslands and ruderal vegeta-
tion that provide habitat for wintering Burrowing Owls, and for various other species
that are now rare in the region due to loss of expansive open grasslands. The DEIR
states:
These areas generally have low biological value for most species because they are vege-
tated with non - native species.
There is no biological justification for this statement. The fact that the grasslands consist
mainly of non - native grass species has no logical or necessary connection to the DEIR's
assertion that they "generally have low biological value for most species." In 2009, re-
sponding to a similar assertion in the DEIR for the Sunset Ridge project, which proposes
to dump 69,000 cubic yards of fill on the grasslands of Newport Banning Ranch, I noted:
On November 6 I observed at least 80 California Ground Squirrels on and near the pro-
ject site. By any objective measure, the project site's grasslands are among the most suita-
ble habitats for Burrowing Owls in Orange Comity or anywhere along the coast of south- 9a
ern California, which is why three Burrowing Owls were documented wintering in this
area during January 2008.
Later, in the same letter, I noted:
In just two brief visits 1 have seen large numbers of grassland bird species using the site's
grasslands, including two Red - tailed Hawks, an American Kestrel, 14 Killdeers, 25 Amer-
ican Pipits, 70 Western Meadowlarks, 100 Mourning Doves, and 100 House Pinches (min-
imum estimates provided for the last four species).
Clearly, various native wildlife species dependent upon grasslands utilize Newport
Banning Ranch in large numbers, and do not appear to be substantially affected by the
grass being non -native instead of native. Since the DEIR offers no justification for sug-
gesting otherwise, its analyses and conclusions are flawed and unsupported by fact.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ0151RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -643 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc.
November 8, 2011 Page 6 of 16
ire 3. This photo shows the short-grass grasslands of Newport Banning Ranch, as seen n. , the terminus
Sth Street, on November 6, 2009. At least a dozen California Ground Squirrels are visible In this group.
Flat, open grasslands characterized much of Orange County and the greater Los Ange-
les Basin historically, but now very few such areas remain anywhere in the region, es-
pecially near the coast. The limited areas that remain have become very important for a
dwindling suite of grassland - dependent wildlife species that persist in the area, some of
which are federally listed or have other special status. It is appropriate that the DEIR
identifies potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed loss of 93% of the
site's non -native grasslands and grassland /ruderal habitats, but the proposed mitiga-
tion — the restoration of 50.07 acres of grassland, either on the project site ( "including
native grassland areas within Zone C of the fuel modification areas') or at some un-
specified off -site location — would be of little or no value to the affected species. The
species most dependent upon shortgrass coastal mesas, such as the Burrowing Owl and
Loggerhead Shrike, need expanses of open ground; whether or not the mesa is domi-
nated by native or non -native grasses is of little or no importance. Very few open, un-
developed mesas remain anywhere in the coastal zone, especially in Orange and Los
Angeles Counties. The notion that "restoring" 50.07 of grasslands in some unspecified
area is going to replace the loss of approximately 100 acres of non -native grasslands is
misguided and unsupported by fact or logical inference.
About three- quarters of the 20.27 acres that are proposed for preservation are ruderal,
and therefore not the type of open, short -grass mesa that is of value to Burrowing Owls,
9b
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -644 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Review of Newpon Banning Ranch DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc.
November 8, 2011 Page 7 of 16
Loggerhead Shrikes, or other special status grassland species. The DEIR fails to make
this important distinction, treating all grassland and ruderal habitats as though they 9b cont.
were interchangeable and of similar value to the species at greatest risk of extirpation
from the project site and the wider region.
One grassland- dependent species that I observed at Newport Banning Ranch during the
early 1990s is the San Diego Black - tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettit), a Cali-
fornia Species of Special Concern that has all but disappeared from coastal Orange
County and much of the coastal slope of southern California. I recall seeing them on the
site only during nocturnal surveys that were conducted by LSA Associates for the West
Newport Oil Company, although hares may also have been seen during the daytime.
Given that this species is known to have occurred on the site within the past 20 years, I 10
am surprised that it is not mentioned in the DEIR, and that potential impacts to this
species are not identified. Unless this species is already extirpated from the site, it is one
of several special- status species that would be adversely affected by the proposed loss
of grasslands and other open habitats for implementation of the proposed project. Di-
rected nocturnal surveys throughout the site would be required to determine the spe-
cies' current status there; otherwise, its presence should be assumed.
The uplands of Newport Banning Ranch, with their mosaic of non -native grasslands in-
terspersed with vernal pools on a mesa surrounded by development near the coast, bear
a striking similarity to More Mesa, located in southern Santa Barbara County:
native grasslands at More Mesa, shown here. Most of the open space shown here has been designated as an
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area since 1993, even though these non - native grasslands and associated
riparian habitats lack the federally listed species found at Newport Banning Ranch.
The More Mesa Handbook ( http;[ Jwww. moremesa .org/mesa_handbook.luml), Page
19, describes the species composition of the grasslands there:
11
R:\ Projects \NewponU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -645 Responses to Environmental Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
November 8, 2011
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page a of 16
As with most grassland along the South Coast, non - native species dominate More Mesa's
grasslands. Species such as wild oat, ripgut grass; Italian rye grass, and Harding grass
dominate these grasslands along with other invasive non - native species such as sweet
fennel and wild radish.
Dominance of More Mesa by non -native grasses did not prevent that area from being
identified as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area under the Coastal Act. It is the
regional rarity of shortgrass coastal mesas containing vernal pools, and the importance
of these habitats to many declining and vulnerable wildlife species, that make these
landscapes biologically valuable. Since it is the rarity of this habitat mosaic throughout
the region that is limiting to wildlife populations, and not anything specific about the
vegetative composition of the grasslands, restoration represents an ineffective and in-
appropriate form of mitigation for this impact. No form of restoration or minimal level
of preservation, as the DEIR proposes, can effectively mitigate for the loss of the last 11 tort.
hundred acres of shortgrass mesa remaining on the coast of Orange County. If the land-
owner is determined to destroy virtually all of this habitat on the Newport Banning
Ranch property, this is a significant impact that cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance (meaning that a finding of overriding considerations would be appropri-
ate). The project biologists should drop the unconvincing pretense that "restoring" na-
tive grasslands in fuel modification zones or in other unspecified areas could possibly
have any meaningful mitigating effects upon local populations of numerous grassland -
dependent wildlife species that would be permanently displaced, and possibly locally
extirpated, through development of nearly all of the shortgrass mesa habitat on the
Newport Banning Ranch.
It is my understanding that the Sunset Ridge and Newport Banning Ranch projects are
seeking a combined permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which in-
cludes a Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS). During
my review of the Sunset Ridge project, I reviewed materials that were submitted to the
City and /or USFWS by the project biologists in support of the project's permit applica-
tion. Supporting materials include a letter dated 29 June 2011 from Ann Johnston of
BonTerra Consulting to Michael Sinacori, P.E., at the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department. In this letter, Ms. Johnston argued that a small canyon in the south -
eastern part of the Newport Banning Ranch site, vegetated. with 0.08 acre of California.
Encelia mixed with Coastal Prickly -Pear, should not be considered ESHA due to the ar- 12
ea having been "partially filled with large pieces of concrete and rebar," and because it
is a small area of scrub separated from other areas of scrub by 55 feet of open ground.
Finally, Ms. Johnston noted that, although GLA mapped a nesting pair of California
Gnatcatchers in this small canyon in 2002, this "error" was later corrected. Since the ar-
ea in question are within the area that would be graded for construction of Bluff Road,
as specified in the DEIR and in a formal agreement between the City and Newport Ban-
ning Ranch, it is important to review this issue at this time The original mapping of this
pair in the small canyon is reproduced in Figures 5 and 6 on the following page.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3istzdoe 3 -646 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc.
November 8, 2011 Page 9 of 16
uS a a
ewrr stave aeaucucexruaua,
razeaswwarturweenasa a ., ,• �: l�•_Un
Qom
�'•1 GUttaul Ci!1AS3=AIU®
F i
EXHIBIT WEST NEWPORT OIL PROPERTY �� a
2002 GNATCATCHER SURVEYS V�
urac:r.rer
Figure 5. Scan of GLA's original 2002 mapping of California Gnatcatcher locations. The mapping of Pair 1
shows two dots, representing a gnatcatcher pair, in a small side - canyon within a much larger polygon that
extends to the north, south, and west. Since the location of the side - canyon is aligned properly with the
map's [lase topography, and its patch of native scrub is correctly mapped, it makes no sense to argue that
slapping of the birds' location within the side -canyon was an error.
Figure 6 is a close -up of the gnatcatcher polygon in question (Pair 1), showing the origi-
nal and "corrected" locations of the pair.
Figure 6. 1 do not have the report that explains what
these dots were intended to represent, but their
1. placement in this specific location suggests that this
Ap may have been a nest location. The red arrow and
�y yellow dot show the'comeaed" location of this pair,
per Mr. Bomkamp's letter to the USFWS
r
Tony Bomkarnp of GLA described his alteration of the 2002 map in a letter dated 14
June 2011 to Christine Medak of the USFWS (this letter is included as an appendix to
Ms. Johnston's letter). Mr. BoEnkamp stated the following:
During preparation of our submittal information to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
Newport Banning Ranch Assessment, dated February 10, 2010, 1 noted that one of the
lCalifornia Gnatcatcherl locations depicted in the year 2002 45-day report was incorrectly
mapped. GLA corrected the error in our database such that the map in lourl February 10,
12 coat
R:\ Projects \NewpoftU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -647 Responses to Environmental Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
November 8, 2011
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 10 of 16
2010 submittal shows the corrected location; however, I did not notice you of the change
at that time.
And:
I would note that GLA did not have CIS technology in 2002 and the map was prepared
using "sticky dots' to the base map, a technique that was not as accurate as using sub -
meter CPS combined with highly accurate CIS technology.
The letter also explains that the change in the birds' location was based upon Mr.
Bonikamp's "clear recollection` eight years later, and not on review of archived field
maps or other verifiable evidence.
I have four questions:
1. As stated in Ms. Johnston's letter, "native species do not grow well on concrete
and rebar." Under what authority has Newport Banning Ranch dumped con-
struction materials into the small, scrub - filled side - canyon, as described in Ms.
Johnston's letter, and why have the land owners not removed the debris from
this area of designated critical habitat for the California Gnatcatcher?
2. Why did Mr. Bomkamp wait 15 months to notify anyone that he had changed the
2002 map?
3. Were the two dots placed in the 0.08 -acre side- canyon on the 2002 map intended
to represent the birds' nest location, and, if not, what were the dots intended to
represent?
4. Given that GLA's mapped polygon accurately represents the location of the 0.08 -
acre side - canyon (in relation to base topography and surrounding landmarks),
how is it possible that the dots representing the gnatcatcher pair in that side -
canyon ought to have been placed 200 feet west, on the other side of the main -
stem canyon?
GLA's method of representing gnatcatcher habitat usage is to map the location of a pair
of gllatcatchers for all entire year using a single dot, and agency biologists seem to have
accepted this method of depicting habitat use areas. GLA biologists have wide latitude
in choosing where to place the dots, and these chosen locations greatly affect readers'
perception of the value of each patch of scrub. For these reasons, movement of the dot
on GLA's 2002 map appears to have had an outsized influence on how agency biolo-
gists perceive the relative value of the scrub -filled side - canyon in which Mr. Bomkamp
originally mapped the gnatcatcher pair. Figure 7, on the following page, shows part of
GLA's composite map of gnatcatcher locations from 1992 to 2009, with the 2002 dot in
its original and "corrected" locations. In the absence of a coherent explanation of how
the dot was placed erroneously in 2002 (as opposed to being placed in a spot that now
appears inconvenient, given the proposed alignment of Bluff Road), this dot must re-
main in the spot where it was originally mapped.
12 Cont.
13
14
15
16
R: Troject sWewpnMJO151RTMRTC- 031512,doc 3 -648 Responses to Environmental Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
Vovernber B, 2011
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 11 of 16
figure 7. In the absence of a credible
explanation for the 200 -foot westward
shift of the yellow dot representing a
pair of California Gnatcatchers in 2002,
and in the absence of valid surveys
demonstrating habitat usage by gnat-
catchers in this area, we insist that this
dot remain in its original location.
It should matter little that a dot was placed 200 feet one way or another, because, in the
absence of a valid study of habitat usage showing otherwise, Califortlia Gnatcatchers
should be assumed to make use of all suitable habitat available within their normal ter-
ritory size, which for coastal areas is described in the scientific literature as covering at
least 2.5 acres, mean 5.7 acres'. Given that one, two, or even three pairs of California
Gnatcatchers regularly breed in the southeastern corner of the project site, the default
assumption should be that the birds regularly forage, and during some years may es-
tablish a nest, within the 0.08 -acre, scrub - filled side -canyon where they were specifically
mapped in 2002. Such use would be completely consistent with the known, typical pat-
terns of habitat usage by Catifonva Gnatcatchers in the region.
16 cant
Although Newport Banning Ranch is an area of deferred certification under the City's
Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), Coastal Commission staff has indicated that the CLUP
is a relevant document that will be used to provide staff with some form of guidance
when it eventually evaluates an application for a Coastal Development Permft for the 17
[Newport Banning Ranch project. Section 4.1.1 of the CLUP states:
In determining whether a habitat area meets the statutory definition of ESHA contained
in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act and should be designated as an ESHA, the following
attributes need to taken into consideration:
Atwood, J. L and D. R. Bontrager. 2001. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila rnlifornica). The Birds of North
America OnEne (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of
North America Online: http : / /bn&brds.cornell.edu /bra /species /574.
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -649 Responses to Environmental Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
November 8, 2011
Also:
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Hamillon Biological, Inc.
Page 12 of 16
• The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by the Califor-
nia Department of Fish and Game.
• The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare,
threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law.
Several of the natural communities that occur in Newport Beach are designated rare by
the CDFG and are easily disturbed or degraded by human activity and therefore are pre-
sumed to meet the definition of ESHA under the Coastal Act. These include ... southern
dune scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub .. .
Also (emphasis added):
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 %),
there are still thousands of acres inexistence and this community type is no longer listed
as rare by CDFG. Nevertheless, where CSS occurs adjacent to coastal salt marsh or oth-
er 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 17 Cont.
of ESHA because of its especially valuable role in the ecosystem.
Policy 4.1.1 -1 in the CLUP directs an applicant to evaluate various attributes when de-
termining whether a habitat area meets the definition of an ESHA, including "The rec-
orded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or
endangered under State or Federal law."
Policy 4.1.1 -2 in the CLUP states that the City shall "Identify ESFIA as habitats or natu-
ral communities listed in Section 4.1.1 that possess any of the attributes listed in Policy
4.1.1 -1."
If these CLUP criteria and policies are at all relevant to the Newport Banning Ranch
project, then all areas of native coastal scrub habitat known or likely to be routinely oc-
cupied by California Gnatcatchers satisfy the City's own definition of ESHA. This clear-
ly includes the 0.06 -acre side- canyon where GLA mapped a pair of California Gnat -
catchers in 2002.
In a public hearing in Oceanside, California, on 2 November 2011, nearly every member
of the California Coastal Commission indicated strong support for a staff recorrunenda-
tion that the proposed Sunset Ridge park entry road, which would pass through the
Newport Banning Ranch property, be limited to the width necessary to serve the park.
But there was no support among staff or the commissioners for a major highway (Bluff
Road) passing through the southeastem part of Newport Banning Ranch. This was be- 18
cause two patches of ESHA have already been designated in the southeastern corner of
the Newport Banning Ranch property as the result of a recent enforcement action and,
even with a limited park road, only minimal buffers may be established between the
road and adjacent ESHA. The Coastal Commission's staff ecologist recommends that
the park road buffers be restored with high- quality coastal sage scrub and preserved
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -650 Responses to Environmental Comments
Review of Newpon Banning Ranch DEIR
November 8, 2011
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 13 of 16
under a deed restriction, consistent with the City's CLUP and the California Coastal
Act, and this recommendation seems to have broad support among the commissioners.
Since there appears to be little chance for a major Bluff Road to be pushed through the
southeastern corner of Newport Banning Ranch to West Coast Highway, and since all
of the "build" alternatives considered in the DEIR include this southern segment of
Bluff Road, how can the City and project proponent hope to obtain the required Coastal
Development Permit for any version of this project?
The Coastal Commission staff ecologist also identified a need for additional Burrowing
Owl surveys and vernal pool/fairy shrimp surveys. Members of the Banning Ranch
Conservancy have identified many more vernal pools /seasonal ponds than have the
EIR consultants, and have documented them photographically. Under the Commis-
sion's one- parameter method for identifying wetlands, pools holding water for seven
days may satisfy the Coastal Act's wetland criteria. As shown in Figure 1 of this com-
ment letter, the DEIR's plant community map and wetlands map misrepresent even the
massive pool near the end of Ticonderoga Street, so all of the pools identified by the
Conservancy require careful inspection by credible specialists to determine their wet-
land status under the relevant federal and state criteria.
In analyzing impacts to "Grassland Depression Features" (a.k.a. vernal pools and sea-
sonal ponds), Page 4.6-53 of the DEIR states:
The proposed Project is designed to avoid the hvo vernal pools (VP1. and VP2) that are
occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp. In addition to avoidance of these areas, the vernal
pool watershed that supports VPl and VP2 would be enlarged and the entire pool com-
plex would be restored (GLA 2010b).
Figure 8, on the following page, shows the context in which these two vernal pools
would be "enlarged and the entire pool complex would be restored."
18 cons.
19a
19b
19C
19b cont.
R:TrojectsWewpn JO15tRTMRTC- o3151zdac 3 -651 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc.
\na•mhrr 8. 2011 Page 1 n m 11,
Vernal PCxH
(Restored)
1
ProIF<I lmpatls 1 11 '
1
VennJnenl 1
1
111
(yan 5pa,e irJ'. i lOnw�ldlM C 1 �i:OreKIR • ` ��
No.q lu4NJni J[mmllnrcs.. N axl
FuC Z
O: RrrrzMSm wNn Mwupnnr! LmF C
lenporuy
lriWes OI MJrrFWbt hMY IlelwJ. Nr0
RemMalm ENIM tv:MYm 9oaC, ♦YN
ppp YlyrpNYFUea CancelJleO <� iY J�p�yy nnm,
liYfOCF BYrf itl 8F11Yp✓
- IInM fOi1MM PYF
. Fxe FmI MWFPq
MIbIF 1011 W hMYI nAEObII tau 1 r[v JNI
Plotect Impacts Exhibit 9
N.,.aawvrowrca
L •¢' aoo xF o eo l
®F.Y
Figure B. Exhibit 9 of Appendix E to the DEIR shows that two large vernal pools supporting San Diego Fairy
Shrimp would technically be preserved and expanded, but surrounded by new development.
Preservation and "restoration' of these vernal pools in a bubble entirely isolated from
the surrounding natural landscape might satisfy the narrowest federal requirement to
preserve endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp, but the ecological value of vernal pools is
not limited to keeping invertebrates alive, as if in a giant petri dish. Conservation plan-
ning as outlined in the Newport Bathing Ranch DEIR is anathema to the ecosystem -
based approach that characterizes land planning under the California Coastal Act. It is
possible that the City, project proponent, and consultants will be able to point to a letter
1 gc cont
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -652 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Review of Newpon Banning Ranch DEIR I-lamillon Biological, Inc.
November 8, 2011 Page 15 of 16
from the USFWS confirming that the project would not harm listed species. But the fed-
eral government is not required to consider other ecological values of vernal pools, such
as providing a source of fresh water and foraging habitat for terrestrial wildlife species
in surrounding uplands. Legitimate, ecosystem -based conservation planning, as re- 19c cunt.
quired under the Coastal Act, would preserve and restore these vernal pools as part of a
diverse and largely intact coastal landscape, not as a small, isolated "interpretive area'
surrounded by intensive development.
Section 2.4.7 of the DEIR "Areas of Controversy and Unresolved Issues," states:
Commenters noted that the analysis must be based on not only the City's criteria but also
California Coastal Act criteria, particularly with respect to Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Areas and the provision of buffers between development and sensitive biological
areas. These issues are addressed primarily in Section 4.6, . Biological Resources and Sec-
tion 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
The DEIR attempts to dismiss the "controversy" with the following statement in Table
4.6 -10:
The Project is consistent with [Section 30240 of the Coastal Act — Environmentally sensi-
tive habitat areas; adjacent developments].. Section 4.6.4 of this DEIR has identified and
mapped the vegetation types and special status species occurrences known to occur with-
in the Project Site. The Project and associated mitigation measures avoid, minimize, and
compensate for the placement of development within these areas to prevent a substantial
degradation of these areas or significantly disrupt habitat values. 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.
19d
It is relevant that GLA's 2008 biological technical appendix, which was posted to the
City's web map, included a map of probable ESHA, whereas no such map is included in
the current DEfR2. The DEIR identifies permanent impacts to 97.3 acres of grass-
lands /vernal pools, 20.5 acres of coastal sage scrub, and 7.0 acres of riparian and marsh
vegetation. Most or all of these impacts involve natural communities that the Coastal
Commission has consistently identified as ESHA, indicating that the City, project pro-
ponent, and their consultants either misunderstand the Coastal Act and its require-
ments, or believe that these requirements do not pertain to them. The DEIR's mitigation
strategy relies upon impacting sensitive habitats and restoring them somewhere else, or
preserving certain resources in place and developing closely around them, with little or
no consideration given to conserving, in functional form, the mosaic of natural commu-
nities that make up this coastal ecosystem. Although the DEIR's approach may allow
the project to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act — a law that routinely
allows habitats for listed species to be destroyed and then restored elsewhere — the
Coastal Commission is required by law and legal precedent to protect ESHA in place.
Although the project design calls for numerous direct, permanent impacts within ESHA
1 If a reader conducts a search for the term "ESHA" within the PDP version of the current DEIR, numer-
ous wetland polygons are highlighted within Exhibit 4.6 -3c and 4.6-7c, indicating the EIR preparers opin-
ion regarding the limits of wetland ESHA on the project site; many of these areas are proposed for per-
manent impacts, which is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
R: Troject sWewporNO15�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -653 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Review of Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc.
November B, 2011 Page 16 of 16
and ESHA buffers, the EIR preparers blithely claim that their approach complies with
Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. This appears to be a bizarre and unproductive ap-
proach to designing a project that can be found consistent with the Coastal Act.
The Newport Banning Ranch property includes all the elements of a diverse and im-
portant coastal ecosystem. Even in its somewhat degraded condition, this unique prop-
erty supports numerous listed species and California Species of Special Concern in a
mosaic of wetlands and uplands that truly has no parallel anywhere in Orange County.
The notion that the Coastal Commission might possibly authorize the dismantling of
this ecosystem in exchange for some form of restoration "within Zone C of the fuel
modification areas," or at some location to be identified at a later date, reflects a pro-
found misunderstanding of the Coastal Act and relevant precedents, including the
City's own CLUP. Given the complete lack of support among Commissioners at last
week's hearing for permitting even a limited stretch of Bluff Road as part of an other-
wise uncontroversial park project, and given that every project alternative evaluated in
the DEIR includes establishing Bluff Road as a major thoroughfare, the Newport Ban-
ning Ranch project appears to be completely incompatible with the California Coastal
Act. The City — acting both as a development partner with Newport Banning Ranch
and as CEQA Lead Agency — may approve this project under CEQA, but would such
an approval have any validity in a court of law where the facts of a case have import
and meaning? Finally, if last week's hearing on the Sunset Ridge project is any guide,
the public may rest assured that this project will come under much closer scrutiny when
it eventually must obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on behalf of the Banning Ranch
Conservancy.
Sincerely,
i 7 ���
Robert A. Hamilton
President, Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Cc: Terry Welsh, Banning Ranch Conservancy
Jonna Engel and Karl Schwing, California Coastal Commission Staff
Christine Medak, USFWS
Attachment: Curriculum Vitae
I 9d corn.
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -654 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 050 Robert Hamilton
November 8, 2011
Responsel
Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools.
Response 2
The Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) Biological Technical Report for the Newport Banning Ranch
Property (April 21, 2009) was included on page 123 of the Reference Section of the Biological
Technical Report (Appendix E to the Draft EIR). The project Biological Technical Report
includes 152 references cited, including the 1995 LSA letter regarding small mammal trapping
on the Project site. The references incorporated were extensive and included both historical
information (where relevant) and current information regarding the biological resources on site.
