Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 05_RTC Part 5November 6, 2011 Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager City of Newport Beach, Community Development Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Responses to the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Dear Patrick: Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments Comment Letter 062 Page 1 of 4 �OEIVED aY. COMMUNITY NOV 0 0 2011 q3 DEVELOPMENT VZ Op NEWPOV 9 I am a resident of Newport Beach. My home overlooks the Banning Ranch property and I would be directly impacted by the proposed development. I found the DEIR to be overwhelming in length and complexity, and I was dismayed at the overall proposal! I reviewed portions of the DEIR to gain a better understanding of the proposed project and its impacts. As a result, I have several questions. I will attempt to be brief. 4.1.7 Environmental Impacts; Land Use Section — Exhibits 4.1 -2b and 4.1 -2g At the Costa Mesa City Council joint study session held on October 20, 2011, it was stated by the applicant that North Bluff Road was relocated outward to a distance of 355 feet from the California Seabreeze Community to minimize the impact to that community, as depicted in Exhibit 4.1 -2b. Why was this not done for the Newport Crest Community ?? As depicted in Exhibit 4.1 -2g, Bluff Road is within 22 feet of the Newport Crest Community. Additionally, Bluff Road is a four -lane divided road, versus the two -lane undivided North Bluff Road. Further, the artist's rendering in the exhibits is misleading by illustrating one car for the four -lane road and two cars for the two -lane road. • Does the applicant truly believe that building a four -lane road 22 feet from an existing residence is acceptable ?? • Has such a major new roadway ever been built in Orange County in such close proximity to existing residences ?? When and where ?? 4.12.1 Introduction;. Noise Section — page 4.12 -1 The document states that Appendix I contains the noise model data associated with the noise calculations presented in this section. Appendix I is 225 pages with no table of contents and no index. And, it discusses intersections that don't correlate with the measurement locations presented in the Noise Section. 2 • What is the correlation between the information presented in Appendix I and the information presented in the Noise Section ?? • What do any of the roadways listed in the result summary table have to do with measurement location #2 ?? Appendix I does not answer these and many other questions. R: Troject s\NewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -754 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments NBR DEIR Responses Page 2 of 4 4.12.5 Existing Conditions; Existing Noise Conditions — page 4.12 -10 The document states that seven short -term (approximately 15- minute) noise level measurements were collected at Noise Measurement Locations #'s 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6 and 10 (as shown in Exhibit 4.12 -1). The primary source of noise for measurement location #2 was listed as "aircraft overflights ". Having lived immediately adjacent to measurement location #2 for seven years, I question the integrity and accuracy of the results provided in Table 4.12 -6. • What dates, days of the week and times were the seven measurements taken ?? • What was the length of the fluctuations in noise levels during each of those periods ?? • What were the specific causes of noise during each of those periods ?? • How was the CNEL calculated ?? Were brief increases in noise factored in equally with the longer periods of minimum noise levels ?? My questions are directed at all of the measurements, but my comments are specific to the area in the vicinity of measurement location #2, of which I am most familiar. This is a very quiet area. Very quiet. Any sources of noise are brief and sporadic, such as a police helicopter passing overhead. Is it fair to compare occasional increases in noise levels occurring for less than 30 seconds in duration to the non -stop and continuous increase in noise levels that will occur from the proposed Bluff Road? 4.12.6 Project Design Features and Standard Conditions; SC 4.12 -3 — page 4.12 -13 The document states that the new residential and hotel units will be designed to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The developer can control the interior noise levels of the new units, yet takes no responsibility for reducing the noise impacts on existing homes. • Why is the applicant designing a project that locates Bluff Road so close to existing homes when the new homes can be built to minimize noise impacts ?? • Why is the applicant not placing more of the planned open space provided in the project adjacent to the existing homes to provide a natural buffer and to help minimize the impacts to these homes ?? 4.12.8 Environmental Impacts; Impact Analysis — page 4.12 -23 The document states that the Without Project scenario "assumes" construction of the on -site roadways. Why ?? This DEIR should be analyzing the overall impacts of the entire proposed project, which includes the roadways! • What is the impact of the entire project compared to the existing conditions ?? • If this DEIR is not analyzing the roadways, when will the impacts of the roadways be analyzed and available to the public for review ?? Any impact analyses should compare the impacts of the project to the Alternative A (No Project) scenario, not to a hypothetical Without Project scenario. R: Project s\Newponu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -755 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments NBR DEIR Responses Page 3 of 4 4.12.8 Environmental Impacts; Table 4.12 -13 — page 4.12 -26 The document states that the assumed ambient level for Receptor ID N1 -1 is 49 dba CNEL. This is higher than the information presented in Table 4.12 -6. Why is a higher noise level assumed for purposes of determining the effectiveness of mitigation measures?? Again, the impacts of the project and any impact analyses should compare the total project impacts to true current, existing conditions. 4.12.8 Environmental Impacts; Impact Analysis — page 4.12 -27 The document states that noise barriers could be installed around the second floor balconies of Newport Crest homes and that this measure is feasible. Is the applicant suggesting that we close in our open balconies with walls ?? C Specifically, what "barriers" is the DEIR referring to and who determines if they are feasible?? 4.12.8 Environmental Impacts; page 4.12 -27 The document states that future traffic noise to Newport Crest could be reduced by the realignment of Bluff Road, but that it is not feasible due to greater impacts on open space and biological resources, as well as the need of additional grading. No studies are sited. • Where is the backup for these. statements ?? • How was it determined that the impacts would be greater?? 4.12.9 — Mitigation Program; MM 4.12 -6 — page 4.12 -42 The document states that a noise barrier shall reduce future ground floor and second floor residential noise levels at the Crest. Newport Crest units are three levels. The lowest levels have no windows, are partially below grade and contain the garages. The second levels are the kitchen /living room levels and the third levels are the bedroom levels. Additionally, the second levels are split levels. • What is the applicant doing to mitigate noise to the third level of the Crest units ?? • Which elevation of the second level are the measurements referring to ?? 4.12.9 Mitigation Program; MM 4.12 -7— page 4.12.42 The document states that an offer will be made for the installation of dual pane windows /sliding doors on the far ade facing the Banning Ranch property..... to owners of residences with rear elevations directly adjacent to the Banning Ranch property. • Which residences specifically (addresses) will be receiving this offer ?? • Who will pay for the Acoustical Engineer that will determine which residences will be impacted ?? • When will the determination by the Acoustical Engineer be made?? • What does "cumulative increase over existing conditions" mean ?? 10 R:Trojects\Newpn JO15�RTMRTC- o3i5fzdoe 3 -756 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments NBR DEIR Responses Page 4 ofd • Why do the lengthy "provisions and guidelines" outlined in the DEIR place the burden for this mitigation measure on the homeowners and the Crest association, and not the applicant?? • Why is the Association being "reimbursed" for the costs of the work, and the applicant is not offering to deposit funds as is being done for Mitigation Measure 4.12 -5 ?? • Does "windowsisliding doors" actually mean windows and sliding doors, or just sliding doors ?? I believe that many more residences will be impacted than is being acknowledged in the DEIR. Additionally, how does the applicant plan to mitigate the cooling and ventilation problems that will arise from the apparent need to close sliding doors?7 7.3.2 Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts; Aesthetic and Visual Resources — page 7-4 Several times throughout the document, it is stated that the project would result in night lighting impacts that are considered "significant and unavoidable ", but that the City Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. • Specifically, what are the benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts ?? • Why is the Statement of Overriding Considerations not included in the DEIR document for easy reference by the reader?? 7.5 Alternatives for Analysis — page 7 -11 None of the proposed alternatives consider the realignment of Bluff Road. None of the proposed alternatives consider the lowering of Bluff Road to reduce noise impacts. • Why has the realignment of Bluff Road not been given serious consideration by the Applicant ?? • Why was the realignment of Bluff Road not analyzed as a feasible alternative ?? In summary, mischaracterizing the existing conditions and then comparing them to a project that "assumes" the roadways will be built anyway is not adequately analyzing the impacts of this proposed project. Additionally, Bluff Road realignments should be analyzed and included as alternatives in the DEIR. Thank you for your consideration and time in responding to my questions. If you need clarification or additional information, I can be reached at (949) 650 -2564. Snin`cer�ely` o Cathy Malk�us Newport Crest Resident 10 Cont. 11 12 13 R: Trgects WewpoMJDI5�RTMRTC- o315izaoc 3 -757 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 062 Cathy Malkemus November 6. 2011 Responsel Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. Response 2 The data in Appendix I of the Draft EIR provides the individual calculations for the off -site noise impact analyses summarized in Tables 4.12 -9, -10, and -11. Assuming that the comment refers to the results summary tables in Appendix I, these tables have no relationship to measurement number 2. Response 3 Measurements at locations 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 were made on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 between approximately 9:00 AM and 2:15 PM. Measurement 5 was made on Thursday, September 17, 2009. The measurement durations were 15 to 23 minutes each. The notable causes of noise are listed in Table 4.12 -6 of the Draft EIR. As stated in the footnote to Table 4.12 -6, short-term noise level measurements were converted into 24 -hour CNEL based on the hourly patterns from the long -term measurements 15 and 16; measurement 16 was used to convert the data for measurement 2. As shown in Table 4.12 -6, the average noise level at location 2 was approximately 45 dBA, demonstrating that this is a relatively quiet area. The one - minute noise averages at location 2 ranged from 43.3 to 46.9 dBA. The minimum noise levels during each minute ranged from 39.8 to 43.5 dBA; only one minimum was below 41 dBA. The maximum noise levels during each minute ranged from 45.2 to 53.8 dBA. In calculating average noise levels, fairness is not an issue. The average is based on the noise energy over a period of time. Response 4 Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. 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. Response 5 As stated in the Draft EIR, the "Without Project' scenario assumes construction of the on -site roadways because the roadways are included in the General Plan, and it may be assumed that the roads would be built in the future whether or not the proposed Project is built. The noise analysis in the Draft EIR includes the noise from the roadways and compares the noise to the existing conditions (where there are no roadways); this analysis is the Cumulative Increase over Existing data shown in Table 4.12 -12 of the Draft EIR. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -758 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 6 The ambient noise level used for the Newport Crest analysis, 49 dBA CNEL, is the average of the data calculated for locations 1 and 2. The analysis includes the total Project; please refer to the response to Comment 5. Response 7 Noise barriers for balconies are generally transparent glass or Lucite -like material, often hinged to allow the occupant to choose an open or closed position. Response 8 Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. Response 9 Typically ground floor noise levels are measured at 5 feet above the ground elevation and the second floor at 15 feet above the ground elevation. The acoustic analysis described in Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.12 -6 should use specific elevation data corresponding to the actual elevations of the windows and doors at the residences. Response 10 The following responds to each bullet point in Comment 10 Bullet points 1 and 2: MM 4.12 -7 in the Draft EIR notes that the specific residences would be determined based upon the results of the acoustical analysis, which would be paid for by the Applicant. Bullet point 3: The analysis would occur subsequent to final approval of the Project by the City and completion of the design for Bluff Road and the topography adjacent to Bluff Road. Bullet point 4: The cumulative increase is the difference between the forecast future noise level and the existing noise level. Bullet points 5 and 6: Coordination with the Newport Crest Association would be required as this is a third -party entity, and the City cannot require the implementation of mitigation on private property. It is presumed that the Newport Crest Homeowners Association's approval would be required before any changes to the buildings can take place. Additionally, homeowners would have the choice whether or not to have the improvements installed. Bullet point 7: The reference to "windows /sliding doors" refers to all windows and sliding doors on affected building elevations that face or are affected. The commenter expresses an opinion that there may be additional residences impacted by noise than stated in the Draft EIR; please refer to the response to Bullet point 1. The commenter also expresses an opinion that there will be a cooling and ventilation impact associated with the need to close doors and windows; however, the comment does not provide any scientific or technical support for the conclusion that there will be a significant environmental impact. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the cooling or ventilation systems of any building where window or sliding glass door upgrades are proposed. R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -759 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response11 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. Response 12 Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment Response 13 The opinions of the commenter are noted. R\RrojedsWewp.MJD151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -760 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 063 November 8, 2011 Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Responses to the Newport Banning Ranch the Draft Environmental Impact (DEIR) Dear Mr. Alford: For a number of reasons the DEIR is extremely difficult to review. The DEIR was made available in 3 different formats: 1. Paper copies 2. Multiple CDROM disks 3. Online available via the Internet Paper The paper copies were accessible at very limited, primarily City locations. Access was limited to the facility operating hours and times. In addition the City of Newport Beach Central Library was closed for 2 weeks during the review period. The document is 7300+ pages making it extremely difficult for a comprehensive review. There is a table of contents, but no index, making very rudimentary searches very difficult. CDROM The files were divided into 3 separate disks because the size of the files exceeded normal CDROM capacity. Disk 1 contained the main body (Volume 1) of the document, disk 2 the Appendices A -E and disk 3 Appendices F -M. The total of the 3 files sizes is approximately 876 MB. The large file chunks adversely impact computer performance, particular the disk 2 appendix -660 MB. A high end PC configured with 6MB of RAM and an Intel second generation i7 processor takes approximately 35 seconds to load Appendix 2. Computer systems with less powerful configurations would take considerably longer to load files this large. The files are in Adobe PDF format and have been arranged in Adobe's portfolio format. Searching portfolios can take a considerable amount of time. A more even split in file sizes would have been better. The Adobe Acrobat page numbers do not match that of the actual document, making browsing the portfolio pages very difficult. Internet The entire DEIR document is also available on the City of Newport Beach website. The City has done a relatively nice job a splitting the document into manageable chunks. A fast Internet connection (7 -10 mbps) downloaded larger chunks in just over 2 minutes. Slower connections would take much longer. The files are in PDF format and use the more "traditional" Adobe format rather than portfolios making searching much easier. Again, the Acrobat page numbers do not match the actual document page. numbers. The files on the City website are also displayed alphabetically rather than in the order that they appear in the actual document. This may confuse some reviewers. The real problem with the DEIR is the simple fact that it contains over 7,300 pages of material. Trying to review this much material in 60 days is an insurmountable task. While there may be some technical, and accessibility issues, does the document meet CEQA guidelines for length and readability? How much time did City staff spend reviewing the document? Was any consideration given towards giving the public additional time to review based upon the sheer volume of the document? R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -761 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Additional Concerns and Questions Bluff Road Why is Bluff Road (a road with a wider right -of -way than Pacific Coast Highway) planned to be built within 22' of a well established existing community that has been a part of the City of Newport Beach since 1973? Why can't the alignment of Bluff Road be changed so that it is at least 300' from Newport Crest? Why must the road connect to 15th Street (essentially a residential street)? Would eliminating this connection create greater flexibility for realigning Bluff Road? Page 3-46 and Exhibit 3 -20, General Plan Circulation Element, depicts the proposed modifications to the Circulation Element roadway system through the project site. The diagram appears to show a 15`D Street extension to Pacific Coast Highway, is this correct? And is eliminating this extension a pending proposal based upon this development being approved? Could this extension provide a better solution than Bluff Road? Can a better description of this proposed General Plan Circulation Element Amendment please be provided? What mitigation measures will be used to prevent night light, including street lights, traffic signals and car headlights from Impacting Newport Crest residents? There is discussion in the DEIR about providing a 6' wall or an 8' wall along the Newport Crest boundary most adjacent to the project in order to mitigate roadway noise. There is an existing 6' wall along the westerly Newport Crest boundary —does the DEIR reference include an additional wall: or a replacement wall, or? A wall (6' or 8') may help to mitigate noise at the first level of some units within Newport Crest; however, the first level of the Newport Crest community contains no living space, only garage. Living space is located on levels 2 and 3. Will a 6' or 8' wall mitigate any road noise to level 2 or level 3? Would lowering the grade elevation of Bluff Road by 10-12' along the Northwesterly boundary of Newport Crest help to mitigate both light and noise issues? Views There are no elevation models that show how views will be affected. Will Newport Crest homeowner views be impacted? Please describe, in detail the view impacts that will be created by the development. If private property views are negatively impacted, how will this affect property values? There are also common areas within the community that are used as viewing points. How will these common areas be affected? If views are indeed adversely affected, can the South Family Village be reduced in size to provide adequate view corridors for existing Newport Crest residences and members of the community that may use common areas for viewing purposes? The current alignment of the South Village is essentially Southwesterly to Northeasterly. Can the alignment be modified to flow Southeasterly to Northwesterly? Finally, if the South Family Village was eliminated entirely, would this help to facilitate the realignment of Bluff Road and protect existing Newport Crest private property and common area views? The impacts on wildlife have not adequately been addressed. From my particular location, my P level deck, I have enjoyed views of the ocean and surrounding areas, and I have seen an abundance of birdlife, mammals and reptiles. I have seen and /or photographed heron, egret, coyote, raccoon, possum, skunk, fox, squirrels rabbits, hawks, hummingbirds, snakes, frogs, lizards and more (see example photographs 1, 2 & 6 on the next page). Many animals have eluded my attempts to photograph them —owls in particular. Owls regularly hunt from the trees located on the boundary between Newport Crest and Banning Ranch. I have seen and documented vernal pools come and go (see photos 3,4 & 5 on the next page) and have watched, much to my dismay, the continual mowing, by the applicant, whose sole purpose, it would appear is to destroy as much as the habitat that is in the area as possible (see photo 5, on the next page). As a result of the mowing, rabbits (Audubon Cottontail) have all but disappeared. Note: mowing includes the use of tractor pulled mowers, weed - whackers, machetes and other hand tools. R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -762 Responses to Environmental Comments Coyote - Photo 1 Vernal Pool /Egret - Photo 3 Vernal Pool after mowing- Photo 5 I• Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Hawk - Photo 2 prior to mowing- Photo 4 Heron hunting - Photo 6 The red polygon in Exhibit IA (following page) indicates where the above photographs were taken from. The blue circles in the same exhibit indicate the approximate mapped locations of the subject in the photographs. Many more photographs could have been included in this review, however; I felt it was important to keep this document at a reasonable length. R:\ Prq .rWNewp.MJD151RTORTC- 031512.tloc 3 -763 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments i 1 ru•c• 2 yak, / t.� ; Newport Crest v1 Exhibit 1A - location of photographer and photo subjects I seriously question the DEIR noise /sound studies - I have experienced the silence. Sitting out-of -doors and enjoying what I refer to as the "National Geographic Experience" is truly amazing. At times, conversations are reduced to a whisper, because it is so quiet. Will this "quality of life' change as a result of the proposed 9 development? This is a factor that the DEIR does not and cannot address...... yet, it is significant. Lastly, the City of Newport Beach, as of September 2011 has spent over 2 million dollars associated with the Banning Ranch development. How much of those funds have gone towards the preparation and review of the 10 DEIR and how much staff time as a whole been spent on the DEIR? In summary, the primary purposes of my response are to protest: • Complexity of the document • Length of time that was allocated to review over 7,300 pages of Information • Location of Bluff Road and the negative impacts associated (particularly noise and night light) with its 11 close proximity to the Newport Crest community • Potential impact on views of Newport Crest residents • Impacts on wildlife and environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA) Thank you for your consideration Paul Malkemus— pcmalkemus@gmail.com 7 Aries Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 R:\ Projects \Newpo0U0151RTORTC- 031512.d.c 3 -764 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 063 Paul Malkemus November 8, 2011 Response1 The opinions of the commenter 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. Response 2 Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. The typical Bluff Road cross section is a four -lane divided road (Primary Road) which is narrower than West Coast Highway in its six -lane divided highway configuration (Major Road). As it relates to eliminating the Bluff Road connection to 15th Street, an alignment that is near Newport Crest would be necessary to minimize wetland and habitat impacts to the large arroyo. Response 3 The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways reflects the future Bluff Road extending from West Coast Highway to 19th Street, and shows 15th Street extending westward from its current terminus, crossing the future Bluff Road, and curving southward to connect to West Coast Highway. The proposed Project would construct Bluff Road between West Coast Highway and 19th Street, and to extend 15th Street from its current terminus to Bluff Road; it would not extend 15th Street beyond Bluff Road to West Coast Highway. The need for a second connection to West Coast Highway through the Project site (via the extension of 15th Street west of Bluff Road to West Coast Highway) was first studied as part of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update, and was revisited as part of the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR. It was determined that the volume of traffic that would access West Coast Highway through the Project site (consisting of new traffic generated by the Project itself, plus traffic that would shift to Bluff Road from other existing roadways) could be accommodated by a single roadway connection. The elimination of the 15th Street extension to West Coast Highway would help to avoid significant environmental impacts. Response 4 Please refer to Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR which explains the dark sky program for the proposed Project. Project Design Feature (PDF) 4.6 -4 requires that street lights be used only in key intersections and safety areas. A "dark sky" lighting concept would be implemented within areas of the Project that adjoin habitat areas. This "dark sky" lighting concept would be implemented for homeowners' association (HOA) properties and businesses (e.g., resort inn, retail center) within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve and Bluff Parks. Light fixtures within these areas would be designed for "dark sky" applications and adjusted to direct/reflect light downward and away from adjacent habitat areas. Street lighting standards and requirements are described on page 4.2 -15. Other project design features are identified in PDF 4.6 -4; Mitigation Measures (MM) 4.2 -1 and MM 4.2 -2 are applicable. Response 5 If any existing wall is sufficient for the required noise reduction, it would be retained. If not, the existing walls would be replaced. Additional walls would be built as determined by the acoustical RAProjedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -765 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments analysis. Typically ground floor noise levels are measured at 5 feet above the ground elevation and the second floor at 15 feet above the ground elevation. The acoustic analysis described in Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.12 -6 should use specific elevation data corresponding to the actual elevations of the windows and doors at the residences. With respect to lowering the grade of the proposed road, lighting impacts are related to the overall introduction of development to the Project site and would not be eliminated with a change in the road grade. For approximately 90 percent of the approximately 1,800- foot -long perimeter adjacent to the Project, building development is proposed to be more than 200 feet away from the condominiums within the Newport Crest community. The area between the proposed roadways (Bluff Road and extension of 15th Street) and Newport Crest would be the Central Community Park. Bluff Road would be approximately 40 feet to the closest Newport Crest condominium patio /deck. The grade for the northbound lanes is proposed to be depressed approximately 12 feet below the existing patio /deck at this location. The use of a sloped median would depress the southbound lanes to approximately 16 feet below the existing patio /deck. Section E2 -E2 shows that the distance between Newport Crest and Bluff Road would increase in both directions from the "pinch point ". Located 100 feet to the south of Section E1 -E1, Section E2 -E2 shows that the South Community Park is approximately 90 feet wide in this location. The width of the park increases similarly north of the pinch point. Approximately 90 percent of the perimeter of Newport Crest with the Central and South Community Park areas would provide a buffer of 200 feet or more of non - active recreational space. Response 6 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 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. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -766 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 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 7 The discussion of wildlife resources on site has been adequately addressed as required by CEQA. The discussion of the existing wildlife community on the site, potential project impacts, and proposed mitigation measures has been provided in great detail in the Draft EIR and the Biological Technical Report. A total of 98 wildlife species have been observed on site during the biological surveys conducted for the Draft EIR. This list can be found in Appendix A of the Biological Technical Report in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification. Response 8 The photographs of the wildlife species provided by the commenter are consistent with the wildlife species observed on site during the various biological resource surveys and documented in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 9 The impacts of traffic noise to the proposed Project and to existing noise- sensitive uses within the City of Newport Beach are governed by the standards and policies included in the City's Noise Element. Response 10 As a private development Project, the costs for preparation of the EIR and staff time associated with the proposed Project are incurred by the Applicant not the City. The consulting team that prepared the Draft EIR is under contract to the City of Newport Beach. Response11 Please refer to the response to Comments 1 and 7 and to Topical Response: ESHA and Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. RTrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -767 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR crises to Comments November S, 2011 P,MriGk d, Atfiorej, Pl,,nnlnrg. M.jmjgg r Elty of Newport Beach, CommunfN Dwelopinent Department 3300 Newport eou!evard P.0, Ow 1768 Newport. Beach, CA Rri56 -Ni 5 Re: Comments on the Newport Banninq Ranch DEIR, section 4: T4 pear Mr. Alford: hereby object to approval of the Newport Ba nninp Ranch DEIR In its Present form- The comments below and all references contained therein are hereby Incorporated Into the official reCprd of proceedlrgs or this DEIR. 'rhe Following are my oorrerten[S.ori Section 4,14 vi the Newport BalSning Ranch DEIR; ujgani2etl by Stirr secliorr. Section 41 41 — FI re Page 4,14 -1 slates:' -lint portion OF the Project sire Ideated In the City's Sphere of Iriflue•rice would be served by the Fire De Par intent follvwing as Hvvoavef, Section 414 does not frrciivate what Fire agerxy would serve the IDrojecl rvInr to annexetinn or In file event that the portion of the Pnnjert Ior,IIPA In the City's Sphere 6F IMItemp wrs never annexed ?' Page 4,14 -2 - The. majority of the Project site is designated LRA Hir1h, and sma 11 portlons•of The Site are .designated I -RA Moderate or are not. deisigneted at all. However, Section A. does root Indicate which spebific portions of the Project -are LRA High or what elf ect ties clasAl icatlun hekk on the design or buildings ar id residences witrun ti re Aojeui. Hrn would the Pre Depa JmeN.aCCeFE Ihose pori to ne of Lea nninrl Ranch for which np roads are plannad? Page 4,14 -3 refers to the 'Fire Force One report,, which is included In the DEIR -os Appendix K. This report deals with she Fulure lozaticnof F= rregtation If 2: vitimh would Serve the Deveropment. Appendix, K lndr.;ales that pglEntial future glteg For the FrG Stolion include sites 2A and 2B — either of which would apparenily be tpcated on Ban ring Ranch property, However, no menlion is rnsda of these slts wtfves within Section 4.'14 5er,11Mr'41 4 makes no meinlpn OF Fhe extremely high Qensily of the Vrhan Colnry on unitslacra] and the 6peWal requfr enie l7ls trial these large, high- demily.urrits would Place on Irie F=ire Nporimenl. Pleoe in6icale how the Fiie Department would deal with these large, high - density, multi -rice units: I .1 E, 3 4 R: Troject sWewporN015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -768 Responses to Environmental Comments Comment Letter 064 Alford, Patrick From: Jim Mansfield jJtmansfield�ca,rr.cbmj Bent: Tue•;Uey, Novcjnr}L'1 [16, 20.119:0.4 AM Tv: Alford, Patrick Subject: Camrrients an the Newjx�rt R2nnfng Ranch DEIR November S, 2011 P,MriGk d, Atfiorej, Pl,,nnlnrg. M.jmjgg r Elty of Newport Beach, CommunfN Dwelopinent Department 3300 Newport eou!evard P.0, Ow 1768 Newport. Beach, CA Rri56 -Ni 5 Re: Comments on the Newport Banninq Ranch DEIR, section 4: T4 pear Mr. Alford: hereby object to approval of the Newport Ba nninp Ranch DEIR In its Present form- The comments below and all references contained therein are hereby Incorporated Into the official reCprd of proceedlrgs or this DEIR. 