The biological resource documentation for the Project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines.
Response 3a
The City approved the project and certified the Final EIR for the Sunset Ridge project. As
discussed in detail in the Response to Comments for the Sunset Ridge project, "errors' were not
made during the vegetation mapping process. The California Coastal Commission did request a
more detailed mapping of native plants (including individual plant location in multiple instances)
and disturbance areas in a limited area of the Sunset Ridge Park site, primarily along West
Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. This detailed mapping was requested as part of the
Coastal Commission's consideration of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application for
the Sunset Ridge Park project, and has no bearing on the findings of the Sunset Ridge Park
EIR.
Response 3b
Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools
Response 3c
As described in detail on Page 8 of the Biological Technical Report (Appendix E of the Draft
EIR), vegetation mapping was conducted on numerous days in 2009 and 2010. Vegetation
mapping and plant surveys were directed /conducted by Senior Botanist Sandy Leatherman, and
by additional experienced biologists with BonTerra Consulting. Ms. Leatherman is a Senior
Botanist with over 20 years of experience in plant biology; mitigation monitoring; and the
performance of biological surveys, restoration studies, and habitat evaluations. She is an active
member of the California Native Plant Society and Past President of Southern California
Botanist. She also holds a collecting permit for Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants from
the California Department of Fish and Game. Ms. Leatherman's work and that of the biologists
under her supervision were well qualified to conduct the vegetation mapping and performed the
botanical surveys in an accurate and objective manner. The biological resource documentation
for the Project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines.
The mapping "error' suggested by the commenter identified an area of non - native grassland.
This area was accurately mapped by Senior Botanist Sandy Leatherman in September 2009.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), no rain fell in the
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -655 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Project area in September 200928; therefore, this area would not have been full of rainwater at
the time, as show in the commenter's photo from January 10, 2011. The pool was the result of
0.59 inch of rain that fell in the Newport Beach area from January 2 through January 7, 2011
according to NOAA29. In addition, over 5 inches of rain fell in the area in the last two weeks of
December 2010, leading up the time when the pooled areas where photographed by the
commenter. These unusual rain events should not be considered normal or reflect the
vegetation types presented by the commenter. The accurate vegetation type present in non-
native grassland, not "seasonal pool ".
The City cannot grant access to private property.
Response 4
The use of the term "artificial" provides a frame of reference for the reader on the resource
issues being discusses. Because geologic and hydrologic processes and specific soil types can
play an important role in the biological value of an area, it is relevant to describe an area as
"disturbed ", "artificial ", "manufactured ", or other descriptive terms to accurately describe the
resource issue as appropriate. Any inference that the preparers of the document are biased in
favor or opposition to the Project by the use of the descriptive terms is inaccurate and
inappropriate.
For additional comments regarding the pool areas, please refer to please refer to Topical
Response: Vernal Pools.
Response 5
All mitigation for significant impacts to biological resource has been identified in the Draft EIR.
CEQA does not state that the specific locations of mitigation sites be identified; rather, the EIR
must include measures that are feasible to implement. The proposed Project would mitigate for
impacts within the Project boundaries or off site (nearby). Project Design Feature (PDF) 4.6 -1
requires the Project to include a minimum of 220 gross acres of the Project site as wetland
restoration /water quality areas, habitat conservation, and restoration mitigation areas. None of
the proposed biological resource mitigation measures would result in a significant impact to
biological resources on site. The Proposed project is consistent with CEQA case law: Stevens v.
City of Glendale (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 986.
Response 6
The construction of the 19`h 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 19`h
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 19`h 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.
28 http: / /www.wrh .noaa.gov /sgx/obs /rtp /rtp_NEW_09
2' http: / /www.wrh.noaa.gov /sgx/obs /rtp /rtp_NEW_11
R:\ ProjedswewpaRioi &RTMRTGA31512.doc 3 -656 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 7
The Draft EIR identifies the presence of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) on site in
several locations throughout the document. 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 2010 (GtA
2010a, 2009). The proposed Project would impact approximately 100.13 acres (97.26 acres
permanent, 2.87 acres temporary) of on -site grasslands and ruderal habitat. 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. 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. Implementation of the Mitigation
Program would reduce the impact on this species to a less than significant level (page 4.6 -89).
Response 8
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) states, "An EIR must include a description of the
physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the
notice of preparation is published ". The Notice of Preparation was published on March 18, 2009.
The Notice of Preparation was published on March 18, 2009. Using data that is over 20 years
old is not relying on the most current and accurate information required by CEQA. The most
current information serves as the baseline conditions by which the lead agency determines
whether an impact is significant. CEQA also states that the description of the environmental
setting shall be no longer than is necessary to form an understanding of the significant effects of
the proposed project and its alternatives. If historical data is not substantially different that the
recent data available for conditions on site, it is not necessary to reference old data sources
whether this older data provides no new /valuable information that would have a effect on the
Project findings.
There are reasons where the incorporation of species data from past data would not be needed
or appropriate for the proposed Project's plant and wildlife compendia:
Environmental site conditions have changed over that past 20 years which could result
in a slightly different flora and fauna component of the Project site. This data would
therefore not be current.
• Nomenclature has changed for many plant and wildlife species in the area and there
would be confusion as to which species previous reports may have been referenced.
• Many of the previous survey reports do not have species compendia, including several
which were authored by the commenter. It is unclear whether the survey compendia
data is accessible.
Response 9
The commenter has summarized rather than cited the complete discussion of grasslands and
burrowing owls. The following text is from page 4.6 -53 of the Draft EIR:
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -657 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
"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."
The sentence isolated by the commenter is biologically appropriate when read in context with
other sentences in the same paragraph. It is documented that populations of annual (orbs and
native grasses are declining because of competitive suppression by non - native grasses30. The
California Native Plant Society further 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 .,,31
The Draft EIR finds that the grasslands on site provide habitat for wildlife. The bird species
identified by the commenter have all been observed on site and documented in the Draft EIR.
The type and number of species encountered by the commenter are either ubiquitous or not
unusual in the area 32. In addition, it is well documented in the literature that several of these
species numbers increase in the region when the commenter documented these species
present on site. The analysis conducted for the Draft EIR is accurate and supported by
literature.
Response 9b
Mitigation Measure 4.6 -2 in Section 4.6, Biological Resources (page 4.6 -78) requires the Project
to restore 50.07 acres of native grassland and alkali meadow and preserve 20.27 acres of non-
native grassland areas, for a total of 70.34 acres of grassland habitat mitigation. Because the
value of habitat to be replaced (native grassland and alkali meadow) is higher than those habitat
values impacted by the Project, a less than 1:1 mitigation ratio is deemed adequate and
consistent with CEQA33 to compensate for the loss of non - native grassland areas.
The consideration of the value of the grasslands cannot be limited to the value provided for
avian species as described by the commenter. The mitigation measure has been developed to
provide important resources to a variety of plant and wildlife species that occur or could
reasonably be expected to occur on site. It is well documented in the literature that grasslands
"with higher cover of non - native species had reduced total cover and /or reduced diversity of
native perennial species of grasses and forbs.44 The higher the diversity of native plant species
30 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.
31 http: / /www.cnps.org /cnps /archive /exotics.php
32 Hamilton, R.A. and D.R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Irvine, CA:
Sea and Sage Audubon Society.
33 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15041 and 15126.4
34 http:// www. hastingsreserve. org/ nativegrass /StrombergKephartYadon.pdf
RAProjedMewpaRU015 ,RTCIRTCA31512.doc 3 -658 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
present, the more biological valuable that area is for all native plant and wildlife species in the
area, including, but not limited to avian species.
Response 10
In response to the commenter's request, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database
( CNDDB) by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) was conducted to identify any
known occurrences of the San Diego black - tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettil),
California Species of Special Concern, within the coastal counties of Orange, Los Angeles, and
San Diego. The species was reported to have a total of 42 occurrences within these 3 coastal
counties; however, there are no known occurrences for Orange County. Of the 42 reported
occurrences, 39 occurrences were reported for San Diego County, and 3 occurrences were
reported for Los Angeles County. The commenter's observation of the San Diego black - tailed
jackrabbit on the Newport Banning Ranch site is not within the CNDDB database occurrences.
The lack of reported observations in County of Orange, even though thousands of field hours
have been spent by professional biologists in the County over the past 20 -plus years, supports
the finding that this species is likely extirpated from the Project site and does not warrant further
evaluation in the Draft EIR. The suggestion to conduct nocturnal surveys on the Project site are
not warranted by the extensive number of biological surveys that have been conducted on the
site, particularly within the last 10 years, which resulted in no observations of this species. As
this species does not migrate or hibernate during winter; this species could be observed year -
round if present during the day when it is known to move from shrub cover to foraging areas at
night35. This species was not evaluated in the Draft EIR as it is not expected to occur on site
based on the most current and reported information relative to this species in the area. No
additional surveys or analysis for this species is warranted.
Response11
The commenter refers to a vegetation type that is not a scientifically acknowledged or regionally
used reference: "shortgrass mesa ". This term is not consistent with the two vegetation naming
standards in the County: County of Orange Habitat Classification System Natural Resources
Geographic Information System (GIS) Project [Gray and Bramlet 1992] and List of California
Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2003).
The dominant grassland vegetation type that is present on the Project site is non - native
grassland. The commenter compares the Project site's non - native grasslands with another
grassland area on Moor Mesa in the Santa Barbara area. The grass species identified by the
commenter as dominant (wild oat, ripgut grass, Italian rye grass, and Harding grass) within the
Moor Mesa grasslands are all listed as moderate invasive species according to the California
Invasive Plant Council (Cal [PC). Cal [PC states that "invasive non - native plants that threaten
wildlands are plants that (1) are not native to, yet can spread into, wildland ecosystems; and
that also (2) displace native species, hybridize with native species, alter biological communities,
or alter ecosystem processes." According to the Cal IPC these species have substantial and
apparent ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and
vegetation structure within the areas in which they occur.
The commenter claims that these areas are important to many declining and vulnerable wildlife
species. CEQA requires the evaluation of both the plant and wildlife resources within a project
area, not solely the value of areas to wildlife species. The consideration of the value of the
grasslands cannot be limited to the value provided for avian species as described by the
commenter. The mitigation measure has been developed to provide important resources to a
3s Dixon, K. R.; Chapman, J. A.; Willner, G. R.; [and others]. 1983. The New World jackrabbits and hares (genus
Lepus). - -2. Numerical taxonomic analysis. Ada Zoologica Fennica. 174: 53 -56. [25014].
RT rojedMewpaTJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -659 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
variety of plant and wildlife species that occur or could reasonably be expected to occur on site.
It is well documented in the literature that grasslands "with higher cover of non - native species
had reduced total cover and /or reduced diversity of native perennial species of grasses and
(orbs. ,36 The higher the diversity of native plant species present, the more biological valuable
that area is for all native plant and wildlife species in the area, including, but not limited to avian
species.
Response 12
The statement that the City and the Applicant were seeking a combined permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) and Biological Opinion for the two projects is incorrect. The
proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project has been coordinating with the USACE and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with respect to the federal permits and approvals that would
be required to implement the Newport Banning Ranch project only. The two projects are
separate projects and are subject to separate permitting.
The commenter references biological work submitted by the City in connection with the Sunset
Ridge Park project. The approved Sunset Ridge Park Project is a public park project and not a
part of the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project; a separate EIR was prepared and
certified for the proposed park. The commenter is correct that the City originally proposed a two -
lane park access road over a portion of the Newport Banning Ranch property and biological
information submitted by the City's biologist in connection with the City's application to the
Coastal Commission addressed biological issues in the area of the access road on the Newport
Banning Ranch property.
With respect to the Applicant's biological consultant, GLA, and the mapping of gnatcatchers in
the area proposed for construction of Bluff Road, GLA provided an explanation of its mapping to
the USFWS which is the federal agency with authority to protect the coastal California
gnatcatcher pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act in a letter dated June 14, 2011 to
Christine Medak of USFWS. The letter corrected an error that GLA detected in its mapping of a
gnatcatcher location.
Response 13
The source of the concrete and rebar is not known. It is not known who, how or when these
materials were placed on the property. All oilfield materials and debris outside of the two oil
consolidation sites would be removed as a part of the Project.
Response 14
This comment does not present a question regarding the analysis of biological resources in the
Draft EIR, but raises a question regarding a letter submitted to the USFWS. The letter in
question was submitted during a separate and independent Coastal Commission proceeding,
and it is not within the scope of this EIR for the City to speculate on any personal motives of the
author of the letter.
Response15
Based upon the City's review of the mapping information presented to it, the dots represent
where the coastal California gnatcatcher was observed, not a nest location. The surveys were
conducted to determine presence /absence. The mapping convention using point locations is an
36 http:// www. hastingsreserve. org/ nativegrass /StrombergKephartYadon.pdf
RT rojedswewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -660 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
"accounting tool" to account for the total number of coastal California gnatcatchers observed in
a given year.
Response 16
The opinions of the commenter regarding coastal California gnatcatcher observation points and
habitat usage are noted. With respect to the question regarding the placement of the dots, the
Applicant's biologist provided an explanation in the June 14, 2011 letter to the USFWS
regarding the mapped locations and the corrections made to those locations.
Response 17
The Banning Ranch property is not included within the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) nor
is an amendment being proposed at this time to include the Banning Ranch property in the
City's CLUP. Consequently, while the CLUP may provide guidance it is not binding on the
Banning Ranch property. 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 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 will be
undertaken as part of the Coastal Commission's Coastal Development Permit process. Please
also refer to the Topical Response: ESHA and the response to Comment 12.
Response18
The City is aware of the Coastal Commission's recommendations that were prepared for the
Sunset Ridge Park application including that the proposed arterial road would be inconsistent
with the Coastal Act. However, it is important to note that in reviewing the City's proposed
Sunset Ridge Park project, the Coastal Commission reconfigured, but did not prohibit any
access from West Coast Highway onto the property. Please refer to Topical Response: Sunset
Ridge Park, Topical Response: Coastal Commission Consent Orders, and Topical Response:
ESHA. The Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR considers alternative intensities of development
on the site which would reduce the amount of traffic on the four -lane Primary Road (Bluff
Road /North Bluff Road). Please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the
Draft EIR.
Response19a
The Draft EIR analyzes the Project's potential impacts to sensitive species, including the
burrowing owl and federally - listed species of fairy shrimp. If additional surveys are required by
the Coastal Commission in connection with the its consideration of the Applicant's coastal
development permit application, it will be the Applicant's responsibility to provide that
information to the Coastal Commission.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -661 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 19b
It should be noted that vernal pools cannot be accurately identified by aerial photography. The
Draft EIR provides a discussion of the seasonal ponds and grassland depressions that have
been identified by the City's biologists on site through on -foot field surveys, and evaluates the
Project's impacts to these areas. Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools.
Response 19c
The commenter incorrectly states that the exhibits in the Draft EIR misrepresent the mapping of
vegetation types and jurisdictional areas on site because they did not identify the "massive pool
near the end of Ticonderoga Street." The vegetation mapping for the Project site was primarily
conducted in September 2009. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, no rain fell in the Project area in September 200937; therefore, no "massive pool"
of water was observed. The vegetation types that were present at this location included non-
native grassland. The Draft EIR and Biological Resources Technical Report identifies these
areas as dominated by foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), slender oats ( Avena
barbata), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporiunum),
rattail fescue (Festuca myuros), and red - stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium). According to the
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal IPC) "invasive non - native plants that threaten wildlands
are plants that (1) are not native to, yet can spread into, wildland ecosystems; and that also (2)
displace native species, hybridize with native species, alter biological communities, or alter
ecosystem processes'. The grass species listed as dominant within the Project site area either
ranked as a high, moderate, or limited threat by Cal IPC or documented in Weeds of the West38
These areas were appropriately mapped as non - native grassland consistent with the naming
terminology used for the Project (County of Orange Habitat Classification System Natural
Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) Project [Gray and Bramlet 1992] and List of
California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base
(CDFG 2003).
Response 19d
Please refer to Topical Response: ESHA
37 hftp: / /www.wrh. noaa.gov /sgx/obs /rtp /rtp_NEW_09
38 Whitson, T.D. (ed.) et al. 1996. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with
Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming.
RAProjedMewpoTJ0151RTORTCA31512 .doc 3 -662 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
8th November. 2011
Comment Letter 051
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 Enviromental Impact Report
(DEIR). Please include the following comments and concerns in the official record. Please include the
following comments and concerns in the official record.
Please address the potential exteriorlinterior noise levels to Costa Mesa& €TMs Freedom Home residences in
section 4.12. noise, table 4.12.10 and table 4.12.11 a €cewest of Placentia& €• if and when,. the City of Costa
Mesa widens 19th Street. The widening of 19th. Street to General Plan Standards was indicated as a solution
to the potential traffic impact of the proposed Bluff Road at the Costa Mesa City Council Newport Beach
Banning Ranch Study Session, October 20, 2011. Please describe the type of 8 foot barrier and the material
used to build for the noise barrier for Newport Crest Residences (table 4.12 -12). Will Newport Banning Ranch
Sincerely,
Ms. Susan Harker
1930 Monrovia Avenue
Costa Mesa,CA, 92627
(949)722 -2739
susanharker@sbcglobal.net
1/1
R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -663 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 051 Susan Harker
November 8, 2011
Response1
The noise analysis included in the Draft EIR is based on the proposed Project's Traffic Impact
Analysis. As stated in the Traffic Impact Analysis included in the Draft EIR, the General Plan
Buildout analysis assumes buildout of all local off -site arterials in accordance with the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). As shown in
Tables 4.12 -9 through 4.12 -11 of the Draft EIR, traffic noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from
the roadway would increase from an existing level of 69.3 dBA CNEL to a future General Plan
Buildout level of 70.8 dBA CNEL. The maximum Project contribution to noise levels during that
would be 0.5 dBA. The widening of 19`h Street is not a part of the proposed Project.
As stated in Mitigation Measure 4.12 -8 of the Draft EIR, barriers may be constructed using an
earth berm, wall, or berm -wall combination. Walls may be masonry block, '/<- inch -thick glass, or
other transparent material with sufficient weight per square foot. Any improvements on private
property would be the responsibility of the applicable homeowners to maintain.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -664 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 052
HEATHER HENDRICKSON
November 8, 2011
Mr. Patrick Alford
Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Banning Ranch
Dear Mr. Alford
I am writing with regard to the Aesthetics (4.2) and Cultural and Paleontological Resources (4.13)
sections of the above referenced document. While it is evident a great deal of effort has gone into
the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, I would like to bring your attention to
several items within the report which 1 believe warrant further investigation.
Aesthetics (4.2)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge - The dEIR understates the significant impact of proposed structure and
does not suggest examined alternatives.
The dEIR impact summary finds significant and unavoidable light pollution will be caused by the
project. Though mitigation is addressed, further examination is warranted despite the Newport
Beach City Council's approval of Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the impact.
The report states visual impact of the site over 13 years will be unavoidable due to construction
but until such time as the structures are "constructed and finished, the scale of the Project and
changes to the visual character of the Project" will not be evident. Further, the 'renderings' of
proposed Project understate the significant visual impact of the project.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources (4.13)
Given that the report acknowledges there are known archeological resources on the site of which
three are deemed elibible for listing on the CRHR and NRHP, and one CA -ORA -.839 is deemed a
"unique archaeological resource ", is the mitigation recommended sufficient? The dEIR also states
the planned "removal of the oilfield infrastructure may impact portions of the site." Further
investigation of alternate solutions is supported by the evidence in the clEIR.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments on the above.
Sincerely,
Heather Hendrickson
416 Piazza Lido Newport Beach CA 92663 TEL 949 293 1433 heather.hendncksonva gmall.com
R: Trojects \NewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doc 3 -665 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 052 Heather Hendrickson
November 8, 2011
Response1
The opinion of the commenter is noted. The location of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle
bridge was chosen to provide access to the coast from the Project site; to tie into the proposed
on -site trail system; to tie into to existing regional trails; and to preclude impacts to private
property.
Response 2
The commenter's refers to the Newport Beach City Council approval of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. In approving the General Plan 2006 Update and certifying the Final
EIR, the Newport Beach City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 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.
The Recreation Element of the General Plan provides for the development of an active
community park of 20 to 30 acres with consideration of night lighting in the Banning Ranch area.
The impacts of the night lighting were anticipated and it was recognized that these impacts
would be addressed further at the project level. An analysis of the impacts of lighting for athletic
playing fields in the Community Park is provided in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual
Resources, of the Draft EIR. 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 TM,
"Light Structure Green" standards, or another comparable light standard of similar design that
reduces light spillage. Furthermore, ball field lights would be turned off by 10:00 PM. The
opinion of the commenter is noted.
Response 3
The commenter has misstated what the Draft EIR says. Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual
Resources states "As the structures are constructed and finished, the scale of the Project and
changes to the visual character of the Project site would become more evident' (emphasis
added).
Response 4
The proposed Mitigation Program would mitigate impacts to archaeological resources to a less
than significant level. While all three of the Cultural Resources deemed as "eligible" (CA -ORA-
839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906) are independently "unique ", CA -ORA -839 was
mentioned as "unique' due to its capability to "... provide unique chronological and subsistence
information and change about two or possibly three prehistoric cultural periods." Because it has
been deemed infeasible to preserve all the sites, the specific mitigation measures noted for data
recovery and preservation of the sites are appropriate. Mitigation Measure 4.13 -2 requires the
data recovery of those portions of the sites that would be directly impacted by grading and /or oil
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -666 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
infrastructure removal. The removal of oilfield infrastructure may impact a limited (ca. spatial 5
percent area) of the sites. These portions of the sites could, therefore, be destroyed. For that
reason data recovery of those portions, with preservation of the remainder, is appropriate. While
the removal of oilfield infrastructure fulfills other environmental mitigation measures (toxic
waste), non - removal of the infrastructure would be agreeable to BonTerra Consulting 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.
RA Projects \NewpoOM151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -667 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter O53a
Comments & Questions on dEIR -Vicki Hernandez
DATE:
November 6, 2011
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
FROM:
Vicki Hernandez
hvhernan @earthlink.net
SUBJECT:
Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
Dear Patrick,
I object to the Newport Banning Ranch project as proposed. Please include my
comments and questions below in the records of any and all proceedings relating to this
project and its successors.
I object to the length and repetitive nature of the dEIR. A total of over 7,234 pages
does NOT create a document written in plain, readable language. Why is there so
much cut - and -paste repetition in this dEIR? This seems like a tactic to confuse and
discourage the public from reading the document and giving input on it. Is it? Does
this document follow the CEQA policies and procedures required for an EIR?
Cumulative Impact Analysis 15.01
Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as:
Two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or
which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
(a)The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of
separate projects.
(b)The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely
related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
projects taking place over a period of time.
Page 5 -6 states "Several subareas within the City, including the Newport Banning
Ranch property, were determined to have special planning considerations and were
subject to additional evaluation in the General Plan and General Plan EIR."
• What are these special considerations and additional evaluation? This is not
immediately clear to me, given the 7,000 pages of the dEIR.
• Page 5 -23 states "A quantification of cumulative impacts is not feasible for some
impact topics such as visual resources... Much of the cumulative evaluation is a
qualitative judgment regarding the combined effects of the relationship among the
projects and projected regional growth."
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdoc 3 -668 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comments & Questions on dEIR -Vicki Hernandez
• What does the Banning Ranch Project have to do with other probable future
projects? This project is unique in being the last large undeveloped costal space in
Orange County. Other projects do not have this unique status.
• Page 5 -30, The City of Newport Beach General Plan states that "if the Newport
Banning Ranch Project site is 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.
• The Banning Ranch Conservancy plans to purchase this open space. Are you
aware of these plans?
• What is the plan for a school to be included in the Newport Banning Ranch
Project? This is not immediately clear to me, given the 7,000 pages of the dEIR.
• Page 5 -30 also states "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 associates with
...development of the Newport Banning Ranch site.
• What are these specific public benefits?
• Building 1,375 residential units, a commercial area and a 75 room resort will have
a massive negative impact on the native fauna and Flora of Banning Ranch, and on
neighboring communities. The cumulative effects of air, light and noise pollution,
increased traffic, 9 years of construction, loss of habitat, and destruction of native
environments will not benefit the environment, wildlife or neighboring communities.
• The Newport Banning Ranch Project WILL benefit the developers, however.
• Page 5 -32 states "Land use incompatibility can occur where differences between
nearby uses result in significant noise levels and significant traffic levels, among other
factors, such that significant unavoidable direct and indirect impacts impede use of the
existing land uses as they were intended."
• Does "land uses as they were intended" mean leaving this area, which is 100%
under the sphere of influence of the Coastal Commission, as open space?
• Page 5 -33 Primary Use: "Open Space, including significant active community
parklands that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired
through public funding."
• Page 5 -34 states "With implementation of the Mitigation Program, the proposed
Project would not result in significant topographic or aesthetic impacts."
• My comment is that 1.375 residential units. 7.500 square feet (sf) of commercial
uses and a 75 -room resort inn on an existing open space which is home to
threatened and endangered species will have a negative and enduring aesthetic
impact.
• How is it possible to state on page 5 -36 "Although the proposed Project — combined
with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects —would change the
visual character of the Project site, the proposed Project is consistent with the General
Plan and no significant cumulative visual impacts are anticipated." I walk along the
3 cont.
R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -669 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comments & Questions on dEIR -Vicki Hernandez
Santa Ana River regularly, and I guarantee that the Newport Banning Ranch Project
will have an adverse and long- lasting aesthetic impact on this open space.
• Page 5 -37 states "The Project site is located in a seismically active area with faults
within the proposed development site that could not be proven to be inactive.
• How wise is it to plan a massive development when we now know that this is a
potential disaster area for seismic activity -- building code requirements or not?
• Page 5 -39 describes Project- specific impacts associated with water resources:
• "increase the amount of runoff and the concentration of pollutants in storm
water runoff."
• "reduce the potential for groundwater percolation"
• "involve changes to existing drainage patterns and would cause increases in
erosion of the Project site or surrounding areas"
• Doesn't this create a cumulative negative impact due to Southern California's
overall scarce water supply?
5.4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• Page 5 -48, The proposed Project would impact special status plant species
• Tarplant - How will the Mitigation Program create impacts at a "level considered less
than significant ?"
• The Project would result in potentially significant impacts associated with the loss of
suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for the light- footed clapper rail, western snowy
plover, Belding's savannah sparrow, tricolored blackbird, least bittern, Clark's marsh
wren, long- billed curlew, and large- billed savannah sparrow.
• What is the Mitigation Program to reduce the impacts to these birds?
• How can the impacts be mitigated, given the long -term major construction planned
for the Project and the extensive grading required?
• The coastal California gnatcatcher is a Threatened species.
What are the Measures that will be provided to mitigate this impact to a less than
significant level?
How can the impacts be mitigated, given the long -term major construction planned
for the Project and the extensive grading required?
• Page 5 -49, The coastal cactus wren is a California Species of Special Concern.
Banning Ranch has one of the largest populations of cactus wren in Orange County. I
am involved in restoration of native plants to areas destroyed by fire. My experience
has been that restoration does not occur overnight! Prickly Pear cactus takes YEARS
to grow large enough for cactus wrens to nest.
• How can the impacts of the Project be mitigated, given the long -term major
construction planned for the Project and the extensive grading required?
• The least Bell's vireo is a federally and State - listed Endangered species.
9 cant.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -670 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comments & Questions on dEIR -Vicki Hernandez
What is the Mitigation Program to reduce the impacts to these birds?
How can the impacts be mitigated, given the long -term major construction planned
for the Project and the extensive grading required?
• The burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern.
• What is the Mitigation Program to reduce the impacts to these birds?
• How can the impacts be mitigated, given the long -term major construction planned
for the Project and the extensive grading required?
• The 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 by the proposed Project
would be considered a violation of the California Fish and Game Code.
• What is the Mitigation Program to reduce the impacts to these nesting birds?
• How can the impacts be mitigated, given the long -term major construction planned
for the Project and the extensive grading required?
• The Project would have significant indirect impacts found to be potentially significant
due to the invasion of native areas by Project ornamental landscape species.
• Why is the Project not considering using California native plants in all its
landscaping, should the Project be approved?
• The proposed Project would result in significant traffic noise impacts on these
sensitive biological resources
• What is the Mitigation Program to reduce the impact of traffic noise to these birds?
• Page 5 -50, "The Project would significantly impact approximately 14.44 acres of
special status riparian habitat. "Most natural riparian vegetation in Southern California
has been lost to or degraded by land use." (P. 4.6 -43)
• How can the claim be made that the cumulative impact is less than significant?
• Does Exhibit 4.6 -3c indicate a riparian area (Drainage C)--the largest in the Proiect
Boundary passing right through the proposed Proiect?
• "The Project would result in the loss of 14.18 acres of coastal sage scrub designated
as special status; this is a significant impact"
• What is the Mitigation Program that purports to reduce these impacts to a level
considered less than significant?
• The loss of grassland function for foraging raptors resulting from the Project is
considered significant.
• What is the Mitigation Program that would reduce these the significant impacts to
these resources to a level considered less than significant?
• VERNAL POOLS: The proposed Project would both result in 0.06 acre of temporarily
impacts and 0.07 acre of permanent impacts to occupied vernal pool habitat (Page
4.6 -34). Areas with vernal pools and ephemeral pools are considered to be special
status due to the presence of fairy shrimp. Habitat loss and fragmentation is the
16 cant.
17
18
1s
20
21
22
6A1
24
R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -671 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comments & Questions on dEIR -Vicki Hernandez
largest threat to vernal pool species. It is estimated that 95 percent of vernal pool
habitat in Southern California has been lost (USFWS 2005d). 4.6 -43
• Are there more vernal pools in the area to be located on Banning Ranch? I
wonder if all vernal pools have been found? Can further studies be conducted?
• Wildlife Movement -Page 5 -50, "The proposed Project would impact the movement of
any native resident or migratory wildlife corridors and use of native wildlife nursery
sites (Threshold 4.6 -4)." Page 4.6 -21, Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable
wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation,
or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization
creates isolated "islands" of wildlife habitat.
• Isn't this the opportunity to preserve for posterity wildlife corridors joining Banning
Ranch with Fairview Park, the Talbert Marsh restoration site, Canyon Park, the
Santa Ana River, and the US Army Corps of Engineers restoration area?
• Shouldn't we maintain all these open spaces as a migration stopover site by bird
species migrating along the coastline? (4.6 -22)
• Given all this richness of wildlife and native vegetation, shouldn't we all halt the
dense urban development that has engulfed Orange County in the past half
century? This is our last chance to save the hundreds of Threatened and
Endangered species that have been highlighted in this dEIR. A development of
1,375 residential units, 7,500 (sf) of commercial uses and a 75 -room resort inn,
plus the roads leading in, out and through the site, will disrupt wildlife movement,
no matter how closely built the residences are.
• "Most natural riparian vegetation in Southern California has been lost to or degraded
by land use." (P. 4.6 -43)
• What criteria are used to conclude that the cumulative impact of the Newport
Banning Ranch Project is negligible?
• Does Exhibit 4.6 -3c indicate a riparian area - -the largest in the Project Boundary
"Drainage C" passing right through the proposed Project?
• Page 5 -53 "Section 4.6 of the EIR addresses the impacts to biological resources that
would result from implementing the proposed Project. Coastal sage scrub, grassland,
and riparian habitat, including habitats for Threatened, Endangered, and Special
Status Species (such as coastal California gnatcatcher) would be lost. These regional
resources are becoming more limited as growth and development occurs throughout
Southern California"
• Why are the City of Newport Beach and the developers of this Project proceeding
with this development plan, knowing that it will destroy a good portion of of this
habitat, and knowing that these biological resources are becoming more and more
scarce due to the growth and development your are proposing in this EIR?
• Page 5 -54 states "The Newport Beach General Plan determines that General Plan
implementation would not contribute considerably to the decline of sensitive natural
communities; therefore, the General Plan contribution to this impact would not be
cumulatively considerable, and would result in a less than significant impact."
24 cont.
25
26
27
28
R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -672 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comments & Questions on dEIR -Vicki Hernandez
• What criteria are being used to determine that implementation of the Project "would
not contribute considerablV to the decline of sensitive natural communities? After
reading section 4.6, 1 come to the conclusion that the Project (1,375 residential
units, 7,500 square feet (so of commercial uses, a 75 -room resort inn, plus roads
throughout) would contribute greatly to the decline of sensitive habitats and
species.
• Page 5 -60 states that the traffic findings are "Significant and Unavoidable – City of
Costa Mesa Intersections"
• What is the city of Costa Mesa's response to this major traffic Impact to its streets
and intersections?
Page 5 -61 "Less than Significant Impact– Freeway Mainline Segments: Under this
scenario, the Project would not significantly impact any freeway segments."
• Has the possible impact on the 55 Freeway been studied? The 405 Freeway?
• Page 5 -65 Traffic Impact Analysis "The proposed Project, when combined with
development in the region, would have a significant cumulative air quality impact
because the contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively
considerable."
• What is the Project planners' and the city of Newport Beach's response to this?
• Page 5 -68 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.
• What is the Project planners' and the city of Newport Beach's response to this?
• Page 5 -82 states "The proposed Project's contribution to the cumulative impact on
water supply is considered less than significant.
• What is meant by the "relatively minimal water demands of the proposed Project in
the context of regional water supplies... ?" How can the demands for water of 1375
residences, 7500 sf of retail space and a 75 -room resort be defined as "minimal "?
28 cont.
29
30
31
32
33
R:TrojectsWewpn JO15�RTMRTC- o315izdoc 3 -673 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O53a Vicki Hernandez
November 6, 2011
Response1
The EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Statute and the California CEQA
Guidelines. The opinions of the commenter are noted.
Response 2
The "special planning considerations" referred to by the commenter were a part of the Final EIR
for the 2006 comprehensive update of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The Final EIR
identified several anticipated unavoidable significant adverse impacts associated with the
implementation of citywide development as set forth in the update of the General Plan. These
included increased light effects if development ultimately occurs on the Banning Ranch
property. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the potential
unavoidable significant impacts of the General Plan Update Project. This Statement of
Overriding Considerations described the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or
other considerations of the General Plan Update even though all of the identified impacts are
not mitigated to a less than significant level. One of the benefits identified was improved
opportunities for parks and recreation facilities to serve the City's residents and visitors. In
addition, the General Plan Update requires the development of a new park at Banning Ranch,
whether acquired as open space or partially developed, that would provide playfields and
passive recreational opportunities for the underserved western portion of the City.
As a point of clarification, the Draft EIR is not 7,000 pages as stated by the commenter.
Response 3
The cumulative analysis addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Project in combination
with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The commenter's opinion that
the other cumulative projects are not unique is noted.
Response 4
To date, the Applicant has noted that Banning Ranch Conservancy has not made an offer to the
property owner for purchase of the Project site.
Response 5
No new schools are proposed or needed to serve the Project.
Response 6
In approving the General Plan 2006 Update and certifying the Final EIR, the Newport Beach
City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 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.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -674 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 7
The threshold does not apply to a specific use for the Project site nor is it specific to the Project
site. With respect to the site's Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Designation, the Project
site has a General Plan land use designation of OS(RV), Open Space /Residential Village, which
establishes Open Space as the Primary Use and Residential Village as the Alternative Use for
the Project site as described below:
Primary Use:
Open Space, including significant active community parklands that serve
adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public funding.
Alternative Use:
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, school, and active community parklands, with a majority of the
property preserved as open space. The property owner may pursue entitlement
and permits for a residential village during the time allowed for acquisition as
open space.
Response 8
The opinion of the commenter is noted
Response 9
The opinion of the commenter is noted
Response 10
The Project would comply with all mandated regulatory requirements. State of the art
earthquake analyses were performed for the Project site. The results of these analyses indicate
that the proposed development can be safely constructed with the implementation of proper
setbacks, foundation design and other regulatory requirements related the development. For
reference, these analyses included (1) regional fault evaluation; (2) seismicity and earthquake
history analyses; (3) seiche and tsunami hazard analyses; (4) geomorphic analysis; (5) various
ground motion analyses; (6) review of past fault trenching and exploration of thousands of feet
of new fault trenching using recognized doctoral experts; and (7) an age dating analysis.
Response11
The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed Project and approved by the Newport
Beach City Council addressed potential project - specific and cumulative effects associated with
the existing and future water supply. The findings were that the Project would not contribute to a
cumulatively significant water supply impact.
Response 12
Impacts to southern tarplant (Centromadia australis ssp. parryi) are considered significant
because the loss of these individuals would represent a substantial adverse effect to the
regional population of this species until the new population has been established through
RAProjedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -675 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.6 -7, which requires implementation of
a southern tarplant restoration program, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Page 4.6 -86 outlines MM 4.6 -7 (Special Status Plant Species), which 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." In addition, to MM 4.6 -7, the grasslands restoration efforts for the Project would
incorporate southern tarplant seeds collected on the Project site.
Response 13
The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts to the light- footed clapper rail, western
snowy plover, and Belding's savannah sparrow during oilfield remediation activities within the
marsh areas associated with the proposed Project. The implementation of MMs 4.6 -4 and 4.6 -8
would reduce the potential impact on these species to a less than significant level. These
measures require the restoration and /or preservation of approximately 9.90 acres of marsh
habitat either on site or immediately off site and avoidance measures during construction. In
addition, Project Design Features (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 marsh areas and associated wildlife
species.
Page 4.6 -87 of the Draft EIR includes MM 4.6 -8 which requires the Applicant to conduct
"focused survey for light- footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, and Belding's savannah
sparrow in the spring prior to the proposed impact to determine if these species nest on or
immediately adjacent to the Project site. If any of these species are observed, the Applicant
shall obtain approvals from the resource agencies (i.e., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[USFWS], the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG], and the California Coastal
Commission) prior to the initiation of grading or any activity that involves the
removal /disturbance of marsh habitat, including clearing, grubbing, mowing, disking, trenching,
grading, or any other construction - related activity on the Project site. If any of these species
would be impacted, mitigation for impacts on these species shall include replacement of marsh
habitat as described in MM 4.6 -4. In addition, the measures listed below shall be implemented.
1. Marsh vegetation shall be removed after September 15 and before March 1
2. If marsh vegetation is proposed for removal prior to September 15, a series of
pre- construction surveys shall be conducted to ensure that no light- footed clapper rail,
western snowy plover, or Belding's savannah sparrows are in the area of impact. If any
of these species are observed within 100 feet of the impact areas, the resource agencies
shall be contacted to determine if additional consultation and /or minimization measures
are required.
3. A Biological Monitor familiar with light- footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, and
Belding's savannah sparrow shall be present during all activities involving marsh
vegetation removal to ensure that impacts to marsh habitats do not extend beyond the
limits of grading and to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent impacts to marsh habitat.
RTrojedsWewparftMl SRTMRTGA31512 .doc 3 -676 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
In addition, the Biological Monitor shall monitor construction activities in or adjacent to
marsh habitat during the light- footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, and Belding's
savannah sparrow breeding season (March 1 to September 15).
4. The limits of disturbance during oilfield cleanup shall be clearly marked, and temporary
fencing or other appropriate markers shall be placed around any sensitive habitat
adjacent to work areas prior to the commencement of any ground- disturbing activity or
native vegetation removal. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or
materials shall be permitted within the marked areas."
The Project site provides only potentially suitable foraging habitat for the long- billed curlew and
large- billed savannah sparrow. The tricolored blackbird, least bittern, and Clark's marsh wren
may also forage and /or nest on the Project site in wet years when ponding and freshwater
marsh vegetation is extensive. Project impacts on foraging and /or nesting habitat for the
tricolored blackbird, least bittern, Clark's marsh wren, long- billed curlew and large- billed
savannah sparrow were found to be less than significant according to the significance criteria.
Because impacts were found to be less than significant for these species, no specific mitigation
to offset impacts is warranted according to CEQA. However, all of these species are expected
to benefit from the restoration and /or preservation of approximately 9.90 acres of marsh habitat
either on site or immediately off site and avoidance measures during construction.
Response 14
The proposed Project is expected to impact approximately 23.11 acres (20.53 acres permanent,
2.58 acres temporary) of coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub vegetation types
that provide potential habitat for this species. Coastal sage scrub habitat on the Project site is
primarily limited to slopes and areas surrounding the drainages that transverse the mesa, is
fragmented, and is disturbed by oilfield operations and invaded by non - native species.
Revegetation following oilfield remediation activities has 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 for this
species in the open space area. However, Project impacts on this species would be considered
significant because of the location and size of the impacted population. Implementation of MMs
4.6 -1 and 4.6 -9 would be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. These
measures require the on -site or off -site restoration of 47.75 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat
at a ratio of 3:1 for coastal sage scrub (including disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub) and 1:1
for disturbed coastal sage scrub (excluding disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub). In addition,
approximately 35.16 acres of coastal sage scrub or disturbed coastal sage scrub would be
preserved on site. Mitigation also includes the required approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) to impact the species, and construction avoidance measures to minimize the
impacts to the greatest extent practicable. In addition, 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 coastal sage scrub
and associated wildlife species, including, but not limited to the coastal California gnatcatcher.
Response 15
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 commenter 39. The Draft
3' http:// www. naturereserveoc .org /projects.htm
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -677 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
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.
Page 4.6 -60 summarizes the mitigation for these impacts which includes implementation of
MMs 4.6 -1 and 4.6 -10. These measures require the restoration of coastal sage scrub dominated
by native cactus species habitat at a ratio of no less that 1:1 and construction avoidance
measures to minimize the impacts to the greatest extent practicable. In addition, approximately
35.16 acres of coastal sage scrub, which includes approximately 10 acres of coastal sage scrub
dominated by cactus, would be preserved on site as part of MM 4.6 -1. In addition, 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 cacti - dominated coastal sage scrub and associated wildlife species, including, but not
limited to the cactus wren.
Response 16
As stated on page 4.6 -61 of Section 4.6, two least Bell's vireo territories (both solitary males)
were observed during the 2009 focused surveys. The proposed Project would impact
approximately 2.74 acres (1.45 acres permanent, 1.29 acres temporary) of undisturbed and
disturbed willow riparian scrub and willow riparian forest habitats. The permanent Project
impacts on the species' habitat is expected to be limited, and most of the habitat for this species
would remain as open space following oilfield remediation activities. However, these activities
could temporarily impact riparian habitats used by this species. Currently, much of the native
riparian scrub and forest habitat on the Project site is fragmented by roads and is heavily
invaded by non - native species. Revegetation following oilfield remediation activities would result
in a higher long -term habitat quality due to invasive species removal; removal of human activity
and disturbance related to oilfield operations; and availability of larger blocks of contiguous
native habitat for this species in the open space area within the Project site. However, any
impact on this species would be considered significant. Implementation of MMs 4.6 -5 and
4.6 -11 would reduce impacts on this species to less than significant levels. These measures
require the on -site or off -site restoration of riparian habitat at a ratio from 3:1 to 1:1 depending
on the habitat value impacted. A total of 15.77 acres of riparian habitat would be restored by the
proposed Project. The Project also requires approval from the USFWS to impact the species
and its habitat. In addition, the Project would preserve approximately 23.03 acres of riparian
habitats. MM 4.6 -1 includes construction avoidance measures to minimize the impact to the
greatest extent practicable to the vireo and the riparian habitat. In addition, 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
riparian habitat and associated wildlife species including, but not limited to, the least Bell's vireo.
Response 17
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 2010 (GLA 2010a, 2009). 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
RTrojedsWewparftMl SRTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -678 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
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.
Response 18
Page 4.6 -63 states that the 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 raptor nest would be
considered significant. Impacts on active raptor nests would be reduced to less than significant
levels with implementation of MM 4.6 -13, which provides for construction avoidance measures
to minimize the impact to the greatest extent practicable.
Response19
The proposed Project includes a Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) and PDF 4.6 -2 that includes
provisions for the preservation and long -term maintenance of existing sensitive habitat and
habitat created and restored by the Project. Further, MM 4.6 -14 requires that no invasive, exotic
plant species are used in landscaping adjacent to any open space and that suitable substitutes
are provided.
Response 20
Page 4.6 -64 states that vehicular traffic on North Bluff Road (north of 17`h Street) is expected to
result in noise impacts within the lowland and upland open space areas. These areas contain
coastal sage scrub and riparian scrub /forest vegetation types that provide suitable habitat for
the coastal California gnatcatcher and the least Bell's vireo. The Bluff Road future traffic noise
impacts are considered significant. MMs 4.6 -1, 4.6 -2, 4.6 -4 through 4.6 -6, and 4.6 -8 through
4.6 -13 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by increasing the biological value
of the site for wildlife species. Short -term construction impacts to active least Bell's vireo nests
are considered potentially significant. Implementation of MM 4.6 -11 would reduce this impact to
a less than significant level.
Response 21
Projects whose impacts could contribute to cumulative wetland impacts were reviewed in the
context of the significance criteria set forth in Section 4.6. In evaluating cumulative impacts, the
impacts of the current and future probable projects are compared with those of the proposed
Project as a useful point of reference.
Restoration and preservation of wetland habitat for impacts from the proposed Project would
include 52.28 acres. Restoration efforts for Talbert Marsh, the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve,
and Huntington Beach Wetlands Restoration Project would increase the amount of wetlands
along the Southern California coast. The proposed Project would have a limited impact on
wetland resources (15.62 acres of temporary and permanent impacts) relative to the
conservation of the remaining acreage and therefore, would not contribute to a significant
cumulative effect on wetland resources.
RT rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -679 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The proposed Project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would
comply with existing laws and regulations that are administered and enforced by regulatory
agency- issued permit requirements and /or a mitigation monitoring and reporting program,
pursuant to CEQA.
In summary, the regulations mandate that all past, present and future projects comply with local,
State, and federal laws, policies and applicable permitting requirements, which would preclude
the Project and other development from resulting in a significant impact. In addition, compliance
with each of these regulations is a condition of Project approval. Therefore, the proposed
Project —in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects —
would have a less than significant cumulative impact on wetland resources.
Response 22
As described on page 4.6 -53 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would impact approximately
11.92 acres (10.89 acres permanent, 1.03 acres temporary) of coastal sage scrub vegetation
and approximately 11.19 acres (9.64 acres permanent, 1.55 acres temporary) of disturbed
coastal sage scrub vegetation. 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. Implementation
of MM 4.6 -1 and PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. MM 4.6 -1 requires habitat restoration of permanent impacts to coastal sage scrub
(including disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub) at a 3:1 ratio and disturbed coastal sage scrub
(excluding disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub) at a 1:1 ratio either on site or off site. In
addition, all temporarily impacted coastal sage scrub would be restored at a 1:1 ratio on site.
The proposed Project would also preserve approximately 35.16 acres on site. The combined
restoration and preservation of coastal sage scrub on site would total approximately
82.91 acres. MM 4.6 -1 also requires the Applicant to follow the Construction Minimization
Measures, which would provide conservation and avoidance actions to reduce the adverse
impact to the habitat and associated wildlife species. PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the
designation and methodology of habitat restoration /preservation and indirect effect minimization
measures. These features also provide conservation and avoidance value to the habitat and
associated wildlife species.
Response 23
As described on Page 4.6 -62 of Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, suitable
foraging habitat is present for a variety of raptor species on the Project site. 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.
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -880 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 24
Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools
Response 25
As stated on page 4.6 -71 of Section 4.6, Biological Resources, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact. However, following oilfield remediation activities within the upland and
lowland, large contiguous areas would be revegetated and remain contiguous with the USACE
salt marsh restoration site, the Santa Ana River, and the Talbert Marsh. The revegetation
following oilfield remediation activities would result in higher quality habitat (including habitat for
migrating avian species) resulting from invasive species removal; removal of human activity and
disturbance related to oilfield operations; and availability of larger blocks of contiguous native
habitat in the open space area. Therefore, with implementation of MMs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -5, this
impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. The opinions of the commenter are
noted.
Response 26
Please refer to the response to Comment 21. The northern portion of Drainage C as illustrated
in Exhibit 4.6 -3c would be impacted by the proposed Project. This is illustrated in Exhibit 4.6 -7c
in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR.
Response 27
Please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the proposed Project, which address alternatives to
the development that is proposed by the Applicant. 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. The opinions of the
commenter are noted.