'rhe Following are my oorrerten[S.ori Section 4,14 vi the Newport BalSning Ranch DEIR; ujgani2etl by Stirr secliorr. Section 41 41 — FI re Page 4,14 -1 slates:' -lint portion OF the Project sire Ideated In the City's Sphere of Iriflue•rice would be served by the Fire De Par intent follvwing as Hvvoavef, Section 414 does not frrciivate what Fire agerxy would serve the IDrojecl rvInr to annexetinn or In file event that the portion of the Pnnjert Ior,IIPA In the City's Sphere 6F IMItemp wrs never annexed ?' Page 4,14 -2 - The. majority of the Project site is designated LRA Hir1h, and sma 11 portlons•of The Site are .designated I -RA Moderate or are not. deisigneted at all. However, Section A. does root Indicate which spebific portions of the Project -are LRA High or what elf ect ties clasAl icatlun hekk on the design or buildings ar id residences witrun ti re Aojeui. Hrn would the Pre Depa JmeN.aCCeFE Ihose pori to ne of Lea nninrl Ranch for which np roads are plannad? Page 4,14 -3 refers to the 'Fire Force One report,, which is included In the DEIR -os Appendix K. This report deals with she Fulure lozaticnof F= rregtation If 2: vitimh would Serve the Deveropment. Appendix, K lndr.;ales that pglEntial future glteg For the FrG Stolion include sites 2A and 2B — either of which would apparenily be tpcated on Ban ring Ranch property, However, no menlion is rnsda of these slts wtfves within Section 4.'14 5er,11Mr'41 4 makes no meinlpn OF Fhe extremely high Qensily of the Vrhan Colnry on unitslacra] and the 6peWal requfr enie l7ls trial these large, high- demily.urrits would Place on Irie F=ire Nporimenl. Pleoe in6icale how the Fiie Department would deal with these large, high - density, multi -rice units: I .1 E, 3 4 R: Troject sWewporN015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -768 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Page 4:74.3 states Mar "The. City 'ul Newport Beach rims fn[livfduaI au[drnalio- ai[f agrees nallls with the.(:flies ul costa Mp.;a and Huniinrdion l3ench, and Ihe.00.FA, Together, all fire agencies prrnilde personnel toll ary ernercgency. TM cloSPSt er nergenw respon a unit is dispa Iched to the en iei$Pilq, Iegwdte5s (A jul isdioiular bdunclafy Ior ally, fire ur large emergency response with mu[tlple units.' Is. the NPwW Beard Fim f]eparlment the ndnsest. emergemx:y response unli' r64 all Eiji tior* of SE1P irbid Rat wIV unaar wl1at cwditiotls would the OCFA or Costa hmsa Fill: L7 €•p'eirU nerd U,• tequir Ceti to respond? Vvbal is the estimated im pad on these no n•N ewport fire orga nizal io ns? Page 4.14.6 slates that 'The Projecl.sile. lies within a Special Fire Protection Area; as defined h the Newport Peach Fire Code [i,e., seul orl'9.04.63Cf, as adopted). A Special Fire Protection Area (SFPAi is defirled as: Pory geographical area rtaSijf rated by the Flie. Chief whe re. file whores. directly abut wilr9anst space or a fuel nendlfirarinn rpne on one,nr more ,Ackm ... Trim al ems are suige'�t to a greatei risk u1 wilufand Cofiflogrul,ion due• to vegciwiun, Iopugr:" Ipl ty, weatl ter, denBity; aeceas;.a nd other releve ril factors.' Additionally POF 4.545 staies that °The MEmter 0evelopmPnt Plan requlres that the Project be dc:ig noel to prw,idc fire- reslsra nt winstruction for oil slructwr . odipinfng naluml open :pace, Inclvding utilizlrp fire- resistant bu➢ding materlals and spxlnllers." Speijbcally, which structures are considered'adjolning natural npen Fpare'? Onn ihls In clll[fe all sin,irhjFee. On 5annlreg Ranh? Please sate the'Bpedlfic cn[h_5 — over and above lW ildirV,; codes fw mull -SFPA areas — fllu l m ust be n[e[. to meet the 'lire -res i%ilarlt' r equit emenl. Page A14 -B Slater that °The Project's Fim and I.Ife Safety Program este bfthes'a 1204nof- wfdP•minlmtrm hie wriagernwd area.Ehat op rlsi5is. of Zone A. which is a minlml,inn or 24 feet wlda; Zone B, which Is a minlrmrm of 60 feet wide; and Zone C, wl liuh is a mini nl[nn of 50 feel wide." Hgxever, M6 milh num Iuel manages rent zww is swppused to be 170 feet, as cleartypointed out 1n Apperidht K. Please explain how you.expect a 1'20- foot.fueI honagament area to be apprrned? It is slated on'Pago 4.54 -1 D. that ",.. a tPmporary fire station would be. regnlred on the ProjeGt'$It, to Serve those areas of the site that cannot be served Ly cxlsting Station Number 2...: Please idenlify the planned Ioca6oa for this temporary fire elation. Page i.14,i2, TaW 49 i.4-2 Gmies that ex'rsring. Newport Fire Station #P2 cannot serve Urban Colony site 52b, and an only pa rtiatly serve site areas 10a and 18b, Please fndicale exactly 'which fire stations will serve these developmenls. Page 4.14•12 states that °The closes[ Costa Mesa flre station to the Project site is Station Number 3 located at 1665 Park' Rvcnue.' and that — additionally -- the'... use of fire and errenWrley medteal services pfavlded -.h rough the City's mutual .old agreement with adjacent.judsdictions..,' rroy be needed• lease provide further am ysls and miodeling to indicate hm-1 OEIen Costa 6tesa StariOn'QR ; assi5ra No will W needed. Page 4:14.13 -- If is stated that 'Existing and forecasted funding [for a new or to mporary Fire Sationj will be. araila ble to replace: the fire station within a reasonable lime- release be specirfc as to what time period.ls'reasona ble tlmec and explain why it can be:rea sonat9y expeuled that [Ilia lunding will becur ne available. Senlnn 49142 — Porlem It is smicd on page 4.14 -13 tha! "Upon annexation, the Project would be served by the Newport Beach Police Deparlme•nt [Police Department]." UM11 anrlexarlon — or in the eve nt'that annexation did not lake place, hm.. "would PMiop ProlecliQn Fla provided Far the Project? It is stated on page 4.74.93 that "Because all but 40 acres.or the Project site are In unlneorported Orange Gourdy, a majority vF Ihe.Newport Ra nning Ranch property is served by the Arorth Operations Division or the Drange County .Shedfis Depa rtment.and the Costa Mesa Police bepaftmen�" Please indicate when, relative to final approval of the Project. iJewparl Beach would Luke over policing vI It le pr upel ly'. Is there any polentlal rw ['x lay (eq. delays in Incorporating the property Inlo.the City) that would require the Sheriff or Costa Mesa to police the property efter approvel of the Develdpnlerd? rt states on page 4.14 -14 that "Tha NBwflorf Bwnh PolirP Depa imPltl has mutual aid agre PmeMEL, with Ihe'C@fes or Gooch Mesa, Founla ill Valley, arld Huniii Man Seacn, and the Change Colony Sale riffs Depattt nent to provide oigatliced. Inreragenry aSSlSla me and conperalion during local polire :Inridehts ° Based on current inter -dry "perience, what Impact 1V li b2 13 14 R:Trgects\N w.ry JDI5IRTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -769 Responses to Environmental Comments P p O 3 ] 3 A r Q N m p N W 1'j n. f b � C z Y 'C g P .`l W is m m� fi .•Jl P. • v G m R `{,m a d W N N ¢of P �' �a 3�'3 �o-�_:u� ¢ '0 Cry n c[3s a m '� m ry '- '7 3 �: � :n � �, � u m � . m z 3 y � �._ a N � � vi,x c 5 .'. 3 'J Td 3-13 a 'J ° N � n � j V ° � a- TE3 �4ny ¢ ¢� Q a D�Tim °C� :V :�... •C�R C0. x'y a['p (]jy m:� =3C W amx.'D '3,.� w�O6 NNC y'._ S.m m 35 '�,a ^..y� n�'�-��?s ���:i R. `m 5$ �g.�v 3m d u.n yr N ��3G� PC c C r, w o n -a a} m 3 `� a.3 ! n -. o m m r'. ° >> 23 2 7 . 4 A' $- m O W :O'' -'o C m y m W p n� O- P d❑ C m n' t m m° n n° m 3 m he P ti ❑ m M.pV '7 6 [=[ Eym.d�' =.A o� dd [o C a n..•c [y q �r.r N.3m.ryW o 7fA �� �p.m vmT Cm� z W r c._9� a $ O ^y ^n VT m o S -. m°• Zi eo a m N ¢'e OHIO p,,mm.ry 3Toc ❑.p o lJ.�d 2..�� '34. m' S •-: C -c �°.: c 'w6ip� l3 0 .n T] '[? 0 V• ig n m 7 IIC - '3 n -s.w c[P =l. •C Rm.o C m N {C 4 ui „m, �.p.. g -n 2 m _ C m .�'S. f's' n �9 j pR• m m ni 30 N �'m cm� Tp R ❑ QQ?- �f>>�p��p+'� FEW �^N� m�'� °_C � C'�C � u�:' am YY NS y 3°.g? y = 0 1 N. .❑ s%ifl Lrpw `�n.n QO. Z�$ .R3_¢ b?[.�.Cn �+, u�.rH S-•3� c�n ¢� Yan °�c�0.n �7'.� i��v .�o 20•� nm�c mry "m ="2i �. 'o� Lm..p:� ��•�v�S.c !D3Q $, N. ro'y3' S rx-S m � •`2 T i a m 2 ��?.W 'n:� .?L s� b'T S•'-2 o•c. m E'er. 3n �•a m � O ' d m �•r 3 n Cl f. -�: Cm �+�'2 � .m W�m.��' �`fi Am r m �4^�m '$3ao �rmc n? mo � m '��..��._� ¢ � 'm d.F 21r a m n g. .� a 4J $_.a m0 '�o m' c +m m c Y 0 3 OS 3'v .a d 3 In a r :��-. n > CC .nn ° d m^pd ri. �yn ° Ti y: �''G _-I Ew FIE og, So m C ¢�� _ °vim ^[�Am •L and 'a� ?o C m6 Z��2 oo- mg+n -� �... y.r33 pp°g' Qa�' E�i��.m .ia.•o n2 .2 �m 5� �.�i C '�N Nrya 'nom o-c r � W N W N j N 3 O � �m [n A Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Section 4.14.6 So l id Waste Sectiupp 4.14.5 Solid Waste faits to identify solid waste associated WilIn the Pi uj ect construction— either epluul copnhu ma feria is or Cnnla minated snlEp renlnv4d in 'he pmress of construction, The.sectinn only Idenlif OR vAste generated du l iris 1116 "Loilfpeld rep I_&. aliul'I und,uil welt �fosuld (,9GCL'.ss. I?leasd' add auluar eui7stl uClton ina c;rbls or eo0ai PA latdd sp11s removed In the process of o kstrugtien in the ide+lrifled splkl waste generated by I he Project. Section 4.14.6 Mill gation Programs .MM 4,14 -1 on page 4,14�V, shies that, "Geriificales or occupa my shall not Ce issued fry the Uty of Newport Beach for any residential dwelling unit the resort inn, or any ODYnmerclal structure in Site PIa!infng Area 104 {northerly block only)I, S ite.Planning Area 1 O (nvri]xrly block only), and Site Planning Area 1.2b until Fire Station Number 2 is rebuilt at the existing City Hall site. at 233170 Newport 8OL11 eva.rd or at another Iooltion that the Newport Beach Fire Department has determined is suticient to provide: tire response within the Fire Department's established response.time standards. Further, MAO 4.1 4-3 on page 4,14 =31 provides for the esia brlshmert of a bemperary 11 re. statlon on the. Banning Ranch, In tike event that "— a repdeueme nl sialiari for l =ine Station 2, ml be oper aiiona! Pn feu to the develoaavril 01' arty combustible structures.—' It is further stated that.' -Rte temporary fiie,station site shall be within the Project limits of disturbance apprrnrved es e pent at the Project Ruch the[ no nevi Or wi r[irin neiliel el fects would a::cup However, the DE 12 does not IMIcale where, on Eiannlncd Ranch, the femporary hre E:trirjire viatdd he plte[I. Recause IN., stunt Eicn is a very real pw5sibility, arya rid ail al leroate sii2s should be idenfified in the DEIR, and it st pould be Slhuwr hrnv each of Ihese sites meets the. requirement: that It Is wilhln the "Project Iimlls of disturim thee' Section 4A 43 Level of 81 g n ificmice after "tigat on No cwnrrpen iIs Tables Tabic 4.14 -9 (page 4,14 -$4 States Iha[ the Projeot will: recydc and reuse materials on site during oilfield cleanup and ie mediation to the extent pre clical: I- erwever, it places nu such iequir en rent 6n the Dovelopr nentrs construction phase. If such a requirement Is. speiled out in [be "Project's Green and Sustainable Pfogra m', it. should be explidUy called out in Table 4.14.9: 11 not, the subject uf.'me'Vcle aiTJ reuse of mate iials' should he povered'imthis aecliar i. Contrary to the Comistenry. Ardlyds rtatement.fpt I -IJ Policy 3.2 in Tai hle R,1.4.10 (park. a r+,'I,n.y7), the FlR hap not de mw tit oted Ihal the pnuposed lard rises can be adequately Served be use Tit rsportafion a rid -C iiCulaiiun depend heaviy on major roadway rhanr, Je5 in the Cilyy or Cosia Mesa over which nalf her the pinjen.t. dpyelpper nr Iha Cily or Newport Beach have any control, Picric Indloate how the Develvpmcrt will deal wlib possl52e canlingendes such as; 1]u' and 190 $Veep not being widened to h,)rodle additional tfafb6; It not beirV possible to construct the sector of North Bluff Road 'turn 17'" Siree[ to 19'" Street. Table 4,1n -7n ipage.414 331 slates Ibal'Eris log N� 1St] schools Iha' are expected t11 sec ,Ibe r oject Include Newport Elenrenlary School ... 'This is ainirary to statements made un oaacs 4.14 -20 all 4.14 -23. CYildren are normally expected Id altarri the ir, elusesl school. As Newport E1erTler Imy Sdmal is no the closest s huol to the hop ne.sites; aril given that Newport Elementary School has neither the current capacity (per Table. 4, 14.4) or the land to expand, ihls appeara id ba. a bed erpectelimi. Table ti. 14.1U should be cunected to. accurate ly rel le i-1 [tie srhoui ai std pools where Devetopmen[ children will most probably:a lterxl. Aci"opding to Tattle 4A 4-11 on page•A. 14.35. "... land divisio r>s, ... uutside exisling. doyeloped areas scull be per edited op dy where 50 Percent of the usable parsers In Iha,nrea have bean develn pad and the rreafed pallets would he nn smaller 23 24 25 26, R: Troject sWewporN015�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -771 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments than the averaue W2e of sutroundlrr0 parcels." Contrary to the contention In this lade that 'The project Is consstent oath thin section it is net According to Costa Mesa City Cowncilman Beaver, speaking at the 20 October =t Dammng Rarulr Joant Study SeSsiurl '11 tie] Urlran Culurry is at 40 urutstaete. ]He wuuldj.. !re trayW d it were rime reflective vt ...Costa Mesa proposed Cneartayj developments —at 13-25 unitalaare" (Reference video at the following location: harp: lltastarnesa- Rranitt >S.tarrrllN€dk?plaver- nho7view id -AUllp ids -17 J,} Please commeMon this ot)Aous inconsistency and on how the Developmentwrd meet the regvirernent to be consistent with surrounding housing densities — both carant and Planned — In both titles of rdariuport death and Costa Mass Very tnAy your, James T Martsri ld 1 097 Rhodes [rive Gotta Mesa, CA 92M Phone. 714751.7243 jtmarmfield &a. moom 25 Cont R: mrojectswewportUOI SRTMIRTC- 031512,doc 3 -772 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 064 Jim Mansfield November 8, 2011 Response1 If development begins prior to annexation, the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) would require an agreement between the City of Newport Beach (City), County of Orange, and OCFA that addresses the transfer or retention of fire prevention, and planning and development services. This agreement would address issues such as access, water, inspection, plan review and other areas addressing fire service response. If the Project site is not annexed immediately, OCFA would require several other mitigations such as Optical Preemption devices on traffic signals and access gates, Secured Fire Protection Agreement, and methane mitigation reports. Please refer to Letter R6 from the OCFA. Response 2 The Fire Department's primary concern is providing fire protection services to habitable structures which would be accessible via planned roadways. There are no habitable structures within the areas of the Project site where roads are not planned. As discussed on page 4.14 -8 of the Draft EIR, the Project site has been designed to include fuel management zones consistent with the fire safety requirements for the Project. Generally, fuel management areas are a composite of two or three successive fuel management zones, which progressively provide an increasing amount of fire protection as they become closer to residences or other habitable buildings that require protection. As part of the proposed Project, a Fire and Life Safety Program has been prepared as a component of the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan. The proposed Project is consistent with the fire hazard designations. With any wildland fire incident, the Fire Department places the engine at the point of access, anchors a hose line, and lays progressive hoses to flank the fire. Air support from OCFA is provided as needed. Response 3 The majority of the Project site with the exception of Site Planning Area 12b, the northerly block of Site Planning Area 10a, and the northerly block of Site Planning Area 10b, can be served by existing Fire Station Number 2 within the established response times. Occupancy permits would not be issued for those portions of the Project site until either a replacement fire station is in place or a temporary fire station is provided on the Project site, whichever occurs first. The FireForce One report identified potential alternative locations for the replacement station. However, at this time a location for a replacement station is unknown and is therefore not included in the analysis in Section 4.14. Response 4 The FireForce One study estimated an increase of approximately 300 calls for the Newport Beach Fire Department annually as a result of Project. This increase can be absorbed into Station Number 2's call load without the need for additional resources or adverse effects to customer service once Station 2 is relocated. Additionally, Fire protection systems such as alarms, sprinklers, fire standpipes, etc. are added to these multi -use units to address the high density safety requirements. The Fire Department has indicated that they would be able to provide service to the majority of the Project site within an adequate response time of four minutes. As indicated above in the response to Comment 3, three Site Planning Areas, including the northern half of the Urban Colony, are located outside of the four minute response RT,.jedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -773 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments time from the existing Station 2. The Fire Department has taken into consideration the densities of the proposed development within its response time provision. Response 5 Please refer to the response to Comment 4. Automatic aid agreements are used to ensure that adequate fire protection and emergency services can be provided. Should the Newport Beach Fire Department not be able to provide a response within a four minute response time, another automatic aid agreement participating fire agency would provide service to the Project site. Newport Beach Station Number 2 units and Huntington Beach Engine 43 are approximately equal in distance from the Project site. However, Station Number 2 would respond automatically to this area for medical aid and investigations. For structure fires and large emergencies, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa may be a part of the current regular assignment of three engines, two trucks, one paramedic unit, and one Battalion Chief sent to any structure fire in west end of Newport Beach. OCFA would likely only be involved if a helicopter for a water drop was required. Response 6 A request by the Applicant for the use of an Alternative Means and Methods (AM &M) has been conceptually approved where the fuel modification distances would be less than 170 feet (locations where there is a simultaneous need to preserve open space and protect native habitat areas). The AM &M measures that would have to be implemented as a part of the Project are as follows: 1. The entire development would be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. One and two single - family dwelling units would be required to meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 -D requirements; multi - family three or more attached dwelling units would be required to meet NFPA 13 -R requirements; and retail, commercial, and resort buildings would have to meet full NFPA 13 requirements. 2. All structures on lots within 100 feet of the fuel modification /fuel management edge would have to comply with Chapter 7A of the 2007 California Building Code and Chapter 47 of the 2007 Fire Code including additional fire protection measures including: a. No venting on the side of the structures facing the fuel modification edge. b. All venting throughout the structures cannot be larger than 1/8 inch. The requirements are considered substantially equivalent to the requirements of Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline G.02, "Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance Standards ". The final fuel modification plan for the proposed Project would be evaluated based upon the measures proposed in the AM &M request. Response 7 Please refer to the response to Comment 6. Response 8 No specific location has been identified. As stated in Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.14 -3, "The temporary fire station site shall be within the Project limits of disturbance approved as a part of the Project such that no new environmental effects would occur ". RTr.pdsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -774 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 9 The Project can be adequately served through the use of existing /future City fire and emergency medical services, a temporary fire station on the Project site, as well use of fire and emergency medical services provided through the City's automatic aid agreement with adjacent jurisdictions. As stated on Page 4.14 -10 of Section 4.14, Public Services and Facilities, the temporary fire station would remain in operation until a replacement fire station is operational that could serve the Project in its entirety. The City has prioritized the replacement of Newport Station Number 2 in the City's Facilities Replacement Plan. Response 10 It would be speculative to determine how often Costa Mesa Fire Station Number 3 would respond to the Project site. Automatic aid on large events and fires would include the cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. The City does not have an agreement with either the City of Costa Mesa or the City of Huntington Beach for emergency medical service coverage in this area. Page 5 -74, the first paragraph under Cumulative Impact Analysis Fire Protection has been changed and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The City of Newport Beach Fire Department serves existing development (inclusive of past and present projects) through the facilities and staff identified in Section 4.14. The proposed Project assumes the provision of fire protection services is based on a combination of existing and planned City of Newport Beach fire services and the use of mutual automatic aid. The City participates in Central Net, an automatic mutaal aid system with the cities of Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach, and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Together, these cities and the County provide personnel to any emergency. As part of this rnaiaal automatic aid agreement, the se:t an emergency response unit is dispatched to the emergency, regardless of jurisdictional boundary. As such, all projects in the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach would be assumed in the cumulative analysis for fire protection services. Responsell The specific timing of a replacement fire station has not been determined by the City. The new station would be funded, in part, by the proposed Project. Please refer to MM 4.14 -2 of Section 4.14, Public Services and Facilities, of the Draft EIR. Response12 The entirety of the Project site is located within the City and its Sphere of Influence. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of a "No Project Alternative," which assumes the continued existing conditions on the Project site. In the event annexation of the 361 acres of the Project site located in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence is not approved, the Project as proposed could not be implemented. Response 13 The City would assume responsibility for the entirety of the Project site upon annexation of the property into the City of Newport Beach. No delays in serving the property are anticipated by the City. RTrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -775 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 14 No impacts are anticipated Response15 It is anticipated that either a conservancy would be formed or a qualified existing organization would be named as the land steward, and funding for long -term maintenance would be provided by a number of sources including endowments, Homeowners Association fees, property transfer taxes, and other to be determined funding sources, or some combination of all. Unfortunately, coyote presence in the urban /natural interface is not a new or uncommon problem. Because residential development has occurred adjacent to natural areas, coyotes have discovered that the "human environment can be ideal in providing them with abundant food choices such as readily available household garbage, pet foods, small pets, vegetable gardens, water, and vast assortments of other leftovers conveniently accessible day or night. Oftentimes food is intentionally provided by well- meaning persons who believe they are doing a good deed .,'40 The coyotes that occur on the Project site will continue to venture into adjacent residential areas as long as these resources are available. Page 4.6 -66 of the Draft EIR acknowledges this potential issue relative to the proposed Project. "Development and park uses built adjacent to natural open space, particularly near the lowland, may create urban - wildlands interface issues. Coyotes may attack cats and small dogs from residences. Outdoor cats may attack native birds, lizards, and small mammals, which is especially of concern in habitat potentially supporting Endangered, Threatened, or other special status wildlife species. These urban - wildlands interface impacts would be considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.6 -16, which requires development and implementation of an urban - wildlands interface brochure and public education program, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The City of Newport Beach Police Department has not identified any concerns about a potential increase in crime because of the presence of open space. There are several areas in the City where development abuts open space including the Back Bay and Newport Coast. Standard Condition (SC) 4.14 -4 notes that the Police Department will review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. Public safety planning recommendations will be incorporated into the Project plans. The Applicant would prepare a list of Project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. The Police Department would review and approve all defensible space design features incorporated into the Project prior to initiating the building plan check process. Response 16 The suggested change in methodology is noted. However, this is not the methodology used by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. 40 http: / /digitalcommons .unl.edu /cgi /viewcontent.cgi ?article= 1021 &context= vpc10 &sei- redir =1 &referer= http %3A %2F %2Fscholar.google.com% 2Fscholar% 3Fq% 3Drabbits %2Burban %2Bnatural %2Bint erface% 26hl %3Den %26as_sdt %3D0 %26as_vis %3D1 %26oi %3Dscholart# search= %22rabbits %20urban %20natu ral %20interface %22 R:\ PrrpdsWewp .MJ0151RTORTC431512.do. 3 -776 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 17 Please refer to Letter R5 from the Newport-Mesa Unified School District which identifies that the School District forecasts a district -wide capacity surplus. The School District has also provided revised school enrollment figures. Response18 The Applicant provided statistical information to the School District to use in its assessment of potential Project impacts. The Urban Colony has always been assumed as a probable location for on -site affordable housing. Affordable housing does not have different student generation rates. Please also refer to the response to Comment 16. Response 19 As noted in the response to Comment 17, the School District forecasts a district -wide capacity surplus. The School District, not the City or the Applicant, would determine what additional facilities may be required in the future to accommodate students from the proposed Project as well as students from other locations within the district boundaries. Response 20 Please refer to Section 4.14 of the Draft EIR starting on page 4.14 -17 which explains how public school facilities are funded in the State of California. The payment of fees fully mitigates school impacts. Response 21 The amount of construction - related waste materials is not known. PDF 4.11 -5 requires that (1) construction waste diversion will be increased by 50 percent from 2010 requirements; and (2) to the extent practical, during the oilfield clean -up and remediation process, the Landowner /Master Developer will be required to recycle and reuse materials on site to minimize off -site hauling and disposal of materials and associated off -site traffic. With respect to remediation, please refer to pages 4.14 -28 and 4.14 -29 of the Draft EIR which identifies that approximately 25,000 cubic yards (cy) of material would not be suitable for use on the Project site. Any hydrocarbon- impacted soil that cannot be treated on site would be transported to an off -site recycling /treatment facility; such facilities accessible for use within Southern and Central California. Response 22 Please refer to the response to Comment 8. Response 23 Please refer to the response to Comment 21. Response 24 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 151 161h 17`n or 19"' Street. The Project's impact on the peak hour operation of intersections along these streets was R\ Projects \NewpartU0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 3 -777 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments evaluated, and mitigation measures have been identified for any intersections that would experience a significant Project impact. Alternative C in Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, evaluates the proposed Project without the construction of Bluff Road from just north of 17th Street to 19th Street. Response 25 Please refer to the response to Comment 17. Response 26 The commenter is referencing Coastal Act Section 30250 which states in part "(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels'. The Project site is contiguous to existing development and infrastructure to the north, south, and east. With respect to the relationship of the proposed Project to the City of Costa Mesa's Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area, please refer to Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR identifies that "the Urban Colony would permit a much higher residential density (40 du /ac compared to 13 du /ac) and non - residential intensity (2.0 to 2.5 FAR compared to 1.0 FAR) of development when compared to the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area. The maximum lot coverage for the proposed Project is also greater (90 percent compared to 60 percent). However, development of different densities and intensities in close proximity can be compatible. Residences of varying densities are located off site in both the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and are proposed within the boundaries of the Project site. Land uses of differing densities can be sited in a manner to be compatible, particularly when the type of use and the allowable height are the same. As such, no significant land use compatibility impacts are anticipated south of 18th Street to 17th Street ". R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -778 Responses to Environmental Comments Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Patrick Alford Dear Mr. Alford: Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments Comment Letter 065 �,SOEIVEO gp COMMUNITY NOV 0 @ 2011 0, DEVELOPMENT 4� OP NEWPOttit 9� Based on the findings of this DEIR in Air Quality under Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, it appears the Project will have a significant impact on air quality for the entire region, which would include Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and perhaps beyond because of its contribution to Ozone (03) concentrations. Are my conclusions correct here? What is the extent of the region referred to in "regional pollutant concentrations "? "Impact Summary: Significant and Unavoidable. The Project would have a significant cumulative air quality impact because its contribution to regional pollutant concentrations of 03 would be cumulatively considerable." Why are the impacts of Ozone on human health not mentioned in the DEIR, requiring readers of the document to do their own research to find the health risks? On the EPA web site, I found extensive information on the health effects of Ozone, including the following two paragraphs: http://www.epa.gov/apti/ozonehealth/population.htmi "Breathing ground -level ozone can result in a number of health effects that are observed in broad segments of the population. Some of these effects include: Induction of respiratory symptoms, decrements in lung function and inflammation. Respiratory symptoms can include: Coughing, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily ozone concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that ozone can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers." The South Coast Air Quality Board's web site lists Ozone as the air pollutant having the most impact on the health of children and adults. It lists asthma as the most important disease with increasing incidence in this country, but says other diseases, such as R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -779 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments allergic reactions, bronchitis and respiratory infections are also increasing and that air pollution is a causal factor for these incidences. The site points out that children spend more time outside than adults and are often outdoors when pollution is at its highest. http:// www. agmd. gov /forstudents /health_effects_on_ children. html# W hichAir Children also exert themselves harder than adults and studies on the impact of pollution on athletes demonstrate that we breathe in 30% more air while exercising. Do the Projects Applicants feel they have gone far enough to reduce the health hazards associated with breathing ozone by children engaged in sports at Sunset Ridge Park and the sports park, which has been designed with three soccer fields, and by the students playing on the Carden School playground? What more can be done to bring those ozone impacts down to less than significant? A response by email would be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Fred Marsh 16 Summerwind Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 4 cord. R:\ Prq .cWNewp.MJ0151RTORTC- 031512.d.c 3 -780 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 065 Fred Marsh November 8, 2011 Response1 Regional pollutant discussions usually imply the South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of Orange County and the urbanized areas of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Response 2 A summary of the health risks of the national criteria pollutants is provided in Topical Response: Air Quality. Response 3 The comment is noted. Response 4 Please note that air quality impacts to local residents, park users, and other nearby receptors would all be less than significant. Please also refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that the Project's Mitigation Program has been revised to include Tier 4 construction equipment and NOx emissions, an ozone precursor; the impact would be less than significant. R\RrojedsWewp.MJD151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -781 Responses to Environmental Comments November y, 2011 Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach 33oo Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 TO: Patrick Alford Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 066a 9.sCEIVEO 9 r COMMUNRV NOV 0S 2011 C' DEVELOPMENT c OP h'EW oo 6� RE: Banning Ranch dEIR, Air Quality section, 4.10.6 Threshold of Significance Under Air Quality on page 17, there's a check list of thresholds for significance criteria. I have questions and comments on four of the thresholds: Threshold 4.10 -2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Won't the Project be in violation of an air quality standard by exceeding the NOx t significance thresholds in 5 out of the 10 proposed years of construction, as stated in the "Unavoidable and Significiant Impacts" section of this d1i Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments The health hazards of exceeding NOx exposure are well- document by the EPA: From the EPA on NO?