Response 28
As stated on page 4.6-44 of the Draft EIR, the environmental impacts relative to biological
resources are assessed using impact significance criteria that mirror the policy in CEQA Section
21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State legislature has
established it to be the policy of the State to: "prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species
due to man's activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self -
perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal
communities ".
Determining whether a project may have a significant effect or impact plays a critical role in the
CEQA process. According to Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Thresholds of
Significance), each public agency is encouraged to develop and adopt, by ordinance, resolution,
rule or regulation, their own significance thresholds to determine the impact of environmental
effects. A significance threshold defines the quantitative, qualitative, or performance limits of a
particular environmental effect. If these thresholds are exceeded, the agency would consider it
to be significant.
In the development of significance thresholds for impacts to biological resources, the State
CEQA Guidelines provide guidance primarily in Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -881 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Significance, and Attachment G, Environmental Checklist Form. Section 15065(a) of the State
CEQA Guidelines identifies that a project may have a significant effect if it:
...has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or wildlife community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare, or threatened species.
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is more specific in addressing biological resources
and encompasses a broader range of resources to be considered, including Candidate,
Sensitive, or Special Status Species; riparian habitat or other special status natural
communities; federally protected wetlands; fish and wildlife movement corridors; local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources; and adopted habitat conservation plans. These
factors are typically considered through the checklist of questions answered to determine a
project's appropriate environmental documentation (i.e., Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report [EIR]). Because these questions are
derived from standards employed in other laws, regulations and commonly used thresholds, it is
reasonable to use these standards as a basis for defining significance thresholds. For the
purpose of this analysis, impacts to biological resources are considered significant (before
calculating the offsetting impacts of mitigation measures) if the proposed Project would:
Threshold 4.6 -1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the CDFG or USFWS.
Threshold 4.6 -2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other special
status natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.
Threshold 4.6 -3 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means.
Threshold 4.6 -4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or migratory fish
or wildlife species; inhibits established native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife corridors; or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Threshold 4.6 -5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Conflict with
the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan. 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.
In order to evaluate whether an impact on biological resources would result in a "substantial
adverse effect ", both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional context must
be considered. The proposed Project's regional setting includes the Central /Coastal Subregion
R TroledsNewPerftMl& TMRTCc 31512.dee 3 -682 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
NCCP /HCP. This subregion is bound by State Route (SR) 55 and SR -91 to the north; the Santa
Ana River and Pacific Ocean to the west; El Toro Road and Interstate (1) 5 to the east; and the
Pacific Ocean to the south.
For impact analysis purposes, a "substantial adverse effect" is defined as the loss or harm of a
magnitude which, based on current scientific data and knowledge, would (1) substantially
diminish population numbers of a species or distribution of a habitat type within the region or
(2) eliminate the functions and values of a biological resource in the region. For each impact
found to be significant, mitigation measures for the proposed Project have been developed that
avoid, minimize, or compensate for the significant impact.
Response 29
The traffic impact study has identified intersection improvements that would mitigate the
proposed Project's peak hour impacts wherever those impacts were determined to exceed the
significance threshold. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose the requirement to
construct the identified improvements on the City of Costa Mesa. If the Applicant is unable to
reach agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that the Project impacts would
be mitigated, then the Project's impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. The
Applicant is currently working with the City of Costa Mesa to reach agreement regarding
mitigation of Project impacts in the City of Costa Mesa.
Response 30
The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for preparation of the Newport Banning Ranch
EIR. No further response to the comment is required.
Response 31
Please refer to the response to Comment 30
Response 32
Please refer to the response to Comment 30
Response 33
Please refer to the response to Comment 11.
RT rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -683 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 053b
DATE:
November 7, 2011
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
FROM:
Vicki Hernandez
hvhernan(Wearthlihk.net
SUBJECT:
More Comments and Questions- Newport Banning Ranch dEIR
Dear Patrick,
Here is some more input on the Newport Banning Ranch dEIR. Please include my
comments and questions below in the records of any and all proceedings relating to this
project and its successors.
1.0 Executive Summary
Page 1 -4 states "A Zoning Code Amendment is proposed to adopt the 'Newport Banning Ranch
Planned Community' (NBR -PC):'
• What is the current zoning?
• Does this mean that, if the Zone Change takes place, NBR -PC will have full control of the
entire Banning Ranch, even though it is all within the boundary of the Coastal Zone? If it
is zoned as Planned Community 57, what is to prevent more and more residential
development throughout Banning Ranch in the open spaces?
"The NBR -PC establishes allowable land uses within each land use district; development
regulations for each land use district; general development regulations applicable to all
development within the Project site; and procedures for implementing and administering the
NBR -PC.
• What are the allowable land uses within each land use district?
• How often can they be changed by the NBR -PC
• What is meant by "each land use district ?" The development site? The open spaces?
• What are the development regulations for each land use district? Would open spaces be
subject to later new "Planned Community" development plans? What safeguards are
there for the natural flora and fauna, and for the neighboring communities that will be
impacted by development air, light and noise pollution, traffic, and congestion.
"Approval of the Master Development Plan implements the NBR -PC zoning requirements for the
Project site by establishing design criteria for each proposed land use and providing a sufficient
level of detail, as determined by the City, to guide the review of subsequent development
approvals."
• WHAT IS THIS "SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT ?"
• I disagree with the proposed Zone Change
• I encourage the City of Newport Beach NOT TO APPROVE the following:
• Zoning Code Amendment
• Zone Change
• Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan
• Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -684 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• I encourage the City and the California Coastal Commission to NOT approve the Newport
Banning Ranch Master Development Plan and Pre - Annexation and Development
Agreement.
• I encourage the California Coastal Commission to deny a Master Coastal Development
Permit to the Newport Banning Ranch Proposal
• The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Land Use Element prioritizes the
retention of the Project site for open space AND
• The entire Project site is within the boundary of the Coastal Zone, as established by
the California Coastal Act, and, as such, should be left undeveloped.
• The public deserves this last open space within the Coastal Zone in Orange County to be
left in perpetuity as Open Space. Page 1 -8 states "Given the nature and scale . of the
Project, complete avoidance of significant impacts was not feasible for any
alternative other than the No Project Alternative.
6.0 Long Term Implications
Page 6 -3, "The Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG
inventory affecting Global Climate Change."
• Does the City of Newport Beach really want to make this contribution to the global GHG
inventory?
• It is our responsibility to avoid contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting Global
Climate Change. As a society, we need to rethink our behavior toward the environment.
Page 6 -5, "Typically, growth- inducing impacts result from the provision of urban services and
the extension of infrastructure (including roadways, sewers, or water service) into an
undeveloped area. Growth- inducing impacts can also result from substantial population
increase.
• Does the City of Newport Beach really want to contribute to substantial population increase in
increasingly- overcrowded Orange County?
• The Project would detrimentally contribute overcrowding in Orange County.
7.0 Alternatives
Page 7 -43, "Alternative A would have fewer impacts than the proposed Project pertaining to
potential aesthetic impacts, geotechnical constraints, hydrology and water quality, biological
impacts, potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials (construction only), traffic, air
quality, greenhouse gasses, noise, cultural resources, and impacts associated with the
construction of public services, utilities, and recreational facilities."
• It is time to slow down urban sprawl and look to sustain the earth, as the earth has so long
sustained us. Alternative A is the most responsible alternative for future generations.
• This is the last large expanse of undeveloped Coastal Zone land in Orange County. It
behooves us to restore and preserve it in its natural state as an undeveloped Open Space so
that our posterity will have an idea of what the Orange County coast was like before
urbanization. Alternative A will provide for this.
3 cont.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -685 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Page 7- 173 "Based on the evaluation contained in this EIR, Alternative B, General Plan Open
Space Designation, would be the environmentally superior alternative because it provides for
restoration of the Project site and maintains the greatest amount of open space."
How is this possible or logical? Plan A will provide for MUCH more open space, and a
conservancy will proved for restoration of Banning Ranch.
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -686 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O53b Vicki Hernandez
November 7, 2011
Responsel
Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR which identifies the existing and
proposed zoning designations for the Project site. In summary, an approximately 40 -acre
portion of the Project site located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City is zoned
"Planned Community District 25" (PC -25) and, as such, is covered by the PC -25 Planned
Community District Regulations. Approximately 361 acres of the Project site are located in
unincorporated Orange County, but within the City's Sphere of Influence, and are regulated by
County zoning. County zoning for the Project site includes several designations that permit
residential, commercial, and light industrial /employment uses. Approximately 319 acres are
zoned for R -4 Suburban Multi- family residential uses, which permits 1 dwelling unit for each
3,000 sf of net land area (i.e., approximately 14.5 dwelling units /acre [du /ac]); approximately 23
acres area zoned for C -1 Local Business commercial uses; and approximately 19 acres for M1
Light Industrial employment uses. Overlay zones, including Oil Production, Sign Restriction, and
Floodplain Zone 2 apply to portions of the property.
Should the Project be approved as proposed by the Applicant and receive all required approvals
and permits from responsible agencies, the draft Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
Development Plan (NBR -PC) would serve as zoning for the Project site. Should the property
owner wish to modify the development proposal in the future, such actions would be subject to
review and action by the City as well as potentially other regulatory agencies.
Response 2
Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.1, Land Use and Related
Planning Programs, which address the commenter's questions. The Newport Banning Ranch
Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -PC) is proposed to serve as the zoning
regulations for the Project. The NBR -PC (available on the City's website) establishes allowable
land uses within each of five land use districts, development regulations for each land use
district, general development regulations applicable to all development within the Project site, a
plan for circulation and infrastructure facilities to serve development, and procedures for
implementing and administering the NBR -PC. The NBR -PC would serve as the zoning and
development regulations for both the portion of the Project site located within the City of
Newport Beach and the portion of the Project site located within the County of Orange but within
the City's Sphere of Influence. Following annexation of the areas located within the Sphere of
Influence, the NBR -PC would become effective.
The NBR -PC includes five major land use districts with subcategories in several of these
districts:
• Open Space Land Use Districts: Lowland Open Space /Public Trail Facilities
(LOS /PTF), Upland Open Space /Public Trail Facilities (UOS /PTF), and Oil Facilities
(OF).
• Public Parks and Recreation Land Use Districts: Community Park (CP), Bluff Park
(BP), and Interpretive Parks (IP).
• Visitor- Serving ResonJResidential Land Use District.
• Residential Land Use Districts: Residential (Low Density [RL], Low- Medium Density
[RL /M], and Medium Density [RM]).
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -687 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• Mixed - Use /Residential Land Use District.
Table 4.1 -1 of Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR identifies the allowable land uses within the proposed
land use districts. Uses listed as "Permitted Uses" are allowed "by right ". Uses subject to a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Minor Use Permit (MUP) are conditionally allowed subject to
the provisions set forth in the NBR -PC. Land uses not listed are not allowed with the exception
of special event uses, limited duration uses (e.g., archaeological investigations), and uses
allowed through interpretations of the NBR -PC. Existing uses made legal non - conforming uses
are allowed to continue but are not permitted to be expanded.
With respect to how often land uses can be changed, this would depend on whether the land
use is permitted by right or requires a Conditional Use Permit. This is the same procedure for all
development in the City.
Response 3
Subsequent development approvals are identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the
Draft EIR. The commenter's opposition to the proposed Project is noted.
Response 4
The opinion of the commenter is noted.
Response 5
The proposed Project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City of Newport Beach
and the County for this property. The opinions of the commenter are noted.
Response 6
The opinion of the commenter is noted.
Response 7
Page 7 -173 of the Draft EIR states "CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally
superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies that if the No
Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. For this reason, a
development alternative was identified as required by the State CEQA Guidelines.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -688 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick Comment Letter 054
From:
James Heumann Oamesheumann @hotmail.comj
Sent:
Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:15 PM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Cc:
Banning Ranch Conservancy
Subject:
DEIR for Banning Ranch - Comments
Mr Alford,
Please see the below comments regarding the DEIR for the Banning Ranch project dated September
2011 (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) .
1. The air quality (AQ) section which stated that all remediation would be finished within 3 years
of the start — I serious doubt that. The remediation section did not specify, but implied the
remediation work would take much longer than 3 years.
2. The document also mentions numerous closed wells and the California agency responsible for
drilling new wells and closing old wells. Nowhere does it specifically state that ALL old wells
would be located and closed according to agency procedures and requirements.
3. The other concern is all of these docs describe the PLAN. Things never go to plan. What are
the contingencies, who will provide the oversight and approve the modified plans?
4. The AQ section describes mitigation measures for PM from grading and soil piles, but there is
no discussion in the remediation section of anti PM measures for soil piles.
5. The AQ section also states that the benefit for using all Tier 4 offroad /construction equipment
could not be calculated using the model. Why not? They don't explain.
6. There is little mention of the urban heat island effect of the project, other than PDF 4.11 -1/2
and SC 4.11 -1 that make general reference to meeting LEED or similar standards. There has
been talk within the project to meet LEED Platinum, but it is not written into the DEIR. Specific
mentions should be made to increase the albedo (solar reflactivity) of the project so as to
minimize local warming effects of the project (Eric Berger, Science Writer, Houston Chronicle, Saturday,
06107103, Section A, Page 1). The USEPA has studied Houston, for example, ascertaining that the
urban heat island effect has actually increased the temperature of the local climate from 3 F to
6 F. While the area of Newport Beach is not expected to be as warm as Houston, It is vitally
important, both to the health of our populations vulnerable to extreme heat and to the larger
phenomenon of global warming to include cooling practices in the proposed development.
One might expect that for a project that builds on some last remaining developable land for an area,
there would be relatively modern expectations, such as a written commitment in the EIR ensuring
this proposed project is minimally insignificant to the environment, objectively qualifying for at least
LEED Platinum status since the first residential project to do so was back in 2006. While the project
cites a commitment to LEED practices, specific items are not mentioned in the DEIR to ensure that
the project is using all cooling technologies reasonably available. The proposed development should
specifically mention include already existing practices to ensure a high solar reflectivity, using
mitigation efforts such as cool roofs (eg planted roofs or white roofs), reflective pavement (as
opposed to plain asphalt), and other cooling projects such as ensuring a higher ratio of unpaved land
to paved land or built -over land. The cooling topic is insufficiently, non - specifically addressed in the
R:TrojectsWewpn JC15�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -689 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
DER. The DEIR needs to include specific plans and sufficient goals to mitigate warming effects of
the project so as to at least protect the more vulnerable among us.
Regards,
James Heumann
Costa Mesa resident
7 cont
R]P,.joct.\NO.portU0151RTC\RTC- 031512 doc 3 -690 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 054 James Heuman
November 1, 2011
Response1
If the proposed Project is approved, all oilfield operations within the Project site (with the
exception of the two oil consolidation sites) would be removed and remediated. Removal would
include the abandonment of the facilities and remediation. Page 4.5 -19 of the Draft EIR states
that comprehensive oil facilities consolidation, abandonment, and remediation at the Project site
would be a multiple -step process that would likely span a period of approximately two to three
years. The remediation portion of this process is expected to take most of this time.
Response 2
With the exception of the two oil consolidation sites, all on -site oil wells would abandoned or re-
abandoned to current requirements and standards of the State Department of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and reviewed according to their Construction Site Review
process; all facilities would be removed. After remediation, hazardous gas surveys would be
conducted as part of the Orange County Fire Authority Guideline C -03. Please refer to Section
4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, specifically Section 4.5.8, and to Appendix D,
specifically Section 3.1 of the Draft Remedial Action Plan (dRAP) of the Draft EIR.
Response 3
With respect to the Mitigation Program in the EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) would be approved as a part of the proposed Project and would include all
project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures applicable to the Project.
The MMRP includes the elements of approval with a method of verification upon implementation
of each mitigation measure, including a responsible person /agency and a milestone date for
implementation. Mitigation monitoring bridges the gap in the CEQA process between identifying
proper mitigation and implementing specific programs to accomplish the stated goals. The
MMRP becomes a public document available for public review throughout implementation of the
proposed Project.
Specific to proposed remediation activities, operational and environmental regulatory oversight
is described in Section 4.5.2 (pages 4.5 -1 to 4.5 -3) of the Draft EIR. The remediation process is
reviewed, monitored, and approved by state regulatory agencies.
With respect to Project modifications, Section 2.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR addresses this
issue. The EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all entitlements
associated with the proposed Project, including all discretionary approvals requested or required
in order to implement the Project. The Lead Agency can approve subsequent actions without
additional environmental documentation unless otherwise required by Section 21166 of the
CEQA Statutes and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 21166 of the CEQA
Statutes states that:
When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant
to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall
be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or
more of the following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the environmental impact report.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -691 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the
environmental impact report.
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at
the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes
available.
Response 4
The mitigation measures for soil movement and grading discussed in the Air Quality Section
4.10 would also apply to soil movement and excavation in the remediation process.
Response 5
As a point of clarification, Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR does not state that the
benefit for using all Tier 4 equipment could not be calculated using the model. The calculation in
the Draft EIR using approximately 50 percent Tier 3 and 50 percent Tier 4 equipment was
shown because that is a level of mitigation that would achieve emissions reductions below the
SCAQMD NOx threshold.
Response 6
Project Design Feature (PDF) 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 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.
PDF 4.11.2 and Standard Condition (SC) 4.11 -1 both deal with Energy Efficiency Standards. As
addressed in Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR, SC 4.11 -1 requires conformance with the California
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -692 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings,
commonly known the "2008 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards" or the version of these
standards current at the time of the issuance of each building permit. PDF 4.11.1 states that the
Project shall exceed those requirements by at least 5 percent.
At the direction of the State Legislature in Senate Bill (SB) 97, the California Natural Resources
Agency adopted amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
that require analysis of climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in CEQA
documents; these amendments were effective March 18, 2010.
Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR provides a comprehensive discussion of the potential global
climate change impacts that would occur from construction and operation of the proposed
Project. The model data used for the quantitative analysis contained in Section 4.11 are
included in Appendix H of the Draft EIR.
Response 7
Although EIRs are intended to avoid, reduce, and mitigate impacts of projects, it is not the
function of an EIR to impose conformance with the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC's)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification programs. Although a well -
respected leader in the green building movement, USGBC is a privately incorporated nationwide
20,000- member non - profit organization (www.usgbc.org), and participation in its certification
programs such as LEED or LEED -ND is voluntary, and based on its copyrighted LEED Rating
System.
LEED Platinum referenced in the comment is currently the highest of five LEED ratings, typically
reserved for outstanding individual buildings or homes, and not a rating that is applied to larger
and more comprehensive planned communities such as Newport Banning Ranch. The Project
has not committed to LEED Platinum, but has committed to meeting the standards of an
independent nationally recognized Green Building Program such as LEED -ND, which is the
more appropriate type of program for this scale of project at this level of design.
As required by the City's General Plan, the Project's land use plan proposes the protection of
relatively large areas of unpaved open space and parks, and the clustering of built development.
Additionally, solar reflectivity or other types of cool roofs can be an effective tool in reducing
warming and energy consumption in buildings generally. It is often among the tools recognized
and positively rated in third -party Green Building Programs — among various other techniques —
for its value in providing cooling. While providing certain types of benefits, white roofs, reflective
pavement, and other cooling techniques would also have to be evaluated in terms other factors,
for example their aesthetic qualities and visual impacts (e.g., reflectivity and glare for Project
residents and neighbors). Any such proposals and evaluations would occur during Site
Development Review of individual construction -level development projects.
RTrojedsWewparftMl SRTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -693 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick Comment Letter O55a
From:
TevisHtll @aol. cam
Sent:
Friday, November 04, 2011 2.45 PM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Subject:
deadline for comments
Please extend the Nov 8th date for comments on your dEIR I am quickly trying to comprehend the new Banning Ranch
dEIR and see how both impact me. I own two units in Newport Crest and live at 6308 West Oceanfront and am very
impacted by all issues.Both documents have so much to study and I am sure that marry of the Newport
Beach citizens need more time. I su000rt the nark.
Thank you for vour consideration
Tevis Hill
R]Proioct.\NOwportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512 doc 3 -694 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O55a Tevis Hill
November 4, 2011
Response1
The opinion of the commenter is 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.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -695 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 055b
COMMUNITY
NOV 08 2011
0 DEVELOPMENT G.t
QA-
PLEASE USE THIS LETTER AS A REPLACEMENT FOR
THE ONE I DELIVERED YESTERDAY. ON NUMBER 7 AND ON NUMBER 13 I
HAD PUT NEWPORT SHORES. THIS CORRECTED COPY REPLACES THOSE
WORDS WITH LIDO SANDS. I AM SORRY FOR THE MISTAKE. THANK YOU.
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -696 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
November 7, 2011
To: Patrick.I.Alford
Planning Manager, City of Newport Beach
Prom: Tevis Hill
Re: Newport 13anning Ranch dEIR
,,EOEIVEO 9y
COMMUNITY
NOV 0 8 2011
O�DEVELOPMENT yr
Op Ncwpogl 6�
I. am a resident of Newport Beach. I lived in Newport Crest many years ago. I own
several properties (here. I live at 6308 West Oceanfront. After attending the Oct. 17 °i
EQAC meeting I have comments and questions. 'file meeting put forth many important
changes for the dEIR and suggestions.
I.
Will a detailed analysis of the hydrology data be included in the final EIR?
2.
Will the Newport Banning Ranch sell biological mitigation credits? If so, to
whom and what will be the time frame For them to be mitigated?
3.
Will the pr4lect have LEED specifications? And if so, what level will they
achieve?
4.
After the oil extraction in the soil takes place what official agency will sign off on
this process? This is where residential units are to be built. Will the City also be
responsible and ' have liability?
5.
Will all soil remcclial.ion take place before any residential occupancy lakes place
in the Final plan? If not, who will guarantee the future health of this conununil �?
6.
What is the current state of the land as far as degree and scope of contamination?
It is not clear in the tables of (his dEIR.
7.
The walking bridge will have significant, negative impact on Lido Sands. For
.many years all of us have walked clown Superior to the beaches. Ifthe signal is
not safe, then that should be addressed. As was brought up in the last Coastal
Committee meeting, it should be addressed anyway, as many though( it not safe to
cross SUPCI -ior li-onh our new parking lot.If it were deemed safe, then perhaps the
SUOSet Park would have been approved. Perhaps this is where a bridge should be.
8.
As was suggested by EQAC; we should have site line views maps. Will you
include their su estion?
9.
The 60 foot building inhpacts surrounding conhrnunites and changes the look of
West Newport to resemble Costa Mesa. Is that what we are trying to achieve ?Can
adjacent planned couunuoities establish their own heighths? This was given as a
reason to allow the hi Mier buildings. Where is (his slated?
10. Can the City of Newpurt Beach affurd to assume long term liability for this
project and the future health of it's residents?
11.
Specifically, will funds be set aside or additional liability insurance be put in
dace for this potential disaster?
12.
What is the exact description of afforclable housing? Please include the price
range. Will these homes also include LEED designation?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
R: Project s\NewpoMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doc 3 -697 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
13. As suggested in the meeting, the impact on Newport Crest needs to be less than
significant and there should be an alternative. None of the existing alternatives
address this. Why has the City not forced this issue? It seems that the health and
well being of the older community of Newport Crest is to be sacrificed for the
newer development. If the walking bridge is built, this will do the same to Lido
Sands. Shame on the City if it does not protect it's existing citizens and residents
to the fullest. Of course there are many ways to build a community and I hope
that you require the Newport Banning Ranch to build away from the existing
community of Newport Crest and buffer roads and buildings with a large passive
ark. Let them redesign to protect your existing residents.
14. It is your Job to protect us. Please don't let us down.
Sincerely, � 6� z
Tevis Hill
12
13
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -698 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O55b Tevis Hill
November 7. 2011
Response1
A detailed hydrology analysis was prepared as a part of the Draft EIR; please refer to Section
4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Response 2
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 in the Lowland Open Space area has not been established because it would
be subject to the approval of respective regulatory agencies including the USAGE, 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 3
As addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project's Green and Sustainable Program
includes sustainability goals for the Project and measures and design elements to address
these goals. The Applicant's Project objectives include consistency with recognized green
building program standards through the incorporation of green and sustainable project design;
water quality engineering; construction; landscape; and long -term operation and maintenance.
The Project proposes to be designed to be consistent with programs such as the U.S. Green
Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) requirements for
Neighborhood Development. Project Design Feature (PDF) 4.11 -1 states:
The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan and the
Master Development Plan require that the Project 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 Energy and Environmental Design— Neighborhood
Development (LEED- NDTM), California Green Builder, or National Association of
Home Builders' National Green Building Standard.
Response 4
The environmental remediation work would be overseen and approved by both the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board — Santa Ana Region (Santa Ana RWQCB) and the
Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA).
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -699 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 5
Soil remediation would take place throughout the grading of the Project site and potentially after
portions of the Project are occupied. With respect to the concern expressed regarding the
exposure of adjacent residents and future residents that may be near or on -site in the initial
phases of development, the Draft EIR analyzed the impact of soil movement, including
potentially contaminated soils, on sensitive receptors which include both existing off -site and
future on -site 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.
Response 6
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 7
The opinion of the commenter is noted regarding constructing a pedestrian bridge in Sunset
Ridge Park.
Response 8
Both cross- sections and visual simulations are provided in the Draft EIR.
Response 9
A 60 -foot maximum building height is proposed to be allowed only in the Project planning areas
referred to as the Urban Colony which are located adjacent to the City of Costa Mesa's adopted
"Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan" area and adjacent to property owned by the Newport-Mesa
Unified School District which is zoned by the City of Newport Beach as "Public Facilities ". The
City of Costa Mesa "Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan" is a plan to permit development of mixed use
commercial and residential land uses and allows a maximum building height of 60 feet. The City
of Newport Beach's "Public Facilities" zoning district allows for public uses including community
centers, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and
public schools. Newport Beach's Zoning Code allows for building heights for public facilities to
be determined as part of the approval of permits for these projects. The 60 -foot maximum
building height proposed for the Urban Colony portion of the Project is consistent with the
maximum building height allowed on adjacent properties.
A Planned Community Development Plan is proposed as part of the Project. Chapter 20.26.B,
"PC (Planned Community) Zoning District," of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code,
provides that specific development standards, designed to address land use relationships of a
project, including building height standards, may be approved for a PC zoned property through
adoption of a Planned Community Development Plan.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -700 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 10
The Project includes conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 requiring
indemnification of the City by the Project 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.
Responsell
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
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 AM].
• Low Income — 51 to 80 percent of the AM I.
• Moderate Income — 81 to 120 percent of the AMI.
• Above Moderate Income — above 120 percent of the AM].
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.
Prices would be established at the time the Project is constructed.
Response 12
The opinions of the commenter are noted.
RT rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -701 Responses to Environmental Comments
Daniel Johnson
4832 River Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
November 8, 2011
SENT VIA E- MAILAND U.S.P.S.
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Attention: Patrick Alford
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 056
SUBJECT: NEWPORT BANNING RANCH DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
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 and concerns in the official record.
While I acknowledge all the hard work that was put into the development of this DEIR, I also
acknowledge the irreparable and permanent effects of the NBR development as proposed, only some of
which are listed here:
• Loss of natural habitat and reduction and/or elimination of local animal and plant species
• Destruction of ever- disappearing natural coastal scenic resources for the general public 1
• Increase in air, light and noise pollution for existing residents
• Increase in toxic runoff ultimately affecting ocean water quality for existing residents
• Destruction of cultural & historical topography
• Increase in traffic and population density in existing overly dense population area
• Increase in law enforcement activity in adjacent neighborhoods
GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES
The Newport Beach General Plan was developed based on a Visioning process that entailed gathering
input from thousands of city resident volunteers in a process that spanned several years. As a result of
this collective effort 14 major fundamental objectives were established as identified in The Preamble to
The General Plan. The applicable objective was listed as "Supporting efforts to acquire Banning Ranch 2
for permanent open space ". The General Plan prioritizes the acquisition of Banning Ranch as permanent
open space with restoration of oil operation damaged areas and development of nature education
interpretive facilities. While development thresholds were included in the General Plan in the event the
property was not acquired as open space, it should be noted that the objective and priority of the
citizens will not be served by the NBR development. It should also be noted that shortly after the public
approval of the General Plan occurred, the development plans for NBR were initialized.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3istzdac 3 -702 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick
November 8, 2011
Page 2 of 8
REQUEST HI:
Please Provide an extensive listing of specifically what elements of "support" to date has been
Provided by the City of Newport Beach to acquire Banning Ranch for Permanent open space. Short of
receiving any information in this regard,
and council has upheld the stated General Plan commitments to the public they serve in this regard
NBR DEIR COMMENTS
Background
I have owned a home and resided continuously in West Newport adjacent to the proposed NBR
development for the last 19 years, specifically in Lido Sands Community Association (LSCA), and more
specifically on River Avenue. I was also fortunate enough to grow up living in LSCA from 1962 -1982, so
altogether I have been fortunate to live in this area for nearly 50 years. While I have a myriad of
concerns as listed at the outset of this letter which span almost every section of the DEIR, most of my
questions and comments relate to the validity of the NBR DEIR in terms of properly and realistically
measuring a wide variety of impacts on the existing adjacent beach neighborhoods on the coast side of
PCH, which I will refer to in this letter as the West Newport Beach Sub Region (WNBSR).
1. Unique Demographics of WNBSR needs examination under different standards
Section 4.7 of the DEIR discusses population impacts of the NBR development and bases its analyses on
standardized information from a variety of governmental entity sources, including City, County, & SCAG
to derive impact conclusions and validation of compliance to those established standards. West
Newport Beach consists of two (2) miles of high quality maintained public beach surrounded by and
inundated directly adjacent with an extensive proportion of multi -unit residential housing to the degree
that there no longer exists any open land or lots, i.e., the WNBSR is "built out ". It is also an area that is a
highly sought "end destination" for public beach access and usage by local non- resident users within the
county and by tourists from all over southern California and around the world, to such a degree the City
of NB boasts on its website that during the summer months the population "grows by an additional
20,000 - 100,000 tourists daily". As a result of this unique character and extremely high usage of this
WNSSR, the impact of implementing a residential development that would add an additional 3,000+
permanent residents immediately adjacent, with additional access transportation corridors in an already
highly dense population and traffic sub - region must be examined under different standards than
normal development circumstances.
REQUEST 02
Please provide information as to what considerations, adjustments or modifications have been made
to the standardized impact analysis models, to take into consideration the unique existing population
and traffic traits as listed above, in order to properly examine the realistic impact conditions in the
WNBSR of introducing an additional 3,000+ permanent residents into the immediate area and a new
major transportation corridor (Bluff Rpad) with its adjacent terminus. Barring any analytical
conclusions that take into consideration the unique context of the WNBSR in which the proposed
development will reside immediately adjacent to, I respectfully disagree that the population and
traffic impacts on existing residents are anything less than extremely significant
2 cont.
R: Trojects WewpntU015�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -703 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick
November 8, 2011
Page 3 of 8
2. Current Public Beach Access Deficiencies combined with New Adjacent
Terminus of Major Transportation Corridor (Bluff Road)
Based on the unique population density traits as previously described in the WNBSR, the current
facilities for traffic and parking remain extraordinarily deficient under normal circumstances, and
become exacerbated during the summer months with the addition of non - resident tourist beach and
rental property usage. The City has worked hard to deal with balancing the needs of residential parking
with non - residential public beach access; but because of history of over permitting an inordinate
percentage of multi -unit residential within the WNBSR, the area remains mired with density levels too
extreme to accommodate both needs (residential parking & public access). Section 4.9 of the DEIR
discusses the Transportation and Circulation impacts which again basis its analyses on resources that do
not address the specific impacts that will occur in reality within the WNBSR as a result of the NBR
development. One of the main components of the NBR development project is a new transportation
corridor (Bluff Road) with a terminus on PCH directly adjacent to the existinp most heavily impacted
areas of the WNBSR for parking and traffic, as discussed above. The references to resources that form
the basis for rationalization of this new major transportation corridor have little relevance when the
current traffic and parking conditions are taken into account. The DEIR cites a plethora of governmental
programs, such as Congestion Management Plan, SLAG Regional Comprehensive Plan, Regional
Transportation Plan, and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways; however, once again,
based on the unique character of the WNBSR as previously discussed, the introduction of this new major
transportation corridor must be examined under different standards than normal development
analysis circumstances.
REQUEST k3
Please provide information as to what considerations, adjustments or modifications have been made
to the standardized impact analysis models, similar to N2 above, but that also take into consideration
the current existence of the parking and traffic problems described above as the City of Newport
Beach attempts to balance the current (pre -NBR Development) levels of population density. Unless
there are modifications made to the existinft standards to take into consideration the existing densit
levels and current Parking and traffic deficiencies. 1 respectfully disagree that the traffic impacts o
xisting resodents ar thin less tha xtr I sogrifficant.
REQUESTN4
Please provide information as to what alternatives have been explored within the proposed NBR
Development that exclude the development of a maiar transportation corridor terminus onto PCH in
the densely populated WNBSR.
3. Issues Related to Beach Access via River Avenue West of Balboa Blvd
Within the WNBSR, River Avenue west of Balboa, the street I live on, serves as a major beach access
route to some of the world's most popular beaches and surfing areas, from 47'" Street to Prospect
Street, a 2/3 mile stretch of beach spanning 16 Blocks of multiple rows of mainly multi -unit residential.
Based on the "lay of the land" this particular street (River Avenue) provides the easiest access from the
R: TrojectsWewpnM J015�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -704 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick
November 8, 2011
Page 4 of 8
intersection of PCH & Balboa Blvd to this large stretch of beach because it parallel's the beach, provides
easier access to Seashore Drive via the "through" streets at 51" & 54'" Streets; and, also because the
beach access 16 blocks to the west via Seashore Drive is not accessible easterly from the intersection of
PCH & Prospect Street because of its one -way westerly orientation. As such, there exists extraordinarily
high traffic usage and high vehicle speeds relative to the physical width and original intent for River
Avenue, as a residential street. Even in the non - Summer months, a large proportion of the usage in the
WNBSR area is by non - resident visitors accessing the beach along the 16 blocks, which include three
separate City of NB public parking lots; demonstrating that regardless of the bicycle and pedestrian
amenities of the area, most non - resident local users will opt to access the WNBSR by vehicle.
Additionally, beach access usage increases considerably during the summer months. As was referred to
previously, this is an exclusively residential area which as a result of the aforementioned "lay of the
land" dynamics, has become a major beach access route and is plagued by excessive vehicle speeds,
wrong -way drivers, and a high preponderance of stop sign violators subjecting residents (including a
high number of children) to dangerous conditions.
REQUEST 45
As the new transportation corridor proposed in the NBR DEIR (Bluff Road) has its terminus on PCH
approximately 1,000 feet from the intersection of Balboa Boulevard & River Avenue and will
significantly increase the level of beach access traffic via River Avenue, which is already too heavy for
its designed residential usage from a safety standpoint, please provide a listing of mitigation solutions
dealing with traffic and parking alone this major beach access route that will be implemented as a
result of the proposed NBR development. In the absence of any substantive mitigation measures in
this regard. I respectfully disagree that the traffic impacts on existing residents alone River Avenue are
anything less than extremely significant as a result of the NBR development.
REQUESTH6
Please provide information on what studies have been performed relating to the additional traffic
congestion- unsafe vehicle usage and parking deficiencies in the 16 block area from 47'h Street to
Prospect Street that will occur as a result of the proposed major transportation corridor (Bluff Road)
with it terminus approximately 1.000 feet from the intersection of Balboa Boulevard & River Avenue.
4. Law Enforcement & Safety Issues in West Newport
With the proposed NBR development increasing population by 3,000+ permanent residents combined
with the increased visitor access provided by the new major transportation corridor (Bluff Road),
another element of impact is the increased need for law enforcement & safety in the WNBSR. As
standardized studies of new development impacts makes the assumption that related lifestyle activities
impacts will take place within the bounds of the development and be serviced by the development's
amenities and specified internal mitigation devices, Section 4.14 the DEIR related to Public Services and
Facilities does not address the resultant increased level of realistic impacts on the adjacent WNBSR,
which is an "end destination" for non - residents because of the beach /surfing related lifestyle
environment, particularly attractive for teens and young adults. The reality is that this beach /surfing
related lifestyle ( "partying ") environment, and all its related law enforcement and safety issues, will not
exist within the NBR development itself, yet will be easily accessible by teen /young adult demographic
5 cont.
R: Troject sWewpntUO15�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -705 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick
November 8, 2011
Page 5 of 8
proportion of the new NBR permanent residents. This will result in a significant increase of influx into
the WNBSR of the teen /young adult demographic via NBR residents (plus non- residents accessing the
WNBSR via the new major transportation corridor) resulting in an increased need for law enforcement in
the WNBSR related to resultant higher levels of vandalism, burglary, assault & battery, loitering,
property damage, littering, vehicle towing and other like activities predominant with this particular
teen /young adult demographic in the WNBSR.
REQUEST 117
Please provide information on what analyses have been performed to measure the impact of the
increased illegal activities and behavior that would occur in the WNBSR as a result of the addition of
3.000+ permanent residents in the adjacent NBR development and increased visitor access via the
new major transportation corridor (Bluff Road).
REQUEST NS
Please provide specific detail on what mitigation solutions to address the increased criminal and
illegal activity as discussed that will be implemented in the WNBSR as a result of the influx of the
addition of 3,000+ permanent residents in the adjacent NBR development and increased visitor access
via the new major transportation corridor (Bluff Road).
5. Emergency& Law Enforcement Vehicle Siren Noise Impacts on the WNBSR
As previously defined, the WNBSR is located adjacent to PCH and Balboa Boulevard, which appropriately
serve as major corridors for emergency and law enforcement vehicle routing. While emergency and law
enforcement vehicle noise (sirens) is an expected impact given the existing population density, the level
of siren activity incidents and associated noise nuisances will increase substantially with the addition of
the proposed new major transportation corridor (Bluff Road) intersection less than 1000 feet from the
major intersection of PCH and Balboa Boulevard. The intersection of PCH and Bluff Road which will
serve 3,000+ new permanent residents in the proposed NBR development will become another major
corridor for emergency and law enforcement vehicle routing given its path to the closest fire station and
to Hoag hospital. In addition, increased law enforcement activities in the WNBSR as a result of the NBR
development, as described in Item 4 above, will also add to the increased number of incidents
necessitating the use of siren activity.
REQUEST f/9
Please provide information on what analyses have been performed to measure the impact on the
WNBSR neighborhoods of the increased number of emergency and law enforcement vehicle incidents
and resultant increase in siren noise disturbances.
REQUEST f110
Please provide specific detail on what mitigation solutions for the WNBSR residents to address the
increased incidents of emergency and law enforcement vehicle siren noise nuisance activity as a result
of the NBR development.
6 cont.
R: Troject sWewpntUO15�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -706 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick
November 8, 2011
Page 6 of 8
6. Impacts on Lido Sands Community Association (LSCA) private property
As previously mentioned I reside in LSCA, an 82- homeowner association tract directly adjacent to the
coastal side boundary (other side of PCH) from the proposed NBR development, situated laterally
between 47'" & 56'" streets and north to south between River Avenue and PCH. Since its inception in
1957, LSCA has been a self- funded /self- managed homeowner association, and a steward of responsible
high quality neighborhood upkeep in an otherwise unkempt high density transient multi -unit residential
renter environment within the WNBSR. As such, LSCA has been proud to act as long -term allies with the
City its efforts to steadily improve the WNBSR area. Still, the resident homeowners in this area have
been historically burdened with the inherent dynamics of a heavily accessed beachside community due
to its transient rental and "end destination" nature. Specifically, LSCA has historically been burdened
with intrusive impacts such as non - resident illegal parking on the private streets, trespassing into LSCA
Pool /Recreation Center, vandalism of LSCA amenities, and burglary of LSCA homes. These conditions
will be significantly exacerbated by the increased usage load on the WNBSR as a result of the NBR
development, which will introduce 3,000+ new permanent residents adjacent PLUS provide a major
transportation corridor (Bluff Road) with terminus on PCH adjacent to LSCA enabling additional access
from the inland communities.
REQUEST 911:
Please provide specific detail on what analyses has been performed to identify and measure intrusion
impacts as referenced above on LSCA and its homeowner residents as a result of the proposed NBR
development.
REQUEST RI2:
Please provide specific detail an what mitigation solutions the City and /or NBR will make available to
LSCA in order to manage the increased burdens that will be placed upon LSCA as a result of the
proposed NBR development with regards to the increased levels of illegal non - resident Parking,
private property trespassing, vandalism of amenities, and drastically heightened levels of exposure to
air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution on an ongoing and permanent basis.
7. Construction and Other Issues Related to PCH Pedestrian Bridge at 56th Street
The NBR DEIR includes the construction of a pedestrian bridge over PCH that spans from the NBR
development into West Newport Park at 56" Street, which will enable non - vehicle (pedestrian & bicycle)
traffic access into the WNBSR from the proposed NBR development. This proposed construction project
is adjacent to the west end of the LSCA housing tract. As previously mentioned, LSCA was developed in
1957 and pre -dates several roadway improvement projects of PCH which have caused significant impact
upon the neighborhood. Historically, one negative aspect of the road improvements on LSCA has been
positively mitigated by the City in installing a 10' sound wall with landscaping, which mitigated the
negative noise and safety impacts of the road expansion. Other aspects of adjacent construction have
not been mitigated to date, such as the destruction of the LSCA street drainage system caused by the
construction of the roadway improvements resulting in properly working street drains being
inadvertently converted to sumps(i.e., "French drains "). The impact of this particular lack of mitigation
was that storm water surface runoff now pools up during heavy storm seasons, and has historically
R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -707 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick
November 8, 2011
Page 7 of 8
created flood incidents, one of which within the last 10 years flooded several LSCA homes and required
federal flood assistance from PEMA. With the completion of the PCH pedestrian bridge at 56'" Street
there may be other possible impacts that affect portions of LSCA including, but not limited to, ongoing
elements such as safety, noise, visual, vandalism, trespassing, littering, and inadvertent and
unanticipated future negative impacts (e.g., akin to the street drainage system destruction issue
mentioned above).
REQUESTRI3:
Please provide specific detail on what analyses have been performed to identify impacts of building a
pedestrian bridge over PCH at 56' "Street on LSCA related to construction elements and any on- oin
post- construction impacts, including inadvertent or potential unanticipated negative impacts
REQUEST N34:
Please provide specific detail on what mitigation solutions the City and /or NBR will make available to
LSCA in order to manage the increased burdens related to the construction of the pedestrian bridge
over PCH at 56'h Street and any ongoing post- construction negative impacts, including any future
inadvertent or unanticipated negative impacts.
CONCLUDING CONCEPTS & COMMENTS
Again; I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Newport Banning
Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report.
As a 50 -year resident of West Newport I obviously have strong feelings about this how the landscape of
this area is managed as we move into the future, and have front -line experience in living in this area,
experiencing the impact of past changes, and the realities of the significant population density, traffic,
parking and safety /criminal issues we now live with today. The citizens of this City and particularly those
that reside in the WNBSR are the ones that experience the real three - dimensional conditions and
realities of living in this unique portion of Newport Beach, and have more valid and applicable concerns
about the introduction of a huge percentage increase in population, as opposed to those that are
contracted and well paid to put forth nearly 10,000 pages of speculations which are based on invalid and
inapplicable standards that justify an d rationalize the major development of our last remnant of
precious open space. The citizens are also the ones that have overwhelmingly voiced their desire to
retain the Banning Ranch property as Permanent Open Space, as has been clearly identified in the City's
2006 General Plan. The prospect of maxing out the development thresholds (as is detailed in the DEIR)
is the exact opposite direction of what the citizens of Newport Beach communicated to the City during
the Visioning Process and that is what they voted for with the General Plan that was ultimately
developed. As for the City's role, their duty in this regard is listed as a fundamental tenant of the
General Plan, which is to support efforts to acquire Banning Ranch property for permanent open space.
As this NBR development moves forward it reinforces the overwhelming evidence that the City of
Newport Beach Staff and City Council are failing to uphold their stated General Plan commitments to the
public they serve in this regard.
9 cant.
10
R: Troject sWewpntU015�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -708 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick
November 8, 2011
Page 8 of 8
As for the task at hand, the NBR DEIR document in question is theoretically required in order to identify
project specifics, resultant environmental impacts, and mitigation solutions to those impacts. I have
consistently referred to the unique demographics of the WNNSR and understand that an impact report
of substance and value must take into consideration these specifics when measuring real impact.
Despite the extreme volume of the 9/9/11 NBR Draft Environmental Impact Report, it appears to fail on
every level in addressing the real impacts on the existing community, and in particular the densely
populated WNBSR. Not only does it fail to utilize applicable standards of measure, it fails in even
acknowledge the presence of the existing WNBSR community. This is akin to studying New York City and
not acknowledging the existence of Manhattan. How is it that the City constantly struggles in addressing
overwhelming traffic and density problems of the WNBSR, and there is barely a mention of this reality in
the document? This DER has essentially been prepared in a vacuum. The impact of adding 3,000+
permanent residents and a major transportation regional corridor (Bluff Road) that dumps onto PCH
right into the middle of the WNBSR is more extreme than the most significant level on the scale of
impacts.
As a hard working citizen, I do not have the time or resources to address every issue and make
comments on every aspect of this extraordinarily voluminous report, as there are numerous more
elements I have comments and concerns about.
In conclusion, I feel that this report is woefully inadequate in accomplishing the objective of stating
impacts on the environment.
Respectfully your
Daniel hn on
10 cont.
R: Troject sWewpnMJC15�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -709 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 056 Daniel Johnson
November 8, 2011
Response1
The comment is noted.
Response 2
The opinion of the commenter is noted. 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
Please refer to Section 4.0, Transportation and Circulation, which addresses the methodology
used to prepare the Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis is based on current
traffic conditions during the "shoulder" months (outside the peak beach and tourist season) in
accordance with City of Newport Beach General Plan policy; approved and pending future
projects in the area, as identified by the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Huntington
Beach; and the currently adopted City and County street master plans, which reflect SR -55 as a
freeway facility north of 19`h Street, and an arterial street south of 19th Street. The opinions of
the commenter are noted.
Response 4
The traffic and parking issues related to beach access in the West Newport Beach
neighborhood referenced in this comment are acknowledged. The proposed Newport Banning
Ranch Project may contribute a small amount of traffic to the demand for beach access, due to
its proximity. A select link run of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) indicates that, of the
traffic that would use Bluff Road roughly one -half of one percent of that traffic would enter the
River Avenue /Seashore Drive area via Balboa Avenue. This is because of the location of the
Bluff Road connection at West Coast Highway in relation to the Balboa Avenue entrance to the
area. People coming from east Costa Mesa or from the north via Newport Boulevard /SR -55
would be more likely to use Newport Boulevard to go to the beach.
Response 5
Bluff Road is shown on the City of Newport Beach Master Plan as a four -lane Primary Road.
The Project site plan shows Bluff Road connecting to West Coast Highway approximately 960
feet west of Superior Avenue, and connecting to 19`h Street, at the north end of the site.
RT rojedMewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -710 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alternative C in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR shows Bluff Road terminating just north of 17th
Street. The Project proposes a pedestrian and bicycle bridge from the Project site across West
Coast Highway, to facilitate non - vehicular access to the beach. Please also refer to the
response to Comment 4.
Response 6
As described in Section 4.14, Public Services and Facilities, in the Draft EIR, the City of
Newport Beach Police Department was contacted to determine the potential impact of the
Project on police protection services. The Project would increase demand for the City's Police
protection services but would not require the construction of new facilities nor would it require
the expansion of existing facilities that would result in physical vernal impacts. Although the
exact number and frequency of calls cannot be calculated since there is no development is
currently, implementation of the Project is expected to result in an increase in calls for service
for non - residential development. The proposed Project is reflected in the 2006 Orange County
Projections' growth estimates and has been taken into account in long -range planning efforts,
including the Police Department. Based on information received from the Police Department,
police protection services can be provided to the Project site without significantly impacting
existing and planned development within the City. No information from the Police Department
was provided that would indicate an increased demand for police protection services in the
West Newport Beach Sub Region (WNBSR), as defined by the commenter. In addition,
implementation of Standard Conditions 4.14 -4 and 4.14 -5 would ensure adequate police
protection services can be provided to the Project site.
Response 7
The proposed Project would result in an increase in emergency and law enforcement demand;
however, the increased demand as it relates to siren disturbances is considered nominal due to
the short duration of siren noise.