/NOx III [p; Jxiwc, ��; nitnac�sutat'Tlttcry�zaanxide�, "Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as'oxides of nitrogen,' or'nitrogen oxides (NOx)'." Other nitrogen oxides include nitrous acid and nitric acid. NUle EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard covers this entire group of NOx, NO. is the component of greatest interest and the indicator for the larger group of nitrogen oxides. NO. forms quickly from emissions from cars, trucks and buses, power plants, and off -road equipment. In addition to contributing to the formation of ground -level ozone, and fine particle pollution, NOr is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system. Health Effects: NOx react with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form a small particles. These small particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and premature death. Ozone is formed when NOx and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Children, the elderly, people with lung diseases such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are at risk for adverse effects from ozone. These include reduction in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms as well as respiratory- related emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and possibly premature deaths." How does the Project Applicant intend to address these health hazards that will be visited on such a large population of sensitive receptors when the significance thresholds of NOx are exceeded during the construction years and by the congestion that will result from the increase in population density and traffic created by the Project? Threshold 4.10 -5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. On PI-7-1 of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guide (Revised 6 /11), "odiferous compounds" from construction are discussed and diesel PM is listed as one of those compounds: "Odiferous compounds can be generated from a variety of source types including both construction and operational activities. Although less common, construction activities 5 that include the operation of a substantial number of diesel- fueled construction equipment and heavy -duty trucks can generate odorous diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) exhaust emissions that adversely affect nearby receptors." Since the Project Applicants intend to use heavy construction equipment concurrently for soil remediation, grading and other construction activities, how do they plan to keep the overpowering smell of diesel PM from so much heavy equipment usage from R:TrojectsWewpn J0I5�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -783 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments becoming an adverse effect on the surrounding community and especially the residents 15 of Newport Crest, Newport Shores and Carden Hall? Oil field operations also generate benzene emissions that can cause cancer and other serious health problems. In July 2011 the EPA` proposed new regulations to reduce emissions of air toxics, including benzene, as well as methane, a greenhouse gas. Will the Banning Ranch development be complying with these new regulations and have the proposed emission reductions been included in the calculations of emissions in this dEIR? • htt p;// www. cpa. gov/airgmliiy /odandgw /index.Mail (7-28 - 11)1(1'\ h:o propraYLi suilr dhjghlj,.),t cBcdixeregaLtiow that would reduceharmfid air pollulmn frrm lhr oil amt natural gas industn. w hiL allowing n ndinared, respnnsiMr gmwih in t6S. oil and nelnral gas prnduction.lLe pmpnned npdaird rules would MAN wn pmVen lrehnologiv, and best Iaaetims that are in use h,day In nxluce mnicsions o(snvlg- forming solalik organic a.lmpnmds (VOCs). [...]'Ile rut" Aw would reduce cords <ksnr of methane, a ptenl gmenhomw gas, and air loxics, which arr ►town or suspected of causing canner ami other vrwu.s Irrnith elrcr&. The pmpmal includes the reiew of four mhs for the oil and natural pc <imtusln; a newaaurr I.,finmaurc standard fur V(x ;r, a ncly enutrx: perfurt aura smndanl For sulfur dxrxide; an air loxim standard for oil and naluni gas production; and= air toxics stan(tml G n natural gas lrnsmissiou and slomgn. I ask that the contents of this letter be recorded in the public record, along with my objection to the approval of the Banning Ranch dEIR in its current form. Thank you for 7 taking the time to review my concerns. A response via either regular mail or email would be appreciated. Yours truly, '2�q Sandra McCaffrey 9 Summerwind Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 sl.mccaffrey @gmail.com cont. RA Projects \NewportWl&RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -784 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 066a Sandra McCaffrey November 8, 2011 Response1 The ambient air quality standards (AAQS) shown in Table 4.10 -1 of the Draft EIR are pollutant concentrations, that is, the amount of pollutant per volume of air .41 The forecasted exceedances in the Draft EIR for NOx during construction and 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 federal or State AAQS. Please also refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that the Project has been revised to include Tier 4 construction equipment and NOx emissions would be less than significant. Response 2 As stated on page 4.10 -29 of the Draft EIR, the Project's emissions would be cumulatively considerable and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Response 3 The comment is noted. Please note that air quality impacts to local residents, park users, and other nearby receptors would all be less than significant. Response 4 Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that local exposure to NOx during construction would be less than significant. Ambient air quality analysis for operations is appropriate when there are substantial stationary sources of pollutants such as power plants, mining operations, or industrial facilities, or when there is a massing of mobile sources such as a warehouse /distribution facility, bus station, or a railroad yard. The proposed Project has none of these sources. The potentially significant NOx impacts described in the Draft EIR are for regional emissions. Exposure of persons to local concentrations of NOx or NO2 would be less than significant. Please also see the general discussion of NOx emissions during construction. Response 5 Construction equipment would be dispersed throughout the Project site and diesel exhaust odors would reduce with distance. While there may be a number of pieces of equipment working at the same time, the concentration of equipment would not be like that of a bus station or warehouse distribution facility. Response 6 The proposed EPA regulations, not yet approved, are related to oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing, commonly called "tracking ". This process is not used in the oil operations on the project site and the regulation is not relevant to the proposed project. 41 One exception, not a concentration standard, is for Visibility Reducing Particles, which are not analyzed in the Draft EIR. aaa,o i. d.N..p.MJ015�erOerc- 031512.do. 3 -785 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 7 The comment is noted. RA Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -786 Responses to Environmental Comments Novemher 7, 2011 Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Alford: Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments Comment Letter 066b OcEIVEO By COMMUNnY NOV 0 @ 2011 (1, DEVELOPMENT V,A GP Op NEWPOtit 9 Please let the following comments be recorded in the public record, along with my objection to the approval of the Banning Ranch DEIR in its current form. With that in mind, I have several questions regarding the Air Quality Section of the DEIR: On page 1, under the heading "Toxic Air Contaminants' (4.10 -1, Introduction): "Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths, that may cause serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles; dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations; and research and testing facilities. TACs are different from the "criteria" pollutants in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause adverse health effects, and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. "Extremely low levels" isn't clear. What are these levels and what adverse health effects are being referred to? Also, please clarify why ambient air quality standards haven't been established for 2 TACs, given how dangerous they appear to be. Can TACs affect the environment as well as humans? What impact do TACs have on the biological resources of Banning Ranch, especially ESHA and critical habitat? If they contaminant the soil and groundwater, what is the impact on endangered species on 3 Banning Ranch and the habitat they need to survive? What is the danger to all plants and animals on Banning Ranch? R: Troject s\NewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -787 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Page 4.1.0 -22 refers to Table 4.1.0 -9 and mentions the maximum area of daily disturbance: "Table 4.1.0 -9 identifies the emissions thresholds for local pollutants with receptors at a distance of 25 meters for 1 -, 2 -, and 5 -acre sites. The table shows that emissions thresholds increase with the size of the site. Therefore, thresholds for sites larger than 5 acres, if they were developed, would be greater than the 5 -acre SCAQMD thresholds. Although the Project site is much larger than 5 acres, the maximum area of daily disturbance during concurrent remediation and grading operations would be approximately 7 acres." Where has it been established in this DEIR or some other document that the concurrent remediation and grading operations will never create a maximum area of daily disturbance over 7 acres? Who provides the supervision and accountability for containing the daily disturbance within that range? What kind of supervision and inspections are employed? How will the public at risk be able to verify their level of exposure; because if the maximum amount of daily disturbance is greater than 7 acres, then SCAQMD thresholds will be exceeded and all sensitive receptors within the 25- meter range will be exposed to pollutants, including school children, the elderly, the infirm and those with respiratory vulnerabilities Also in the Methodology section on page 4.1 -6, it states: "Local Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants from Ott-Site Sources As part of the SCAQMD's environmental justice program, attention has focused on local air quality impacts from nearby sources. The SCAQMD developed the localized significance threshold (LST) look -up tables to allow the evaluation of localized impacts for many projects and scenarios without the complex task of dispersion modeling. The tables show the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the moststringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. The LST methodology is recommended for project sites that are five acres or less. However, the method may be used for construction on larger sites if it is demonstrated that the area of daily disturbance is not substantially larger than five acres and calculated project emissions for the larger site would not exceed the five acre site emissions limits; For the Newport Banning Ranch Project site, this methodology is used for the analysis in Section 4:1.0.7." "Area of daily disturbance" is listed as five acres here, not seven. Is this a contradiction with the reference on 410 -22? How is the area of daily disturbance determined and by whom? What does "substantially larger than five acres" mean? Does seven acres qualify? How would raising the acreage by two acres affect the level of emissions? R:TrojectsWewpn J0I5�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -788 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments These questions and areas of concern haven t been fully covered by the DEIR. Thank you for your attention to this matter and when can I expect a response to my questions? Yours truly, Sandra McCaffrey 9 Summerwind Court Newport Beach CA 92663 sl.mccaffrey @gmail.com R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -789 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O66b Sandra McCaffrey November 8, 2011 Response1 Criteria air pollutants are generally measured in concentrations of parts per million and micrograms per cubic meter whereas toxic air contaminants (TAC) are generally measured in parts per billion and nanograms per cubic meter. Thus, the common definitions of TACs use the term "extremely low levels ". CARB has designated almost 200 compounds as TACs. Of the ten tasks posing the greatest health risk in California, most are associated with risk for various forms of cancer. Non - carcinogenic risks include but are not limited to respiratory illness, blood disorders (from chronic benzene exposure), renal toxicity (from hexavalent chromium), and eye, nose, and throat irritation (from formaldehyde). The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the Newport Banning Ranch project determined that both carcinogenic and non - carcinogenic health risks associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. Response 2 The comment is not relevant to the analysis in the Draft EIR. Response 3 There is no contradiction. Ambient air quality standards are established for criteria pollutants, and are not established for TACs, except when the TAC is also a criteria pollutant, such as lead. There is not a CEQA requirement for analysis of TAC emissions to endangered species or habitats which indicates that the biological resource agencies do not consider TACs a reasonably critical hazard. Response 4 The emissions data used for assessing local impacts from on -site construction activities are derived from the anticipated equipment inventory. The area of the site being graded does not affect the emissions. However, as shown in Table 4.10 -9 of the Draft EIR, the larger the site area, the greater allowable emissions because the average distance from the equipment to the receptor would be greater. Response 5 As noted in the response to Comment 4, changing the area of daily disturbance does not change the level of emissions. Response 6 The comment is noted. R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -790 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 067 banning Ra rich 0511. COM MEfJTS Chris McEvoy Traffic l mpart5. How is itiis projuct going to rru tiga to all the new permarunI. traffic in our oornmunity? If we assume that e?c�h of the 1375 homes has one car with the average length of a Toyota Ce mry {15.75 feetj•we will have -1A miles of permanent traffic in our com mu rity • If we assume [hat each of the 1375 homes has two.ter5, again with the average length al a Toyota Carnry we will have 8.2 miles of permanent traffic in our community. • This doe:• not indnde no r.tiI and hotel visitor vehicle:. It is proposed that rubberixcu asphalt will quiet the streets. • 15 the nnisQ from an aft, rmark at exhaust considered dampened in this cl a im Ge Harley motorcycle with loud exhaust plpesj 1An a mise study been done to show the impacts to the Mari na Heights- rommu ni ry in Costa mesa? • -I tw_ Santa Ana Hiver [rail is quiet, will this bu los t7 How does rubb-urized asphalt nlitipoLu pennon nt traffic? There will be massive amounts of cue through traffic. Flow is this goi ng to effect • stud ents walPIng to Whi tter, Pomona and Rea Elerne ntary.schools • upku ep 0 roads in Costa Musa and wlw will pay fw the increased usv? In trying to Indnrsta nd the irafik numhers for the project from the HEIR. • it was not made clear how much traffic was gaing to be cu[ through • the average of trips generated by the project was given yet a range was not given, meaning how mi ny r ii .. wmiId he expected an .a.hif h traffic day •]rat how many on .a low tr.a lFt day The• propO$cd entrance to the Btu Fl Road off PCH is gpl ne to he 4 la nes and how Is this Iing to fit I Ptween the F.SHW,s that the Suntet Rid& nark entrance would barely fit through • Who is going to maintain the road being that it is necessary component of the project, the taKpaye r; or the de we leper? R: Trojects WewpnMJOl5�RTMRTC- o315izdac 3 -791 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Could the Bluff Road • lead to eminent domain in areas that need more road space so to accommodate the extra traffic • lead to 19•'street bridge • hurt property values where traffic increases • lead to the Sunset Ridge Park entrance population Imneets How is an increase in local population going to effet[ • Emergency response during a natural disaster, strain nn petite, fire and HCAC • increased use of ocean, ie do we need more lifeguards year round • Water supply • Sewage treatment • t.andfilI and recycling needs • Pawerdemand • Voting districts fir Newport Beath and State Assembly • Increase In the number of an duty palice for Newport Reach Construction impacts • Gut through traffie for construction warkam, vehicles and eq ulpmant will strain Costa Mew's roads. Use, noise, traffic etc tww will this be mitigated? General Concerns • Were the residents and businesses given written notice about the DEIR and how to comment on it? • Will new liquor licenses be issued to businesses on this property • Will pebp e beillowed to use project for parking for pu - it beach - access 10 11 R:ProjectswewportUMS5 RTMRTC- 031512,doc 3 -792 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 067 Chris McEvoy November 8, 2011 Response1 It is unclear what is meant by "permanent traffic ". Project traffic (new traffic that would be generated by the Project) is measured in terms of trips per dwelling unit for residential development, trips per room for a hotel, and trips per thousand square feet for commercial development. Each one -way movement by a car to or from the development is considered a trip. The combined trip total (all trips to and from the Project, all purposes) for the residential, resort inn, and commercial components of the Project would be 14,989 trips per day, distributed across the connecting roadway network and across all hours of the day. Street parking on the Project site would be available to the public for beach access. Response 2 The noise model includes noise emission factors based on the total spectrum of vehicles. Individual vehicle noise sources are not addressed. Because traffic noise is analyzed for hourly and 24 -hour averages, short- periods of very loud noise or unusual quiet do not substantially affect average noise data. Noise impacts from the Project or Project - related traffic would be negligible. Project construction would be more than 2,000 feet from the Santa Ana Trail; the distance would provide noise attenuation of at least 35 dBA. Very loud construction noise may be discernable when ambient noise is very low. Long -term noise increases from Project traffic on Brookhurst Street would be less than 0.3 dBA. It is assumed that the commenter is referring to the Marina Highlands neighborhood approximately 2,000 feet north of the Project site. No specific noise study was performed for this residential neighborhood because it is much farther away from the Project site than the nearest residences and other sensitive receptors. Project construction on North Bluff Road would be approximately 2,000 feet from the neighborhood; the distance would provide noise attenuation of at least 35 dBA. All other construction would be at greater distances. Very loud construction noise may be discernable when ambient noise is very low. Long -term noise increases from Project traffic on North Bluff Road and 19th Street east of North Bluff Road would be 0.5 dBA or less. With respect to rubberized asphalt, rubberized asphalt pavement has been used for more than 30 years. There have been many studies demonstrating the noise reduction of rubberized asphalt pavement. Most studies have found noise reductions greater than the 4 decibel (dBA) value used in the Draft EIR. This pavement has been used extensively in California, Arizona, and other states. As stated on page 4.12 -22 of the Draft EIR, Costa Mesa has used rubberized asphalt since 2004. Of note, CalRecycle has recently given the City of Carlsbad a $130,000 grant to continue their rubberized asphalt program because the program would divert approximately 17,000 used tires from landfills. Standard Condition 4.12 -4 requires the use of rubberized asphalt pavement on Project roadways and a 4 dBA reduction was used in the analysis of traffic noise from Project roads. Response 3 It is expected that some existing traffic would divert from its current travel patterns to Bluff Road, to take advantage of a new connection to West Coast Highway. Connections to Bluff Road would be available via 19th Street, 17th Street, 16th Street, and 151h Street. Pomona Elementary RTro jest .N.wp.MJ0151RTORTC - 031512.4.. 3 -793 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments School and Rea Elementary School are located on an inside tract just south of Victoria Street, east of Placentia Avenue. Existing traffic that chooses to divert to Bluff Road would not be expected to enter this tract or to travel along Victoria Street to get there. Whittier Elementary School is located on Whittier Avenue south of 19th Street. Based on the select link run of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM), the majority of the traffic that would use this segment of Whittier Avenue to get to Bluff Road would be from the Newport Terrace neighborhood. The Project would be responsible for constructing Bluff Road /North Bluff Road through the Project site. Once completed, it would be a public roadway. Operation and maintenance of the roadway would become part of the City's roadway program. Response 4 Tables 4.9 -34 and 4.9 -35 of the Draft EIR identified the trips on each of the east -west roadways through southwest Costa Mesa that would be attributable to the proposed Project. This traffic consists of the combination of both the traffic that would be generated by the Project as well as existing background trips that could be expected to divert to Bluff Road via the east -west connecting streets. The trip generation estimate for the Project is based on the Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation publication (8th Edition) trip generation rates for each of the Project components. Trip generation data collected for ITE is based on typical day and operation for the various uses being studied. Trip rates are expressed in terms a straight -line average of all data collected, and in some cases, a fitted curve equation is also provided, to account for the effect that the size of the development has on the per -unit trip rate. Trip rate data is typically not collected to measure peaks and lows based on season or activity. Response 5 Please refer to Topical Response: ESHA and the response to Comment 3. Response 6 The Traffic Impact Analysis has indicated that Bluff Road, as proposed by the Applicant, would accommodate the Project traffic and the traffic that can be expected to divert to Bluff Road. The 19'h Street Bridge is shown on the Orange County MPAH. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Buildout analyses for the proposed Project assumed that the roadway network would be built out as shown on the Master Plan. Because of the uncertainty of the timing of the bridge, a General Plan Buildout scenario without the bridge was also included in the Traffic Impact Analysis for informational purposes. It should be noted that the Year 2016 traffic analysis scenarios do not assume the 19th Street Bridge. With respect to property values, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e), Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project, states: Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Economic or social changes may be used, however, to determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a significant effect on the environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. Alternatively, economic and social effects of a physical change may be RT rojedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -794 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the environment. If the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is significant. For example, if a project would cause overcrowding of a public facility and the overcrowding causes an adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect. This comment does not present or raise an issue regarding the adequacy of analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project in the Draft EIR, but states the opinion of the commenter. No documentation has been provided to support the suggestion that vehicular traffic negatively affects property values. Response 7 Please refer to Section 4.14, Public Services and Facilities, of the Draft EIR which addresses potential effects on emergency response times. As noted in on page 4.14.12 as revised: Therefore, following annexation of 361 acres of the Project site located in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence to the City, the entire Project can be adequately served through the use of existing City of Newport Beach fire and emergency medical services as well use of fire and emergency medical services provided through the City's mutual aid agreement with adjacent jurisdictions, the latter as needed. The plan for provision of fire protection and emergency medical services to the Proiect site meets the criteria for approval of the annexation pursuant to Government Code section 56668 as the City of Newport Beach can provide continuous and reliable fire protection and emergency medical services to the Protect. No significant impacts are anticipated. The Newport Beach Fire Department has stated that here are no established or recognized standards or criteria for the numbers of lifeguards and tower placements. The necessary density of coverage and beach crowd load expected is based on previous experience of lifeguard management, current staffing models, and previous years' average summer population estimates on the beach. Based on the proposed Project's anticipated population, the Fire Department estimates increased staffing in spring and summer months would have an average cost of $15,000 to $20,000 per year. With respect to solid waste disposal, please refer to Section 4.14. With respect to water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, and electricity, please refer to Section 4.15, Utilities, of the Draft EIR. No significant impacts are anticipated. Voting districts does not address an environmental issue. Response 8 Standard Condition 4.9 -3 in Section 4.19 of the Draft EIR requires that the Applicant prepare a Traffic Management Plan for construction traffic. The condition includes the provision that the Applicant must apply for a Haul Route Permit and to identify the routes construction vehicles will use to access the site. The City of Costa Mesa has provided input on construction routes in their City. Response 9 The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 requires that the lead agency (e.g., City of Newport Beach) provide public notice of the availability of a draft EIR shall be mailed to the last known RT rojedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -795 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing, and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: • Publication at least one time by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas. • Posting of notice by the public agency on and off the site in the area where the project is to be located. Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the parcel or parcels on which the project is located. Owners of such property shall be identified as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Notice of the public review period for the Draft EIR was provided by the City using the following methods: • Mailing to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing, and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: • Newspaper notice in the Daily Pilot • Newspaper notice in the Orange County Register • Publication on the City's website Response10 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 Mixed Use /Residential District or the Visitor- Serving Resort/Residential District would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Responsell Street parking on the Project site would be available to the public for beach access. R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -796 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 068 Pnh'iuk , Alfurd. P1 111111 ing 4ln1 141gur City ni Ncwpori. 13c:uh; Conununity Demo Iopment Dolmninont 3300 Newp or[ Boulevard PO &x 176S Newport l3eaoh, CA 9208 Dennis LMC Halt: 17416 MlxIdy Drivu r�inrljatka C.:ntivnn, C�1.9aC7fi R. K; Drug Enyimmnunlul IimpucL R3 poai (EIR) Stufc Cidifornin Clcruiugllousc Nu. 2009.Q31061; Nrewparr Dinning Ranch Pi eject. hslecm ed Adininis[ntum, h4nny cx imincly knux Icdgcnh lc su pporlcm of open space and presciyal ion will be s irbnl1ll ing cMnnlGnl. rr;;3txling the ahnve prnjec1; ahnv 1. nct nc cd fnr a 133 nning RWI011 Chnscivolmy, the aced For hnhl[un[e preservarion and ilia need in Ina imain Elie i n[emoll a auivi R. rhjs pmpeny mighl possess In nor jmm :md nnr iul[ne. My comments have to do with the personal tclarionship I'w: had w[111 this pro p0dy, niy kinkloruto IId'u rg of Ihiy prvpertl' and Ilrc 111 id ayq• Ppir ace, I'in a 3itl geuer:dipn ail indriya'y wurkm', my FnIhur PM 'R&d'.NIc Hale and his Fill] Cl, m]' Crandf filter Al `Big. Rut' Mu IS ale have :Ill wnrkcd at the fSanni rig E..casu; dun ng it's land use m. an oil pmducing Pmperiy. h•it• nssrr_ia[ inn tvil3t rEiis land came hcfnm I was hm•n, s; mr Farber I34E 'Red' Ito 1-T31 c worked is rlri ll cr,iool posher and Cr d titr Al "Rig Red' h -lc 11-116 ',s tiil drilli 09 and "wil dc-11" oil et PI Aran on cnm]mny Superior OiI Scud ce- SW, dril led fpii rc n law of die Prfnlucers nn ncc Da naimg Umt i111h0 ti ac after Rrll!II. 'Dig Red's' wildcat drilling op0rations 41nd association Mill., 'Paul' 00 ry was Suc11 dial. he 1s found noted in Alan Cockfol l "s book Dril li rte Ahead. Mir Fa l l rcr'Rul' ME Hn lc luunIt his n•ay back to the banning Lcosu an u'the ail buo I of the 195o's and wurkcd Ihcrc the nl nj on l}• of his adult ulnplayniunl his l ory.'Rek' having studied Oil ?nginccii rig wlli le :11 Comisl on Col lcgc, miscd himself ki the 2"' in cirmm and of the ]3anni nS Lcmi: opc rations ihry his tenure- Under Frcd Joncx, Lease. 5 uperilltendcn[; boll) tncli }vorkcd Pro• [lx nil ME mac npcnfnra nflhis nil l�:Isc nperali nn, Ilunm Oil, Arnielmag Oil, Clcncml Cngk Oil. I niem:iri Ow,I Pa por, Amntrrong ❑iI 1,I.C, MAhil pit lad Ilrusr Newrio'I Ci 1, MV. l'i esnosum to the 13 arming I- OP SO was as a .'oung pro -10011 whca my miry sm)mior wo6kc Lids I )wild :iccornpany by Fn ther lu ww k un his afl rn91r tpu rlswimy s 1 U 0 Hurd Ssh in IIIe V01ivas- swi(Olt 1,410 Ls of Ill a weda Lids and 1 1 rc Sank Ana 1t740f 1 1 1 ore Iido. IL His frahidgfof ha l ibul was ]umeti roes cvt apt hide) Ile I[ E +y rii 1,1,il I ndi ng wi Ili mtl' 22 Rea aiuglo rr rifu- '£Ins aulivily way of Uuur5e 1311 rir Lu 111t Sanitol ion plowl exim nsiun and btfem Ihu Ox 13mv dewie]nnent 11Ry c Dal inni ng cxposum to the 13n nni ng Lcasc came in my own work his l cry as 1 Ion bccn me nn Pi irldw try [nil patch] wmkcr. I sl artcd as a GunemI 1-iihn ri`! now lolxiul. 6HIling 1'1 lair 113n(U Ocnick flan dl k ul i c l' Dril lc r. PrOd[[cli nn Services Ehrriek Elands Rcl ici Ciro.- Pusher and unim PL IrnICIim f:,nginecf ail on [hu 1Sn nni ngT�ase, R:TrojectslNewpnMJ015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -797 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments L'aga 2 Icr Ihis brief hiss nn• it can be said 17 VC been nn Ihis Lease at c%roy lime of asp, al wcm opurali nn level of this oil Iic Id's olicrations ns a "boots on the growl.' cmpla}'CC. E'1n. not sure Ill is.111akcs MC gnaii IMd in 1310 Mell ci fie ana ly'sis nl' Ill c pclrrflulm engi nccri n6 da to or II3c hint ngical reSOwi:ecs Of Ihis divar5e. open spa ca 11u1 1 tan attest In 1Ili ngs l kno%v and hope seen- hecause T wnrkert with Ihu'm and Ii Veal among Ihow. I do liapc this [uslorio pa Ural iw is not so ]qng iri ndcd as to scull di ng self promoting; ycl 1 do wvu to eQ11I merit Ill of Miler ftfVltlViP$ 11 it niljrr Bynlei ci omul61 ig Fuvi ru I tuu ch es' Iii "tiled is this lellgllw dQC4n I LUJit CFQA Roviun' IA R 1012011, il-s flmgtd iu nmoy findings in seetiun 4.5 Ha'cn'ds and Iia'rirrduus Iy'3:11CIial6_ h4y priman• question lies in 111c Choi cc of cnvi rvnmcnl a] consult ing scrvi cc a. lvvulit nol Dudck of San l7iego haNc hecna hei lcT Cnvi romnen In l conSUll ing SCn•iecs firm as.3 chnicc C,"i deli ng 111c levcI al' emd rumncn la l LignISlsl ion Sound nn I Iii s properl v..1 yudck has a l arger n l:,renec IisI rcgalxli lip , CnVlr0nn1 Ell cal consut li ng basal on Navel olvncd pvnpcnies, ail field ahmldvnmrnlllaud Uoclam3linn lu 1136 aaL Diego ]3n' ar61 arid warm m iswos ltlrough- mn:Cnlplonda. None -Ih6 -lass my commcnls address wally ofihe assumplimvslconclusions aulhomd by Bonlcm Consulline. It's kn6wn puILI. ilddressed IInI Ill is P. M31urly Ins yel to no Ikry lilt t -Cali fomia Rxgi unit Will tr Quill ily CuniUM 6wid gunlLi Amt Rcgton Clcnn -up and rllwlcolenl Vrdcr \v. 01 -77, y'CI sonic huiv n blanket ex cnipl ion according to DOGGH is luadc fcfermcc to and not the Aki cmcnt [7rdc l'. I'hc speci he c:1se tiled eSlahlis hcS rvhy' an c%e111111 inn is in acvu rd snd is the C31i fomia COW Cpl 7Ane Consclvntion Cow nli m i nil is .1973 Excmptioll Drde1' iNo. 11- 7.27.73 I:u1 Ole Bonceirs dncumeni prenfides ao impression d1al post hie 7dlilll nil a %pima Linn nlrra l inns caul d Ile loreeasc a n11 dm dooui3lan is prosenwd under Ibis eland, IIii13 doniils ing project in to ill. $ptei Fey 1 euII LIN Ioq: to! So nlpling pmluwl_ o 4. 53 �•lcl IMILd vgy' i "appavumnlc Y 40 prod ucirlpllwlcnl in l ly prvdlt<ing n1W a bandoncd wvl is '; pl3is an addi tionnl 25 1 o ations of ink crest per Ex hibil'1.5 -1, hare: heen noted irr rcflnrl; y'c1, mil' "550 salnples fool 332 1cSt pi m?lmri ngs, 10 grn un rhval et mini 101i ng Well s, surface n•a ler, and 5niI gas sail pi i rg ppi nl� %Vera only �.seELUC[I. Why? DDGM bas hilt orie as;riul nr Cali fomia ref walls prier in 19A why iveiv all wdI Iccaliens not saaiplcd? 