Response 8
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.
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
RT rojedMewpaTJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -711 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
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 9
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
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 10
The opinions of the commenter are noted.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -712 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alford, Patrick Comment Letter 057
From:
Dorothy Kraus Imedjkraus @yahoo coml
Sent:
Monday, October 24, 2011 3.07 PM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Subject:
Newport Banning Ranch DEIR - Comments and questions
Dear Patrick,
We object to the Newport Banning Ranch project as proposed. Please include our comments and
questions below in the records of any and all proceedings relating to this project and its successors.
Regarding SECTION 6.0, LONG -TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT, Sub - Section 6.1 ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE MITIGATED, 1st paragraph under Land Use which states starting with the
fourth sentence as follows:
'The proposed Project would result in a
land use incompatibility with respect to long -term noise and night illumination on those
Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the Project site. The City of
In the first sentence, please specify what Newport Crest residents are assumed to be 'immediately
contiguous' to the project site including street number and street name e.g., 3 Wild Goose Court.
Regarding the underlined sentences above starting with the second sentence, the Banning Ranch DEIR does
not provide a cross - reference to the General Plan Final EIR where the City has approved a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Please provide this cross - reference to the City's General Plan Final EIR for clarity. Also, please provide specific
examples of'other public benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts associated with the
General Plan' including specific benefits that would outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts related to
long -term noise and night illumination to those Newport Crest residents contiguous to the Project site.
II+111
Mike and Dorothy Kraus
10 Wild Goose Court
Newport Beach, CA 92663
R]ProloctslNOwportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512 doc 3 -713 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 057 Dorothy Kraus
October 24, 2011
Response1
The specific residences that would be significantly impacted by noise from Bluff Road traffic
would be determined upon completion of the final design of the roadway and the acoustical
analysis required by Mitigation Measure 4.12 -6 identified in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft
EIR.
Response 2
The General Plan Update's Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are
included in the Staff Report to the City Council dated July 25, 2006. The Staff Report can be
accessed from the City of Newport Beach website. The City of Newport Beach General Plan
Final EIR (SCH No. 2006011119) is available at the City of Newport Beach website at
hftp://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=196.
Response 3
Please refer to the response to Comment 2.
As described in Table 4.9 -31 of the Draft EIR, the development of the proposed Project
implements the City's General Plan Master Plan of Streets and Highways which requires a
Primary Road to be developed connecting West Coast Highway and 191h Street as part of the
development of the Project site. As described in Section 4.12, Noise, the long -term noise
increases at some Newport Crest residences resulting from the operation of the Project would
remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion for noise increase but that with implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.12.7, which provides an opportunity for the retrofitting of impacted
residences with dual pane glass in windows and doors, noise levels would be reduced to an
acceptable level. Because this mitigation measure would be implemented by the Applicant with
the cooperation of residents residing on affected private properties which are not located within
the boundaries of the Project site, the City has no control over the implementation of the
mitigation measure. For this reason alone, the Draft EIR identified noise impacts to certain
residences in Newport Crest would be significant and unavoidable.
Development of the proposed Bluff Road and North Bluff Road as part of the Project consistent
with the City's General Plan would provide public benefit through provision a needed alternative
north /south circulation route to relieve congestion at Superior Avenue as described in the
General Plan. Additionally, the Project benefits the public through a roadway design which
avoids areas of the Project site containing sensitive biological resources and providing for the
restoration of these areas as permanent open space.
As described in the Draft EIR, development of the Community Park would implement the
following City of Newport Beach General Plan Policies:
• Land Use Element Policy LU 6.4.1 — Alternative Use, which provides for active
community parklands within the Project site.
• Land Use Element Policy LU 6.5.2, Active Community Park, which requires development
of the Project site to accommodate a community park of 20 to 30 acres that contains
active playfields that may be lighted to serve adjoining neighborhoods and residents of
the Project, if developed.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -714 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• Recreation Element Policy 1.9, Priority for Facility Provision, which 1) identifies
additional park and recreation facilities that meet the needs as identified by direct
feedback from residents, analysis of future trends, and through observations of the City's
Recreation and Senior Services staff; and 2) which lists a need for development of a 20-
30 acre active community park, with consideration of night lighting, at the Project site.
As described in the Draft EIR on Table 4.8 -1, "Newport Beach Parkland Acreage Needs," there
exists a current park deficiency of 67.7 acres in the City as a whole. With development of the
Sunset Ridge Park this deficiency would be reduced to 48.8 acres. The development of the
approximately 27- gross -acre Community Park as part of the Project would serve to reduce the
City's park acreage deficit to 21.80 acres. Lighting of the proposed Community Park would
provide for active nighttime recreational facilities as identified as needed by residents and City
staff as part of the City's General Plan.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -715 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
oEcEntph
Comment Letter 058a
COMMUNffy
October 30, 2011 NOV 012011
Subject: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR C, "emopmENr
rJ°
Dear Patrick, OFNEyypORt 0
We object to the Newport Banning Ranch project as proposed. Please include our comments
and questions below in the records of any and all proceedings relating to this project and Its
successors.
In reviewing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the CEQA policies and
procedures below related to environmental review procedures, documents, reports, and
administration of the process state the following:
§ 21003. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES;
DOCUMENTS; REPORTS; DATA BASE; ADMINISTRATION OF PROCESS
The Legislature furtherfinds and declares that it Is the policy of the state that:
(b) Documents prepared pursuant to this division be organized and written In a manner
that will be meaningful and useful to decision makers and to the public.
(c) Environmental impact reports omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and emphasize
feasible mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to projects.
15006. REDUCING DELAY AND PAPERWORK
Public agencies should reduce delay and paperwork by:
(n) Reducing the length of Environmental Impact Reports by means such as seltipy
appropriate page limits. (15141)
(o) Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic Environmental Impact Reports. (15142)
(p) Mentioning only briefly issues other than significant ones in EIRs. (15143 )
(q) Writing Environmental Impact Reports in plain language. (15140)
(r) Following a clear formal for Environmental Impact Reports: (15120)
(s) Emphasizing the portions of the environmental Impact Report that are useful to
decision makers and the public and reducing emphasis on background material. (15143)
15140. WRITING
EIRs shall be written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that
decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents.
15141. PAGE LIMITS
The text of draft EIRs should normally be less than 150 pages and for proposals of
Unusual scope or complexity should normallw be less than 300 pages.
15143. EMPHASIS
The EIR shall focus on the significant effects on Hie environment. The significant effects
should be discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of
occurrence. Effects dismissed an Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to
occur need not be discussed further in the EIR unless the Lead Agency subsequently
receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study. A copy of the Initial
Study may be attached to the EIR to provide the basis for limiting the Impacts
discussed.
15123. SUMMARY
(a) An EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -716 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
consequences. The language of the summary should be as Gear and simple as
reasonably practical.
(b) The summary shall identify:
(1) Each significant effect with propos::d mitigation measures an.l alternatives that
would reduce or avnio mat efiecF
(2) Areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency Including issues raised by
agencies and the public; and
(3) Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how
to mitigate the significant effects.
(c) The summary should normally not exceed 15 pages.
The source of this CEQA statute and guideline is:
www.caldaeo.oro /dots /CEQA/CEQAHandbook20l l pdf
which is the source recommended by the state California Natural Resources Agency:
hllp Ucere5 ra gOV /cega/
The Newport Banning Ranch draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) released for public
comment by the City of Newport Beach on September 6, 2011, is a massive and difficult
document to review. The DEIR is over 7,000 pages long including Appendices making it very
difficult to navigate. See below for a page count by section:
Newport Banning Ranch DEIR page counts
0.0 NOA.pdf 117291 PDF File
2
TOC
15
1.0 Executive Summary.pe f 401284 PDF File
64
10.0 Acronyms and Glossary.pdf 194468 PDF File
52
2.0 lntroductlon.pdf 76833 PDF File
12
3.0 Project Descnption.pdf 19192483 PDF File
79
4.0 Environmental Setting.pdf 18766 PDF File
2
4.1 Land Use.pdf 8612223 PDF File
87
4.10Alr Ouaifty.pdf4826927 PDFFIle
42
4.11 Greenhouse Gas Emisslons.pdf 213403 PDF File
40
4.12 Nolse.pdf 9805193 PDF File
b4
413 Cultural and Paleontological Resources.pdf 202931
38
4.14 Public Services and FaeilRles.pdf 3761567 PDF File
39
4.16 Utliltles.pdf 1894894 PDF File
49
4.2 Aeathetics.pcif 4378328 POF File
68
4.3 Geology and Soils.pdf 9773442 PDF File
34
4.4 Hydrology and Water Quallty.pdf 3926062 PDF File
82
4.0 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.pdf 1775445 PDF File
41
4.6 Biological Resources.pdf 18616906 PDF File
117
4.7 Population and Housing.pdf 152989 PDF File
26
4.8 Recreation and Tralis.pdf 13764637 PDF File
44
4.9 Transportation and Clrculatlon.pdf 3433597 PDF File
169
6.0 Cumulative impact Analysis.pdf 6433106 PDF File
89
1 rant
R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -717 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
6.0 Long Term Impllcations.pdf 39866 PDF File 6
7.OAltematives.pdf3488087 PDF Fib 189
8.0 Preparers and Contributors.pdf 19008 PDF File 4
9.0 References.pdf 14
Appendices: 1417
A NOP 283
B Goo and Solis 494
C Hydro and Water 1274
D Haz Mat 167
E Be 624
F Tragic 1929
G AO 391
H Climate 30
1 Noise 226
J Cultural 218
K Fire 149
L Utilities 64
M Cumulative 79
6817 total: 7234
The DEIR is not written in plain language making it unreadable. Furthermore, the DEIR is not
written in a way that is understandable to everyone who reviews the document. Significant
impacts are not clear and concisely presented and are often buried in an Appendix where one
has to wade through massive amounts of supporting detail to weed out the significant impact.
Additionally. the City has not provided any guidelines to facilitate review or construction of
comments
The City has approved the release of a DEIR document that is clearly not following the CEQA
policies and procedures as referenced above. Please provide justification and /or an explanation
as to why the CEQA policies have not been followed with respect to the Newport Banning
Ranch DEIR.
We respectfully request that the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR be rewritten to be compliant with
CEQA policies. Although the lead agency has the responsibility for producing a clear and
objective assessment of each project, the City requires the developer to pay the costs, so
asking for a re -write should not place a burden on taxpayers.
We also request that guidelines for review and comment on the DEIR be included with the
revised DEIR when it is released and that another 60 day review period be granted.
Thank you.
J 4 `��
Mike and Dorothy Kraus
10 Wild Goose Court
Newport Beach, CA 92663
1 Cont.
R:\ Projects \NewpoftU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -718 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O58a Mike and Dorothy Kraus
October 24, 2011
Response1
The opinions of the commenters are noted. Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code
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. The City of Newport Beach provided a 60 -day
public review period.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -719 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter O58b
Alford, Patrick
From:
Dorothy Kraus Imedjkraus @yahoo.com)
Sent:
Saturday, November 05, 20119:34 AM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Subject:
NBR DEIR - Request to Extend Comment Period
Hi Patrick,
As homeowners in Newport Crest who have lived in this current residence for 12 years, we
are requesting that the City extend the deadline for comments on the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR.
Our reasons are as follows:
- The publication of the DEIR for Banning Ranch and comment period has overlapped the Sunset
Ridge Park coastal development application from the City to the California Coastal Commission;
- Both developments are extremely important to us and the future of Newport Crest since both will
have a major impact on our quality of life and property values. We live on the perimeter of Banning
Ranch.
- Many homeowners have been very involved in the Coastal Commission Sunset Ridge Park
application including us, and therefore, have spent less time on the DEIR for Banning Ranch.
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, in our opinion, the process needs to be extended to allow for more quality input.
Thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,
Mike and Dorothy Kraus
10 Wild Goose Court
Newport Beach, CA
R:TrojectsWewpn JC15�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -720 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O58b Mike and Dorothy Kraus
October 30, 2011
Response1
The opinions of the commenters are noted. Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code
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. The City of Newport Beach provided a 60 -day
public review period.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -721 Responses to Environmental Comments
November 8, 2011
Mr. Patrick Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Park
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Patrick,
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 058c
c. - ay
COMMUNITY
NOV 0 @ Zell
C' DEVELOPMENT
o
'C N�nm�•�
We object to the approval of the Newport Banning Ranch project in its present. form. The comments
below and all references contained therein are hereby Incorporated into the City's official record of
proceedings of this project and Its successors.
General
1. The NBR DEIR prepared by Bonterra Consulting is a massive, unreadable, complicated document of
over 7,000 pages, the majority which are Appendices. This raises concerns that the City of Newport
Beach did not conduct an independent analysis of the DEIR prior to release.
Please list the name and title of City experts who Independently reviewed each section of the NBR
DEIR (reference PRC €21082.1, CEQA, Guidelines €1084 (e)).
2. Nowhere in the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR is the Coastline Community College Newport Beach
Learning Center referenced, which began construction well in advance of the release of the NBR
DEIR on September 9, 2011, located at 15'" Street and Monrovia Avenue, and contiguous to the
Newport Banning Ranch property. This college will be fully operational when the Newport Banning
Ranch project begins.
Was the Coastline Community College notified of the release of the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
on September 9, 2011t Should they have been notified?
3. The Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center which is under construction and
located on Monrovia and 15's Street was not included as a'surrounding noise - sensitive receptor
area adjacent to the project site' in DEIR Section 4.12 -10, nor included in Exhibit 4.12-3, 'Proposed
Site Development and Surrounding Land Uses'. it will be open and operating when the NBR project
begins. The Noise analysis does not include this 'noise-sensitive' receptor.
We object to this omission of Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center in this
section and other appropriate sections throughout the NBR DEIR. A revised DEIR needs be
prepared to include an analysis of the environmental Impacts on the people attending the
Coastline Community College Newport Learning Center on a daily basis.
4. The NBR DEIR is inconsistent in stating the approximate project implementation timeline. In the
Noise section, Section 4.12 -14 the timeline is stated as approximately nine years. In the Aesthetics
section, Section 4.2 -17 it is stated as approximately 13 years.
Four years Is a large amount of time difference In light of the significant impacts this project will
have during construction. Is the project duration nine or 13 years? Please explain the
inconsistency.
R: Troject sWewpntU015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -722 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Section 1.0, Executive Summary
S. In Section 1.0, Executive Summary, Sub - section 1.4,'Project Objectives', Project Objective k3, g4,
and 8S describe development 'up to 1,375 residential units', 'up to 75 overnight accommodations',
and 'up to 75,000 square feet of commercial uses'.
The chart below presents density statistics of Orange County developments on coastal property. The
density of the proposed Newport Banning Ranch is extreme in comparison.
Site Acres Residential Units
• Marblehead (San Clemente) 248 313
• Dana Point Headlands 121 118
• Bolsa Chica 2000 349
• Crystal Cove (Newport Coast) 980 635
• Newport Banning Ranch 412 1,375
Why does the NBR project need to be built to the maximum allowed development? Where in the
NBR DEIR is the quantifiable justification for building out this land to the maximum allowed
development described? Why can't the project scope be reduced, for example, by half this size
and still achieve the'Project Objectives'? Please provide an explanation.
6. In Section 1.0, Executive Summary, Sub- section 1.4, 'Project Objectives', Project Objective #16 reads,
'Provide compatibility between the Project and existing adjacent land uses'. The NBR DEIR does not
include how this project objective is met.
Please define the scope of 'compatibility. This Is a term that Is open to Interpretation. In the
context of the NBR DEIR, does 'compatibility' take Into consideration the health and safety of
people living in the 'existing adjacent land uses'?
Please describe how this project objective is met In light of the significant Impacts to adjacent land
uses sited throughout the NBR DEIR Including those sited in the Section below?
Light (DEIR Section 7.0 Alternatives, page 7-4)
Traffic (DEIR Section 7.0 Alternatives, page 7.4 to 7 -5)
Air quality (DEIR Section 7.0 Alternatives, page 7 -S)
Noise (DEIR Section 7.0 Alternatives, page 7-6)
7. Section 1.0 Executive Summary, Sub - section 1.5, Project Alternatives, does not include Project
Alternative that assures 'less than significant' impacts for 'significant unavoidable' impacts identified
in the DEIR (such as noise, lighting and air quality) for Newport Crest residents during the nine -year
long development and ongoing after project completion.
At the October 17, 2011 EQAC meeting where EQAC reviewed and discussed their comments, EQAC
stated that the DEIR failed to examine an additional Project Alternative that betters 'Significant
unavoidable' Impacts on Newport Crest to 'less than significant'.
Please ensure that the Project Alternatives section(s) of the DEIR is expanded in the revised NBR
DEIR to Include an additional Project Alternative such as described above and requested of EQAC
at the October 17, 2011 meeting with appropriate supporting analysis, data, and documentation.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3isizdac 3 -723 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
8. Section 1.0, Executive Summary; page 1 -28: Regarding Threshold 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 as follows:
Threshold 4.3-1: 'Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
Including the risk of loss, injury, or death from rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known faulty
f
Threshold 4.3-2: 'Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
Including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?'
Where in the NBR DEIR is there an analysis and supporting data that proves that people in proposed
NBR project and surrounding communities can safely evacuate NBR and surrounding communities in
the event of a natural disaster such as an earthquake or tsunami?
9. Section 1.0, Executive Summary, Section 4.3, Geology and Solis page 1 -28, MM 4.3 -1 and MM 4.3 -2
read as follows:
MM 4.3 -1' The Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport Beach Community Development
Department, Building Division Manager, a site - specific, design -level geotechnical investigation prepared
by a registered geotechnical engineer. The investigation shall comply with all applicable State and local
code requirements:
r
MM 4.3- 2'Prior to the approval of any applicable final tract map, the Applicant shall have completed by
a qualified geologist, additional geotechnical trenching and field investigations and shall provide a
supplemental geotechnical report to confirm the adequacy of Project development fault setback limits.'
What obligation does the City have to proactively notify Newport Beach residents of the results of the
investigation and report referenced in these mitigation measures? What local, state and /or federal
regulations are in place to ensure that the public is adequately notified of these studies in a timely
manner?
10. Section 1.0, Executive Summary, Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, page 1 -28; reference the
'Environmental Impacts /Level of Significance Before Mitigation' which corresponds with Threshold
4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 which reads as follows:
The Project site is in a seismically active area with faults within the proposed development area that
could not be proven to be inactive. Habitable structures on the Project site near these faults are subject
to fault setback zones and seismic design parameters that would appropriately address seismic building
standards. Impacts associated with surface fault rupture and seismic shaking would be mitigated to a
level considered less than significant with the Incorporation of fault setback zones (which may be
refined after additional trenching data becomes available). Potentially Significant Impact'
Why is the 'Level of Significance After Mitigation "Less Than Significant' when the impact is stated as
'Potentially Significant Impact'? Shouldn't the'Level of Significance After Mitigation' be 'Significant
Impact' until analysis and reports are available to prove. otherwise?
Please provide a justification for stating the 'Level of Significance After Mitigation' as 'Less than
Significant' considering data doesn't yet exist to prove this out.
R:TrojectsWewpn JO15�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -724 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
11. Section 1.0, Executive Summary, Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, page 1 -31, SC 4.4 -5
reads:
'A list of "good housekeeping" practices shall be incorporated into the long -term post- construction
operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants could impair water quality. The WQMP
shall list and describe all structural and non - structural BMPs.'
What are 'good housekeeping practices'? Please provide an example of a list of 'good practices' that
were Implemented post - construction for a completed project comparable in size and scope to the
proposed NBR development in order to provide evidence that sufficient safeguards will In fact be In
place to minimize likelihood pollutants Impairing water quality.
12. Section 1.0, Executive Summary, Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, page 1 -34
Threshold 4.5 -3 reads:
'Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school ?' (underlined for
emphasis(
The 'Environmental Impacts /Level of Significance Before Mitigation' corresponding with Threshold 4.5 -3
reads: There would be a less than significant impact to the existing schools within'' /. -mile of the Project
site and /or from offsite haul routes during on -site remedial activities and proposed Project construction.
There would be no impact to existing schools within Y. -mile of the Project site from proposed Project
operations as continued oil operations are proposed to be limited to two consolidated oil facilities
located along the southwestern portion of the Project site. Less Than Significant Impact'
The Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center located at 15'h Street and Monrovia
has been planned /proposed for years, and under construction for several months, and will be fully
operational when the NBR project begins. This school Is within Y< mile of project remedial activities so
the Impact statement above is erroneous. The DEIR fails to address the Impacts of this Threshold to
Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center. Please update this section of the NBR
DEIR to address Impacts.
Section 3.0, Project Description, Exhibit 3 -18 and Table 3 -3, Proposed Implementation Plan
13. Section 3.0, Project Description, Exhibit 3 -18 and Table 3 -3, Proposed Implementation Plan lays out
the proposed Implementation plan for 3 Sequencing Areas as follows:
Sequencing Area 1
Schedule Start Finish 1
Site Remediation 2/2015 Prior to Occupancy
Grading and Improvements 8/2015 5/2016
Construct Models and Homes 2/2016 9/2016
Occupancy 10/2016 10/2018
R: Fro juts Wewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -725 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Sequencing Area 2:
Schedule Start Finish
Site Remediation 2/2015 Prior to Occupancy
Grading and Improvements 8/2017 5/2018
Construct Models and
Homes 2/2018 9/2018
Occupancy 10/2018 1/2021
Sequencing Area 3:
Schedule Start Finish
Site Remediation Complete Complete
Improvements 8/2019 5/2020
Construct Models and
Homes 2/2020 9/2020
Occupancy 10/2020 12/2024
Upland and Lowland Open
Space Restoration/ Oil
Operations Consolidation 2/2015 12/2024
This timeline is misleading and difficult to understand because some 'Schedule' phases are described
as'Complete' for Start and Finish, some state 'Prior to Occupancy' for Finish, and others have actual
Start and Finish dates.
To clarify when the Schedule phases are expected to COMPLETE, please Include a third column to the
each Sequencing Area table labeled 'Complete'and indicate when the Schedule phase is Complete by
checking the cell or inserting the 'Complete' date.
What is the scope and definition of 'Improvements' stated under'Schedule' in Sequencing Area 3?
Section 4.12, Noise
14. Section 4.12, Noise, page 4.12 -15 to 4.12 -16 states that construction noise would result in
temporary substantial noise (underlined for emphasis) increases at Carden Hall School, Newport
Crest, California Seabreeze, Parkview Circle, Newport Shores, etc.
The discussion goes on to describe mitigation measures such as including barriers that would not be
effective beyond first floor of residents in the impacted communities. Other impacts from grading and
construction as described in this section of the DEIR include lost views, and prevention of air circulation
such as flow of ocean breezes. Mitigation measures itemized include proper maintenance of machinery,
and notification to residents and schools about construction noise levels which will be made In advance
so people can plan their activities to avoid the disruption created by the noise.
We have grave concerns that the NBR DEIR characterizes these significant unavoidable Impacts as
'temporary'. Section 3.0, Project Description, Exhibit 3 -18, Table 33, Proposed Implementation Plan .
provides the proposed timeline for Sequencing Areas 1, 2, and 3.
Looking at the Start and Finish dates for the 3 Sequencing Areas combined, the durations of 'Schedule'
activity e.g., remediation, grading and improvement, construction is multiple years in duration which
Is hardly'temporary'.
3 Cont.
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izaoe 3 -726 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
What rationale is being used by City and Applicant to Justify that surrounding residents and schools
should accept that they 'plan their activities to avoid disruption created by noise', put up with
ineffective noise barriers, lost views and potential loss of ventilation from ocean breezes due to noise
barrier, and contaminated air for several years? (Underlined for emphasis)
The City and Applicant need to evaluate other alternatives to mitigate the years -long effect of these
significant Impacts to residents, schools and business adjacent to the proposed NBR project.
Furthermore: Mitigation Measure MM 4.12 -1, Section 1, Executive Summary, page 1 -52 reads: 'Grading
plans and specifications shall include temporary noise barriers for all grading, hauling, and other heavy
equipment operations that would occur within 300 feet of sensitive off -site receptors and would occur
for more than 20 days'.
NBR DEIR Section 4.12, page 4.12 -16 states that 'Noise reduction by a barrier depends upon the barrier
Interrupting the line of sight between the noise source and the receiver. Therefore, the barriers
prescribed by MM 4.12 -1 would provide noise reduction for exterior and first floor receptors but would
provide little or no noise reduction for second floor or higher receptors.' (Underlined for emphasis)
This mitigation measure does not resolve the problem for second and third floor receptors which exist
In many communities contiguous to and surrounding the project. Why weren't second and third floor
receptors analyzed for impact in the DEIR?
The NBR DEIR needs to be revised to consider other effective mitigation measures during construction
and grading to minimize these noise Impacts over several years to second and third floor receptors.
This section goes on to state: 'Although feasible, the Implementation of MM 4.12 -1 could result in
temporary impacts not related to noise. The barriers may block residents' views, may prevent the
normal air circulation, such as the flow of ocean breezes, and may be aesthetically undesirable.
Implementation of MM 4.12 -1 could also provide benefits by abating dust movement that might escape
the dust control measures described in Section 4.10 Air Quality (underlined for emphasis).
This leads one to believe that the dust control measures described In Section 4.10 aren't effective, and
that the DEIR relies on other mitigation measures to resolve the dust movement Impact.
Please expand on under what scenario dust control measures would be ineffective and how noise
barriers described In MM 4.12 -1 would 'abate'dust movement that escapes another mitigation
measure?
15. NBR DEIR Table 4.12 -12 "Future Noise Levels at Newport Crest Residences" shows exterior noise
levels with mitigation measures including 6 to 8 ft. walls at the Newport Crest Rear Property Line.
However, on Pg. 4.12 -25 it is stated: "Based on the data in Table 4.12 -13 and the above analysis,
MM 4.12-6 requires the construction of noise barriers that would reduce ground floor exterior noise
levels to 60 dBA CNEL or less and second floor exterior noise levels to 65 dBA CNEL or less. Assuming
a typical 20 dBA exterior -to- interior noise reduction with windows closed. the interior noise levels
from exterior sources would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL for rooms facing Bluff Road /15th Street. The
interior noise levels for the Newport Crest Condominiums would not exceed the State interior noise
level standard for the siting of new attached residences. MM 4.12 -.6 requires a detailed acoustical
analysis that would occur after the final design of Bluff Road."
15
16
17
18
19
R: Troject sWewpnMJO15�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -727 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
That the NBR DEIR assumes "windows closed" due to exterior noise to reduce interior noise at
Newport Crest Is unacceptable and unreasonable. How could the City and Applicant expect that
residents in a premier beach community keep their'windows closed'to reduce Interior noise from
exterior noise sources generated by the proposed NBR development? Please explain this rationale.
Why Isn't the City and Applicant including other alternatives Including reduction in overall project
size? An additional analysis to mitigate exterior noise needs to be conducted and Included in a
revised draft DEIR.
The description of second floor balcony sound barriers for Newport Crest is vague. Please provide an
acoustical analysis data model that Includes sound barrier styles, materials and general description.
Waiting for an acoustical analysis Is not realistic. Please conduct research and produce data that gives
people an Idea of materials used for these types of sound barriers.
16. Page 4/12 -25 and Table 4/12 -13 discusses various sizes and locations of sound barrier walls along
Newport Crest perimeter to reduce noise caused Bluff Road traffic.
Why does Bluff Road need to be a 4-lane 50 mph highway? According to the City of Newport Beach's
General Plan Circulation Element Pgs. 7.4.7.5, a primary arterial highway (such as Bluff Road) Is
usually a four -lane divided highway with a daily capacity ranging from 35,000 to 50,000 with a typical
daily capacity of 40,000 vehicles per day.
Why wasn't an alternate less Impactful road design considered which would have significantly less
noise Impact on surrounding communities?
Why can't Bluff Road be designed below grade with the 12' sound barrier wall located at Bluff Road
which would be less noise intrusive to Newport Crest and other adjacent residents and schools? Was
this'below grade' road alignment analyzed? If not, why not?
17. The NBR DEIR Noise Section states that NBR residential and hotel units will be built with air
conditioning provided by the NBR developers. On Pg.4.12 -13 it states: "Prior to granting of a building
permit, the Developer /Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport Beach Community
Development, Building Division Manager or his /her designee for review and approval architectural
plans and an accompanying noise study that demonstrates that interior noise levels In the habitable
rooms of residential units due to exterior transportation noise sources would be 45 CNEL or less.
Where closed windows are required to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL limit Protect plans and
specifications shall include ventilation plans as required by the California Building Code."
From the above, the NBR developers will cover costs for air conditioning for their noise affected
residential units. Why isn't the Applicant offering to pay for air conditioning for affected Newport
Crest units, and only offering sound wall barriers and double plane windows?
18. In a 2007 study conducted by'Medscape News Today, entitled'Noise Pollution, A Modern Plague:
Adverse Effects of Noise', seven categories of adverse health effects of noise pollution on humans Is
discussed:
• Hearing Impairment
• Interference with Spoken Communication
9 cont.
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -728 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
• Sleep Disturbances
• Cardiovascular Disturbances
• Disturbances in Mental Health
• Impaired Task Performance
• Negative Social Behavior and Annoyance Reactions
Here is the link to this study: lip Y /www . medscapr- .rem /viewartjrle /55x566_3.
The NBR DEIR does not address the health and well -being of people impacted by the effects of noise
resulting from grading and construction activities during this nine -year long NBR development project
and the ongoing traffic volume noise from Bluff Road, such as those health effects listed above.
This is unacceptable and the City and Applicant need to provide more reasonable, realistic and health
conscious mitigation to reduce the impact of construction activity noise and ongoing traffic volume
noise from Bluff Road on all people (adults and children) impacted, and also consider the implication
of ignoring people's health in the proposed design of this project.
Section 4.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
19. Section 4.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Exhibit 4.2 -5a, View 3, Resort Colony: Resort Flats:
What existing buildings and /or communities will be visually blocked by the proposed Resort
Colony and /or lose their existing views?
20. At the October 17, 2011 ECAC meeting where EQAC reviewed and discussed their comments, EQAC
stated that the DEIR failed to adequately address the negative visual impacts that the NBR project
will have on surrounding communities including lost ocean views from Newport Crest. Additionally,
EQAC commented that 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.
EQAC requested that the Applicant provide site line view simulations to incorporate Impacts to
surrounding communities such as Newport Crest. Please ensure that this documentation Is
completed by the Applicant In the revised DEIR as requested by EQAC.
21. At the October 17, 2011 EQAC meeting where EQAC reviewed and discussed their comments, EQAC
questioned why Bluff Road needs to be 4lanes wide where traffic will be fast, generate noise
impacts and create visual impacts.
Why does Bluff Road need to be so close to the Newport Crest community? North Bluff Road is
located over 300 feet from California Seabreeze, and % L I I ,h Bluff Road is a smaller less traveled
road than Bluff Road. Bluff Road Is as close as 22' to Newport Crest (see Exhibit 4.1 -2g, Central
Community Park Interface with Newport Crest' enclosed at end of this document).
The NBR DEIR failed to examine an alternate road to Bluff Road to reduce the impacts to
surrounding communities. EQAC asked that an alternate road plan to Bluff Road be designed.
Please Include an alternative Bluff Road plan into the revised NBR DEIR as requested by EQAC.
21 cant
22
23
24
R: 1Projects\NewportU0151RTQRTC- 031512 doc 3 -729 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
22. Section 4.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources, page 4.2 -17, Grading and Construction, paragraph 3
starting with sentence:
To the extent feasible, all grading would be balanced on site. However, an estimated 25,000 cy of
export is assumed for removing remediated materials that are not suitable for retention on site.'
What are the facts and analysis that this assumption of 25,000 cy of export Is based on? In the project
timeline, when will the Applicant know for certain what the estimated amount of export will be?
What are the parameters and criteria that this final cubic yards of export estimate will be based on?
The last sentence is this section reads: 'During construction, there would be views of construction
equipment, ongoing construction activities, and stockpiles of building materials on the Project site.
Views of construction activities are typical for projects located In an urban environment with
surrounding development'.
This project is several years in duration and it is unacceptable to 'conclude' that this Is 'typical' for
projects located in an urban environment. The DEIR should examine other alternatives to 'stockpiling'
etc. given the length of this project and Impacts to surrounding communities.
Please also provide examples of comparable projects with data, analysis, and visuals that make the
NBR project 'typical' In comparison i.e., prove out the stated conclusion.
Section 4.8 Recreation and Trails
23. Section 4.8, Recreation, page 4.8 -11, the North Central Parkas addressed as follows:
The North Community Park area (Site Planning Area 7c) is proposed east of North Bluff Road between
15th Street and 16th Street. As depicted on Exhibit 4.8 -3, North Community Park
Development Plan, the 13.5- net -acre North Central Park area is proposed to include the following
recreational uses:
0 6 tennis courts (lighted),
0 3 soccer fields (lighted)
0 1 basketball court (lighted)
0 1 youth baseball fields and 1 youth /adult softball field overlaid on the 3 soccer fields
0 (noted above).
0 Potential picnic area or skateboard park,
0 2tot lots. and
0 1 Fitness /oar course. (Underlined for emphasis)
In addition to the Identified proposed uses, the North Community Park is proposed to include public
restroom facilities trails, and seating areas. Approximately 274 off - street public parking spaces would
be provided in 2 locations within the North Community Park area. A small parking area (approximately
1.9 spaces) would be constructed with ingress /egress from 16th Street The remainder of the parking
(approximately 155 spaces) would be provided alone the western boundary of the park with
ingress /egress from North Bluff Road.' (underlined for emphasis)
Furthermore, Section 4.8 -12, Recreation, paragraph 1 describes the Central and South Community Park
Areas as follows:
25
IK1
R:TrojectsWewpn JO15�RTMRTC- 0315izdac 3 -730 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
'The Central and South Community Park areas would be located east of Bluff Road and
15th Street. These components of the Community Park would not have improved ball fields or courts
and could function as a continuation of the City's approved but not constructed Sunset Ridge Park. As
depicted on Exhibit 4.8 -4, Central Community Park Development Plan, the 4.4-net-acre Central
Community Park area (Site Planning Area 7b) would include picnic areas and open turf areas (no
improved Play flelds or courts) A parking area (approximately 25 parking spaces) would be provided as
part of the Central Community Park area to replace the off -site office building's parking spaces that
would be removed to allow for the extension of 15th Street between Monrovia Avenue and the Project
site. This parking would be in addition to the Community Park public parking and is proposed to be
accessible to park users during nonbusiness hours.' (underlined for emphasis)
Then, Section 4.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources, page 4.2 -39, beginning with paragraph 2 reads:
'Residences near the active areas of the proposed Community Park may also be adversely impacted by
night lighting. As a result, the proposed Project would result in a land use incompatibility with respect to
long -term noise and air quality impacts and night illumination on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the Project site'. (Underlined for emphasis)
Exhibits NBR DEIR 4.1 -2f, 4.1 -2g, 4.1 -2h, and 4.8 -3 are Included at the end of this document for
reference and emphasis.
Based on these exhibits the project comes right to the border of Newport Crest with zero buffer
between the Crest and the Community Park. Then the 44ane primary highway, Bluff Road, then the
North Community Park, including the sports fields, restrooms, and surrounding parking lots.
Where in Newport Beach Is there a comparable residential project . with roads and public parks of the
size and magnitude of the proposed NBR that abuts right up to other prior existing residential
propert(ies)? Please provide example(s) of these comparable existing residential communities where
public parks abut /border other residential communities.
The NBR DEIR fails to examine other alternatives to better the'significant unavoidable Impacts' sited
above in the DEIR to'less than significant' for Newport Crest and other surrounding communities,
residents, schools and businesses.
The NBR DEIR needs to be revised to include other park and roadway alternatives that reduce the
'significant unavoidable Impacts' of light, noise and air quality to 'less than significant'. Effective
mitigation measures and alternatives (e.g., more open space, reduced scope of active sports park,
reduced parking, reduced roadway system) all need to be considered.
Furthermore, there is no reference or project design consideration that addresses the health and
safety of surrounding residences with the Introduction major safety risit factors associated with public
parks, parking lots /parking, public restrooms, and roadways . in such close proximity to existing
residential communities.
The NBR DEIR also needs to be revised to reflect park and roadway design(s) that include safety and
protection elements against the threat of home Invasion and related criminal incidents that will occur
10
26 Cont.
27
28
29
R: Troject sWewpnMJO15�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -731 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
with the Introduction of parks, roads, restrooms and parking lots that border right up to the Newport
Crest property and other surrounding schools, communities, and businesses.
24. Section 4.8, Recreation, page 4.8 -6, third paragraph states:
'As identified in the City's General Plan, the fastest growing recreational demand in Newport Beach is
the need for additional sports fields. The City has identified a citywide park deficiency of 67.7 acres 53.4
acres of which Is In Service Area 1 West Newport (this number excludes beach recreation acreagem with
the inclusion of beach acreage there Is not a citywide deficit) With the beach inclusion, there still
remains a 19.4-acre Park deficiency in the West Newport Service Area (Underlined for emphasis)The
Project site is located in Service Area 1. Table 4.8 -1 identifies parkland in the City of Newport Beach
including West Newport. The City's General Plan identifies three planned parks— Newport Coast, West
Newport, and Newport Center —which would help alleviate the deficiency. Of the three parks, a park in
Newport Coast (Coastal Peak Park) has been completed and a park in West Newport (Sunset Ridge Park)
and a park in Newport Center Civic Center) have been approved but not constructed:
Why is beach recreation acreage excluded from the 'City Identified park deficiency of 67.7 acres'? If
beach acreage doesn't 'qualify' as park acreage In the scheme of Newport Beach park acreage analysis
why is It mentioned at all?
25. Section 4.8, Recreation, page 4.8 -11, the North Central Park is addressed as follows:
'The North Community Park area (Site Planning Area 7c) is proposed east of North Bluff Road between
15th Street and 16th Street. As depicted on Exhibit 4.8 -3, North Community Park
Development Plan, the 13.5- net -acre North Central Park area is proposed to include the following
recreational uses:
0 6 tennis courts flighted).
0 3 soccer fields (lighted)
0 1 basketball court fllghtedl.
a 1 youth baseball fields and 1 youth /adult softball field overlaid on the 3 soccer fields
0 (noted above).
0 Potential Picnic area or skateboard park
0 2 tot lots, and
a 1 Fitness /oar course. (Underlined for emphasis)
In addition to the Identified proposed uses, the North Community Park is proposed to include public
restroom facilities trails, and seating areas. Approximately 274 off - street public parking spaces would
be provided In 2locations within the North Community Park area. A small Parking area (approximately
19 spaces) would be constructed with ingress /egress from 16th Street The remainder of the parking
(approximately 155 soacesl would be Provided alone the western boundary of the park with
ingress /egress from North Bluff Road' (underlined for emphasis)
The list of recreational uses above seems extreme. Where is the analysis and supporting data that
demonstrates the need for all of these 'recreational uses' for this one park? Why hasn't a reduced
park design with fewer recreational uses been considered in light of the significant unavoidable
Impacts this park will have on surrounding communities?
Section 4.8 -9 to 30, starting with sub - section 4.8.7, Environmental Impacts 3rd to last paragraph reads:
11
29 coot.
30
31
32
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- 03isizdac 3 -732 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
'Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Chapter 19.52). which requires 5 acres of
parkland for every 1.000 residents, the park requirement for the Project would be 1S.06 acres as shown
in Table 4.8 -2.
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.
Therefore, while the City's Park Dedication Ordinance would require 15.06 acres of park or the payment
of in -lieu fees. the City's General Plan requires a 20- to 30 -acre community park on the Newport Banning
Ranch Property, although the General Plan does not obligate the Applicant to develop a park exceeding
Park Dedication Ordinance requirements. However, the General Plan requires that sufficient acreage be
available on the property to comply with the General Plan. (underlined for emphasis)
Parks
The Project proposes to meet its parkland obligations through the provision of approximately 51 .4 gross
(42.1 net) acres of public parks including an approximately 26.8- gross -acre (21.7- net -acre) Community
Park; an approximately 20.9 - gross -acre (17.5- net -acre) Bluff Park; approximately 3.7 gross (2.9 net)
acres of Interpretive Parks; and bicycle, multi -use, and pedestrian trails (refer to PDFS 4.8 -1, 4.8 -2, and
4.8 -3). The proposed parks are depicted on Exhibit 4.8 -2, Parklands, and are identified on Table 4.8 -3.'
Based on what is presented above, the Applicant Is only obligated to include approximately 15 acres
of public parks on NBR but will meet Its parkland obligation through provisioning approximately 51.4
acres.
Why can't the Central and North Community Parlor that border Newport Crest be designated passive
open space nature preserves? This is approximately 10 acres less than 51.4 being offered by the
Applicant so the Applicant would still be within Park Dedication Ordinance Requirements?
26. Section 4.8, Recreation
At least three sources for 'park requirements' are referenced in the NBR DEIR and which are used to
baseline the Applicant /developer's'obligation' to provide park space on the project. The three sources
referenced are:
• Park Dedication Ordinance Requirements;
• Quimby parkland requirements;
• City of Newport Beach General Park Requirement.
It is unclear as to what the developer /Applicant Is truly 'obligated' to provide in terms of park acreage
requirements on the proposed NBR project.
In easy to read and understandable terms, please explain the scope and definition of each of these
'requirements' sources above.
Please also clarity the baseline /'must -have' park acreage requirement that the developers are
obligated to supply for the proposed NBR project.
12
32 cont.
33
R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o315izdac 3 -733 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
There is no mention of'passive'vs.'active' park requirements in the NBR DEIR. 'Passive'and 'Active'
are terms that are open interpretation. Please define each term to better understand the make -up of
parkspace on the proposed NBR project.
Are the requirements for'passive' vs.'active' park space delineated In the three sources mentioned
above? If not delineated in the three sources above, what are the criteria used for Including'active'
vs. 'passive' parks In the proposed NBR project.
What Is the obligation of the developer /Applicant to develop 'passive' and 'active' parks on the
proposed NBR project, or is it at the discretion of the developer /Applicant?
27. Section 4.8, Recreation, page 4.18 -.15, top of page reads:
'As depicted on Exhibit 4.8 -18, Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, the bridge is proposed as a steel truss
structure without supports or piers in West Coast Highway. The bridge span is approximately 260 feet
long with a minimum vertical clearance over West Coast Highway of approximately 20 feet. The
northern (Inland) landing structure of the bridge would be in South Bluff Park and would connect (by a
ramp) directly to the multi-use trail within South Bluff Park.
The southern landing structure for the pedestrian and bicycle 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 beach:
Additionally, Section 4.8; Recreation, page 4.18 -15, paragraph 3 reads:
'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
permanent is placement of 1.050 square feet (sf) of Parkland at West Newport Park associated with the
bicycle and pedestrian bridge would be mitigated by the Project's exceedance of mandated park
requirements. (Underlined for emphasis)
There is not any analysis or supporting data that justifies the construction of this bridge and landing
structure with an elevator. What about the 3 signals (2 existing and one proposed as part of the NBR
project) along West Coast Highway, Including Superior, the proposed Bluff Road, and Prospect Avenue
for pedestrian and bicycle use? Please provide analysis and supporting data that justifies the need for
a pedestrian bridge to include parameters such as current and projected foot and bicycle traffic to
substantiate the analysis.
The Applicant'concludes'that the construction of pedestrian bridge and landing structure and
displacement of 1,050 square feet of existing West Newport Park Is reconciled by the Project's
exceedance of mandated park requirements. Again, what is analysis and data that supports this
conclusion?
Additionally, there Is no mention of the Impacts that the construction of this bridge and landing
structure will have on surrounding adjacent communities, residents and businesses other than
inability to use West Newport Park tennis courts during construction. Please provide an Impact study
that takes Into consideration noise, air quality, traffic, lighting, etc. during construction and after
completion of the pedestrian bridge and landing structure.
13
33 cont.
34
35
R: Troject sWewpnMJO15�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -734 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
What are the aesthetic impacts that will result during construction of this bridge and landing
structure, and for how long? Where will construction vehicles and equipment be located?
28. Section 4.8, Recreation, page 4.17, Sub-Section 'Beaches' at top of page reads:
'Because public access to the coastline is limited. the Proiect would increase usage of the local beaches
by Providing direct access to the beach from the Proiect site and points north of the Proiect and
introducing more people into the region' (Underlined for emphasis)
What analysis and supporting data substantiates this statement that: 1) ..public access to the
coastline is limited; 2) the (NBR) Project would increase usage of the local beaches by providing direct
access to the beach from the Project site?
Also, does the Applicant believe that Introducing more people Into the region Is a benefit to Newport
Beach? Why?
29. Section 4.8, Recreation, page 4.8 -19, Table 4.8-4, 'City of Newport Beach General Plan Consistency
Analysis'.
Under column heading'City of Newport Beach General Plan Relevant Goals, Policies, and Programs', LU
Policy 6.2.5 Neighborhood Supporting Uses Reads: 'A living, active, and diverse environment that
complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods without compromising the valued resources
that make Newport Beach unique It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents
(underlined for emphasis). sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors
that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting,
resources, and quality of life'.
Then under column heading 'Consistency Analysis' for LU 6.2.5 reads:
The Project is consistent with this policy. As depicted on Exhibit 3.3 in Section 3.0, and Exhibit 4.8 -2, the
proposed public parks are near proposed residential areas and existing off -site residential areas
including but not limited to the Newport Crest Condominiums and Newport Knolls Condominiums. The
proposed off - street multi -use trails, on- street bike trails, and pedestrian paths would provide a means to
travel through the Project site and to off -site locations without the use of a vehicle. Please also refer to
Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs.'
We object that the proposed NBR project Is consistent with LU Policy 6.2.5 because It does not
enhance the Newport Crest condominium neighborhood given the significant unavoidable impact that
the Community Park will have on the residents of Newport Crest in the form of noise and lights sited
In the NBR DEIR. Please explain why the Applicant and the City believe that this project Is consistent
with LU Policy 6.2.5 given the Impacts.
In closing, we wish to express our disappointment and consternation that the City of Newport Beach has
so blatantly dismissed the negative Impacts that the proposed NBR project will have on adjacent
communities such as Newport Crest. Throughout the NBR DEIR, the Applicant chooses to 'explain away'
the serious health and safety impacts that will result from this project, and other impacts such as traffic,
noise, and lights that will do nothing to enhance the quality of life or appeal of this wonderful and
unique coastal city.
14
35 cont.
36
37
38
R:TrojectsWewpn JC15�RTMRTC- o315izdoe 3 -735 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Therefore, we respectfully request of the City of Newport Beach that the NBR DEIR be re- written to
reflect additional alternatives that will lessen or eliminate these impacts, and that another 60 day
review period is granted for public review and comments.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely, ` f?-' — —
Mike and Dorothy Kraus
10 Wild Goose Court
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Enclosures
is
38 cont.
R: \Projeots wewportUO151RTCC\RTC- o3lsizdoc 3 -736 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter O58c Mike and Dorothy Kraus
November 8, 2011
Response)
Preparers and contributors to the Draft EIR are identified in Section 8.0 of the Draft EIR.
Response 2
The Draft EIR addresses the proposed Project's compatibility with the Coast Community
College District's Newport Beach Learning Center. Most specifically refer to Section 4.1, Land
Use and Related Planning Programs, pages 4.1 -36 and -37.
Response 3
The noise section has been revised and is incorporated of the Final EIR to include the Coastline
Community College Newport Beach Learning Center in the listing of sensitive receptors.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.12 -1, which is included in the Project to reduce construction
noise to sensitive noise receptors, would also be applicable to the Learning Center. Long -term
traffic noise levels from 15th Street or Monrovia Avenue would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL.
Normal school construction would provide noise reduction adequate to reduce traffic noise to
levels that would not interfere with academic activities. Exhibit 4.12 -3 has also been updated.
Activities usually associated with sensitive receptors include, but are not limited
to, talking, reading, and sleeping. Land uses often associated with sensitive
receptors include residential dwellings, hotels, hospitals, day care centers, and
educational facilities. The surrounding noise - sensitive receptors adjacent to the
Project site are described below and shown in Exhibit 4.12 -3.
..East., Residential developments, including single - family residences on the
southwestern corner of 17th Street and Monrovia Avenue; multi - family
residences and mobile homes on 15th Street west of Placentia; the
California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle communities, located
generally between 19`h Street and 18`h Street in the City of Costa Mesa
contiguous to the Project site; and several mobile home parks, including
a development at 17`h and Whittier....
and adult education)....