11's a lbr fodiiile to provide 1SSC8Silleills based on ocomplclu dala Uri th r6aencc tp ATrM 4undard E 26003 Stn IIderd Practice fur Asses Smtnl nC9Vapor1 Lit Vas iun into Shnetwes pu Pruperlp 3 InvQ1 Veil in liraI Zsla tt Ti as wVli uily, a LM }' working knmvlcdgc; dot ling nper:I lionx during my IMUM 311he 13 anni ng i -eisc cc Lqi SIM of 2 licilalll c'dril l and .Ii vc' Yi1js a W118nn and :l •i_- alwlwC31; ball were nl odi ficil 1vel I sc evict rigs.wi lh pod%blc componcn is. Rol aTy lablc, meld pump draw- works, pipe me ks, Inns 'hi n' and 'dug hnuses' all porlahlc including the nwd pump. Blest Voris bit components arc sial ilar to today's land hastd nil tick. opt rations. '1716 comlwncnc hcing nosed is ibC nlud pmnp and ulud pit. E30rh rigs. wcrc 0111 fined w5ih l7aker is ilk eonwrsiovs 1hm incl uded her screen sphaker Iahl es, relliM Irnugbs, mis ing sl Ili ems and a conmined mud pit, 7111 Sly1r BLI ICC l' tm dC 111 (0 pa nip C4PYenyiyi l5 are 1181 unnyu0l in Ipolly'S 9pendi 4ny :hill are ty'pi cal Iy N and alone cvinponenls, f1»s'iy lvlrtrt tilt dril Ii US ❑lxtntiu[a I Ili BanaingJ ik diffcn'd. The mud pump and pit welt sit at glade lcwl W the MAT R: Trojects WewporN0151RTMRTC- 031512,doc 3 -798 Responses to Environmental Comments Pngc 3 Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments (surface dcvs[ &an]. 1-11Iring been in Ole tluustalxwl dcpndmcnt as nolcd ahave- our I:Is1: ryas to help prvpar•c and set up [he pin poswl drill si[cs in advance of dril l in_ aNrnti nns [per annual funded lttngfa nQ. Can of Ibis Ircep:rn[ion Intl Urtad e&ravali on of rile Inca li eng for [Frilling mal, oil n'61I eel lar, LiIH l ing Of rnndnelOT pipe and Gila For Ill mild P1pmp and mllrl pi 1. TljS was (16110. in 2 dips, one 1110 wi dtll Of Ih0 lillysical cqu 1`rIQllt appro.xinlamly 8 Feel deep and conncctul to this 1' elk wni Ilec 2 °d 11010 WWII C01 G151 ❑ifs. well tailings mid drill Hind 0Vid rill\ m'•alenlic:d dli11 fluid inix (uyud fo I•Yvvi k- ,),a3) di�.ulwl gu- 'rl pis 'dig- wllnip CO3LIP1e110 17nked li 40 n Nill a I me In liL'ft poul'wi 14:1 's 11 a] I wv end' (alluul h fret dcg)] mul IIM 'deep end' (Ilboul 10 fcvi). Ifwclls YVCIV in very elan¢ prnsinlily io one n nothcr l his 'd ig' would ncconjo lnlc bulb IUcnli ons. A rcfcrcnca is muck In Ihis nhv:ricoI nncrll inn hccnusc Ann lcm sampling 3cbn<. prolacnl notes: Srril Samnlinu 4.5.91 "Flit h}•rlrmullun impods observed Were genaCd l}' tnn lined m [lie upper coil ]a}'er+ [i,u., ioEll in appl)oxlnlamlysie Mar o£ [ha iurfacc) "- ]E.1 ppoars Ihal gam pia pot- holing did not sample all wo111 oca li ons and it I o effeeii ln(1cpl h of the mud ]Ill n ly nuid Pi :1 Ltd 11101:(11i11a'.POndy. TI nlse l•V Is cW 1141i wd dill Ll len a Ud `'vi lah" bruv' of modem dri Ili ng uppn':di uns:lrtd am nul nutul in the Snnlpl ing 121V 1❑C111. AW1u51 ui lhia run 1101Ill W1I5 4111 MW to dry 11 lid the 'digs' b(I ricd wil111he It 11Lw soil and same nu nor imporl 5011. Mill lic r, 1>.nsuf on 1110 chow ohsc rva l inns [his a111vrominn lion tier Bonleme: Soil Rrailedi ill inn h•l cthods:.1 -5 -2dz ".DeVelopnl en of the Projum ivould rerjuinC the nlugh grading F appins i 11i it al %- 2,403,000u or marerlals. Inuln3rve ofsi ill ranlodta El err 101 ivi[iCS." oppE0[3115 pill E01al soil lemedia(i on on I110 low end of Ilie estimate. +}SSUln pli ❑n5 rmgardi llll� I; \11 i 111 ❑ The Bunlarru C.uroulting groups mapping of the iucaliuos 1vi1h Pdlcnlilil E nvi ronmcnlal Con= Location iSRnp c\c lucks n fcry si Los Ihat need to be called nrli as pore ntial Ili mnlrim envimnmcn[al Inc ali nns. A Incnlion lint Vora (I in the Pr1[en[ial Envi rkin Menu coneem LOCI l i nn NI 1j) is al Ong mde Ills main mad dial Ieuk Iinm the "I -iii lv 1re1 In the "19- lamll area. On die iighl side of this road ar6 well loci l ioOs in Elio 90's and urly 100's, 'rim well sil es: ill this diva had Innjol' rel cases o£ H2$ gas d(I ri»-�rvor•k- oxrollefarions- nUth ItICaSUsi had CrfCLIN Oil Vi 11'urke Is wo rki 3lLy oil 111e d1111 it Imo' rig perfunrpioy well lcmediill i nn [believe the ,vork over was to rgll uce the %Vol's li nc r]. Thcsc hvn scpsrnir inci do Its. our included near dcs lh. liad Sal OSIIA i nvcstl gaurniz w1l Li ]findings trial imposed seXhA ollerntione wncn 1Vorki ng hclory the well hand or Eub Imsc of drilling rigs and is not noml in Bonlcrra Gorwul lillg's4.5 rvvicly. Bnnlcrru's review nr the "l.na•land rand 1LI:[1111iC3 li Ot- lvfaill lJrill Si1c'I'ank I vin "states: ".lnalyjioI r Uf4r in dica to do e•atcd m6lianc eonccnlrali ons, cocas ursd up l0 73 -d pcmmil ollhc colltc[c<I L•a por%ViEli 111) h}•rlinlgcn el1lfi lln dciccicd'°, 'Ihis fct•1cn•'e 13 rig(Iagc lends I pvrvide a e•nn i lla wwvi cw rhat H29 gas is nor in reside ncc :on Ihis ails a� 4,j 119[ 1Wt.:I d0vusu I11i5 icy III; fu rilmr- ]'i 11 Uld 111'i yed IIY1111ieIVYw psSen Hal or 111ese. Cal ❑SHA incidcNs were•. our uenducied as Ihiti %VVUId he a R:( Project sWewpnMJ0I51RTMRrC- 031512,doe 3 -799 Responses to Environmental Comments Pago 4 Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments moj or Potential Em'i rvmncul at Cmlcc m -boxed on I1c average well depth, hascd nn ncc Intal CniI di spLnccmcnl and biCC 11 nn I 15 Llndc rsl n ndi nt; III it 1135 4.coni, gs t n byp rducl ❑f:'Rre n and seot1da 11' r000Ver3' nil ervxrnot o Hl a similar obsdlvatioil an area on the Aiap, uo i to mull $ 3, 68twcon anon A p18 aril across from area P 7 n'as rho local ionnf Iha Gas Bank O ff] fffflaw o ReJUIUIR. A80 ia, lrased on Ille Ivpu of Secnndaly RtL,vn'v in plup3,e5sr 'Fire AWL] with Sled nl hIjeoli Oro A eCCySey ,w a pled Wi 113 hold �kIimhd n5 and t hem is u Irea Llnerd -Ihc byprodugl of I1ede upe1.41iuns were 1.12$ gorti nnLI n "Sour Gns ", The 'sour gull' rv0a am e.r'hcmcly sulfuric gas 111.91 wus Out a Markclablc product and Ilad to be'PmnA off'. To acc ow plisll this 'Ins k the 'Rcaclutx' nucdod Io mainloin.o cmisionI Icmp of 1900F Io 1J00F. TIli s.was a cons I3nt 24 -7 uptr:I ion ikor:w tong as the lire Ifuod npc M lion wax in progress..11 m surprised Ili al Bonlcrra Colix ulhi ng did not Iescomh Ihis IOC, flan 01' 1ro17 dd'11o1 -1101 i UP' Wm 1110 msnl is Il tar would pr0111010 i m'ostigation based on the unu SOAlYp Ilia iced ings ofsulf iric soil trial. were foil lid ill Ilw tioilNoW i::s Lvel(pi ley, y. \111611 4.5 -J fi 1$. I I1;Id lalun'IcJ8 of 111 Nti su IIur was ever whM due Iv 111e ulrir;l Liulls uI I Ile 'Rl1 re Al Many li 11ws visu of as lodge pcl law pil cs uruurul 0 Rcaclur sulwdulcd fur Mai racnancc. "170 nit around Ihis Iota lion ions so ca kw Iic as lu rcilncc IIw lift 5 cxpcdi c ns:Y of 1111 Wilk lc Icct Mqui red In scWkC it b}p Sid ppiay paint alld N ducing metal coin pox i li o11 of c(Juilmicnl In nki ng a jimn+amm litz for equipment xn[I Vehicles, 'fh4s hotel linnast of strain yas wnuld make 0onvicI with 1$0 sea all mois lull` or'fq as to 01'0a to kOi ni -acid rain CWnls on I ho Bann ring Loa se a nd some su rron0 ding l ocal ho 113 -Illis 's In T- would cat yoi r❑yul AI!; wi III`i,i a OIW Jh of 1YCJIC %I%' exp tlf lO[IW A } III IIIMNU Ujmr a L4 IN i nol uJed mvni l or Of IIm 24 -7 burn- n Oil 1.41 ore Of SW 11"n Cld kis and the 'suer gas' wns MI uitcd. MV Mi ng relining, lugging of Iles 11411"i IY [hpnl. air qu III ity], Mairll cn ancc of ins] rumen l a l ion as rcqui rcd incluti ng Lhc Moll Lior of HIM Icmp and 111c cnnClanl nn -li nc ON 'Ali nn (this npnlRlinn nu an hpuHp check prorneol). A1. NA producl ion.3 Reatl nn were rngm red In'I a re all:' III t11f1i led gaL. Am' Iong mnn downwind Roi de n r. tlf COCK ;14esa ran nowt In Ile '1100on gggs' smell of 1118 sulfiuic gds, n'haI due to conditions, a Ioiclpr wO4I(I go down, Li ke -wh5c 1110 Ylarc Off' $l art on On" near 1 -10 gpe RospiI:II %yul 141}41 rutlLyCd due to IL IS lllgl4 {Fjfur W11te11t III Ilam:d gati 91111 rough Ihis sl Ell ipn vlati'Mailih fined 1+1' upc*alipnS 0 L lsiae I11e 13aun ing l.xaxc li rmonncl, 'IIIc 'nil lcn ugg' VOC win xus:11 a OWN an" that a mix Ling syslcm all uhlc gum' scent was ct ille, and put into operation to c onl bid the down wind Kcsid col toll tin rd. o hnl r'ghslcrud nn 111c 80111crm C'SU13 lirlg Map: I'nlCntlll EnArnnmcmal Cwxcn Locadioll Alap is a location soups and surnewhat included in area ;1 l8. 'J111 IOCa1 WIN is lvax upon Lhc '131011' abnvc I+c GXbrnv 1 -001). This was nn l ?ngincc 11 fig tihu 131111 ding, which hnndlcd 110111. ma null Intl C ccl Innlc G Iva gh.me It ring, This In ca [inn wnS.a n1aYA of well head M:In Mal ds desipgnud I V pWfOn11 d1is'VpW:aiw1 Ill412414VUre!'Olt pOrl)r)G 0- 411.951 C1ChGGR puliey I 03 Is w'd'si ripper prgdueli on' wuigl dC. The rlgi noeli ng Out bui tiling. R: Troject sWewrvMJ0151RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -800 Responses to Environmental Comments L'aga 5 Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments was in Ilic process of tree umIng fully electronic dun ng my tenure on dw Banning Lcnsc. This xi tc cOn tai nett numcrom 55 gat Immix or'cul snd.s 3m pli ng' dcwaicring chemicals; [ha most present MIS sil iconc. 'ro casurc wi accuraic.24 hr.wc tgli, nc eded In ccni fl, ;m ripper pindlie Ii nn'; I well in ics 1. u•nlll(I he in�,cI in Ilie fjelrl and the ma ni toted type wed for ilia iesi Itch od. ,©ypwduci wm 3$ain 'S)lar gawk` and n'as hIQdd I annnspliera Ihn1 hell conlaim.:rc Io Minnyp coadcnsaw and role age, yas pct- w sol 1>ei. Opou ooadensaw pond: cxistadin this arci wll ore 1310 ays was scrubbed for flalo off. a•Ialuial like din, was conducrcd daring II 1e 3 pl'ui rig tuu r -grave yilyd Shift, 7h ly tiJC %Vns 11150-Cllgl I I -elc l wilII , kmbblC gall I' •yLOrd 311i5dnp} y;• Steals- 1`111 ills p rised that tl V•VIIW6ld cC Ii, LjJ wax .apt. LQT1LIUL' ted dur. Iq the knwvn runvc[ crosjng pra]k'di cs of Music l:wnpp mrd$. Alau, in Ilds lacutiun welt tryu pi fat Iicul sc nVCngvr5 Ili all wvd the BE of 11w C�rAM Kc ac tors in an al lcmpl to make steam for the sccon dart' roc ovc ry cpcn[ions. As them: units wcrc engine cri ng proto-lypc cores true ft ons the need to deconstnul. 1iio11i t'y and s:l cnn who rc a MP 3ssignmcnl, Again the 13NPVMduct of Ihis oprrn li On was 'yellow' sul lur. '1710 ground location 311 around Mee IOcad nits was arposad 10 Ill&a lupol ]owls of VIC and based on Elio ovlci:ilI San) pting it's clues riollablc if llie confusi lie lnascl hlc ossl l mpti ors wore ac lricvcd per IW& pnlrl isl and Joeuu IVI11;" nee pVII' evill a all jo r1 perFoan ed, it' 1wl in Iul ltlurl IV Pi n?el the 5111(stnn li vc rintuucnicnis uFllic AS714 Stn Win'tl E 2500 I jumd solrcni ply v to idcn lily ivhich pVICs n VI Cs. TI it pplrutch hlkcrn in the PI l use I ESA Upd hie j3 Sl nli la to the first phssC of COnd ucl jug a l icr ] non- n1a11cric scr.m lag for vs pnr iiul ion, whcn:hp p',rl C:e hive hcen idmuiiied Rn dnl Ilimp may $abseg le:nl ly IIC. CV ;Ll na ie<t (ny needed) 1111 ng a completc l ier I seem ([ =syni ec �nnor+ Conli nui rrg with the review• df sites ihorvn on Ill: Sul term Consul ling ]:x hi bit 4.5 -1: o Site k 5 was used for pula bie wad cr dell using wi lh rcnwvnE of orgcnics for the xleam making oprmlions mod in the secondary nil rxnvcry eHoru. 'Phis Inca pion was di li Willa In main In in due to Ihr sndi uliL 1101 air gild dr. facl [het• were dnnmwi nd nllhc l�cacinrs. 111141 rum cddlrinn Ind resRCI re ph nmmcnl 1t:is an rntgoing opom ri on. Hcavy Ic ad based pri mors and Iend based mi nls (ship pains] was used Iv u"FL all lire 1ualal surf lays of Ihusu 0VIIsh•lml jaw, and �ssats. A ie VurSC osln115i{ sys tern was used wi lh feline law]: 1'egermi ali on, f)ue II, Ilir PION ela Of 1110 10C Eli And suns, Ill r. vesacls kiLkeJ 11114Irlrlkly this was not A in co nccm ns long as IIu wn icr sam pits hail prop cr balance. 'lhc sl cam nperotians were [hc demand of the wlirc Irave's npcmliom. A was not uncnmmnn ID sec mounds 017 613cn1 sale and si licrmc hmstlx all MW iIIC gnlund in Ili is lrltnlion, 3n reed en OF die table d,5 -1, R.4ArOF 01' F'lfgVf .11 E-VbTROXWEN2'ALASSESS.WENTSOIL S;bVPLf RESLILIS, it VpcaA Ito s am plcs haw been co nduorcd a id saw piing dala is resin of lvc to ft 201 pro l ocol and it' n01 re ileelive elf Ihis issue is nol ud {lh(?v�i11 tyhin r':o ILI A ce cm art e nvirmupenlxl snik i55ur, mlallx1 to the saljs and Si Ii cone-, punk or, %V liv mnnl rl n comlmwill sludy My ou a sludy mndwad in 2001 {hat would IMcl ncry ha nus built in 2011 ? Again Iho roliancc on (1.111 tainted by nla av NVOIS indudi11g prim puti li cal ac tj rn ly as shown jn: 7A ISLE 4.5 -3: StIEWYA MY OF L'Rolm' ,S'1TE RL- w" JeVm) EiVi/ IHOrI' hfErVlii6Caybi7 l0,v]CRL•'C5J11'UInvy. tL &VVIlf 0,W JZNYiV. G'f1Nf:1 ?ItIV (1'L•C':Sj reap[• 14 csli nns: 1199 :Iny non• study work Iron couduc[cd hcn.in a Lice 3de.n:g3ldI no cunenl sire conditions• c nvi rnn me ma I coot erns or hunnn Iuivirv'1 R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I51RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -801 Responses to Environmental Comments L'aga C Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Cghli nui ng com ltic III vII Boni6vI:t Cols Ill li gig Esll itlt 4.5 -1 `®a1s': o Area V 2 hw FCLUI Widely IlLsak *Ukl and woyli$ 0 anldnoil Join inoVodiux; Aral 11 8- ❑ewu[eli ng "M All ins in ill uded ve new as app]icalions ufs it iUoac prodUels Iv Bu;rrasr audr oil process separuliuu of vii, sand, ]>:mlffin and a]Iak. Amtual clean nu I. of 1WcItcl• bWtnrlknoCk out IAIIkS ilrvnh•cd pl1ysic sl Icmnval, Iwckel by bucket of Iesid uc. Theca hackc is wcm dumped mst nn the pro und. recd m build hm nnu wleen miy nil wi lh im porn(] sai 1, llnsed nn an al inwl vc me n[ This dccsdcs upon dCCadCR `old sc hoof Mai ntcnoncc cicun ing opersl inn could in all way be saris lied 6%, 1bc soil pmlixdi Ind oils shown in TABLE 4.5.1 11 3s. comic sl [ u[ linnlcrra Cons ul li ng lit ind sramlr_d the 2001 mmilm m me era0 'meu ulNern 0111 S'a55un1 ing n o;iMi ii n•, i no l udi ng anon i On ng mni n[ena n6b opr.1•n l i OYI "IIII el Intl i�rinl I:1 kCn pi aye, in, nil }'ran! Alga inOII elarl in. Ai,co �! 2 aIt die tai ll ing ponds than his rooi ca lly have caused. lima romacntal destnintion io ihi's Icasn, Iho we tlaorek, I 1 Iillal peals and nvaicnvuy, 1 cnil muill mpei vi ng mauy uvurlimr huu[s lwrEmrning clung up upcla li ens during rni ny scisuns due to brcacflcs in I11c stilling ponds nun car111cn1utl dams. As an cmpluvcc I MCA ll numumo sds11'MCU[inls were the prime di HCUxsiun I'mM Monsgemcnl ,,vas the loan o£lnigmton• 91MIZICS and 1110 [hint o17613110n. -171H: in- flight animals hclicvcd die pnnda In he tgarcnvnys and avail wish ],%PA.nppiwvod acnirtc• rhny wnnlil heconlo enungl eel in the crude nil snaked nee ing Or 1.1111 uc1: found hnti:ak5 1111 he. eel li ng. only to f[ndp pool of caurtio crude oil, as Iheir grave, sm H':did pro vi dl .Jn ul'lehin review of l Iris] ouilion del: [a the h i stoli c vil Vi rum nee l:d Wi vi l is and US Fish a1W Wi id life's numerous C11itli anS. II is MiMd dhsa s[i Iling ponds in tc hack As fir as the 1'J4[]'s. 1'o bcl iuw Again. Itic lad Al cubic di3l.1l acclucnl And Iypc of suit rcmcdi anion rcyui rill vun un real on the ground iin[li ttgs lWr rhis 7A HIJ ?P4LS- 3It[:U1111L1 ?17'fCy'h1A KE 1;f001 J' Ihix loci l ion is a A rcaN 7 Ill nI ro rl MI If 1 , wns nc� lot" inns of w.11 a 1' in 106ion 0 .. Indd In msu ict se xn[c I- in uusion into the oil Ged. allosI um4 mnnmal of glmins pu floe I ri ng i A ftspl3gat il)l• inla [u1 atNIndiur oil FMIll ha va 1:u oWlvJgu of 116 open l ion ainl n1VI I11Iti..1I g1111e.11 regi MY dUU-. to (lit gYYUIld male jNSKe- I) CIlit it ljeulioh p1FOUnN. Ali slung IIN 'Ience ling' these rvc]ls WCIV pl lard to keep I!x field from dcgrndiAll; into 1110 sua wino. Based un the Ij•pc oC'banl7• fresh wiicr' uwd in this ulnruli on i1•s cunccmi rig thnl no as Is is prusc nl Mganfi rig III is high1_v pill l u li ny.pnclicc os the i njecl inn. will cr wax D 1hu [nwcsl yuati q•..'nic mperl sat mq[n pm Ills bunlao. on Army Corp o1.Tingineen and Iheir 211zhp it ill i ❑n Arens 8 16. tF 21, 124 & R 27 is noted in rho BOATOD:n CaIFSUltinoreporl seems to giV'e the ;Ill rhal Ihis is in inn Toc [IS d area and Ills was n non pni[1ncl inn nitn, 3'I 11S I$ lIA*1'RIJE, rlls grrphir, area hall pm Ill It li nn wen lg of vnri nns.svi pper gnvin• 9nd:soma in Inds. IV;, had'Fus ['va1UC. Also Of lo ilt6 ma[1fo[1o1ogY 1ha `praducvls' utiliicd in dtcirOil alFdgns Sop, , rarion al Wcl1 site. Each wc11 was cµuiplxd Willi a metered Ion fur.g:[s used to.1ktemlinc.uubic volmne mid Bull vcsscls used as Dc+scrubbcrs AI rich. meta n[n. Ai chant gas scliibbcr wm a hlced down and cvurg well wm chCrlred and scn•iced wi 1li s bleed down iu 3Mmsplierc ns do ail cd co rlion 1.1cr daily scmice.'111is wolf opera[ion dispensed imlfnown Gnl3nin4 of pe[ml -hydmc nrhnns in in the simi n, 'Ilia ;vent wale is R: Troject sWewpnMJ0I51RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -802 Responses to Environmental Comments Page 7 Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments operatton Jar haw many years? 7'o not have data that is rallcchvc of lhix operation is jaal bad err'itortmenlal war{:'. A few' yearB afxlock pilitug BailaeC veil could not minadiatc decades of cnvirrtnmental ahunc. Sunman- of Cammentsr As an empinyee no this nil least I sasv environmental ahww, r"tperminns of an oil property art- un- 3walfliv to living IN V. Years of ctnirournonial abuse cannot be ran odiaied by piling up Aurfaca Anil and hoping thin will all minatc permlcum amlaminatimn. Ilecp wclI ianucs am nor on this Icasc; these an shallow wells, somelinics called the and of the pool wells. l'o bel iew'c wells abamlMad in the I P50's cr 1970's will sill IemailI ah:mduried ;rod tc not msenwil this cvotlWull iI IQ assume the impractical. A 1994 GlIv,arnment Aauuntabilily C7flicc report could not have not summed up this issue succimtly (like it was lucking at this lease): "1f oil leaks from an improperly plugged well uccte, there is risk that the envimnmcnl and marine life wall be adversely affected. Mammals, birds, shellfish and plants can be killed by oil' 1- iWivisc, according in 'I cm mm I'amcn, former sccrctary of the California luivimnmental Prol"tion Agcney and author of Liven Per Gallnm The True Cost of Our Oil .addiction- "This is a problem in CaMrnia. We have a wnturc' -old oil industry. How' mam' wells were abandoned before regulations ware put in place' Aim swells w•orejutst wildcatted in -wire knows wherc Ihey Ira of how many' Ilivre oto. In the Batdwin Field alone. slued[ 9ils. in Ilse uenten 4 tit ban Lus Angelus, then: are hundreds of abanduncd wells." Oflivak. you want to build 153rk1 for kids and wondasful lacings fur sour 6 t nm Iierv.. shawl dn`I dtc cnvironmenl of reseanh da dtc ataas2 home M1 r'7 the issues I've hrmghl Forward: non-sampling around well sites. the use of old ouldated data, the• anuming that hccausa it walla t flat holed lrx it doc`xn't exist n a health hamrd, the lx:lief Put the highlands (bill) of lowlands (flats) arc geographic disconnected and Aomehrm' tine area in nn epxirmmemal damaged or can be rehabilitated with a quick fix and we can build a park Ihcre; is ittst lboliahnc+s- thinking M, applying ntinor mmjuitoring data for deadly gases like JIM will laminate a clean bill ofheafth, when documented Cal OSHA incident% tell us atharwise iSe'l poor wieta:e it'+ ncgligctm and ptunte[es an :mlilude uCw'ell bcusg. utAil sutnoutte'x Ittarta is Cdlod wil6 the culurles%. talurlcss, death gas in it futut'e housing devchlpmcm. Water issues, AC'rv1, L BP and cmbon acyucx[ration have not cucn 6crn addresacd, including swell ahandanmenl. 1 his was nol a 'poor bay' random oil field operation. 'Ibis was a secondary mcovcry operalm enhance by fire Flood, watol flood and xteam mjocli on and 'wrote the hook' on these type operations, In be used "rid wide. Simply, we Pumped tons of cubic ICeI al- nxygcn underground Into an nil zone and l -lT iT ON FIRE. it melted the oil nut we used the svaicr to feat it out and that which was still stud: we steamed it out. 71 is was the pri mary goal, none other, this was the business, and The onvironmcru wasjtm: there in Ibc sway. lo eormet this will not ho a 'mineve sonic dirt six Fiat down pole it up and let the hugs clean It, project'. This is going to take real mvcrse engineering tc MUM Ibis land, ar lea'.•% it 10 ,+more 10 correct. AMMMT- giS.90M We can't solve problems by uaug the same kindof thinking we wad whenwo created them. Albat'nuacut 0 cant R: mrojeets wewpoftUO151RTC�RTC- 031512,doc 3 -803 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 068 Dennis McHale November 7, 2011 Responsel The opinion of the commenter is noted. Response 2 The Regional Water Quality Control Board Cleanup and Abatement Order was rescinded on March 6, 2006 because all the conditions were met. Response 3 The 2001 EA tested numerous single and multiple well pad sites to characterize the areas and impacts that would be remediated to development standards. Though most impacts were generally observed to be within the upper six feet of soil, test excavations and pot holes went beyond those depths to clean soils. Response 4 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 DOGGR; all facilities would be removed. After remediation, hazardous gas surveys would be conducted as part of the Orange County Fire Authority Guideline C -03. Response 5 The "Fire flood" was discontinued in 1992. While gas flaring has not occurred at the site in over 30 years the incineration of the fire flood waste gas in reactors or steam generators was discontinued in 1994. Indications of sulfur piles or impacted soils were not observed during the various assessments. During remediation and grading, all near surface soils would be excavated and monitored during mass grading. After remediation, hazardous gas surveys would be conducted as part of the Orange County Fire Authority Guideline C -03. Response 6 The 2001 EA involved comprehensive testing of the property including all current and historic oilfield operating areas. Within the proposed development areas, all oil wells would be plugged and abandoned, and all facilities would be removed. In addition, all near surface soils would be excavated and monitored during the mass grading. It appears that there may be some confusion between the acronym 'VOC' (volatile organic compound) and 'VIC' (vapor intrusion concern). VOCs have been sampled at the site in soils and subsurface soil gas, and will be re- assessed during the development phase per Orange County Fire Authority Guideline C -03. Response 7 As addressed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, prior to removal of all oilfield facilities and equipment, a survey would be conducted for lead based paints and asbestos type materials. Also, all non - hazardous materials still present, such as filter salts or water softening materials mentioned in the comment would be removed. 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 RT rojedsWewpaMJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -804 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments (RWQCB). A Phase I update in 2005 and 2008 found no significant changes that warranted additional field testing. Response 8 The 2001 EA recognized that many oilfield facility cleanout materials were mixed with soils to construct oilfield roads and berms. These areas were tested and accounted for in the remediation volume estimates. Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) 2 and 8 are targeted remediation sites. Response 9 It appears the comment may be referring to produced water injection back into the oil reservoir zone which is a standard practice. The oil zone is not considered a useable water zone. Groundwater conditions of the uppermost aquifer below the Project site (above the oil zone) have been assessed as part of the 2001 EA. As a result, one area near the Main Drill Site Tank Farm is undergoing active remediation. Response 10 It is acknowledged and known that PECs 16, 21, and 24 were active oilfield areas and that individual gas scrubbers were used at various locations. The 2001 Environmental Assessment report submitted and reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) involved comprehensive testing of the Project site including all current and historic oilfield operating areas and used interviews of field personnel to direct some of the testing. Section 4.5, Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1, requires a comprehensive final Remedial Action Plan (final RAP) be submitted to and approved by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and initiated for the oilfield clean -up and remediation prior to the issuance of the first City— issued permit that would allow for site disturbance unrelated to oil remediation activities. Compliance with the final RAP conditions would allow for further agency review of any identified contaminants and plans for clean -up. Response 11 The comment is noted. 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 DOGGR; all facilities would be removed. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -805 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 069a Alford, Patrick From: Jim Mosher jjlmmosheQyahoo -com] Bent: Tue•;day, Nuv €•r riLLi 06, 2011 11 k AM To: Alford, Petrick subject: famments on Newport Banrdnq Ranch Draft Fnvkanmenl2l Impact Report Attachments: t - Ciiy of C=os Mesa 2011 Oct 2p Joint siudy Sessio it hoiice•pdf, 2 - CNB Pla 1)1)in9. Commission 1011 Nov 3 Study Session notice.pol pear Mr. Q fard, .T Anr Suhmltting these c.umnent•5 with regard to the publiC review rrore5S rnr the Newport. Ranning Ranch (NOR) graft fnvironmenta} Tmpact. Report (0f.7R), State Clearinghouse No. 29676311761, and -ask. that they be included in the r'etor•d of this and all fubseyuenL proceedings regarding this grojott. In the following, references to the CEQA statute (in the California Public Resources Code 21Ft90- 21177) and CEQA guidelines (in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Wvi5ion G, Chapter 3, Sections 15060 - 15387) quote the text -found in the 2011 CEQR Handbook propared by the As oc.iation of R,nvirnnmental Profes Sionals: www. calif aep.orgldoc slCEQAJCCQA1landbook2011 . pdf These torments highlight a sampling of procedural and content deficiencies in the OEIR, and in the review process to which it has been subjected to. date. There may be a wish to dismiss such concerns. as not raising nevi -environmental" issues, however such clear and cumulative failure Co cdmply with Lhe nrand'ates of the California rnviVOfmlental Quality Act and its inrplenndutirig Guidelines is au onvjiprmieutal issue: failure to fellow CEQA is a failure to protect California's environment in the way deserved and expected by the people of California aild 1kcrtnire5 Lni-recti Ve In view of tenth tltp ninnl)er and trrinutor:.5 of the 511ortc[mhin'g: {prim?ri]v the unner r�; pry site and Camplexity of the dvtument) it seems clear and inescapab]e to me that the NPR AF.I.R needs to he rewritten in compliance with CCQA and re- circulated. The Notice of Availability signed by 1'atri Ck 7. Alford un sep L'ernbm. 6, 2011: h'1ttP:11wwN.Ci'1ty.uewport- beach. ca. uslpinICE� REVIE4l( Newport% 206arming�. 20Ranch% 29pEIRIHCwppr •t%20R�nnzngA20kanclh_0E7811F ewpa rt�266anning% 20Ranclh_ pETR _Septembcr-A,20201110.0�201d0A. pdf says: "Copies of the Craft EIR and technical appendices are available for pvblc review at the fallowing lucatipns': • City of Newport Beach, Cmimunity Nevelopinent 17epar•trnent, 3386 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, C al i'ro >nia 92558 '1 City o•F Newport Beach, Centra] Branch, 7.080 Avocado Avenue, Newport Reach, California 976GR r City or Nr?w11ni•t Re.lLh, Balboa Rrnirch, 'tf+ E.15t Rol.bw Bnu7avard, Newport, ne•hel1, CaI S'roi•ni.a, 9yG67• ' City n'r Newport Reach, Mariners Branch, Y300 Trvine. Avenua, Newport Beach, California. 926C0 City of Newport Beach, Corona del Mar Branch, 420 Marigold Avenue, Corona del I•lar, California 92525 R: rProject s\Newponu015rRTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -806 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments '" City website - http :/ /w w.newportbeachca.gov" Ub 5 errva'tiuns 1. 1 first reciTieed links on the City weblte to The DEIR chapters un The evening of September 7th'. �, .T. •First virwed the revinw copy in t.hr Cnnomroity Development nr.partment ❑n the a•fternnnn of September 9t•A. Some of the appendices themselves contained appendices or attachments which were not fully printed nut. 3. I personally checked at the reference desk of the Mariners Branch Library on September 9, 10, and 11 and at the reference desk of the Central Branch as late as 7 pm on September 12. In all cases I was told that I was not tiie first person to ask, but there was no WBR DEIR yet listed in their catalog, that they didn't have a copy, and didn't know when they wnu]d, but to keep rhe[ king. d. I first saw a review copy of the DEIR at the Mariners Branch on the afternoon of September nth. Lt cnnsisted 'of- just two volumes: the main text and the exhibits to the main text. The appendices were available only on CD -ROM's inserted in the front of the first 00111• volume. Qpestions: 1, wily rure links to the files nut 'av ui iablu on tht City wubsi L4 Uri SLpteniber Gth as SL'at4d in the Idotice? 11 why have the t•e[hnical appendices never heen completely printed nut in the Copy that, became available for review in the Commun.it,y Development Department starring an September 9th? 3. why were the technical appendices not printed out at all in the copies available for review at the City libraries? 4. Hhy were even the irneonrple L'e printed [iopies, with iCconipanyine, disks, distributed Co Newport B4aCli City librariius nUt 'aY4 vblO -For .ptibljc review upLi]. $eptesUer• 13111? S. Are: rnmpnter- readable versions .nf •Files aderfnate to meet. the CEQA requirement of mitring "Copies .of docunients" available fo4�public review? 0, Ilow is the puhliC Interest served by a document ton lenOthy to print out and d1str7aute in.its entirety? CEQA Guideline 15105 {a} says: "The public review period 'for i draft EIR shall not be less than 30 days nor shnuld it he longer than 60 days. except under unnsira3 circumytantes." 3 Observation: "Unusual circumstances" affecting the ability of the public to review the present DEIR include the facts that the lead agency requires a 1432 page 'main text, including a frl page summary (supported by 5617 pages of appendices), to explain the most significant impacts of the project, feasible mitigating measures and feasible alternatives with less iinpac L. R:TrojectsWewpn J0l5�RTMRTC- o3rsizdac 3 -807 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments With the 60 day public review period provided in the Notice of Availability, a person interested in reviewing the DEIR and committed to studying it EVERY day of the review period would have to review and comment on 24 pages of main text and 97 pages of appendices on EACH of 'tile 60 day- [with a corresponding backlog if they miss any days to attend to other life 'funrtiolrs). 3'his is an unrcQsGnQ04 bur•dun fur Inuit persons. Question: Since the, documeul i, 4 -S Clines lvrtser than tlrt Inpx]Irla cnvisfuned in CEgA Guidelines 15123 and 15141 (15 pages maxinium for the summary and 3043 pages maximum for the main text), why is the public, review period not 4.5 time: longer than the normal ina Ximum (that is, 7.40 to 300 days.)? CEQA Guideline 190B7(c)l says "The notice shall disclose the following:" '15087(c)[3) The date, time, and place of any scheduled public meeting; or hearings to be held by the lead agency on the proposed. Project when knnwn to the lead agency at the time of notice." .Questlnn: Why are the date, time and plane of knM411 public meetings on this project., including CQAC review, the City Council Study Session on September 13, and the planning Coirnussion Study Session on November 3 not listed on the notice? "I5Wk7(c)[4) A list of the significant envir•unrnerttal effects anticipated as a result of the project, to the exterl't which such effects are krnnrn to Che lead agency at the time of the notice." Observation: the Notice of Availability says "The Draft EIR examines the potential impacts gr•heI•ated by the proposed Project ill relitinn to the following Cfo Checilist r•.ntfpwr5es; ae5thet.5.c6 and vi Sual. :echo rc es, land u5P and planning programs, genloeY and sni,l.g, hydrology and water quality, populntian, hnnsing, and employment, transportation and circulation, air quality, green house gas emissions, noise, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, recreation and trails, ha7,ards and hazardous materials, public services, utilities., and alternatives" but it gives no hint of the areas in which significant impacts are anticipated by the lead agency. Question: Why are cone of the anticipated significant environmental effects uncovered in pr crlI lyd I16 tlrC. DEIR listed ill the notice? "1.54387(r,J[5j The address where copi" of the• EIR and all rincumentS re'FerenCed in the EYR will be available for public review," Obi e vati on S': 1. On November 7, 2011 I examined the extent to which documents referenced in the DEIR were dvdildb'lu fur- public review in 'tile Cu,mnuni Ly ❑evelopmen'L Department aL 3300 Newport Boulevard, NeHpork Beach, Calif'orni d. 29 It should be observed that City staff was help Ful in trying to produce the documents, but it Was apparent that only the main text o•F the Of•ZR and the portions of the technical appendices printed out as described above were readily available -far rev'''4w. 39 A volume containing the "NBR -PC" (as described in footnote 1; at the bottom of DEIR page 3 -23) was produced with some difficulty, and it appeared the "Newport Banning Ranch Naster Development Plan" [as described in footnote 7 at the bottom of DEIR page 3 -24] could also he prudu ce d. 300M. R:: rroject s\Newp,MJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -808 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 4. A 20 -30 minute search by City staff by phone and Internet for "The Metropolitan (dater District's 2010 RUWAP" (described on DEIR page 5 -78 as being "available at the City of Newport: Reach Community Development Department during regular business hours ") produced rio result, altlrou8l, staff assured me they Could obtain a copy if I rreally wanted Co see it. S. Staff also defergnirred 'that ' the. hjstur•ic aerial phuCus used 'to assess the rake of bluff erosion ❑n(l inanniadv [fwngrs to'Clie situ (DE1K pd%o 4.3-5, and li,�L'cd jri aura dutai]'au pp. 17ff of Appendix D, Part 2, where the printed report says "Copies of these aerial photographs are inrlurlrri in Appendix R" although there 15 no Appendix 8) Mere not avnilahle. although again staff promised to make an of -Fart to obtain [spies. 6. It was similarly apparent that staff DID NOT have copies available for public review of most of the documents listed in DEIR Section "S.0 References" -- especi a?ly those for which Internet addresses were not provided. Examples inquired about included: " California Air Resources Board (CARE). 2008 (.October 24). preliminary Draft Staff Proposal., Recommended Approaches -for Setting interim .5ignj•F9rance Thresholds For Greenhouse Gases under the CaliiFOrnia Environmental Quallty Act. Sarramentn, CA! COFI. " California Department of Education, Gdueat5nnal, DeWeraphlrs Unit (CDG) . ],009 (luly 7). California Public Schools - District Report: 20178 -09 District Enrollment by Grade: Newport- 7 Mesa Unified. Sacramento, CA: CDE. '" Califur'nia 9ffice of Public school Curls tr'uctian (OPSC). 2020 (febr•uar'y 24). Report of the Executive Officer, State Allocation Puard Meeting, februar•y 24, 2010, Status of Fund Releases. 5atraniento, CA: 61-SC for California 5't9te Allocation Board. Ward, M. 2011) (March 19). Personal Communication. Emil from M. Ward (M. Nord & Atsofjater ;) to C.I.. P•tsye (Aern fnCrgy) and M. Mohler (Rrook� St+'ervt) rrgnrdinC the Newport Banning Ranch site and the Measure. M7, Program. Questions: 1. Why did the lead agency not provide for public review of the DEIR at a location where ALL of the supporting information used to prepare it (and referenced in it) was available for review (suctr as at the BunTer•ra of +ices in Costa Mesa]? 2• AlCCrnritivCly, why w.Ci•C the dc,Cunwuts usCH to prepare the DEIR, vud refcr'uucCd ill it, not archived and made available for review on CD -ROMs or in some other readily accessible eleCtronir- •Format? "750R7(c)('G) The .presence of the site an any of the lists of sites emrmerated under Sects nn 659G).a; of the .Government Cade Inc.1 nd7 ng, but not limited to. 17 sts of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, hazardous waste disposal sites and others, and the information in the Naaardous Waste and Substances Statement required under awbUivieiuri (f) of thnl Sec't'ion." Observation: Section 4.9 ( "Hazards and Hazardous Materials ") of Volume I of the Sunset Ridge Final EIR ( ht Yp:llwww.newportbcaChC a.go vli ndex.a spx ?page =1541 ) mentions hazardous 8 conditions at the nearby Banning Ranch property, and AR,RA Energy, West Newport Oil company and Newport Banning Ranch LLC appear an several of the searches reported in Appendix II ( "Hazardous Materials Report ") for that EIR. Questions: 1. Has any part of Me N6R proper•Ly been used for, disposing of hazardous waste or, is it li$Led as Cur•rerrtly corebairijng haxarduuS waste? R: rProject s\Newpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -809 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 2. Should any of those activities have been mentioned in the Notice of Availability per CEQA Guideline 15987(c)(6)? Conclusion- the NotiCe of Availability fur, Lhe NOR UkXR dues not appeartQ have me.0 a nuinber of the nennetatney 'diiOosurce requ S.rer! by LF.QA i+ni.drlinr• 'I SwR7[r.]. 7hr• •F.,i Slat t0 {lr.nrly notify the public of the most significant anticipated iorpacts, as required by CEQA Guideline 15DR7(r•)(4). Is p3rvticnl.rly rlittnrhjAg to mr. Questions: 1. Hon does the lead agency defend the adequacy of notice and public review opportunities In view of CEQA Guideline 15067(c)? 2. Does the OEIR need to be re- circulated with proper notice? kik CEQA Guideline 1S087(g) says: "To make copies of [Ills available to the public, Lead Agencies should furnish copies of draft EIRs to public library systems serving the area involved." Questions; 1- Here copies of the HEIR provided to the Huntington Beath library system (far display at tllelr br•anclres), and to the Uvznigl� County library systtnn (f04• di;pl'ay aL their brarie leer in Costa Mesa)? 1, 7•F not, why not? Public Resources Code Sec. 21002.1(a) says that the function of an EIR is to draw attention to the most significant unavoidable impacts of a proposed project and to feasible mitigation measures.or• alternatives with less impact. Question.: Nlry du" Section "1.6.2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAWIO.ABLE WACTS" (page 1 -21 of the OEIR) not appear in the Table of Contents (NBR QEIR page i)? OUR page 2 -3 identifies the City of Newport Beach as "the "Lead Agency' For this Project" yet the California Supreme Court in Bozung v. LAFCO ((1975) 13 Cal.-Id 251) found that the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO), willingly or unwillingly, is the proper lead dgeuuy Lu preydre Vie EIR fur d pre- dimrxatiuu drvrlupmeuL pivpu dl, Lu Lh UeCdu5n Llre LAfeo is 'tire agency which mus'L act firs L (on the annexa'L'iun which aCcor-d'jrrh+'to p• 28S 'is a pr•ujuct all by itself ") and because it is the agency most likely to be able to v_ew the environmental impacts 'from the regional perspective required by CEQA (p• 283: "the o'FF_cials OF a mun j.0 pality, which has cooperated with a developer to the extent that it requests an annexation o•F that developer's property 'F:or the ekpress purpose of converting it from 'agricultural land into an urban subdivision, may find it difficult, if not impossible, to put regional environmental considerations above the narrow selfish interests of their city "). UbservaLiun: The Court's reasoning would appear to apply equally for an annexation for the purpuse of converting oil fields i'ntu an ur•barr subdivi'siun. 3 co 111• 10 11 R: rProject s\Newponu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -810 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Questions: 1. Why is the LRRCO of gr•aige County noL the lead agency? Z:. Has a separate E" been pr•epavud fum the amiexotivn? 3. How is it possible for the City of Newport Beach to avoid. the bias dice the local intprest5 dp•crlhed in Roznng V. LuFCO? H. Ilow does this differ from the Newport Coast annexation in which the County appears to have approved the development plans? Public Resources Code Sec. 21003 says it is the policy of the State of California that: "(h) 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." Question: In what ways has the present DEIR been organized and written so as to be as meaningful and useful as possible to the people of California ?: ..C) knvivvnmental 'impact reports omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and einphayj %e feasible mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to projects'." Questions: 1. In preparing the present, DEIR Frhat Steps did the lead agenC,y take to emit lmner :essary 12 desr-ription of the project and: emphasize feasible mitigation measures and fead hle' alternatives to the project? 2. Are the mitigation measures described in the present DEIR ones that are already incorporated in the applicant's proposal? Or are they new ones being recommended by the lead agency? 3, Amt the standard coudit;wn5 described in the prugont DEIR ones tha'L Ore 'already incorporated in the applicant's. proposal? Or are they new ones being reconmended by the lead agency? 4. What •reasihl.e alternative or alternatives to the project, if any, is the lead agency Currently recommending for certl ficatipn2 CEQA Guideline 15121(a) [lffines the function of an EIR as "an informational document which will in Form public agency decision mileers and the public generally of the signi-Fic ant environmental effect o•f• a project, identify possible ways to minimize the signi•Fi[a nt ef'?PctA, and descrihe rea-sonahle alternatives to the project.^ 13 Question: How would this EIR, if certified in its present difficult -to- understand form, serve the public purpose of achieving-these goals with clarity and conciseness) 6 R:Trojects\NewpnMJ015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -811 Responses to Environmental Comments 3 W N b m � N 3' O � o m � n S �m v, A C' pp b n M� � .w A r n .. 0 we = ti v. n c p Y• -� 'J q q u N !j n ^ C Fti �y ^! w j0 D T �l -.J A m m ] T•. .v C- H. Y. F` C R ❑ m 5 ] X N µ !4 - 9 O fi m m a+. L .0 Y n_ M ry 9 '- _u. Ti M1 f v S V A N d m C S' SG m • Q rF V. N iY V 9 h rF a L N O �] a C 3 �• (C �l r r w� 3 � .+ b � w .+ z � M Y• - n u of +p � n Z n. vc N �' C m CY 5 rF 'c G ^c H• O C h �, T G a C1 H T C h'C 'C 3 v. m S F' • Y p C h h b 'C 5 1 p m e 3 G 3 m �4 rF "• �'• rf ¢C C C rF 1G y 'S M1' w N r 3 h i4 +-k D t'. i�'C F'• F- .- C u ,n d 4 P n N M w M .w T 3 N C O u- • O �F n d d Y rF Q •• N S ^.] % -1 J CJ rF L' N Y li' l •• 'O h 3 C n a 3 N' ] = T M ] ] S F,/. ^ ] iy 3 9 �0 41 eT C = M '3 S I] '3 N ] N ] '•! '� Ti 3 N •• ¢ IV N Q rF '-',l n Q C w• n L � n 5 n 3 Q M 'p ;S S W N `C iY S 0•• d C] `C M1� [� i^ ry F r � V, o f a S S ] 2 ] � •- 5[ •� w U � m m n 3 v w �+ pp � 'a 3 P - c❑ to w c xa z•r a+,y ,y N n _� ry ¢� s a ¢ v. 3w et ¢n r ¢4 L� F' d F' N- H T 3 .'� N d - N S Fs ="•.� 6 Ol 4'- F' d N 1� t ip n A rt n e a y a]] o n q a. -� rt rt rt 7 w L� e P N• e. ¢ b N O n m N H- m Ox ] 3 b 3 *�• �+ �+ T z � s❑ fi rt M L� n n .� M M M] L 00 Y Q N S 3 B -F 3 1 N d L N J D p ✓ N rt a K 5 N I: �-" v Y• N R FA q '.i O A S S QQ H• 7 'n G] u? C C - O S T a U1 f. F rt �i b OC rt h l L d d r/ ❑ 5 d❑ h 3 �• N ¢ rF 3 N 3 ri f` N 'C a+'•C N P s rt' ^- m N -t a `C i� rt D ] � � D ^- n 'C n u• rt e u M n N m O 5 �- r N• - o � rt 3 a .• n N m 3 ¢ e ms D a 3a z rt r m v �. 3 Cf rt 3 n D n -h3 �-vT N rt 5 C T Y+ N n Y. ti { ry n D 1 Y• ry M1 n T C� � 3 c C D b m n 5 y M 3 9 L rF H 9 N rt N n.3 a o f n ry rt � m b — �. h Y r !+• O h - 3 r a � N m N T � n c y. a pe ] M p P� n w a iD � +f T S 3 �••� u. 7 C C n -� [j � d r W C JT ri .m � ❑ 0 4. W .S y �. p CJ l^ N O �+ 2 n 3 N S_ C '1 n 5 � �' D' b ] M d iy "w w Y �3 4 C R R '0• � S 5 � n T D �'• G. h �' C � S Q H �' ¢ Y µ L'- L ✓•L' E _Y •• L 3 N _J ^ N H C. � •' d' n T 3 �••� 3 ] Y n eT S N i� 'F } 'y N N � �! •S• n n s� L' 6 3 N a n K 5'• '� 1/• N N N H N G R S A 3 H Y A �] G C❑ T D C `^ G � N l rt 6 n 3 Q D 6 5 S a C i b d N S N N % i ✓ n 'C m •9 � _ �' 7 fi � C 6 � n � C `r ('F C 10 N S -1 O -� M1' w•`. •h w 5 C � G? 6 b rt ]G C n � .f ❑ G P 'D N 1� N ❑, ...ro '•c ,+'c r❑ w C L 6 � P r+ rt N w w yam• -= P fi G -[ 3 u - �• C 6 W n N 3 :-F n 5 D !i X G_• ^ = Q n m Y �C � m a .•i N v. N C ^ C 9 £ 5 G ^i CS ¢ - rF f1 •w 5 aC R. n �. CY• � �+ - ON O N T � n � - r � e N D N C i� 5 Zi ✓• m d C ❑ m h '� Q H 6 m iil S N N N 3 -! N• 9 ] �•! iY O Y� n S S fj S -/ � M T � X '< v N N N � T ri a 3 !l Q i-F Y i] N n �' S .'l �'• N N 6 ii _ a n .� s - r v c 5❑ � — - a - — 'c p iY •9 1 pp� K Y �G '] x ] F'. S A j. T �. ti S y+ Y- Y C H N i� 3 rf N 5 N L S L D Y l rt C 3 ri' N F- m M T n 3 M -+• U C n T q n n� ID ae l� C D, x P u V a 3 O S fi 4 b n N• �! •J V. h fp 'C In -F ] ry Y. S fr'p -M1 OS ¢ jn Y ✓• T 3 - Q C] -1 N C] G q D 3 i 5 W f' N ¢ H .l0 -W Si YO ¢ p N S R N © S ='- S S R] H- •+ 3 rt '-' G 'J N N w '.7 G •G •v Ll n •h D •C GC r- y N rF w rE ] 00 + u P � z � rt n � h w•ry wD Qii rt l �3 �Y. e 'n O a y❑ 3 �'•v ❑ et e-F aC 50 N m 3 a m 3 eti z rt T N D Ta rt � MT ti T 8 m e m Y d rt s m Ca _ rt ~ S V. ry D n hC it Y c c rtD 3 00 'C ry M� y 'ti an c •_ e r .Y c z rt ❑ n yro 3 'v r. Qn 5 ry S S N x `S N tT w � b 3 W N b m � N 3' O � o m � n S �m v, A Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments CEr1.q Guideline 35122 requiles that "Are Efs shall contain at least a table of Contents or, an index to aa�sJyt re der ink finja lg 'tliL analysis of dlffLrLrit Sul jLC'LS acrd 1osui s." pbserrttinn: The present DET.R c0r`TMns .1 t.ahle OF rnntents I]nt nn "A&W. Qnestjon: would ncit o DETR ❑•f 7749 pagr:s hie imre rapidly nnderstoad, and ininrmntJ on in it mere easily found, if it contained ROTH a table of content5 AHD an index? CEQA Guideline 15147 says: "TECHNICAL DETAIL. The Information contained In an EIR shall inoticle suanizlrized technical data, maps, plot puns, diagrams, and similar relevant infomiation sufficient to pelTrit full assesslnent of significant envir•onnicatal impacts by reviewing agencies and members n•R the pnb31G. Placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an ETR should he avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the plain body of the EIR. Appendices to the i•IR may he prepared in volumes separate, -From the basic ETR document, but shall ho readily aval.lab7e for public examination and shall be submitted to all clearinghouses which assist in public review." CTbser•va Cian: In the nlain body of 'tile eleC'Crunic ver•sian of the [MR Care picturial exhibits are integr•a'L'ed with the tex'C and appear close 'to the point at which they are referenced. In the printed copies available for public review at the flanrnlug Division and in tine Ci L•y's libraviLs Clre graplries arc prlriLrd lei a :;Vparatc vulunru from 'the 'Cuxt. The Separately printed exhibits can easily be missed, and their intended placement. in the text can easily be iejsnhder,•tnod if the inif.j al, citatinn to t,henr Is overjcck -ed. Qllest i o ng : 1: flhy are the graphic accompaniments to the main volume of the DEIR printed out as a separate volume in the hard copies available for public review -- as if they were a technical supplement? 2. How does this separ'a'te publication fur't'her the state mandate of Guidelirra 151457 that the doCuniLUt'be wri Uteri in a way dec? on inaAvr: 'and 'tlie public Can rapidly uvderstPud? f y..y CF•QA Gujdeline 7.5747 says= "The text of draft F•TRs should normally he Tess than 350 pages and -For proposals o'F unusual scope or complexity should normally he less thsn app pages." Question: What abnormal scope or complexity in the proposal requires the main text of current DEIF 'Lu liavr 1427 pdgec (plus d 15 page TaUlu of CunferiLa died 5817 ydgea of Apperidicr�).! CEQA Guideline 75773 sets the •fnllnwing Stardard,- •fnr the 5unmary section of the ETR: .. (a) An EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its consequences. The language of the summery should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical. (b) The summary shall identify: (1) Each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce of, avoid that effect; 17 18 UZ 20 R: rProject sWewpnduol5�RTC\RTC- o3rsizdac 3 -813 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments (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 here to mitigate the significant effects. (c) file �uinnary should normally Plot uxu Lud 15 pages," pb se rvntiAn 5': 3. The "TFXCcUti.Ve 511mmtry" n'F the DETR, as rorrentl.y url t. ten. extends aver GA opngnely written pages That fail to fO.4us on, or clarify 'For the public, the matters required by the CEQA Guidelines. 2.. As a random example of the obtuseness of the "Executive Summary" if one ignores the text entirely and gaps directly to "TAKE 1 -2 : SUMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PRDGRAM" starting on page 1 -25, in the second column, the second box appears to conclude "The Project is consistent with all. applicable land use policies -- no impact' -but the preceding bnx just informed us "There would be land use incnmpatibility •- Si C,nifieant, Unavoidable Tmpact" with no hint a'F why a land use can he Simultaneously compatible and incompatible and why there could not be mitigation or less impactful alternatives. Questions: 1, In preparing the summrary what steps did the lead agency take to ensure that the language be as clear and simple as reasonably primtical? 21 What abnormal circunistauces required the "Executive Summary" to exceed 15 pages? 3, Why are alternatives described before the reader is informed about the anticipated inipnrt ;• of the prnject •); proposed? 4� In degcribinp, the anticipated impacts of the prnjert as nropnspd, why are random examples of impacts deemed insignificant listed before expected significant impacts? F. For example, why are we treated to such irrelevant information as (among numerous other examples) on page 1 -20 that because N6R is more than two miles from the nearest airport a sLandar•d CtQA Initial Study question about impacts of projects less than two miles from an airport will not have to be dealt with in depth 'in the main body of the DEIR? 6. Would not the readability and usability of the DEIR be iniproved if the summary included re.'ference5 to the sections irl which the "summDO-4c(V issues are dealt with in more drpth? 7, where does the Summary •focus attention. with clarity and simplicity, nn the proposed project's significant effects) and alternatives that would reduce those effec•#(s)? S. Where does the summary identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency? 9, where does the summary identify the issues to be resolved? 10, What arc the conclusions of the DEIR being recommended for certification by the lead agency? observation: DCIR Section "9.0 References" lists internet addresses at which many of the 21 documents used in preparation of the DEIR can he viewed. 9 R: rProject sWewponu015PRTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -814 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments ,Among the most important documents needed to understand the proposal being evaluated in the DEIA are: Newport banning Ranch Master pevelapinent Plan .' Newport 6'an14116 Rauch K IhvelopinenL• flan QwestI trn: why .ire. tllese key dniunNnt: not listed .1n0.?ng the refe+`enre. nl.rteri .tl., .1nd why .i: no internet address provided at which they Inay be reviewed? Observation: Other items regarded as important "re•Ference material" an the City Newport Banning Ranch uebsite include: Development Agreement Outline September 2011 W Draft Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AIIIP) Aug 2011 " .Sewer Water facilities Plan June 2011 Question: Why are these items, and perhaps nthers, not included in the re•Feren[e ser,tinn of the DEIR? Observation: On October 20, 2011 the City of Costa Mess held a "Joint Study Session of City Council, Planning Co mnission and Parks and Recreation commission to discuss the Draft Environmental Impact 'Report (Or•aft Elk) fur Newport Banning RiniCh MUSL'er• Plan" iucluding a prund.sed presenta't'ion by: " -lorry grille, City of Nay port peach Traffic kngiueer- Mike Erickson, RRF Consulting Dr.I,by I-i „n'; .I-inn A Assorlatr•s Costa Mesa City Staff and stating "The project consultants will focus on the potential environmental impacts (traffic, aesthetic, noise, etc.) of the project, as it relates to the City of Costa Mesa (see attachment). Questions: 1. Why did hhe City of NkmPort Reach Traffic Engineer uvt pr•CSent the JePd 'agency's findings regarding the traffic impacts? 2, Is Milre Erickson a contrlbutor�to the OEIR? Why is lie not listed in "Section 8.0 - List of CTR Preparers and Contrihutors "? 3, Why did the lead agency consultant(s) make . no presentation? 4, Wliy didl uu n,c frwn CNe lead age ucy eey any t I u ug ebunt tIrc a r Ca ei paled t ry 11 vi um aCal inrpac l:s of the project d'is6used in the DEIR? 5, Why was the win 45. minute presentation (versus 5 minutes for Costa hldsa City staff) regarding the nature and scope o•F the praje[t (and its reputedly positive environmental efi PCts) given by the "Newport Banning Ranch Team" (as It is .listed on the agenda: that is, by the applicant), rather than by an impartial agent such as the lead agency or its environmental consultants, with the City of Newport Beach being relegated to a brief "Overview” of the project location and EIR process? 6, Why did none of the presenters other than the Costa Mesa lr•affic Engineer raise Call a'CCen'tiVri to any possible adverse inlpac'L•s? 10 22 R:Trojects\NewpnMJO15 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -815 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 7. Now did the lead agency's presentation in any way advance the public's or the Costa Mesa decision maker's understanding of the environmental impacts of the proposal? 01]tCrvatinn: On Nnveml)er 3, N.11 the City of Rewpvrt Re.trh Planking Coinnl 6ion held what wet publicly noticed as "a study session on the Newport Banning Ranch Environmental Impact Report" (sen, Itta Chmenf,). Questions: 1. Why was the study session introduced by the Planning Commission Chair as a meeting about BOT11 the project AND the OEIR? 2. Why did .City staff, in its brief overview, say nothing about anticipated environmental impacts? 3. Why was the main presentation given by the applicant rather than by an impartial agent Such as City staff or nnnTerra7 4. Why was there not a word in the main presentation about possible adverse environmental impacts? 5. Now was 'the puhlic'S or 'tile Planning Commissjuner's understarding of the cunLlusiOns of the 7247 page OEIR advanced by these presentations? ❑h5ervation: On the •Final page o•F the main text of .g5..T.R (page 7- ,T.73} the lead agency appears to he recommending Alternative F -- the project, without the "Resort Village" -- for certification as a feasible development alternative achieving most of the applicant's objectives with less impart, yet. as late as the November 3rd planning Commission Study. Session the applicant appeared. to still he including the "Resort Village. - Question: Has the applicant agreed to build Alterrla Live 1: if the E�LR is rerL'ified and the 'project appruved? CEQA Guideline 15088 permits the lead agency to respond to late commeats. Question: Lies the City of Newport Reach Intend to accept late Comments? Answers to the above questions would be appreciated whether or nu L' required by CEQA Guideline 15088. in my opinion they raise prn[edur al and gtrirtt++cal rvn[erns regarding the extent to which the lead aRPncy Fulfilled its responsibilities under CEQA which cannot he remedied without, prior to. certification, conducting a complete re -write of the Newport Banning Ranch OEIR (the primary issue being that the size, complexity and lack of clarity of the document, and improper notice to the public, precludes adequate public review and cement within any reasonable time period) and re- circulating the re- written OEIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 1506t1. 5. ❑therwase it will not be pussible to certify the final EiR because it will nut have been completed in compliance with CEQA as required by CEQA Guideline 75Q90(a)(1). 22 conL 23 24 23 R 27 R: Troject s\Newp,MJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -816 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Yours sincerely, James M. Mosher 4210 private Noad Newport Beath, CA. 925601 Attachments: 1 - Public notice of October 20, 2011 City of Costa Mesa Joint Study Session 2 - Public notice of November 3, 2011 Study Session of City of Na port Beach Planning Commission 12 R: mrojeets wewpoftUO151RTC�RTC- 031512,doc 3 -817 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O69a Jim Mosher November 8, 2011 Response1 The opinion of the commenter is noted. Response 2 The Draft EIR review period started on September 9, 2011 not September 6, 2011 as indicated by the commenter. The City apologizes for any potential inconvenience associated with access to documents at the library. However it should be noted that copies of the Draft EIR were delivered to all branches of the City's library system on September 9, 2011. In addition to copies of the Draft EIR at the library, the Draft EIR was available on the City of Newport Beach website, CDs of the Draft EIR were available for purchase, and Draft EIR was at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. Response 3 The State CEQA Guidelines sections referenced by the commenter identify suggested page limits and clearly note that they are not mandates. Response 4 The time and dates of the public meetings referenced were not known at the time the Notice of Availability was published. Response 5 In Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, 120 Cal.App. 4th 396 (2004), the court held that a brief listing of the potentially significant environmental impacts in this notice was sufficient. Response 6 Please refer to the response to Comment 2. While some documents may have been available prior to the start of the review period for the Draft EIR, the review period did not start until September 9, 2011. Response 7 The Draft EIR and all documents referenced in the Draft IR were available at the Community Development Department. The reference documents listed in the comment were available on request. Please also note that in El Morro Community Assn, v. Cal Dept Parks & Rec., 122 Cal.App.4th 1341 (2004), the court rejected the claim that cited documents were required to be available at a library or other location. The court noted this requirement applies only to documents that are formally incorporated by reference into the EIR, and not to documents merely cited in an EIR. R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -818 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 8 Please refer to Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Wastes, of the Draft EIR. The property is not used for the disposal of hazardous waste materials. The Project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is the list of hazardous materials sites that is compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. In addition to the Cortese List, the federal, State and local governmental agencies maintain other lists of sites where hazardous materials may be present or used. The Phase I ESA Update includes an EDR database search report, which is provided as an appendix to the Phase I ESA Update (Appendix D). Based on review of the EDR report, the Phase I ESA Update identifies the Project site on the following databases: • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System — No Further Remedial Action Planned (CERCLIS- NFRAP); • Orange County Industrial Site; • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act — Large Quantity Generator (RCRA -LQG); • Underground Storage Tank, California Facility Inventory Database Underground Storage Tank, and the Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System Underground Storage Tank (Underground Storage Tank, CA -FID Underground Storage Tank, and SWEEPS Underground ST databases); • Facility Index System (FINDS); • Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS); • Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS); • Spills, Leaks, Investigations, Cleanup (SLIC); and • Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET). The database listings above are consistent with the known historic and ongoing oilfield operations and previous remedial actions on the Project site which have been discussed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. With respect to the Notice of Availability, the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 requires the notice to include the "presence of the site on any of the lists of sites enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code .... As noted above, the Project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is the list of hazardous materials sites that is compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. Response 9 Copies of the Draft EIR were not provided to the City of Huntington Beach or Orange County library system. There is no such requirement. Response 10 The noted subsection of Section 1.0, Introduction, was not included in the Table of Contents of the Draft EIR. The State CEQA Guidelines does not specify for format for a Table of Contents. The commenter's question does not raise an environmental issue. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -819 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response11 The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15051 identifies the criteria for identifying the Lead Agency. In part, it states "Where a city prezones an area, the city will be the appropriate Lead Agency for any subsequent annexation of the area and should prepare the appropriate environmental document at the time of the prezoning. The Local Agency Formation Commission shall act as a Responsible Agency ". The Newport Banning Ranch EIR addresses the proposed annexation of the property into the City of Newport Beach. It is intent of the City to have LAFCO Orange County use this EIR; however, LAFCO can determine that additional environmental documentation is required. The commenter's reference to bias in Bozung v. LAFCO is not applicable to the proposed Project. Bozung v. LAFCO, in part addressed whether LAFCO should have been the Lead Agency in a proposed shift in the Sphere of Influence boundaries which would have influenced subsequent land development. The Newport Banning Ranch property is, in part, located in the City of Newport Beach with the remainder totally within the City's Sphere of Influence. Additionally, a specific development proposal for the property has been provided to the City for consideration. Further, LAFCO Orange County, as previously noted, can use the Newport Banning Ranch Final EIR for consideration of the requested annexation or require additional environmental documentation. With respect to the Newport Coast development, the project applicant requested that the County of Orange be the lead agency. Subsequently, the property was annexed into the City of Newport Beach. Response 12 Neither the CEQA Statute nor the CEQA Guidelines defines "meaningful" or "unnecessary". The Newport Banning Ranch EIR has been prepared in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15002 which states that the "The basic purposes of CEQA are to: (1) Inform governmental decision - makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. (2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. (4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved ". Please refer to Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, Thresholds of Significance, Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Program and Level of Significance After Mitigation, which describes the differences between Standard Conditions; Project Design Features; and Mitigation Measures. Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, analyzes several alternatives to the Applicant's proposal. An EIR does not make a recommendation as to whether a project or an alternative to a project. The Lead Agency takes the information presented in an environmental document into consideration as to whether to approve a project or an alternative to a project. Response 13 The opinion of the commenter is noted RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -820 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 14 The State CEQA Guidelines do not require the preparation of an Initial Study if it is determined that an EIR is required (CEQA Guidelines §15060(d)). Please refer to Section 2.3 of Section 2.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR which discusses the steps the City took in determining the scope of the EIR. Response15 Please refer to the response to Comment 14. Response 16 The opinion of the commenter is noted. The Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development project in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Section 10.0 of the Draft EIR provides a glossary of terms and acronyms that may not be familiar to the public. Response 17 An index is not required as noted in the CEQA Guidelines section identified by the commenter. Response 18 In the printed copy of the Draft EIR, the graphics were provided in a separate volume from the narrative to more easily cross reference graphics and text. Response 19 The CEQA Guidelines section referenced by the commenter is not a mandate. The length of the Draft EIR reflects the outcome of legislation and court decisions that have required CEQA documents to examine more issues at greater levels of detail. For example, Assembly Bill 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) resulted in EIRs evaluating greenhouse gas emissions which previously was not typically done. As such, arbitrarily limiting the length of a Draft EIR to less than 150 pages (or 300 pages) would be at odds with the CEQA objectives of disclosure. As such, the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR's length would not violate CEQA or render it inaccessible to decision- makers or the public. Response 20 Please refer to the response to Comment 19. The opinions of the commenter regarding the ordering of information in Section 1.0, Executive Summary do not address an environmental issue. No additional discussion is necessary. With respect to the commenter's question regarding issues of controversy and issues to be resolved, please refer to Section 2.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR. Response 21 Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, which identifies that both the Master Development Plan and the NBR -PC are available on the City of Newport Beach website and are on file at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department and available for review during regular business hours. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -821 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments The inadvertent exclusion of the two documents from Section 9.0, References, has been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Newport Banning Ranch LLC. 2011a (August). Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan. Newport Beach, CA. 2011b (August). Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan. Newport Beach, CA. Response 22 The commenter's questions regarding the content and format of the City of Costa Mesa's public meeting does not raise an environmental issue relevant to the Draft EIR. Mike Erickson is identified in Section 8.1.1 of the Draft EIR. Response 23 The commenter's questions regarding the content and format of the City of Newport Beach study session does not raise an environmental issue relevant to the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response 24 Please refer to the response to Comment 12. Response 25 The City accepted comment letters received after the close of the 60 -day public review period. Response 26 The comment is noted. Response 27 The opinion of the commenter is noted. R\RrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -822 Responses to Environmental Comments fl '] v LI' N H fl F• c - K N fi L a n o C` F. Q Z -h n o ] c c eTSp ^• c c c � c ] y. Q c r a c �• o Q c `� n m H'• c G W � - N � n IC H Li � N ^ N N r r � �. � � T { ❑ �• � 6 � f C N OG � ✓• S C 3 Ci n C �#. '-^ G Y- S 3 � Q j 3❑ P n c 00 om„ o n —s Z0 '70 7 n ❑ 'S nC z G v ❑ v 3 P °w A � 3 �❑ S - o ry n C� � a� Ap y n ✓ p 3 �_ ❑ n 2 p rt � � q � _ � Ca s Y£ d m x ❑ m rt ¢ H n Y w n M- n n G O � N � r- G H 'F ¢ r1 � 3 ❑ ne � c 3 W z � � O � 6• W w c 3 3 A W ID G ^' J rf -� � G. n c N m C 6 m � '� ] �• m rt l0 41 e h C N p c n v y N R ❑ rq A T K a £ Y� K C vµ. v. a � � n �+. ❑ n �➢ �• F � N N R• N 3 p N Y � rt C p 3 Ca �D m❑ — Y• V o � m p m -o m � C a n r' � x z �❑ .� n w P u T .+ .in C rt ❑ rtpe A C r'2 m iD F+ 3 �+• �+• n Q � et � � ry � r. " � n_ w w � m n � w• a N � m 6 r+ �• n A ti- � �• 3 `+ � m a .a m. v. rr ❑ � a ❑ � � .°'. w m t F m � .] M +• rr n s o � iC q Q❑ ro w � w• N -}i w p C z m 3 ❑ v c a � Q n a = x•6n p �•a M1 rt ❑ Y 4 Cn J N YA N 3 N 9 N fT ti n P 3 3 r P x P O GI /D � W N G N j N 3 O �p O d � n S �m v, A a 0) of m 3 eTSp ^• • n � c i[ G n m H'• c G W � - n Y. Q 6 � f n N- a M. fln agr-�6 3 � Q 3❑ P n c 00 o n —s Z0 '70 7 n ❑ 'S nC z G v ❑ v 3 P °w W H Ap R� L rt � � q � Qns � d G F 7 n n d O E c 3 W z � � O � 6• W w c 3 3 A W ID G ^' J rt G 'LAS n P 3 3 r P x P O GI /D � W N G N j N 3 O �p O d � n S �m v, A Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Uh 5erva'tiun 5- 1. The stability of the bluffs, 'Choir hlwturiY rate of r•eeessiurr, and Cho extent to which their stability h.ts peen (and inty b�) alfrcted by hinn.an artivSty nll Bern important considerations in deciding if the area is suitable for housing. Z. A[cvrdine t❑ IXTR page 4.3.5, the historic rate of blu•f•F retreat was determined by .examining a sequence of aerial photos and topographic maps. 3. The conclusion is apparently that the retreat rate has been between 0.5 and '4.2 feet per year (page 4.3.11). 4. Conclusions regarding the significance of this would presumably be found in the answer to Threshold Criterinn 4:3 -G- "Would the prvjert he located on a p,enlagic rrn.it or sojl that is unstable., or that wnu.1d become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result In on -'or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence., liquefaction or collapse?" {pages d.3 -17 to :F, As most of the OCIR the conclusions discussed on pages 4.3 -17 to 4.3 -20 are not .understandable to the non - specialist, and do not use the term "bluff retreat," which does not reappear, until further down page 4..3.20 where it used in c- onnect'ion with the d'iscussiun of "'Threshold 4.3.5 Would the pr+oj"'L• result in 5ub5'tanC]4jl soil er•osiun or the loss of topsoil ?" U 7. Hr ran the puhliC assess the ACrurary Of the hlu•ff retreat r,nnr•)usions withnut seeing the historic aerial photos ( which are reproduced in neither the main text nor the technical .appendices]? 