Response 4
Page 4.2 -17 of Section 4.2 has been modified and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows:
Grading and Construction
The Project is proposed to be implemented over a period of approximately 43
nine years.
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -737 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 5
The Applicant is proposing to develop the Project site consistent with the property's Alternative
Use General Plan designation of Residential Village which identifies up to 1,375 dwelling units,
up to 75 units of overnight accommodations, and up to 75,000 square feet of commercial uses.
Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR identifies several alternatives
to the Applicant's proposed development. The City Council is not obligated to approve the
maximum development proposed by the Applicant. Rather, the City Council is required "...to
balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" (CEQA Guidelines §15093).
Response 6
Please refer to Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the Draft EIR which
describes the methodology used to assess compatibility and takes into consideration the factors
identified by the commenters. The Project's compatibility with on -site and off -site land uses is
provided in this EIR section. In summary, Section 4.1 states "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.)'. Therefore, land use incompatibility can occur
where differences between nearby uses result in significant noise levels and significant traffic
levels, among other factors, such that project - related significant unavoidable direct and indirect
impacts impede use of the existing land uses as they were intended. The Newport Beach
General Plan Land Use Element also includes goals and policies directed at land use
compatibility ".
Response 7
The only "Newport Crest" specific impact would be related to long -term noise impacts from Bluff
Road. The Draft EIR does identify a Mitigation Program that would mitigate potential impacts to
a less than significant level. However, because the mitigation would occur on private property
(Newport Crest), the City cannot require that the mitigation be implemented. If the Newport
Crest Homeowners Association and the affected homeowners agree to the mitigation, the noise
impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Response 8
Faults that could not be proved inactive have low apparent slip rates and low recurrence
intervals. Significant local ground displacements from a single earthquake event are not
anticipated. Consequently, emergency access is not anticipated to be compromised. The City of
Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments did not raise such concerns during the preparation
ofthe Draft EIR.
Response 9
With respect to the Mitigation Program in the EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) would be approved as a part of the proposed Project and would include all
project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures applicable to the Project.
RAProjedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -738 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
The MMRP includes the elements of approval with a method of verification upon implementation
of each mitigation measure, including a responsible person /agency and a milestone date for
implementation. Mitigation monitoring bridges the gap in the CEQA process between identifying
proper mitigation and implementing specific programs to accomplish the stated goals. The
MMRP becomes a public document available for public review throughout implementation of the
proposed Project.
Response 10
As discussed in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, page 4.3 -16 of the Draft EIR, the Project
assumes that fault setback zones are connected (i.e., no habitable structures have been placed
in this area). If the Project were subsequently be changed to include habitable structures in
these zones additional fault trenching would be required. Quantitative slope stability analyses
would be performed for all proposed cut and fill slopes once final development plans are
prepared. Sufficient fault trenching has been completed to define the setback zones. Additional
trenching is only required if the setback zones are desired to be reduced. The development has
been planned around conservative setback zones including the assumption that Newport Mesa
North and south Segments are connected (i.e. no habitable structures are planned in this area).
All fault setback zones are in conformance with State standards. Please also refer to the
response to Comment 8.
Response 11
"Good Housekeeping Practices" are a general category of source control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) aimed at reducing potential pollutants at the source. Examples include
common area litter control, street sweeping, and maintenance of trash storage areas. Since
2003, the Countywide Model WQMP has included provisions for structural and non - structural
source control BMPs that must be implemented at all new development and significant
redevelopment projects throughout the County of Orange. The City of Newport Beach has also
incorporated these requirements into their local storm water program, which also includes
educational programs that target residential neighborhoods for pollution prevention. Further
examples are included in the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the Project and incorporated into
the Final EIR; see Appendix A of this Responses to Comments document.
Response 12
Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials has been revised and is incorporated into the
Final EIR as follows:
There are two xisschools and one Community College campus (under
construction) located within approximately' /4 mile of the Project site:
• Whittier Elementary School, 1800 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa; located
approximately' /4 mile to the east.
• Carden Hall, 1541 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach; located
apppexi T }{ 37 a adjacent to the Protect site's eastern boundary.
• Coast Communitv College District's Newport Beach Learnina Center. an
educational facility for college students. adult education. and high school -
aged students, located adjacent to the Project site's eastern boundary.
RTrojedsWewparftMl SRTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -739 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
....On -site oilfield and other remedial activities would result in potentially greater
release of contaminants, predominantly hydrocarbons, into the air during soil
disturbance due to aeration during handling (i.e., earth moving) of the
contaminated soils than occurs in the existing condition. Section 4.10, Air Quality,
of this EIR addresses the construction and operational air quality emissions
anticipated from the proposed Project. The air quality analysis determines that
there would be less than significant impacts related to emissions during remedial
activities on the Project site. Also, the majority of the Project site is located
further than' /4 mile from existing kindergarten through 12`h grade schools and the
under - construction Coast Community College District's Learning Center. Based
on these factors, there would be a less than significant impact to existing and
or000sed schools from temporary handling of contaminated soils on the Project
site during oilfield consolidation and remediation.
Off -site transport of impacted materials is planned to be minimized as part of the
overall remedial approach.... Therefore, with implementation of SC 4.5 -1, there
would be a less than significant impact related to transport of soils within' /4 mile
of existing and under- construction schools.
With proposed Project implementation, the extent of oilfield operations would be
consolidated onto 2 areas totaling 16.5 acres, which would be located along the
southwestern margin of the Project site and more than '/4 mile from existing
schools and the under - construction Learning Center, and the proposed
residential, commercial, recreational, visitor - serving, and open space land uses
would not emit or otherwise handle hazardous materials, substances, or wastes
(see PDF 4.5 -1). The nature of anticipated future oilfield operations in the
consolidated area would not be different than the existing operations. Therefore,
operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to
schools in the Project vicinity.
Impact Summary. Less than Significant. There would be a less than
significant impact to the existing schools and the under-construction-Learning
Cent r within '/4 mile of the Project site and /or from off -site haul routes during on-
site remedial activities and proposed Project construction with implementation of
SC 4.5 -2. There would be no impact to existing and under - construction schools
within '/4 mile of the Project site from proposed Project operations as continued
oil operations are proposed pursuant to PDF 4.5 -1 to be limited to two
consolidated oil facilities located along the southwestern portion of the Project
site.
Response 13
The "Prior to Occupancy" notation is used for Sequencing Area 1 and Area 2 is used because
the duration of the site remediation is subject to several factors (i.e., weather conditions, soil
remediation approach, grading schedule) and for simplicity is tied to occupancy. Therefore, the
"finish" date within the remediation area may vary but would be no later than the "Occupancy"
date shown for the area (for example, Sequencing Area 1 date is estimated to be from October
2016 to October 2018 as noted in Table 3 -3 of the Draft EIR. Site Remediation in Sequencing
Area 3 is shown as "complete" since Sequencing Area 3 site remediation would be completed
concurrently with Sequence Area 2 remediation.
Exhibit 3 -18 in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR depicts the "improvements"
proposed to be constructed within Sequencing Area 3 and include the local road network and
RiPrrpd .WewpaTJ0151RTORTCA31512.doc 3 -740 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
associated surface and underground improvements within the blue shaded area. Sequencing
Area 3 also includes the construction of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast
Highway.
Response14
While the construction of the entire Project would occur over many years, the periods when
heavy construction equipment would be operating near sensitive noise receptors and periods
when construction noise barriers may be installed would be considerably shorter.
Response15
Please refer to the response to Comment 14.
Response 16
Please refer to the response to Comment 14.
Response 17
The Draft EIR acknowledges noise impacts to second and third floor receptors. Mitigation
measures for noise impacts to second and third floor receptors, beyond those incorporated into
the Project, would not be feasible.
Response18
The dust control measures of Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR are anticipated to be
effective in avoiding a significant air quality impact.
Response 19
With respect to abatement of traffic noise impacts, measures are considered at the source, the
path, and the receivers. At the source, local agencies have no control over noise emissions from
vehicles. However, the proposed Project would incorporate rubberized asphalt pavement that
would reduce noise levels by an estimated four or more decibels. Along the path, noise barriers
are proposed where feasible. At the receiver, closed windows, enhanced design of windows and
doors, and local barriers are considered where feasible.
While the Draft EIR includes a preliminary acoustical analysis, Mitigation Measure 4.12 -6
requires further analysis because the final design of Bluff Road would define the path from the
roadway to the Newport Crest homes, and the noise barrier must be designed for the final
topographical conditions.
With respect to an alternative with reduced project size, please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives
to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR which include reduced development and reduced
development area alternatives.
Response 20
As identified on page 3.6 -3 of the Draft EIR, Bluff Road is proposed as a Primary Road with two
travel lanes and one on- street bike lane in each direction with a raised landscape median. As
noted by the commenter, the proposed design is consistent with the City of Newport Beach's
General Plan. With respect to an alternative with less impact, please refer to Section 7.0,
R TroledsNewPerftMl& TMRTC- 31512.dee 3 -741 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Topical Response:
Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment.
Response 21
Standard Condition 4.12 -3 in the Draft EIR requires that the applicable sections of the California
Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) be met with respects to new
construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.12 -6 puts noise levels at the
Newport Crest residential properties within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible"
classifications for noise -land use compatibility. MM 4.12 -7 would reduce the remaining impact to
less than significant level; however, the City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to
mandate the implementation of mitigation on private property.
Noise standards and guidelines recommended by federal and State agencies and adopted by
the City for land use compatibility and noise ordinances consider both public health and
annoyance. Therefore, consideration of City policies and standards address health effects. It is
noted that the article referenced by commenter references WHO (World Health Organization)
guidelines. The WHO guidelines discussion states that study data indicate that "the risk for
hearing impairment would be negligible for LAeq(24h) values of 70 dB over a lifetime." The
value of 70 dB LAeq(24h) is higher than 70 dBA CNEL (which is higher than the City 65 dBA
CNEL standard) because the LAeq(24h) metric does not include the weighting of evening and
nighttime noise values included in the CNEL.
Response 22
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
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 the City's 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.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -742 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
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.
Response 23
Please refer to the response to Comment 22.
Response 24
Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment
Response 25
In terms of current site conditions, please refer to Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, starting at page 4.5 -8 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) ". Therefore, all of the estimated 246,000 cubic yards (cy) of remediated soils can be
treated and used on site. However, it has been estimated that up to 25,000 cy of this material
may be voluntarily taken off site in order to maintain efficient on -site bioremediation
processes. 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.
The reference to "typical' refers to the fact that the construction of a project requires building
materials, equipment, etc. regardless of the size of a site rather than to the duration of the
activities. The development projects cited by the commenters in Comment 5 are all projects that
occurred over several years.
Response 26
The Draft EIR provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed roadways
and Community Park. Most specifically, please refer to Section 4.1, Land Use and Related
Planning Programs, Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Section 4.9, Transportation
and Circulation, Section 4.10, Air Quality, and Section 4.12, Noise.
With respect to other park facilities in the City, the Bonita Canyon Sports Park is a 39 -acre
community park located at 1990 Ford Road in northeastern Newport Beach. Constructed in
2002, the park contains 4 ball diamonds, 2 tennis courts, an athletic field, a basketball court,
play equipment, restrooms, picnic areas, barbeques, and off - street parking for 250 vehicles. The
Sports Park is separated from the Bonita Canyon residential community by Bonita Canyon Drive
and from the Harbor View, Harbor View Knoll, and Seawind residential communities by Ford
Road. Both Bonita Canyon Drive and Ford Road are four -lane divided Primary Roads.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -743 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 27
As stated in Section 7.1 of the Draft EIR regarding the selection of alternatives to the Project,
the City, as Lead Agency, considered alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the Project and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects,
which is consistent with Sections 15126.6(a) and (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to
the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a
project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will
foster informed decision making and public participation. Impacts to the Newport Crest
community were addressed in the analysis of the project alternatives and would be considered
by decisionmakers.
The following discussion addresses the commenter's request for the consideration of more open
space, less active park areas, less on -site parking, and reduced roads. With respect to more
open space, Alternative B: General Plan Open Space Designation, this alternative would require
a 20- to 30 -acre Community Park, a Primary Road from West Coast Highway to 19`h Street, site
remediation, and habitat restoration; Alternative F increases the amount of open space and
reduced the development footprint. With respect to a reduction in active park area, the City can
consider this as a part of its consideration whether to approve the proposed Project, a Project
alternative, or a variation thereof. With respect to reduced parking, the Project proposes to
comply with the City's parking requirements. A reduction in parking would require approval from
the City. With respect to reduced roads, Alternative C assumes that the segment of North Bluff
Road from just north of 17th Street to 19th Street would not be constructed.
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 does not require that an EIR mitigate all significant
impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance,
as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If
the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects
may be considered "acceptable ".
Response 28
The City is unclear what "major safety risks" would be associated with parks and roads
proximate to residential areas. There are existing parks and roads located throughout the City in
residential areas.
Response 29
With respect to the Bonita Canyon Sports Park described in the response to Comment 26, the
Sports Park is located in Newport Beach Police Reporting District (RD) 54, which includes the
Bonita Canyon residential community. 2010 crime statistics show that overall per capita Part I
crimes (arson, assault, burglary, grand theft auto, homicide, larceny, robbery, and rape) were
lower than those citywide. Bonita Canyon Sport Park also abuts RD 51 and RD 52, which
includes the residential communities of Harbor View, Harbor View Knoll, and Seawind. Both RD
51 and RD 52 had lower overall per capita Part I crimes than those citywide in 2010. Therefore,
there is no evidence in the record that suggests that the introduction of parks, roads, restrooms,
and parking lots would result in increased home invasions and related criminal incidents in
adjacent areas.
RT rojedsWewpar tU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -744 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Response 30
The City does not consider the beach to be a park. Although both parks and the beach provide
recreational opportunities, the beach cannot provide active park uses such as soccer and
baseball fields.
Response 31
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 Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR addresses the types of needed and desirable facilities
identified by the City for the proposed Community Park.
Response 32
As a point of clarification, the North Community Park area would be a predominately active park
area and the Central and South Community areas would not include improved ball fields or
courts. Newport Crest is not adjacent to the North Community Park area. The Central
Community Park area would include picnic areas and open turf areas (no improved play fields
or courts) and a public /private parking area (approximately 25 parking spaces). The South
Community Park area would include native habitat and interpretative areas; no improved play
fields or courts are proposed. In both the Central and South Community Park areas, lighting
would be limited to that required for public safety.
Response 33
As addressed in Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails, of the Draft EIR, the State of California
allows a City or County to pass an ordinance that requires, as a condition of approval of a
subdivision, either the dedication of land, the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a
combination of both for park and recreational purposes (California Government Code §66477).
This legislation, commonly referred to as the "Quimby Act ", allows a City or County to require a
maximum parkland dedication standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for new
subdivision development unless the jurisdiction can demonstrate that the amount of existing
neighborhood and community parkland exceeds that limit. In accordance with Section 66477, a
jurisdiction may establish a parkland dedication standard based on its existing parkland ratio,
provided required dedications do not exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons. Consistent with and as
permitted by the Quimby Act, the City adopted a Park Dedication and Fees Ordinance (City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code, § §19.52.010- 19.52.090). 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).
Consistent with the City's Park Dedication and Fees Ordinance which requires 5 acres of
parkland for every 1,000 residents, the park requirement for the Project would be 15.06 acres.
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
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -745 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
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.
Therefore, the City's Park Dedication Ordinance would require 15.06 acres of park or the
payment of in -lieu fees; the City's General Plan requires a 20- to 30 -acre community park on the
Newport Banning Ranch property. However, the General Plan does not obligate the Applicant to
develop a park exceeding Park Dedication Ordinance requirements (15.06). However, the
General Plan requires that sufficient acreage be available on the property to comply with the
General Plan.
The Project proposes to meet its parkland obligations (of 15.06 acres) through the provision of
approximately 51.4 gross (42.1 net) acres of public parks, including an approximately 26.8 -
gross -acre (21.7- net -acre) Community Park; an approximately 20.9 - gross -acre (17.5- net -acre)
Bluff Park; approximately 3.7 gross (2.9 net) acres of Interpretive Parks; and bicycle, multi -use,
and pedestrian trails.
As addressed and described on page 4.8 -5 of the Draft EIR, Newport Beach has approximately
348 acres of passive and active parks. The City's General Plan categorizes the different types
of parks based on size and amenities. Please also refer to the responses to Comments 31 and
32.
Response 34
The Applicant's Project Design Feature F 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.
Response 35
As a point of clarification, the Draft EIR analysis was not prepared by the Applicant. Please refer
to the response to Comment 34.
Response 36
The Draft EIR notes that because public access to the coastline is limited, the Project would
increase usage of the local beaches by providing direct access to the beach from the Project
RT rojedsWewpaTJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -746 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
site and points north of the Project and introducing more people into the region. The bridge
would increase non - vehicular access where public parking is limited.
Response 37
The opinions of the commenters are noted.
The commenters have misquoted General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.5, which states:
Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support
and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as
schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable
uses. These uses shall be designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining
residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking.
The proposed Project is consistent with the intent of this policy which is to have residential
neighborhoods that contain supporting uses to meet the needs of residents and that are
designed to be compatible. The provision of a Community Park is consistent with this policy, as
well as with General Plan Policies LU 6.5.2 and R 1.9, which call for an active Community Park
in the West Newport Service Area of sufficient size to serve adjoining neighborhoods and
residents of Banning Ranch. It should be noted that the proposed Project provides a number of
features designed to provide compatibility with adjacent residential uses. The proposed Central
Community Park, which would abut the Newport Crest Condominiums, would be limited to
passive recreational uses; lighting would be limited to the parking area and public safety lighting
associated with walkways. The more active recreational uses would be located in the proposed
North Community Park, which would be more than 300 feet from the nearest Newport Crest
residence. The Community Park would be open between 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM and ball field
lights would turned off by 10:00 PM.
Response 38
The opinions of the commenters are noted. Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code
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 shall be 45 days. The City of Newport Beach provided a
60 -day public review period.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -747 Responses to Environmental Comments
Mr. Patrick Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Dear Mr. Alford:
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 059
40OVED By
COMMUNITY
NOV 002011
DEVELOPMENT ,t
L G
Op N�pOR< g
In the Air Quality section of the Banning Ranch DELR, I was struck by the significance of
Threshold 4.10 -3, not just because the Project's criteria pollutant emissions will negatively
impact Newport Beach and surrounding communities such as Costa Mesa, but because they will
impact attainment issues for the entire Southern California basin (SoCAB).
Threshold 4.10 -3 reads as follows:
"Threshold 4.10.3 Would the project revult in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ar {V criteria
Pollurant for which the project region is in nonattaihment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS
(including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thredrolds for ozone precursors)?
The Project region is in nonattainment for 03, NO2, PM 10, and PM2.5. As described above, after
2020, implementation of the Project could result in long -term emissions of the 03 precursor VOC
and short -term emissions of the Oaprecursor NO., which would exceed the SCAQMD mass
emissions thresholds for those pollutants. Long -term NOx emissions would not exceed the threshold
but are forecasted to be just less than the threshold. Therefore, emissions of VOC and NOx would
be cumulatively considerable and the proposed Project would have a significant cumulative air
quality impact.''
If file Project does not meet Threshold 4.10 -3, then perhaps the Project Applicant should go back to the
drawing board and rethink the design. This is not acceptable in terms of health risks or quality of life to
either the existing residents or to the new ones who will be buying homes from die Project Applicant.
Perhaps the Project is too ambitious in scale? Perhaps the planned Population density is too great and will
lead to overcrowding?
Is die development, no matter how valuable the land or Profitable the enterprise, worth adversely
impacting die lives and the health of so many Newport Beach residents? Are extra tax revenues for the
oih' worth such impacts? Arc they worth the potential of lame suits from the health risks associated with
the criteria pollutants, which include cancer and lung disease? Therc are too many significant and
unavoidable impacts with this Project and if these pollutants and polluting conditions really cannot be
mitigated then isn't it time to consider that die Project has not been well envisioned or well planned,
especially given that Newport Beach is already heavily over - populated witli traffic and visitors whenever
the mercury, rises above seventy degrees, and Freeway and local traffic to the beach will also expose the
city of Costa Mesa to truiie congestion mid excessive noise and air pollution'?
I do not have email and would appreciate a response by regular mail.
Mangy Lcc (vlr// O nR�
7 Swnmcnvind Coun
Newport Beach, CA 92663
R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -748 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 059 Mary Lee
November 8, 2011
Response1
Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, regarding operational pollutant emissions, that
explains that there is little relationship between mass emissions attributable to project
operations and exposure to persons on site and nearby off site. Impacts to local residents from
criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants would be less than significant.
Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposes Project, of the Draft EIR assesses several Project
alternatives including reduced development on the Project site.
Response 2
Please refer to the response to Comment 2. The opinions of the commenter are noted
RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -749 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 060
Alford, Patrick
From: Ginny Lombardi Iginnylombardi @yahoo.comj
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:53 PM
To: Alford, Patrick
Subject: DEIR for Banning Ranch
Patrick Alford, Planning \Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Dept.
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-X915
I am a homeowner in Newport Crest and have lived in my current residence for 27 years.
I am requesling the City extend the deadline for comments on the DEIR for Banning Ranch.
My reasons are as follows:
the publication of the DEIR for Banning Ranch and comment period has overlapped the Sunset Ridge Park
application from the City to the California Coastal Commission.
Both developments are extremely important to me and the future ol'Newport Crest since both will have a major
impact on my quality of file. I live on the perimeter ol'Sunset Ridge Park.
Many homeowners have been very, involved in the Coastal Commission Sunset Ridge Park application and
therefore, have spent less time on the DEIR for Banning Ranch.
Personally, a family health issue has limited my time in studying the DEIR and responding in It lhoughtliil
manner. The document is extensive, informative mid detailed.
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, in np' opinion, the process needs to be extended to allow for more quality input.
Thank you for considering my request.
Ginny Lombardi
7 I.,andfall Court
Newport Crest
R: Troject sWewpnMJOI5rRTMRTC- o3r5rzdoe 3 -750 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 060 Ginny Lombardi
November 4, 2011
Response1
The opinion of the commenter is noted. Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code 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 shall be 45 days. The City of Newport Beach provided a 60 -day
public review period.
RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -751 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Comment Letter 061
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: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061)
for the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project
Dear Mr. Alford:
In April 2009, I submitted a comment letter in response to the project NOP. In that
letter, I requested that the project EIR consider a number of environmental issues
including potential traffic impacts on Clay Street and consideration of mixed -use
alternatives at lower densities. None of these comments are addressed in the EIR.
The EIR does not explore a reasonable range of alternatives that could eliminate or
reduce the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project. The alternatives
offered in the EIR adhere too closely to a very narrowly defined set of objectives.
CEQA does not require that the alternatives meet all the project objectives, just some of
them. None of the EIR alternatives make an earnest effort to reduce project densities.
The project proposal for 1,375 dwelling units is the maximum density permitted in the
General Plan. Of the three reduced density alternatives, only one reduces residential
density and only by 12 %.
Please revise the alternatives section of the EIR to more fully explore alternatives that
could reduce project impacts to the community. An alternative that would reduce
residential densities by 25% to 50% would go a long way to reducing project impacts
associated with land use, traffic, aesthetics and noise.
Thank you.
Joann Lombardo
2916 Clay Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
2916 Clay Street Newport Beach California 92663 Phone: 949.650.3206 Emait: iomn @ialcps.com
R:TrojectsWewpn JC15�RTMRTC- 0315izaoe 3 -752 Responses to Environmental Comments
Banning Ranch EIR
onses to Comments
Letter 061 Joann Lombardo
November 7. 2011
Response1
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 commenter states that none of the alternatives make an
earnest effort to reduce project densities. However it should be noted 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 densities
by 25 percent or 50 percent as suggested by the commenter. 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 may be incrementally reduced by a reduction in dwelling units, the
majority of the traffic on 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 densities 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 (rather than the density)
would incrementally reduce these emissions, the impacts are as a result of cumulative impacts
and would not be avoided or 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 by 25 percent or 50 percent, a
reduced density alternative would not be required.
RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -753 Responses to Environmental Comments