2. What term in the discussion about the stability of the area on page pages 4.3 -17 to 4.3.20 is equivalent to the term "bluff retreat" used in the earlier discussion? 3. If a term net exactly equivalent is used, how are they rel }Cod? 4. Is the range of historic retreat rates cited the range •observed in different years? Or at different locations in the project arts? .4. Even i•f the prnject dnesn't result. in a substantial increase in soil ernsi nn, isn't the hl.storic rate. o :f 9.0 and 4.Z 'feet per year a problem for maintaining the setbacks described :elsewhere in the ❑IM Observation: The Community Park described on page 4.8 -10 appear °s to duplicate facilities planned by the City of Newport Reach at nearby Sunset Ridge Park. Quest7on: Flow can the two projects (Newport annning Ranch and Sunset Ridge Park) he considered in isolation, rather than together, including, but not limited to, consideration of the possibility that taken together they represent an excessive conversion of coastal habit to active sports uses? R: rProject sWewponu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -824 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Observation: Page 4.13 -7 says "The purpose of the Newport Banning Ranch test investigations is.tu determine whether any of the 11 archaeological sites present on the property are eligible for listing in the CHHH or the NRHP, and if they would thus warrant further consideration in 'the planning process." QuestSgn: Why are 'impacts to Br•eh aeplugi t.al sites 'ingmr•LanC only 'Ooh y ar•e eligible for l:i�ting in 'LNG CKMi or die NRMI• (cf. CEQA yui4clinv 15F164•`i( ❑ }[4 } }? +.r Observation: 1, Page 4.13 -25 says "Three archaeological sites .(CA -ORA -839, LA -ORA -8446, and CA -ORA -906) are deemed eligible for listing on CR1IR and NRHP. Disturbance activities could also impact unknown resources. This iaipaet would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of WHIs 4.13 -1 and 4.13 -2." 2. Page d. 73.31 says o•F CA -ORA -9015 that "Mitigation shall be In the Form of data recovery excavation to collect the scientifically consequential data that the site retains prior to its destruction by Project grading." 'Question: Flow con destruction of a site he regarded as a less than significant impact? xx.a Observations: 1- Section 4.14.3 of the DEIR seems to conclude that no new schools will be needed to aernmmndnte children living of the- projer,t bite. 2- Table 4.16 -4 suggests that most of the nearby elementary schools are already beyond their capacity, sometimes substantially. Questions: 1- What evidence supported the conclusion Chat tller•e was room to add nlar•e classrooms Lo the already uvertr•o•.vded schools, without any need Co bujld new schuols? 2. Why is no property on the project site being dedicated foi- school purposes to relieve the pverrrowdIng. including riverrnnuding which might resn.l.Y.'•From PWPected rArnlatlan growth jn surrounding areas? Observation: Section 6 of the DEIR lists many significant environmental impacts of the pruject tliaL It 1s claLned cannot be mi Liga'Led, including, among Other 'things, many sjgnjfirant irreversible. environmeriral Changes listed in Section 6.Z• Question: Why were these anticipated ,adverse inrpacts not brought out more Clearly in the s uMmnary and in the Notl4e of Availahility of the DETR? +r:, Observation: Page 5.7 says: "Bluff Road and North Bluff Road ... would not. provide a roadway connection where roachiays do not currently exist. The Project would not Induce growth through the provision of infras trucLure." 10 11 R: rProject s\Newpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -825 Responses to Environmental Comments �i arc N v n� � v � 3 T [• � C i9 �p • z :c F+ n W r Y A C N m T a N � � W N Y N j N 3 o � o m � n S �m v, A 33 N ft� Y C N A N N C N N '� � '�• 1 a° O h m N �' � N '� N S K r� - a -. n 's C '� - A �+ . n n � ❑ rF N L '3 Y S N C K F S - n ^J a n C m e /ti 3 +u � `c ❑ eF O a 7 3 3 N HC's n 7 � ❑ P =� s Pro 's C L rt -t 3 3 C � e m .� a❑ O 3 7❑ �••� n Pro G P N N e n m r n ri Y Co Sot Y hh � O 1 c' � rt0 �n K � 3 rF u � S - � Ri ❑. 3 ❑ •7 p Y C �' ee C n n n 7 '.� R O O O C �3 N 3. •-•ria rt v v y p� V S❑ y, e•F ❑, w r� O m O p •n O� p i- -�. 4 T n O� n 3 rn � ❑. G• .-t - e•t ry n G rt 6 1 �• S O ID f_] C 3 C O N � N V- •� K F. u � N• N '� J T� O ri 3 a Id ✓- ❑. � C❑ - O _ ❑ 3 F+• h � '�• F� m y 3 n� Y• N N O O +D n w• ry eT G H- m vxn n PY �+• 3� ❑ i rt[ v N g c n a n a_ NrortC ,moron v � m ❑ s � 's n rn n ee N n 1 N A V. �➢ 0t N � �• n_ N �9 Y L Y l ^ ^J V D t0 �. ❑ of 3 � vt - '} N N 3 T ❑ Y.� n .Y -F �+o rtN m a W (G T Y' N � � W N Y N j N 3 o � o m � n S �m v, A Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O69b Jim Mosher November 8, 2011 Response1 Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. The proposed Primary Road is consistent with and would implement the City of Newport Beach's General Plan's Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Transportation Authority's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Response 2 Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification. Response 3 The General Plan addresses both the City of Newport Beach and its Sphere of Influence. It is speculative as to whether future changes to the General Plan would identify a scenic vista on the Newport Banning Ranch property. Response 4 It is speculative as to whether this segment of West Coast Highway would be designated a State or local scenic highway. The commenter's question does not address an environmental issue relevant to the Draft EIR. Response 5 The aerial photos were provided to the commenter and are available at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department for review during regular business hours. In general bluff retreat and stability are two different mechanisms. Bluff retreat refers to the incremental loss of bluff edge due to erosional forces (i.e., wind, water erosion, etc.). Bluff stability refers to the ratio of resisting forces to driving forces within a slope indicating whether a slope may be subject to complete or partial failure. Slope stability is usually divided into two categories: surficial and deep seated stability. Deep seated stability has no relationship to bluff retreat. Surficial stability which would involve shallow slumping of a bluff face is related in that slumping of the slope face would be involved in estimates of bluff retreat. The range is a consequence of both different locations and years. No. Following completion of the development with controlled surface drainage, bluff repairs and on -site and off -site flood - control improvements, bluff retreat is anticipated to be reduced to levels that are adequately addressed with the proposed setback. Response 6 The potential biological impacts of both park projects are considered in the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR. With respect to the proposed Community Park facilities on the Newport Banning Ranch Project site, in addition to compliance with the City's Park Dedication Ordinance, the General Plan specifically addresses the need for a Community Park to be RT,. jedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -827 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 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 7 The significance criteria used by the City of Newport Beach for the evaluation of potential impacts to historic resources complies with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archeological and Historical Resources. As discussed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, resources do not have to be on or eligible for the CRHR or the NRHP to be considered significant. Response 8 Data recovery is considered a feasible mitigation method in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. Response 9 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 10 Section 1.0, Executive Summary, identifies all potential environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. With respect to the Notice of Availability, in Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, 120 Cal.App. 4th 396 (2004), the court held that a brief listing of the potentially significant environmental impacts in this notice was sufficient. Responsell Bluff Road and North Bluff Road would provide a connection between West Coast Highway on the south and 19`h Street on the north that would provide capacity beyond what is needed to serve the Project site. However, this roadway has been on the City's Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Transportation Authority's Master Plan of Arterial Highways for a number of years. This roadway is intended to provide an additional north -south roadway to alleviate congestion on parallel roadways. The Project would accommodate planned growth but would not induce growth through the provision of infrastructure. Response 12 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 R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -828 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 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 13 Any such economic incentives, as well as social, and other public benefits, would be identified in a Statement of Overriding Considerations required to certify the Final EIR. Response14 It is unclear what other environmental impacts that commenter is referencing. Please refer to Section 2.3 of Section 2.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR which discusses the steps the City took in determining the scope of the EIR. Response15 City staff was available during the public review period to address such concerns with the applicant; the comment is noted. RT,ojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -829 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 2nd November. 2011 Comment Letter 070 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. I am stunned by the sheer size and complexity of the DEIR. It is far too much for one individual concerned citizen to plow through and realty understand well enough to make informed comments. Thus, I'd simply like to request that the public comment period be extended, say, for an additional 60 days, so we can all get our arms around this huge document. Sincerely, Mr. Carl Mumm 319 Cedar Street Newport Beach,CA, 92663 949 - 642 -0031 ted @3mumms. org 1H R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -630 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 070 Carl Mumm November 2, 2011 Responsel 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. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -831 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 071a Alford, Patrick From: hgnadel @aol. cum Bent: Friday, Ssplemger 23, 2011 3.18 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Re Newport Banning Ranch DFIR Attachments: DEIR_rosponse_091S.docx Dear Mr A ford I am very gleletul for your talking the lime within your busy schedule to respond. I am talking gte liberty to email you my response to the OFIR for Banning Ranch, since you indicated that cone tuchTimW pruulmn added udci utraraaters to my email and attauhinenL VJe love our pets, out home, our community and I am an animal activist and wild life protector, member of IFAW, PETA, VJV'rF eto... I WIV appreciate for the Planning Commisson and Clty Cowell to have access to rry comments and response. I am convinced that all my nelghbos and ALL of Newpofl Beach comhtuerrts will have :similar opinions and cnmmanfs pertaining to the developers' protect Thank you apa im Mr Afford, Best, I ie ten G Nadel - _,Original Message__._ From Alrbrd. Patrick cPAlforckpnawpodbeachca gnv+ To Helen G Nadel <hgnadel@aol.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 8:26 am Sui:j c : RE Newport Banning Ranch DFIR a--dr Ms. Nadel, Thank you fortakirlg the time to read and comment on the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR. Your comments will 6e Forwarded to the City's environmental onnsultard, who will prepare detailed winnnsm Comments and responses will be incorporated into the final, EIR, which will be reyiewed by the Planning Commission and City Council sometime early next year You should be aware that both your email and POF attachment contain some odd chi ratters and symbols (me below) Patrick J. Alford I Planning Manager City of Newport Beach I Community Development Department Planning Division 3300 Newport Blvd. I Newport Reacts, CA 82503 (949} 6443235 I (949) 6443239 (FAX) I Palfordt✓as+n ewoortbeachca.day From: Helen G Nadel lrraLfto:. nadel&i?ao r_oml Bent: Sunday, September 18. 2011 8.04 r'frl To: AfFerd. Patrick Subject; Newport Idannirig Rarich DEIR City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Californio 82063 Attention: Patrick Alford R: mrojeets wewpoftUO151RTC�RTC- 031512,doc 3 -832 Responses to Environmental Comments \ \ ! k \ \ } } \\ �m � ® �`� ` ` !`� ' 2§ § ■ { 2 - - }{� /k {) ( ) ( - \/f / \ - I \ /! {ƒ ■ } ! 30 2 § � i! L� \l F - ( � f) \ _- \( ( }� (■ {� { � \\ �m Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Circulation Element and an ame Rd men t to the Ora n ge County MPA H. Ca nsiste nt wth the roe dway assumptions for tha proposed Project, Nort h Ulu If Road (extending Pram 17th Street to 19th Stmat) would Ira nsitlon from a four -lane divided to a two -lane undivided road to 19th Street. Ahern atiue 6 weu Id ellmin ate -sign Eficant and unavoldahre I m pacts a ssoclated with traffic, alt quality, Crean lrnuSe Ca; e:, and certain nndse imp acm wlr en cnrnpa rwd to the proposed Proje cr; IIOWCVO r, there would still he imparts that reu Id not pc red uoed to a level run sldcred Ie:s than significant • AHernvtive C., Praposud Projcck with Bluff Road Ex tcndi ng Lo 17 Lh $tree t. " ,­"Alternative Cwe uld have cu mu l e tively consid a rob l e can trip ution s to regianal pollutant cc Hen nt ration s of ozone (03) {Threshold Alternative C would emit q uant it ies Of'gree n ho use gases {G HGs) that would exceed the City': 6,000 nl air ic tons of ca the a diux ide a qu ivale nt per year IMTCO2 a /yr] sign ificance .th ry hull. bevel ojlmG nt w> uoatcA WILh All Cr Rat I We C Would Make J Cu nl ilia tivLly ca nsddemble contribution to the Via be F2KG inventory affecting Via baI climate change (Threshold 4.11 -1]."" • Alternative D: Reduced Devefopmentand Develepment Area. " " " "Th is Aka rna tdve d Des not ellmdn ate any at the significant imps cts of the proposed project: "' " "" ­­'At ornative 0 would omit qu entities of GFIGs th of would exceed the City's 5,= MTCO2e /yr sEg nifira nce tbras hold. Slmllar to tha Project, Altern atdve D would In akea cumulatively cc nsid era hie contri h ution to the gtooaI G H G inventory affecti ng gdo bal cll mate ch a nge. (Threshold 4.11.1 }, " "" " "' "Atternative E: keduCC8 Ikrclopmenl Aria. Regia nal (mass) emissions of NOx are toreco3ted to exceed app licah le th resh oids in some cc nst ruction years. Thu ugh MM 4. tG4 would red u ce th 'e emissions to less than sign itdca nt levels, the ava ila bility of autf10ant Tier 4diesel engine construction aqu ip monk can not he vat umd. Therafom, for purposes of this EIR; the Impacts amfound to he signEflcant and unavedd alt la Impact IThreshold 4.10.21. 4 Long -term o pe rationa E emissio ns of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAGM❑ 2 rnnL R:TrojectslNewpnMJ015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -834 Responses to Environmental Comments m a ss emtssio as th resh Olds from initial occu pa ncy th rough 2020: However, as Project development continues heyo nd 2020, emissions of vole[ i le organic compou nds (VOCs) and ca than monoxide JCC }would ex ca ad the sign Iticance th res holds, prl nclpally due to vehicle a pa rations. Therefore, the Impacts remain sfgnlfica nt and uno void ah le �Theeshald a.tll -Z]. • Altom ntive E would Ike ve cu m ulat I My co n sldera yle cc ntrlbvtlo ns to regional hol lnta nt [tince nl raliwr. of U3 (T lucSlmld 4.10.3). • Alternative E would emit qua rill Ries of GiiGs that would exceed the CitVa 6,000 MTCOWyr sign if icon cc threshold. Si m ilor to the Project, Alternative E would mekea cu m u lat lvely can sldera hie contra hutlon to tha global G H G Inventory affect Ing gl obai climate change ITh resh old 4.11 -1j. • Ahernerrlve F. —Aft Or na live F: In vrcu.rd open 51:i cr/Rc4 uecit Ocv0luPmc111, AML'a. regional (mass] emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed applies hie thresholds 1n so m e cc nstructio It years. Though MM 4.10,1 wou Id red uee the emissions to less than significant lavals, the availability of su Melon Tier 4dia sal.eng Ina Cons[Mitt ion equipment cannot he ass ured. Therefore, for pu rpases of this EIR, the impacts are feu rid to be sign iFi cane and unavoida hie (Threshold 4.10 -2). • Long -le rm opera lions t e m i n i on s of Criteria pullu Ia n Ls would nut exceed the SCAO.MV mo as omissio ns t hres holds from in ilial occu pa ny th rough 2030. I•loweve r, os devela pment contln uas hayond 2020, emissions of VOCs and CC would exca ad the significance thresholds, prinCipafly due to vehicle operations (Threshold 4:10 -Z). Aitcm mire F would have a cumu htivc I can side rah It cc 11 t4 ut l on to 4cgional No llorq nt ca nrenteat i on s of 03 {Thre %hold 4.10 -3 j. • Altem ative F would emit quantities of GFSGc. that would exceed the City': 6, 000 PATCO2e/yr sag nifira nce t hires hold. 5im ilar t o the Project, Alfern ative F would makea cumulatively cc nsid era hle cantrihution to the global GHG inventory affecting glo dal ell mate ch o ngu {Th rash old 4.11.1(: Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments i cont. R:TrojectsWewpn JO15�RTMRTC- o315tzdoe 3 -835 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments FrOrn all th0 proposed allurriatims, it is my COACiusiorl that only pne allows for our &i1dren's health and ours to remain Imoffected- AILe'nirfve A fs Elie Only oprion whirh we hive in order to m.Tinrain the+ fragile bal•inee of our environment. This is only acceptable solution in order to sumafn animal and plant life as the other JILe na ti wLs %oou Id genet' LL' ui ldoubted I 11 lealtlt huza l Lis wI1 clJ Ideicml]e below- As per the other alternatives, quilt a fcw questions arise: Haw many cars will be driving hack end forth th rau f1h our goastal area reteasing greenhouse rases in Ow a tmmw h crc 7[AILer Fla t iv n.C.❑. E. F]. The threat to the public health and welfare i5 great — hera Fluoride (S FG I, carbon diox•'de [CP21, methane (CHA)r nitrous oxide (020), hydrorl uorocarhons IHr•Csj, pe rfluoroca rhans (PFC5), and sulfur will be neleased in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentrations of these key gl.eenhcuse gases will be creating an immense threat to our environment and climate change now, and For current and f utu re generatiur K. R:\Pr u1ects\Nuwpor1\J015` I Ou'a f EIRI1.0 Ex5u1 r1.00D411.duc 1.10 Newport Outrn6rg RurtCIP01 oft Frivirnnmen tal ImpaCt Reporr, $ectflon ,1,0 "This alternative (Aj would not have any impacts that are significant and unavoidable, whereas the proposed project would have significant unavoidable impacts associated with land use compatibility (due to noise, and night lighting), aesthetics, transportation; air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise." How much m ore aree n li nu se eases do we need in the at mosvll ere wEriclr will affeet your Brea ni inC end your ch Eldren'0 How me ny mom Asthma cases do we need to see demlo137 1113aar respiratory and lung disea s e57 Lung cancer? In all tlm cases, wl tic hevcr Al ternativc buL A, would result in vehicles Lra versing rrwn 2S I', 1fi'I', and 19" street to Pacific Coast Highway. The combined emissions of CO2, Clio, 1420, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmosphe tic concentrations of these. key greenhouse posy. and hence to the thneat of climate change. Spea k in g of ca rhon toot print, can you imagine the impactta our environment which will he draught about by the residents of 1,375 homes, the.gu ests of the 75 room resort and the dagy -7 days a week yW ito rs at the 7,500 square feet comme rcial space? The animals will not just be affected: they will pe rlsh. What about human life? Almost every day that t take my little Maltese dog out within our Newport Crest complex, I see an cmaciatcvl Coyote wandering around Our vary ground% l Two days ago, I sawTWO in two different or['as of Newporr Get. I have been a resident of Newporr Grest since 2007, and never did we see animals lock for food outside of the Benhfng Ranch area, before. When I contacted the Newport Crest HCA, they indicated that they were getting More j Id mom re poi t5 of wch occ urring ffprll Lhc Newport Crest Re5fdent5, A cou ply of 2_ runt, R:TrojectslNewporN015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -836 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments years ago, before the devclopers started the mowing and began the plat med, systems tic tics lruc Pion of the plank Ilfe is Fa nn Ing Ranch, we used FO see mn ultra I5 and rabhhtt hop around Newport rrest, and only squirrels and rabbits. The overflow of sq uirre is and rabbits seemed to increase suddenly when the insanely exte ncled mowing started. Then, coyote: started sneaking around our very grounds of Newport Crest, which is adjacent to Ran nfng Ranch, following the displaced food chain. A t this point, 10 EVE R SEE RABBITS ANYMO RE, PRACTICALLY NO SQU IRRE LS. '•'•' O NU COYOTES' 'i 11 withi n our very grounds of INC wyort Cres C. The exact ground, which wc.dwn and where we take Our dogs, night in our backyards. 0 our own lawns by Our tondos. To sum it up, here is a gian ce into our already unfold ing personal tragedy in Newport Crest, and u rro and ing are;o- Ever since t1w developers have bscn mowing aad dLIStroying our coaxial ecological balance, squirrels and rabbits fooking for food on our premises, invaded ourgrounds- The coyotes ate them. The food chain seems to have been completely disrupted. The coyotes remain, killing our pets wary day 1 see a note on our mailboxes, describing a Iasi ca t... The coyotes are. dying of hunger, and they are looking for my dogs. I wilt sue the developers personally, should anything happen to my Furey faml IV members. WHAT I PESC RI Bfp ABOVE IS 0NLY THr, RESi11.7 ❑F THAT 1 N YfldSE.MOW I N[. WHAT VJI I.I. HAPPF,M I THE DEVELO I'M E NT FAKES PLACE? What will happen, as wail, it any u the prepcaW al ter na Ifrus foi that rnarter, bur Alta rnative n pnmes to fnrition? The cu rre nt d evelop meat footprin t clearly ink ru des in to Cal l fcrnio Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren ha hltat on Banning Ranch. Some of the dav8lnpvr5' preposterous lies: *E., "Habitat suito &e for the wintering burrowfno owl will also 8e res toned and preserved" How wi It the la ree to ur is ne road' affect the bu rrowine owls? Fact Check: Burrowing UvAs are a bird species that has seen their numbers plummet in race nt yea rs due to loss of hahrta r. The Current pla nnad developee, nt on Banning Ranch has a large leer la ne mad {ill i df Road} placed directly over most of the documented wintering sites for these migratory hinds. LIE .,. "Many a th er animals will see Nefr habitat improved, erpapded ondpratected." H ow w] I I of her a nimals see thel r ha hltat destroyed by th a on natructlons h In n nad by t It e d eueleuers . and what impact would altg to ative B. C. D. E and F ha ye un a n i m a 111& in ban ni nn Ranch? Fact drcch: Rather [hdu enndudng lidUildt, We tvualructiun or 1,375 Iwruea.(in er(ecl,n mndlk Lawn) un the as hnfng Ranch mesa would have a serious de tri me htal effect on the habitat of bfrds and other wildlire living there. Haw can any of the following impacts on our fragile environmental conditions be considered, really ? ? ? ?? How? How? "" "Air Qua Pity n cant. R: Trojects Wewpodu01 5�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -837 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments • Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissio ns of NOx are forecasted to exceed e pplica hle th reshalds 1n some ca nstruction years. Though MM 4.161 would red uce the emissions to less than sign lflcant levels, the svallablllty of su fficlent Tier 4 diesel angina construction equipment cannot he assured. Therefore, for purposes of this MR, the impacts are foil d to he sign i fi ca nt and wi avnirla hie {Tii resh DI el 4.10 -2 }. 3 The Newport 80 uleva rd 'arid 0 11 Street intersection lr Asa PYOj eCt• related Imps Ct us Ing the N1g liwaV Capacity Manual ]Ca It rang meth ocialago, as well as an Impact us fng the Into rsectlan Capac I" Utlllxatlon nrethudotugy. 5ectton 1.0 Executive Summary R i\Project &\Nowport\1015 \1 Ora R EIR\1.0 ExS um -OS041 Ld oc 1.23 Newport Bnrrning Ranch Draft Environmentv7 Impact Report • LOng -term o peratiuna l e rn i" i on s uF Or i Leria Polio [all is would rmL exceed the SCACyMD mess emissions threshoids from initial uccupancy through 2020. However, as Project devefle pment continues beyond 2028, emissions or VOC and CO would exceed the slgnHica rice t h reshold c, p rincipa l ly d no to vehicle operations. Th erefore, the impacts remain sign ifica nt and on avoids hie (T Fresh old 4.10 -2j • The Project would Ila we cum Watl we iy conside ra We cunt ribut to ns to regional poi Imam co ncent rations of 03 (Threshold 4.113.3). Greenhouse Gas Emissions • The Project would omit qusnt dies of GKGs that -wo uid exceed tha City'li 5,(100 M TCO2efV r s lgnlfica nee threshold. The Pro]ect would make a cumulatively co nsiders h le cantrih ut ion to the gin be GHG inventory affecting glo ha{ ci i mate change I Threshe Id 4.11.1). dr"°F This M a Sim pie decision, really, 'Phis is the last OF the natural, very much ner ded open space wilhin One.¢F Orange COunty most populated areas. Thls is the he hitat of many animate and a de l Ica re ecnsystem that is hnme to sn many rialive plan LS and'anirnais and provides a tWine fare nd'a rlgudr dsp@cies. and (qr nIi;r'a ling and wintering 8 corn. R: rProjects Wewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -838 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments birds. There will be health, enVirQnmental and legal consequences to all this. The dew lopers will not line the It pockets at the Cost of human, animal and plant Ilfe br will they? $irBttrely, Helen 5 Nadel 9 cant R: mrojeets wewpodUO151RTC�RTC- 031512,doc 3 -839 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O71a Helen Nadel September 19, 2011 Response1 The potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are addressed in the Draft EIR and are summarized in Section 1.0, Executive Summary, of the Draft EIR. Response 2 The question of "cars driving back and forth" is interpreted to mean trips generated by the project. For Alternatives C, D, E, and F, the average daily number of trips, as stated in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR, are as follows: B: Not calculated because there would be not project development. Although this Alternative would not generate a substantial number of trips, it would modify current traffic patterns in the area. The modification may reduce vehicle miles traveled. C: 14,989, the same as for the proposed Project D: 14,749 E: 15,766 F: 13,645 Response 3 Responses to questions relating quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) to breathing, asthma, lung disease, and cancer would be speculative. It is noted that these health effects are generally not associated with GHG, but with criteria or toxic air pollutants and other environmental factors. The impact to the environment of the proposed project is "imagined" by the Draft EIR analysis. Response 4 Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification. Unfortunately, coyote presence in the urban /natural interface is not a new or uncommon problem. Because residential development has occurred adjacent to natural areas, coyotes have discovered that the "human environment can be ideal in providing them with abundant food choices such as readily available household garbage, pet foods, small pets, vegetable gardens, water, and vast assortments of other leftovers conveniently accessible day or night. Oftentimes food is intentionally provided by well- meaning persons who believe they are doing a good deed.s42 The coyotes that occur on the Project site will continue to venture into adjacent residential areas as long as these resources are available. Page 4.6 -66 of the Draft EIR acknowledges this potential issue relative to the proposed Project. "Development and park uses built adjacent to natural open space, particularly near the lowland, may create urban - wildlands interface issues. Coyotes may attack cats and small dogs from residences. Outdoor cats may attack native birds, lizards, and small mammals, which is especially of concern in habitat potentially supporting Endangered, Threatened, or other special status wildlife species. These urban - wildlands interface impacts would be considered potentially 42 http: / /digitalcommons .unl.edu /cgi /viewcontent.cgi ?article= 1021 &context= vpc10 &sei- redir=1 &referer= http %3A %2F %2Fscholar.google.com% 2Fscholar% 3Fq% 3Drabbits %2Burban %2Bnatural %2Bint erface% 26hl %3Den %26as_sdt %3D0 %26as_vis %3D1 %26oi %3Dscholart# search= %22rabbits %20urban %20natu ral %20interface %22 RAPrrpdsWewp .MJ0151RTORTC431512.do. 3 -840 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.6 -16, which requires development and implementation of an urban - wildlands interface brochure and public education program, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Response 5 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. 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 commenter43. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed Project would impact southern cactus scrub, southern cactus scrub /Encelia scrub, disturbed southern cactus scrub, and disturbed southern cactus scrub /Encelia scrub which provides potential habitat for this species. The 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. 43 http:// www. naturereserveoc .org /projects.htm R:Car.pd.N..p. uoisraC\RTC431si2.do. 3 -841 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 6 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 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. 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 7 The City is unable to find the quote "Many other animals will see their habitat improved, expanded and protected" within Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR. This is not a statement that was made in this section of the Draft EIR. Regarding alternatives, Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR includes over 170 pages of analysis and discussion of the alternatives to the proposed Project. This includes the discussion of biological resource impacts for all alternatives. Table 7 -2 provides a summary of the impacts and comparison of the alternatives to the proposed Project. Impacts from implementation of the proposed Project were found to be significant for 16 topical issues in the Draft EIR. This discussion can be found from Draft EIR pages 4.6 -44 through 4.6- 72. Response 8 Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that the project has been revised to include Tier 4 construction equipment and NOx emissions would be less than significant with the concurrent remediation and grading activities. Response 9 The opinions of the commenter are noted. R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -842 Responses to Environmental Comments November 8, 2011 Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 RE: Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Report, Air Quality Dear Mr. Alford: Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 071b DECEIVED BY COMMUNITY NOV 0 8 2011 O DEVELOPMENT $ u Op MEWPOpt 04'P I'm a resident of Newport Crest and have several questions about the Air Quality section of the DEIR. On page 4.10 -9, Existing Development, it reads as follows: "The Project site is currently operating as a crude oil and gas production facility. Horizontal Drilling, LLC and their operating affiliate, WNOC, manage oil and gas production operations on most of the site. WNOC has approximately 85 active /idle wells spread across most of the approximate 401 -acre site. In addition, the City operates 12 oil wells, 1 water injection well, and 1 oil processing facility located at the West Coast Highway entrance area. Existing oil operations are addressed in more detail in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR." Is Horizontal drilling done in the oil field operations? Where is it being done and how extensive is the horizontal drilling? The number of active /idol wells is stated as 85. Is this the exact number? The Hazards & Hazardous Materials section (4.5) lists the number of active /inactive wells as 50 -100. What is a water injection well? Is hydraulic fracturing also done or has it ever been done on the site? If so, what measures are taken to avoid the toxic emissions associated with hydraulic fracturing? Has the EPA recently proposed new regulations that deal with hydraulic fracturing emissions? If so, is the oil field operation in compliance with these regulations? Where are the nearly 400 abandoned welts on the Site? Is there a map of active, potentially active and abandoned wells? Are the locations of any wells unknown? Are there requirements that wells not exist within a certain number of feet of any existing structure or new development? If so, what is the required distance? On page 3/17 of Appendix A of the Banning Ranch Draft Remedial Action Plan (DRAP), prepared for Newport Banning Ranch LLC, the Orange County Fire Authority Guideline deals with building restriction zones. It reads as follows: 1. Building Restriction Zone: To the maxiarxm extent feasible, the slab or foundation for a proposed building shall not be constructed over or within 10 feet of an abandoned oil /gas well. If specific site characteristics make such a setback unfeasible, construction of structures may be allowed within the Building Restriction Zone provided that the following mitigation measures are incorporated. R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -843 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments The Proposed construction of one- or two- family dwellings within the Building Restriction Zone shall be subject to further evaluation and/or mitigation. A. A soil gas investigation and report, meeting the criteria contained herein, shall be conducted in tli immediate vicinity (25 foot radius) of any abandoned oil/gas well that will be located within the Building Restriction Zone. The report shall be submitted to OCFA. [ ... ] C. A Registered Professional shall review the soil gas investigation report and building plan and recommend soil gas mitigation measures, if any, that may be required for the site beyond those contained in this guideline. Any additional mitigation measures recommended shall be included in the Mitigation Plan. [... ] s. THE OCFA ADVISES AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY STRUCTURE OVER ANY WELL •'" s cunt Does the Project Applicant intend to follow OCFA's advisement against development over wells? Is an overlay map available of the proposed development and of all wells on the Project site? If not, I would like to request that such a map be included in the final version of the EIR. The North Village area in particular appears to be where the majority of the housing will be built, but it's also one of the areas where the most wells and even some old oil sumps are located, according to a display at one of the Project Applicants' community events. It's not possible to calculate what the potential environmental impact will be without knowing where development will be in proximity to the wells. Could I be noted by email when such an overlay map is available? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, I Helen Nadel 6 Summerwind Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 hgnadel @acl.com R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -844 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 071 b Helen Nadel November 8, 2011 Response1 The comment is noted Response 2 West Newport Oil Company (WNOC) and the mineral resources are wholly owned by Horizontal Drilling, LLC, an entity separate and independent of the surface owners. Directional drilling, with some horizontal sections, has been done on a limited basis within the subsurface mineral lease. As stated in Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, "WNOC has approximately 85 active /idle wells spread across most of the site." The oil operator occasionally drills new wells and abandons older ones. No reference can be found to the stated "50 -100" range attributed to Section 4.5. Response 3 A water injection well is a well that the oil operator uses to direct produced waters back into the oil zone. The oil operator does not use hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in this field. Response 4 A map of the abandoned, active, and potentially active oil wells is provided as Figure 3 in Appendix D of the Draft EIR. As set forth in the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -PC), all habitable structures within the Project site must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any abandoned oil well head and a minimum of 100 feet from any active oil well head. Response 5 The proposed Project would follow the Orange County Fire Authority Guideline C -03 and would not propose any habitable structures over or within 10 feet from an abandoned well. An overlay map showing the proposed development and all wells is not available as one graphic. However, individually these graphics are available in the Draft EIR and appendices. RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -845 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 072 New nhcr 8. 2011 Ilal rick. 3, Alford, P anning L,- Ianagrer Cite 0f N1ewj3Qrt $each, Comnulpilp Development ➢epartniepr 3300 Nl %%rporl ]joulev :ni'd P.O. Lao: 1768 Nowperl Beach; CA 92655 -8115 Dear Aar, A 1.17nrd, Plcresc Werpi the folluwilig ca®uiCiltu and images ill rrguds to UW BUL111ing RIT16 bndfl ]cuviru111ueulld I p11Ct Repud. rlsscc.iated K16z qo CI) inplyde F3ann[jig Rcpioli 1)1;11 and 5:ulnin&Ranch 1-b Liimi lJalnoge. nclniv ale the Naming I halicvrc the DFTP ix in .A1`1Ukduale dncunicnL, all Iha1. Lhc pmj=1.AmIId 1101 IV OW f0MYard in am• laxhion, it•iiesin2 and Bl Correct Inforina tion SinlopciiI Reson Ives Section In 17 insin n0ea eh oven in The su 11111 ill ed sti des Gild 1111aV.q, the app l i Cant. has aml ac0nni elvr lnappcd or Iah0lcd k0 a pl:nl ernnnl Lill ii icx 1111. cxixl nn the Maim ng Rancli Vicxa- Thcse pinnis support n unique and Important coastal ecosystem that has ICn• pnrnl[CIS ill Qfnnge Couilty At ihe. prrsell it ii ale, and indeed aIong the entire. Soo ihefn Ce4 ifv rn is ccwst. II is the Conn himiion of n ill mher of facirll'R that puke 11111 in' 11011 a Lill ig Lie naluraI asset, 5nmc oflhyxe fa010M include i I x Rirc mi.nun•0 Ulan 400 51 L H, a 11Cal.In11 CMair lroux In Ta the rl. Riparian area, Fa iry icw Park the San la Ana River, multiple lcdcril I protected'FPC C1cA sPuc wS of sricuial cericunl. nuc gniWauils, rillxriul1 zuilex, hluff>s.. unit x :Jl.niurvhux. T is OrIR dues nut 2 nuour:lely rlxscss the euund :nivC ill 111=11 of lhedovraopmrnl lu Coastal ChTUiBo Comity in losing a11 an' irgnlne3ldcc osyrs LCm in which :J 1 lhpso aliribilrns arc Prese11 L. Suuh a div erxcr rare and Inrgc na luraI cnvironmenl deinandR a high Level ofovami ght and pi utwi nn, gi vu the all nchcd iu ulgus 0 the 6 NInLVI R11S of 1cu LI an ds. nimviug of n al. iv pl0011Is. 3 ul n ceCSSaly dead -rod In11Cls, scrup ings u.PhalJ it ai areas raid IUrgC: Clearings nrou ad simple rvcll lln rk' is. R:Trojects\NewportW015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -846 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 'llic app]icanL'S cons Ill glnl has IIS[cd approxi nilitel y 70 soparatc areas dewmrihcd M disluncud or nldeml en pagm 11 and 12 of th0 vcgelation inaps - on tlic rnua alone. Ad any of the nrcas listed cull tail Imti vc plums such. m cnccliam Id decnviced (11A hnvc hccu altered ur dettioycd aWlaugh dxy are uul directly assoeilnrd with ail wells or aster Upending facilities. Givoil the inipurimicc of this ]lahi[pt. Lnd Elio number 01- [tlIOTMlons, Ihr land 0W Herltpplicunt sh 0111 supply nn a casa&, hy -ca5r. hi sis why Ihuo, land altsornf 4)ns and lnn }ring 118«r,.or_•culrad- when nnt. dire eth, assn cial ed with the plim oil Ilres llcd n culreni 1 aperif ill wa115. ]n addition, the DEIR Ali Is 10 adqultl h, add Foss taw ru ll ow it lg poil lis: Siva ]lows use of Grasslands Large numbers of evcal laws have heel] ohscned and docunlen[ed using the grasslands in feeding behavior an ill mesa: nenrest to PC I I aid llle quadrant at end of'fio031derogal15 "' M. '111 ere is iii) Initllion 61'lllis large scale rcoding Ughavior in I.ha DEIK tin docu nl enled Rurr ow ine lhvl Llxation In item 8.of the ittaoh ed images, a Sllrrowillg Owl was sited near the. east end ei'the arroyo, and 11112� IlaS not been Iloted in the 1) KI R Wile ol'Gramlanrlx in I ?.rnxvxtem '111e. many ground squirrel burrows dooumemcd nn the gra,slAnd areas near PCII and al ilia end 4) 1- Tic911 d e'ega UIX likely to be Ind ispcnsib10 Ihctnrs in su,tot113 ng1110 exi@1 3 ng0ay01e popula[ioll and avian predaECrs such as hawk:; on 13anning Ranch. 'ne. impact or ill e development on ale rolesi wsc grasslands play in spedes su r vi vat musl be aiud ied in greater dctai 1. Onfiobw Ermi,rYcm HE'AMl In that IIV applit9nL's vngo[ation maps dcsaribO a.Jraglnonicd on.,iromncm Ls 4Ilaiural usset al Iassanad valuq tiio a pp] icani should axplain.and study ]ton• tho lunch greater fraglnantation ea used. M, die duvol openenl vvi II al :tcct ill ongoing hca lth of the cnnst iiticn[ parts of -1.1w CC OS�'SiC111. Akm Il:i buITcl•s lac ere!14eJ to pI•ulcci ESH L a Nologilad u:;MelIlcnl o1'IwteuGill fill Live cotldi1ious mus[ cpusider the nolmiiI resvurecs ieglliNd to ilisum the long lens survival of 4ecitz on 13a1] 11 ing Ranch. '1-h is assissmclll of the risks.iu the eaysysltm 1naIlU1 must ire l Lid c likely evmds Sikh In ills 1 Wn 11 ill dru]ugI I IF 8on111e111 CIII 1 full Ii 1111% C%[MiCl wi:[L C% ICI ldcd AMILlghls cu axed by clinmlc uhnugc; disensc and fur. With.d IC uuu lber of spvei ul eht us specks afro udy Iistk [d vn lemming Rauch, it is ofkc}' imp oil ance that a dtlniIA discu=siun be Ilad iv rcgmis to die tong item viability or ti, is asset. 3 mind, R:TrojectsWewpn J0I51RTMRTC- o3lsizdoe 3 -847 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Applicant should show any and all proof of permits issued to support mowing that occurs in winter and early sprin& Within the context of fire prevention this explanation should assess alter real risks considering the lack of f ires on rurord in the pass and the natural lire - breaks cremcd by the many dirt roads on the property. Clearings 'flit clearings noted in the Banning Ranch Ilabitat Damage file I have submitted need to be explained in dowl. Reeiunrrf NV'ulrr• Suuulr A development of this Rixe in an an of already strtsged water supp[ieg is incnnsigtent with mnnd resource managemer. giro that studies such as those noted halmv predict large possible impseix to one of our main regional water xupplies, the Colorado River- The long Icrm itmpaer of at least 50 years this development will have in on water supplies needs to be assessed in light of the independent studies mentioned below. Qhicat and study from Iiniversity of Colorado and NOAA: "But if climate change resullx in a 10 percent reduction in the Colorado River's average stream now as some recent studies predict, the chances orfuut depicting reservoir storage will exceed 25 percent h} 2057 accurding lu the xludy. If chinnale chumge results in a 20 pert%mi reductiom the shunts urful15' depicting rcxcr4'oir stunrge will exceed 50 percent by 7057. Ruingupalun said..• "On average, drying caused by climate change would increase the risk of fully depleting reservoir Rlnnge by nearly ten times more than the risk we expect from population pressnres alone." Raid Rapgopalan. "ley mid- century this risk translates into a 50 percent chance in any given year of anpty n:servnirs, an ennnmoux risk and huge water management cbal Imes Study: hurt: %v%%iv.colorudo.cdu newslr' fDf273935508fc6525e5ca903baa539b .lnml 0jame asst Study by Ncripps inslitrde of tk:eamngraphv' Frvin Sludy: -With either climuLL chungc or lonourni mean flusrs, cusrcmtly scheduled future %k ales deliveries from the Colorado River arc nut sustainable. Study � r'1 -1 17It}S1 12762 1 f qi :ifrxlrawl From press Release.: R: mrojeets wewpoftUO151RTC�RTC- 031512,doc 3 -848 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments ":ill water -usc planning is has d on die idea Ouat the ne A 100 years v%iII be like the last 100." said Scripps research marine physicist Tim Barnett- a co- author of the report. 'Ale considered the yucsliun: Can the river dclivur water at the le'v'els Currently scheduled irthc climate changer as we expoet it lo. 'tltc anbwia- is nu." 12 rsnnt Shen under conscrvalivo climate change scenarios- Bamctt and Scripps climate researcher David Pierce (nand that reductinus in the runtzft'that feeds the Colorado River mein that it could shrnl. the 5oathivest of a half-billion cubic meters (400,00x1 acre feet) of water per year 40 percent of tba time by 2U25.. Pm-s Pclease: htip: s+:nFnsnoucucsd . alu Rcicascs'' ?releasolll =477 'lliaah, yo4 Kevin Nelson 733 Calk Vullutta San Clemente, CA 92673 R: mrojeets\NewpodUO1 &RTMUC- 031512,doc 3 -849 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 072 Kevin Nelson November 8, 2011 Response1 Nelson Mapping Area #1 The commenter's assertion of an "arroyo' in this location is incorrect. An arroyo is defined as "Entrenched ephemeral streams with vertical walls that form in desert environments "44. The lack of vertical walls and other vegetative, hydrologic, and geologic features in this area has also resulted in the lack of these area being defined as jurisdictional features according to standards by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Fish and Game (CDFG) Code § §1600, and California Coastal Commission (CCC). As stated on page 4.3 -6 of the Draft EIR, "two major arroyos, the Northern Arroyo and Southern Arroyo (the Southern Arroyo being the largest)" occur on the Project site. No other arroyos are present. The photographs provided by the commenter of Area #1 show areas supporting non - native grasses (including foxtail chess [Bromus madritensis ssp. Rubens], bush sunflower (Encelia californica), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and dock (Rumex crispus). The presence of these species is consistent with the vegetation types that were mapped in this area in the Draft EIR including non - native grassland, disturbed Encelia scrub, ornamental, saltbush scrub, and disturbed mulefat scrub. Nelson Mapping Area #2 The grasslands that occur along the fence in this area are similar to other non - native grasslands on the Project site. Page 4.6 -13 of the Draft EIR states that non - native grassland "species composition varies by patch ". The Draft EIR acknowledges that within "these non- native grasslands there are pockets of native species that were not mapped because they were mowed to a height of less than six inches and could not be delineated ". The presence of these species is consistent with the vegetation types that were mapped in this area in the Draft EIR and no changes to the vegetation map are required. Nelson Mapping Area #3 Area #3 of concern to the commenter is not clear from the illustrations provided in this comment letter. The vegetation map and aerial photograph have arrows pointing to different areas and pointing in different directions. Nevertheless, the grasslands in that area are similar to other non - native grasslands on the Project site. Please also refer to the discussion regarding Mapping Area #2. Nelson Maooina Area #4. 5. 8. 12. 13. 16. and 17 As discussed above for Area #3, the Draft EIR acknowledges that within "these non - native grasslands there are pockets of native species that were not mapped because they were mowed to a height of less than six inches and could not be delineated ". The presence of these species in Areas #4, 5, and 8 are consistent with the vegetation types that were mapped in this area in the Draft EIR and no changes to the vegetation map are required. 44 http: / /www.crrel.usace.army.mil/ library / technicalreports /ERDC- CRREL- TR- 08- 12.pdf R\RrojedswewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -850 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Nelson MaDbina Area #6 As discussed above for Area #3, the Draft EIR acknowledges that within "these non - native grasslands there are pockets of native species that were not mapped because they were mowed to a height of less than six inches and could not be delineated ". The presence of scattered coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) in the predominantly non - native grassland is consistent with the vegetation types that were mapped in this area in the Draft EIR and no changes to the vegetation map are required. Nelson Mapping Area #7 Please refer to the following response to Comment 4 for additional information regarding the burrowing owl. Nelson Mapping Area #9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17 Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification. Please note that there were no photographs provided for the commenter's Mapping Area #14. Nelson Mapping Area #15 The arrow pointing to in the commenter's aerial photograph is not the same location as indicated by the commenter on the vegetation map. The aerial arrow is pointing to an area mapped as Ruderal /Disturbed Encelia Scrub /Disturbed Mule Fat Scrub. This vegetation types is described in the Draft EIR as containing "plants consist of opportunistic native and non - native species that have colonized soil piles and open areas within and along the edges of the debris piles. This vegetation type is dominated by tree tobacco, bush sunflower, and mule fat. Other species present include telegraph weed, black mustard, and castor bean ". This is an accurate representation of the area based on the photograph provided. Nelson Photos Titled "Damage to Habitat and Clearing to be Explained" Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification. Response 2 Cumulative impacts to biological resources from implementation of the proposed Project are discussed in the Draft EIR from pages 5 -48 to 5 -54 in Section 5.0, Cumulative Impacts. Some of the issues discussed in this Draft EIR section include the Project's cumulative impacts to: • special status plant species; • vernal pools and fairy shrimp; • 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; • coastal California gnatcatcher; • coastal cactus; • least Bell's vireo; • burrowing owl; RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -851 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments • Cooper's hawk, sharp- shinned hawk, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, white - tailed kite, merlin, prairie falcon, American peregrine falcon, short-eared owl, and osprey; • suitable foraging and /or roosting habitat for the bats; • indirect impacts related to disturbance from construction; • significant traffic noise impacts on sensitive biological resources; • special status riparian habitat; • coastal sage scrub; • grassland habitat; and • coastal open space. Response 3 It is important to note that BonTerra Consulting prepared the vegetation map presented in the Draft EIR. BonTerra Consulting is not the "applicant's consultant" as stated by the commenter, but rather a consultant under contract to the City of Newport Beach. Many areas that are routinely /historically disturbed by fuel maintenance area expected to recover with the growth of non- native species and native species such as deerweed and Encelia which are early successional sage scrub species. Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification. Response 4 Three species of swallow were identified in the Draft EIR's Biological Technical Report for the proposed Project: northern rough- winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), and barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). These species are common in the region and their occurrence on site was reported. Large groups of individuals foraging in an area is not unusual; it is not a significant issue that warrants discussion in the Draft EIR. Response 5 The Draft EIR identifies the presence of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) on site in several locations. The Draft EIR documented that suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present on the Project site and this species has been observed wintering on site in 2008, 2009, and 2010. However, this species is absent for breeding based on breeding season surveys conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Impacts on occupied and potential habitat for this species were found to be significant in the Draft EIR (see page 4.6 -62). Implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -12 would reduce the impact on this species to a less than significant level (see page 4.6 -89). The documentation for this occurrence has not been provided. Response 6 General habitat loss as a result in project implementation is discussed in detail on pages 4.6 -55 and 4.6 -56 of the Draft EIR. This level of detailed discussion is adequate. RTrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -852 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 7 As a point of clarification, BonTerra Consulting, as a consultant to the City of Newport Beach, prepared the vegetation map presented in the Draft EIR. The vegetation map was not prepared by the Applicant. In response to the commenter's concern regarding fragmentation of the site, BonTerra Consulting conducted a GIS analysis of the existing level of fragmentation and edge effects compared to the proposed Project. To understand the level of existing fragmentation on site from oilfield operations, a 50- foot -wide buffer was identified adjacent to the network of access roads, drill pads, and operation areas. Combined, this buffer of edge effects due to existing fragmentation covered approximately 169 acres of the 401 -acre Project site, or 42 percent of the site. When the same 50- foot -wide buffer is applied to the proposed development footprint (developed areas, roads, and trails), the edge effects apply to approximately 78 of the 252 acres of proposed open space, or 31 percent of the Project site. The fragmentation of the existing conditions is depicted on Exhibits 4.6 -1a and 4.6 -1b of the Draft EIR. By comparison, the proposed Project has focused the developed area in the eastern portion of the Project site, with contiguous areas of un- fragmented open space to the west (Draft EIR Exhibit 4.6 -4). Response 8 Long -term species survival is discussed throughout Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. As stated on pages 4.6 -44 and 4.6 -45, 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 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- sustainina levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or wildlife community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. (emphasis added) For each special status species that occurs (or has the potential to occur on site), this threshold was considered. When it was determined that this, or one of the other biological resource thresholds, were reached, impacts were found to significant and mitigation measures were identified that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Response 9 General biological resource effects of global climate change are discussed on page 4.11 -15 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 4.6 -73 of the Draft EIR, approximately 205 acres are proposed for preservation or restoration as native habitat as a part of the Project's biological resources mitigation obligations. The compensatory mitigation requirements for the Project would be R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -853 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments ultimately determined by the regulatory agencies as permit conditions. Areas would be restored in accordance with the Project's Habitat Restoration Plan. This Habitat Restoration Plan would be adopted as part of the Project and would serve as the primary implementation program for the conservation, creation, and restoration of native habitats within the Open Space Preserve. In addition, the Habitat Restoration Plan describes the implementation procedures, responsible entities, habitat establishment criteria, and monitoring requirements. Habitat areas that are restored by the Project would be subject to a five -year Maintenance and Monitoring Program. Preserved and restored habitat would be protected by the requirement that the Applicant makes one or more Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication to either public agencies or non - profit organizations to oversee the maintenance and management of open space areas. If the site is not developed, as described in Draft EIR Section 7.5.1, Alternative A: No Project, the property would continue to operate as an oilfield. Alternative A assumes existing conditions on the Project site and the continuation and possible expansion of oil exploration and oil production operations within the constraints of the existing California Coastal Act regulatory exemption for petroleum production. Further oil consolidation, clean up, and remediation would not occur for the foreseeable future, and public access would not be provided. By not developing the Project site, impacts on biological resource (i.e., special status species, jurisdictional areas) would be less than the proposed Project due to the limited nature of site disturbance that would occur. With Alternative A, there would be no substantial adverse effect. However, it cannot be stated that there would be no impacts because the continuation and possible expansion of oil exploration /production is anticipated to continue to degrade the existing habitat. These impacts could be considered significant depending on the extent of unforeseen exploration and production activities. In addition, the proposed Project includes revegetation of native habitat areas, including, but not limited to, coastal sage scrub, riparian, and vernal pools. These habitat types, along with several others on site, have been impacted on the Project site and throughout their range by invasive non - native plant species. The proposed Project's revegetation has the potential to result in a 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). However, because Alternative A does not provide for any mechanism to require revegetation of native habitats on site or to remove invasive non - native species, implementation of Alternative A would allow for the continued decline of the native plant and wildlife species on site due to the lack of required active resource management. In consideration of the long -term viability of the site, in the absence of a non - profit conservation organization that is ready and willing to purchase the property and restore and /or enhance the existing resources, the long -term value of the site from the proposed Project is higher than that of the No Project Alternative. With respect to climate change and water supply, please also refer to Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 4.115, Utilities, and Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR. Response 10 Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification Response 11 Please refer to Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification and Topical Response: ESHA. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -854 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 12 The comment is noted; however, it is not required and feasible to accurately evaluate water supply beyond a 20 -year planning horizon. As described in Section 4.15 of the Draft EIR, a water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared which evaluates the sufficiency of the water supplies available to the water supplier to meet existing and anticipated future demands, including the demand associated with project in question over a 20 -year horizon was prepared. The WSA concludes that the City would have sufficient water to meet the proposed project demands, as well as its current and future demand. Based on the WSA, the City, as water purveyor, has determined that a sufficient supply is available during average, single -dry, and multiple -dry years that would meet the anticipated water demand associated with the Project, in addition to the water demand of existing and planned future uses through the year 2030. RTrojedsWewpoOM151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -855 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Camme nt Letter 073 Alford, Patrick From: Barry Nerhus jbnerhus@pail.comj Bent: Monday, Nuvmittixr U7, 2U1 1 11.28 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: R01091cal Remilrce comments for dEIR I lel lo. I reviewed the Biological Resources section of the dEIR and found a few itcrus in question: I Southwextern Pand Turtle - I have data that xhowx xrarlhwcxtem Pond turtles do not need pesmancnt warcr nor high yuatlaty fri'slrwatvr marsh to sun s4v.:lJJalwnnll4' from puasonnl obxn'alitm soulhw'estera pond turtles Calf tail4e tidal marshes, estnaries, tuld sah marzhS t for foragutg So my question is what was the methodology t for survey for southwestern pond turtles? Visual mire eys are inadequate for Surveying for this, species. 2. Ligttl- l-lwtcd Clupper Rail - Sinec th,c fresimuler marsh habitat was dcwribed to have cattails and rashes. dwre is a potential to have nesting Ciapper Rails. It was stated that a fence was dividing the cordgrass habitat that is known to have at least one nesting, pair. Well this gird has wings mud can easily 11}' over a tan",. Additionally, I lncaled and dtwurnanicel a clapper rail neat in frcxhwalar marsh Ihia paxl year with B eg7. Thav hatched and were observed foraging throughout the Ireshivater marsh. Lighl- footed clapper rails are known to nest in freshwater nraishes. 1. Since there are alkali grasslands, them is polential For the rare Wandering Skipper I may have missed thin in the dEIR. You may want to pose this gtacsiien or rexcarch this small hvlterily ffiat is endenic to coaxial salt marshes in Souther California and norlhem baba, which therefore should be a sensitive species.:zlthough i am qualified to give an expert opinion on the southwestern pond turtle and She light - looted clapper rail, [ camtot rive an expert opinion on the wandoring skipper. 7ltattk.s. harry Barry Iverhus Endemic l;nvironmental Servi�ts Wildlife Biulugist Restolatiun Eculugisl bnerhuswernail.com R: mrojeets aNewpodUO1&RTMUC- 031512,doc 3 -856 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 073 Barry Nerhus November 7. 2011 Response1 As discussed in detail in the Biological Technical report (page 52) of the Draft EIR, the southwestern pond turtle occurs primarily in freshwater rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, vernal pools, and seasonal wetlands and requires basking sites such as logs, banks, or other suitable areas above water level. On behalf of the City, BonTerra Consulting conducted a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to identify any known occurrences of the southwestern pond turtle within Orange County. The species was reported to have 33 occurrences within Orange County; however, there are no known occurrences for this species within the coastal portion of the Santa Ana River watershed where the Project site is located. The closest occurrence within the watershed is approximately 25 miles upstream in the Silverado Canyon area. No perennial streams or ponds suitable for this subspecies are present on the Project site. Therefore, due to the lack of preferred habitat and absence of the species from the area, the southwestern pond turtle is not expected to occur on the Project site. In addition, the species has not been observed professional biologists on the Project site over the past 20 or more years. Response 2 Light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) is discussed in detail on page 60 of the Draft EIR Biological Technical Report. The scientific literature states that this rail is a secretive resident of coastal salt marshes of pickleweed and Pacific cordgrass (Spartinia foliosa) (Eddleman and Conway 1998). Although this subspecies has occurred at other localities in Orange County, the tidal salt marshes of Upper Newport Bay and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge support the only substantial populations45. In addition to these localities, the species has been observed at the Bolsa Chica and San Joaquin Marshes and in the restored cordgrass habitat at the mouth of the Santa Ana Riverf6 4'. Clapper rails nested in the relatively extensive lowland freshwater marsh habitats of San Joaquin Marsh in the 1980s (Gallagher 1997). This rail also nests in freshwater marsh habitats on the periphery of its preferred salt marsh habitat at Upper Newport Bay (Gallagher 1997). This species could be heard by BonTerra Consulting ornithologists calling from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) salt marsh restoration site adjacent to the Project site. Tidal marsh areas on the Project site are very limited in extent, with a chain -link fence separating the USACE salt marsh restoration site from the Project site. Freshwater marsh habitats on the Project site are not contiguous with these off- site tidal salt marsh habitats and are considered too small and isolated to be suitable habitat for clapper rails. The Project site provides potentially suitable foraging and high -tide refuge habitat but not suitable nesting habitat for this subspecies. Therefore, the light- footed clapper rail may occur for foraging or temporary refuge during high tides but is not expected to nest on the Project Site. 45 Hamilton, R.A. and D.R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Irvine, CA: Sea and Sage Audubon Society. 46 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011. California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for USGS Seal Beach, Newport Beach, Tustin, and Laguna 7.5- minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division. 47 Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA). 2009 (April 21). Biological Technical Report for the Newport Banning Ranch Property Newport Beach, California (prepared for Newport Banning Ranch LLC). Lake Forest, CA: GLA. RT ro j.dMewp.MJ0151RTORTC- 031512.do. 3 -857 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 3 According to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG )48, the wandering saltmarsh skipper (Panoquina errans) does not have State or federal listing status. It does have a G4G5 S1 designation according to NatureServe, which is a non - profit conservation organization who provides data and information to State and federal resource agencies regarding the listing of species. A G4 status is for species that are "Apparently Secure" and G5 status is for species determined to be "Secure'. It also has a NatureServe Subnational rank of S1, which states that the species is "Critically Imperiled" and a World Conservation Union (IUCN) Near Threatened listing. As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) A species not included in any listing identified in subdivision (c) shall nevertheless be considered to be endangered, rare or threatened, if the species can be shown to meet the criteria in subdivision (b) ". Subdivision (b) includes the following standards: A species of animal or plant is: (1) "Endangered" when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors; or (2) `Rare' when either: (A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered "threatened" as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act. Based on a range map for this species, this species is believed to occur in coastal salt marshes from north of Santa Barbara to the southern portion of Baja, MexiC049. Existing literature for this species states that "Upper Newport Bay may very well support the largest existing colony of this butterfly. It ... may literally swarm during August along the road and the bluffs near Big Canyon on the west side of Upper Newport Bay'5o. It is also believed that continued preservation of the Upper Newport Bay is desirable for the continued survival of the butterfly at healthy population levels. This species is known to occur within Southern California in coastal and inland salt marsh areas. Given this species distribution and listing status, this species does not meet the criteria of Endangered, Rare, or Threatened as described above; however, it is noted that this species is limited in its distribution and occurrence. The wandering skipper may occur on site, primarily within the Lowland area supporting higher concentrations of salt grass and pickleweed. Permanent Project impacts on habitat for this species would 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 marsh habitats used by this species. Much of the marsh habitat on the Project site is currently fragmented by roads and is invaded to varying degrees by non - native species which are known to have significant detrimental impacts on skipper habitat. Revegetation following oilfield 45 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG ). 2011 (January). Special Animals. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division. 49 http : / /www.butterH!esandmoths.org /species /Panoquina - errans 5' http: // mamba. bio. uci. edu /- pjbryanV biodiv /lepidopt/hesper /wanderin.htm RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -858 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments remediation activities has the potential to 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. Project impacts on this species would be considered less than significant in consideration of other habitat available for these species in the region; no mitigation would be required. RA Projects \NewportWl&RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -859 Responses to Environmental Comments Mr. Patrick Alford Planning Manager, City of Newport Beach 33oo Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Alford: Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments Comment Letter 074 I'vCEIVED qy COMMUNITY NOV 00 2011 ()� DEVELOPMENT .t. �p0 OP NE"OR' 0 The Banning Ranch DEIR states on page 21 of the Air Quality section under Mass Emission Thresholds that Mitigation Measures 4.10 -1 through 4.10 -4 will be used to reduce NOx emissions from construction. MM4.o -1 deals with Tier 3 and 4 certified diesel equipment and says that Tier 3 is mandatory, but Tier 4 is required only where available. What does "only where available" mean and do the Project Applicants intend to use Tier 4 equipment to reduce NOx emissions, given that it is available now and the need for Tier 4 equipment isn't anticipated until 2014, according to this document? On May 11, 2004, the EPA introduced Tier 4 emissions standards that are to be phased in from 20o8 to 2015. These standards reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) by about 90 % and if adhered to by the use of Tier 4 equipment could reduce the impacts of NOx from significant and unavoidable to less than significant. It could also greatly reduces the emissions of other criteria pollutants like PM10 and PM2.5, which are highly toxic. A study in 2006, by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the health risks of construction pollution in California stated that in 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that diesel exhaust is responsible for 70 %of the state's risk of cancer from airborne toxins: "The Health Risks of Construction Pollution in California Using established U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) methods to quantify the impact of air pollution, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates that construction equipment emissions statewide are responsible for: 2 o more than 1,1oo premature deaths per year o more than i,000 hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory illness 2,500 cases of acute bronchitis tens of thousands of asthma attacks and other lower respiratory symptoms This pollution is hurting the state's economy as well. Construction equipment is critical to the building industry (a sector of the economy worth $6o billion per year) and instrumental in maintaining and building our roads and highways (on which California spent eight billion dollars last year). But the pollution from this equipment results in more than nine billion R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -860 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments dollars in annual public health costs, including hundreds of thousands of lost work days and school absences. The impact of several pollutants that comprise diesel exhaust must be taken into account: o Particulate matter (PM). Also known as soot, these small particles (25 times smaller than the width of a human hair) are released directly from the tailpipe or formed indirectly from emissions of NOx and sulfur oxides (SOx). PM can penetrate deeply into the lungs, causing or aggravating a variety of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and even leading in some cases to premature death (Pope 2oo2, Krewski 2000, Samet 2000). o Smog- forming pollutants. NOx and hydrocarbons react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone (smog), which can damage the respiratory tract, reduce lung function, 2 conl exacerbate asthma, aggravate chronic lung diseases, and also cause premature death (White 1994, Koren 1995, Thurston 2oo1, Bell 2005). As much as 10 to 20 percent of all summertime hospital visits and admissions for respiratory illness are associated with ozone, and more than 90 percent of Californians live in areas that do not comply with federal ozone standards (Thurston 1992, 1994)• o Air toxics. The state of California has classified diesel exhaust and more than 40 compounds in diesel exhaust as toxic air contaminants.? Exposure to these chemicals can cause cancer, damage to fetuses, and other serious health and reproductive problems. CARB has estimated that diesel exhaust is responsible for 70 percent of the state's risk of cancer from airborne toxics (CARE 1998)•" h ttp:l /www. u csusa •orgla ss a tsid o cu nie ntsiclea n_veh is Ie sidiggi ng -u p -trou ble.pcl- The Mass Emission Thresholds section also says that emission reductions achieved with MMs 4.10 -2 through 4.10 -4 are not quantifiable in the CalEEMod model, which is being used to estimate emission reductions, but would potentially reduce pollutant emissions below those shown in Table 4.10 -8. Please clarify what "not quantifiable" means with regard to the CaIEEMod model. If MMs 4.10 -2 through are not quantifiable in the CaIEEMod model, are they quantifiable in some other model? And if not, how is it known to what levels they'll reduce pollutant emissions? How can it be said with certainty that the levels will be below significance for any of the toxins listed in the table, NOx in particular? When labels like "sensitive receptors" are used in documents like a DEIR it's easy to forget that actual living and breathing human beings, including pregnant women, children, the 4 aged and the infirm, are being exposed to unsafe levels of pollutants. In this case, the only way to protect them from the health risks of emissions like NOx is to use Tier 4 equipment as R:TrojectsWewpn JO15�RTMRTC- O3islzdoe 3 -861 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments recommended in MM 4.to -1 and /or to avoid the concurrent remediation and grading that would cause the exceedances of NOx and other air toxins. Further, as shown in Table 4.10 -8 on page 21, the use of approximately 50 percent Tier 3 and 50 percent Tier 4 diesel engine equipment would reduce NOx emissions below the SCAQMD CEQA threshold value and the following is stated: "It is noted that the use of all Tier 3 equipment and no Tier 4 equipment would not reduce NOx emissions below the SCAQMD thresholds for all construction years. 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 percent Tier 3 and 5o percent Tier 4 diesel engine equipment, the availability of sufficient numbers of Tier 4 equipment in 2014 and the following years cannot be assured. Therefore, the Project construction emissions would be a potentially significant and unavoidable impact." And what recourse will local residents, including the pregnant women, children, the aged and those with respiratory conditions, have if their health is adversely affected by these "potentially significant and unavoidable impacts "? Has the city given any thought to the potentially significant and unavoidable long -term costs that might occur if SCAQMD CEQA thresholds are not observed and the public is exposed to unsafe levels of air toxins and pollutants over the 9 -13 years of construction and beyond, due to population growth and traffic congestion? Why are the impacts unavoidable? If the Project Applicant cannot guarantee the use of Tier 4 equipment, then they can avoid concurrent remediation and grading, which would reduce the use of the heavy equipment causing these impacts. Why isn't that suggested in the DEIR as a possible mitigation in order to avoid significant impacts? In Section t -n of the Executive Summary, the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR refers to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR, but the Banning Ranch DEIR doesn't cross - reference the General Plan FEIR, which should be done for clarity. Apparently in approving the General Plan project, the City approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are "economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project (Threshold 4•z -3).,, Will this Statement of Overriding Considerations also apply to the Banning Ranch Project and this DEIR? If so, what significant and avoidable impacts are they referring to? Benzene, NOx, particulate matter and the other DEIR criteria pollutants have known health risks that include cancer, respiratory disease and increased morbidity (death), which is why they're regulated by state and federal agencies. Will these risks to Newport Beach residents be impacts that would be considered negotiable in favor of economic, social and other public benefits? 4 cont. R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -862 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Also, how are the regulating agencies made aware that exceedances will occur when remediation and grading are concurrent and Tier 4 equipment is not used? Will the public be alerted that air toxins may exceed safe levels during at least five of the ten construction years, according to this report? Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I'm sure you consider these questions as Important as I do, and I await your response. Yours truly, RAProjec [s \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512tloc 3 -863 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 074 J. Edward Perry November 8, 2011 Response1 Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that the Project has been revised to include Tier 4 construction equipment and NOx emissions would be less than significant with the concurrent remediation and grading activities. Response 2 The comment is noted. It is also noted that in the Draft EIR impacts from diesel particulate emissions were determined to be less than significant. Response 3 The mitigation measures are not quantifiable in CalEEMod or other models because they describe best management practices that will vary in their effectiveness dependent on the local factors. The reductions in emissions attributable to these measures are generally small when compared to the total emissions. It is not implied that the mitigation would reduce emissions below the level of significance. Response 4 Please refer to the response to Comment 1. Response 5 Please refer to the response to Comment 1. Response 6 Please refer to the response to Comment 1. Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that local exposure to NOx during construction would be less than significant. Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that local exposure to NOx during construction would be less than significant. Ambient air quality analysis for operations is appropriate when there are substantial stationary sources of pollutants such as power plants, mining operations, or industrial facilities, or when there is a massing of mobile sources such as a warehouse /distribution facility, bus station, or a railroad yard. The proposed Project has none of these sources. The potentially significant NOx impacts described in the Draft EIR are for regional emissions. Exposure of persons to local concentrations of NOx or NO2 would be less than significant. Please also see the general discussion of NOx emissions during construction. Please also refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to operational pollutant emissions, which discusses that there is little relationship between mass emissions attributable to project operations and exposure to persons on -site and nearby off -site. Exposure of persons to excessive concentrations of long -term vehicle CO emissions is investigated at severely congested signalized intersections; the analysis in the Draft EIR demonstrates a less than significant impact. R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -864 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 7 Please refer to the response to Comment 1 Response 8 The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development of the Project site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which noted that there are specific economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project. With respect to the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR, the analyses of health risk impacts from toxic pollutant emissions and exposure of persons to substantial concentrations of criteria pollutant impacts were found to be less than significant. Response 9 Please refer to the response to Comment 1 and the response to Comment 8. It is noted that the Draft EIR was reviewed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (see Letter R9). R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -865 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Alford, Patrick Co more nt. Letter 075 From: rzverette Phlllips jeap c@D urceglobally.comj Bent: 7ue•;d'ay, Nuvelrltti•r 08, 2611 4.6,; I"M To: Alford, Petrick Subject: Comments on the Fkarinlrio Ranch Draft EIR Dear Patrkk, My first comment is that the timeline does not allow for adequate review of the OR. The outreach is not consistent with the intention of public comment. 71wr city should hr5l hav: workshops whcry city staff can hop explain sections of the MIR anc What the legal orwnted word$ mean for laymen. We, the PL?Hic, woldd he better able to make rnmmenfs with $Lich outreach. The rfty should consider offering the public more tim: for comments. 'Are bath know that future hearing will be more formality and this is the only real oppoltunfty for comments on core issues. Regarding the 6EIR. The biology section seems to be Infssing the biology Taylor Woodrow made. public in their presentatlans on the property. What Is the city doing to incorporate that biology? Regarding the DEIR: The General Plan Update provides for prose rvatlon. The Coastal Conservancy did not. seem to be contacted abuu t acqu h i lion when I asked. Did the raly talk with Coal cal Conse r vaacy a nd. uthe r conser vancie s rega rdirra acquisition? Regarding the i7Elk= Ne wpurt Shores.had an inveS tiplt ion on la nd$a nI ing due to oil activity. Has rhis investiga tipn been considered by the city req uireme nts7 Regarding the HEIR: Newport Shores has a view of the coastal bluffs that needs to be preserved under the requ irernents of the Cua scat Act. The Currcnl propasdls have too little set back. Moro se toe ck is nucdud W Pr Move ifre [vestal blv If view frnm Newport Shores. Thank you Everette Phillips 206 walnut. Sr Newport Beach, CAD 2663 R:TrojectsWewpn JC15�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -866 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 075 Everette Phillips November 8, 2011 Response1 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Section 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the minimum public review period for a draft EIR shall be 30 days. When a draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review (as was the case for the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR), the period is 45 days. Except under unusual circumstances should the review period be longer than 60 days. The City of Newport Beach provided a 60 -day public review period. The comment requesting public workshops prior to public hearings does not raise an environmental issue however this comment is noted as a suggestion from the public. Response 2 The referenced EIR was not certified and was prepared in 2000. The Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR includes biological analyses based on the most current data available and the findings of field surveys of the current biological conditions on the Project site. Response 3 In August 2009, the Newport Beach City Council directed 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 4 The study noted by the commenter cannot be identified. While the City is the lead agency for approval of the Newport Banning Ranch Project, the existing oilfield and its operations are not a part of the proposed Project and occur with or without City approval of the Newport Banning Ranch development project. Should the City approve the proposed Project, the oil operations would be consolidated into two locations to allow for soil remediation and to create development areas on the site. The Draft EIR analyzed the impacts of the proposed Project on geology and soils, including potential subsidence; please refer to pages 4.3 -10 and 4.3 -19. Response 5 The opinion of the commenter is noted. Bluffs are defined and identified within the Project site pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code definition of 'Bluff'. The proposed Project includes a setback requirement for habitable structures of a minimum of 60 feet from the top of bluff edge. The Master Development Plan for the Project proposes a Bluff Top Park and a local roadway to extend along the westerly boundary of the North Family Village which combined provide approximately 154 feet between the top of edge of bluff and buildings along this portion of the Project which is most visible to Newport Shores. Please refer to Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the Draft EIR. As depicted in Exhibit 4.1 -2i, the existing off -site residences would be separated from proposed development in the North Family Village by approximately 450 feet including the Semeniuk Slough, the Open Space Preserve, South Bluff Park, and trails. Additionally, there is approximately 65 feet of vertical separation between the Newport Shores residences and the top of the bluff. Exhibit 4.1 -2j depicts the relationship between the proposed land uses in the Resort Colony with single - family residences in Newport Shores. Newport Shores' residences on RT ro jedsWe wp.MJ0151RTORTC- 031512.do. 3 -867 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 61" Street have views of Semeniuk Slough and the Project site. Proposed resort inn and residential uses in the Resort Colony would be approximately 800 feet from the Newport Shores community with a vertical separation of approximately 50 feet. Development within the Resort Colony would be set back more than 100 feet from the bluff edge with a maximum building height of 50 feet, excluding mechanical equipment and architectural features. As described in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources of the Draft EIR, and illustrated in Exhibit 4.2 -6 the views of the Project to Newport Shores would appear virtually unchanged from the existing view of the Project site from Newport Shores. Due to the topography and the fact that homes would be setback approximately 154 feet from the top of bluff edge in this portion of the Project only the roof tops of a few homes would be visible. In certain, locations bluffs visible to Newport Shores would be restored to remedy the effects of erosion. However, bluff faces would not be altered to accommodate development of the Project. As addressed in Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project is consistent with this Coastal Act Section 30251. The General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or view points on the Project site; however, it does recognize that the mesa area, coastal bluffs, and Lowland (part of the Santa Ana River floodplain) on the Project site contribute to the City's scenic resources. Approximately 252.3 gross acres of the 401 -acre Project site would be in an Open Space Preserve with an additional 51.4 gross acres in parklands. The Project includes the restoration of eroded bluffs on the Project site and proposed development would be setback a minimum of 60 feet from the tops of the bluff. Exhibits 4.2 -3a through 4.2 -11b provide an existing view of the Project site from these various viewpoints and visual simulations to depict the anticipated change from these viewpoints that would occur with Project. As noted, no significant public view impacts are anticipated. The Project is not identified by the California Department of Parks and Recreation as highly scenic area. R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -868 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Greetings Mr. Afford, After looking at the Banning Ranch LLC pro pased massive development ❑EIR I am Lotaliy hewildered. ARei reading [lie headings or eaulr issue and deilliirg deeper inlo the verbiage I was rendered totally last in comprehension of what was printed. I am definitely not a Rhodes scholar but I do have savvy. This "thing" threw me for a loop. To start I was not aware the 17EIR was available until I heard that it was online during the first week in October 2011. I've conversed with my neighbors and they as well as myself ne ver rece ive d a hard copy sent LISPS announcing that this DEIR was available. Why was this? As I did try to rompm he, nd what t his 'Ihing" meant to me I cnuldn't find any specifics directed to the Impacts of the community I Ilve In, Lido Sands. What are the envircnmentaI and change of qualify of life impacts I and my Gomm Lin ityyneighbors facet My home of 40 Years is directly in fro nt of the proposed boulevard and major signaled intersection on West Coast Hwy. The windows in both of my bedrooms view directly onto the bluff's where this proposed major artery and intersection lie. }low will I be protected from the gtoring Iighis of vehicles rolling down the boulevard? How wiII I be protected from the noise of revving motorcycles, autos, and trucks walting at a stopped signal, not to mention "boom boxes'? How will 1 be protected from tha itsfCc, people and air pollution invasion of tills }project? I invite you to visit my home to get a practical evaluation of what I'm asking. Anybody? I am just winding down from the Sunset Ridge Perk issue and don't think it fair lhat Ilris'`Lhing" Is right on it's heels.. Will you please extend the review of this life changing DEIR and sarnahuw formal in 10ym5 ri s language, fnT al lea at five IQ %I% manlirx, whai's the ruafi? I have one last question, for now, why is this intrusive, massive urbanization necessary in our Newport Beach, CA? Thank you Respectfully, Gerard Proccacino R:TrgectsWewp MJO15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -869 Responses to Environmental Comments Comment LetterO76 Alford, Patrick From: Gerard Proc iGRAVVTRAIN1 @ro81Jrunner.coml sent: h5urt<1ay, Nuver nDu 01 2015 6:45 PM To: Alford, Petrick Cc: Dept - C,tily Cntrnrdl subject: Banning Ranch GcvelopmCinE 6SIR Greetings Mr. Afford, After looking at the Banning Ranch LLC pro pased massive development ❑EIR I am Lotaliy hewildered. ARei reading [lie headings or eaulr issue and deilliirg deeper inlo the verbiage I was rendered totally last in comprehension of what was printed. I am definitely not a Rhodes scholar but I do have savvy. This "thing" threw me for a loop. To start I was not aware the 17EIR was available until I heard that it was online during the first week in October 2011. I've conversed with my neighbors and they as well as myself ne ver rece ive d a hard copy sent LISPS announcing that this DEIR was available. Why was this? As I did try to rompm he, nd what t his 'Ihing" meant to me I cnuldn't find any specifics directed to the Impacts of the community I Ilve In, Lido Sands. What are the envircnmentaI and change of qualify of life impacts I and my Gomm Lin ityyneighbors facet My home of 40 Years is directly in fro nt of the proposed boulevard and major signaled intersection on West Coast Hwy. The windows in both of my bedrooms view directly onto the bluff's where this proposed major artery and intersection lie. }low will I be protected from the gtoring Iighis of vehicles rolling down the boulevard? How wiII I be protected from the noise of revving motorcycles, autos, and trucks walting at a stopped signal, not to mention "boom boxes'? How will 1 be protected from tha itsfCc, people and air pollution invasion of tills }project? I invite you to visit my home to get a practical evaluation of what I'm asking. Anybody? I am just winding down from the Sunset Ridge Perk issue and don't think it fair lhat Ilris'`Lhing" Is right on it's heels.. Will you please extend the review of this life changing DEIR and sarnahuw formal in 10ym5 ri s language, fnT al lea at five IQ %I% manlirx, whai's the ruafi? I have one last question, for now, why is this intrusive, massive urbanization necessary in our Newport Beach, CA? Thank you Respectfully, Gerard Proccacino R:TrgectsWewp MJO15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -869 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 5145 Lido sands ❑r. Newport Beach, CA 92883 R: mrojeets\NewpodUO1 &RTMUC- 031512,doc 3 -870 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 076 Gerard Proccacino November 7. 2011 Response1 The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 requires that the lead agency (e.g., City of Newport Beach) provide public notice of the availability of a draft EIR shall be mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing, and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: • Publication at least one time by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas. Posting of notice by the public agency on and off the site in the area where the project is to be located. Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the parcel or parcels on which the project is located. Owners of such property shall be identified as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Notice of the public review period for the Draft EIR was provided by the City using the following methods: • Mailing to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing, and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: • Newspaper notice in the Daily Pilot • Newspaper notice in the Orange County Register • Publication on the City's website 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. The comment requesting public workshops prior to public hearings does not raise an environmental issue however this comment is noted as a suggestion from the public. Response 2 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 R\RrojedMewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -871 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Project site is adjacent to West Coast Highway, which is a six -lane divided State highway. Residences in the Lido Sands community are located on the south side of West Coast Highway, approximately 180 feet south of the southern Project site boundary. An approximate seven -foot- high noise barrier separates the Lido Sands residences from West Coast Highway providing both noise reduction and visual separation. Proposed development on the Project site would be separated from Lido Sands by approximately 350 feet. This includes the six -lane divided West Coast Highway (off site), and approximate 150 foot -wide area of native habitat (on site), and South Bluff Park (on site). Additionally, there is an approximate vertical grade separation of 50 feet with the Project site at a higher elevation than residences to the south of West Coast Highway. Any on -site development would be set back from the bluff top edge by a minimum of 60 feet. The Resort Colony with a resort inn and residences would be the closest development uses to off -site residences to the south. Buildings within the Resort Colony would not exceed 50 feet in height and would vary in height and massing. Exhibit 4.1 -2a depicts the Project interface with the Lido Sands Community. The exhibit depicts the Resort Colony area of the Project separated from the Lido Sands Community by approximately of 400 feet with a vertical separation of approximately 50 feet. This is considered to be sufficient privacy buffer between the Project and the Lido Sands Community. The remaining questions do not raise environmental issues. Response 3 The opinion of the commenter is noted. Please refer to the response to Comment 1. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -872 Responses to Environmental Comments November4, 2011 Mr. Patrick L Alford Planning Manage. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O..Rox 1768 Newport Bunch, CA. 92658 FAX ORIGRiAL f0 FOLLOW V : Crsponae to Bonme dETR, Subjccc Punning Ranch, Dear Mr. Allard: Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Lettar 077 0-CEiVED op caMMUHRY WOV 072011 c� aEVEL4pMENr d- yOP&r&V aV61, The fal[owing are specific questions and concerts regarding theBaraerra dE1R regarding the prepD,% 1 Newport Bunning Rnnch dcvclopmuni. I.) Linder Section 4.91 Transportation and Circulation specifically Suction 4.9.7 , Pmjeet ASuurnptions, there is rrllamncc on page 4.9 -27[ Rci.IVt' Send], to: "Minor improvements on 1916 Street would be required to connect North Btu If Road to 19i6 StreEL" Question: llow can minor improvements be the case if 10 Street is over 15 feet above &rude where 31uff'Read would intersect? Wouldn'i earth movement and gmdirm be wbstsmtial and environmental l V disru tti ve? 2.) Under. Exhibi t4. 1- 3 North. 8 1vff good is extended from approximat elyShe proposed Urban Colony to .i 9'" Street. Question: How can.a mad be extended dnnugh desigrmtsd Open Space (O.S), dividing designated Upper and Lower Hahita: Rtgions; without violodng Lhe very Open Space so dedicated by developer and agtnud to by the Ciiy cspccinlly given the large amount of earth rriovcmenl required? 3.) Under lahi6it 4.9.71 Project Trip Distribution, tri p distribution. is defined as 1 f3% of total distribution along 19" Street Question: How does a nominal trem.is flaw justify exleasion of No rth B lull Read to 190 .S trees especially g-it•bn concerns oudined in I. and 2. above? 4.) Under Section 4.9 -14, Pagu 4.9 -9.1, Policy Analysis, MR lib ts "No Impacts" Question: How can the proposed development have no impacts and still be Consistent Willi the Ca[ifomio Coastal Aet? See 1 thrn 3 oboa,e. Nore.O.S. conflict. 5.) Under Socdon 4.9 -17, Page 4.9 -1.14, Special Studies, lists a'spcciat study' of a 1916 Street Bridge across the Santa Ana.River. Question: How can a study of a bridge be included in the Saruting dEIR whoa laid dEIR concludes in Section 4.9 Page 4.9.120 that "the roadway system within the project site would not be subject tp cluwge if the 19'6 Street Bridge were nor implemented ?" Sincerely Norbert ul I Moonn Cku, 95663 PhlPna 449.631.1066 norbpul �cglobpl.noi I 2 3 4 s R: Troject sWewpnMJ0151RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -873 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 077 Norbert Puff November 4, 2011 Response1 The "minor improvements' referenced in the Draft EIR refer to street improvements such as paving, curb and gutter, etc., as opposed to earthwork and grading which are analyzed in Section 4.3 -7. Page 4.9 -27 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: PAiraer Improvements on 19th Street would be required to connect Response 2 Unless specifically prohibited, roads are permitted under all General Plan and zonin� designations. The proposed construction of North Bluff Road from the Urban Colony to 19t Street would extend through the area of the Project site referred to as Upland Open Space. The roadway does not divide the designated Upland and Lowland areas of the Project site. Grading and earth movement proposed within the Upland Open Space between the Urban Colony and 19th Street would include site remediation activities as part of the habitat restoration of the Upland habitat areas, proposed as part of the Project, and the grading activities necessary for the roadway proposed as part of the Project. Biological impacts to the Upland area associated with the remediation and restoration aspects of the Project and the construction of North Bluff Road are addressed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Response 3 Bluff Road and North Bluff Road would provide a new north -south roadway connection to provide roadway capacity that is not currently available in the general Project vicinity. As addressed in most detail in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, Bluff Road is shown as a future north -south roadway connection between West Coast Highway and 19th Street in both the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The roadway shown on the City's Circulation Element is not labeled; the roadway shown on the MPAH is labeled "Balboa ". The Newport Beach Circulation Element classifies Bluff Road as a Primary from West Coast Highway to 19th Street; the Orange County MPAH classifies it as a Primary from West Coast Highway to 17th Street and as a Major from 17"' Street to 191h Street. Consistent with the Circulation Element and the Orange County MPAH, the construction a new arterial connection to West Coast Highway would provide an additional route for regional travelers to minimize impacts on Newport Boulevard and Superior Road. Both the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County MPAH assume a road through the Newport Banning Ranch property from West Coast Highway to 19th Street regardless of whether the property is retained as Open Space or developed as a Residential Village. Response 4 The opinion of the commenter is noted. The proposed Project is considered consistent with applicable transportation policies of SCAG, the City's General Plan, and the California Coastal Act. A project can have environmental impacts while being consistent with planning policies. Response 5 The construction of the 19th Street Bridge is not a part of the proposed Project. As addressed in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, both the Orange County MPAH and the City of RT,.jedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -874 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 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 19th Street Bridge. RT rgedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -875 Responses to Environmental Comments Dquill Rrilu:maml IH77 Pnrkvirvl• Circic [ pnr.to 1\..hpa ( •`r) 9M7- '1.53G �W)-54+ vmrl1F) T1P ist cx rI pndml1.nm I•'n1I•i�;k,f. AllixLil. P11I1I1Iitig LMILMIZuI' 211),d itrW0IVn M.;L h, CLIP 1.) rnuui ly 11nv lolin I cilI Dr µm runcnr 3300 l•1 .ROLIlewnrd PU'13ux 17Gf3 W,vi -vi p .l3cacl I. GA ONO 8•a.)1 S IMWeiuhi :r 11,:20[1 RV hl ANT) i].C:UVF,RN' R4'.gLurliug 171411E folrj \1cu!pnrE R:muing 1C•au¢fo Dear ildr. AIford. Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Co m m c nt Lutte r 078 GtimmUNITY NOY q fi 7.01E �oEYCr.nn►iFIdY ltri]1Y1L 6 r1. lit, 111111 I&_16I1Ch 1s Ille lnK[ piecc•oF 1 111[LillinG develnpnl]fc Laud in I \4 :%%'punt Rcru:11.']'hrlvfnm il. is inilaC (4111 Olnt -ELI] Vlrmcids ofli :r dng ins (lr-vidopriu :lu h,. rgnsidUtd YCry C1IUrLJly. TIIICIV kvi pru'liUS a 1r, liu" pnt "r'"tdO k,r i \'ewlrurl .Bn n iling. L f..Gi sresl the C, :ily of M:ivporl licnell, Elie C:iry of CWIi 1. W1 ran, IIIG CMWlLyor C71- 111gC, dM St:Ipc 0 Califurui ;L.1nr11111161in:nxnf r No. ;ilnrf]nl,lIII f1lnrd j lrCigdit l i0i M_ I lack LOA hnir:LI r:xpertisc M:Mr pnoil In Ih< DiA Li I%- i ronmcn tai Impart RLgJ011. II%iag 111 siune ILLugullj ;e and trralx confAIwd in Ili t rlxgmMlI, it•iy LIIIVIC151lu1LlilId of thl: u:rhnitslitirs Ill` an [11'411! ie %wry li Iiiitcd. €:l cn: I wwP-ie; I; _1 W. snmc 11011515 fpr ajLlRidv nl lit)] I . I could Ile d5al irle (n' nruiu ur Elie G111niuiIIgIlls ilrea ly Ucen.yul)111itrid ar is :r11'rady in f c Dl:Eft Lnvi raa nu n ml Ilnpaol to llrrrl [1]G1110. .€- EM, iv: niust l:e :i cuna+dcIT6aI]. Sicps IMIci het Inks :n 1 a III tninLV'L (lie sOUiid I "In11111 gvrldvauix. malers>.1u11l 111 :1r tilci Y is.uch a phing %:la- allp Ill ll Ihai.rnnrni115 ground up limn thin n:duces Iinisc lq•.e k ftail s1 mum No i_44: mrluiretwi _-iiIs arr r1 ;IdPv :I.I i P 1 0VQI, 1\•1EPA a rl Inca l c:oje., I I ArhlWOII In wad 1 nuim!' 111u'kllind n Eli I play Fr ldl '111 otlld he COPIS ,krMI iiI IM pcci It IMiSW.. The IsCSL Oliid IiraAJIUA ULiltI lie uwu11: In wlnpaill Ih,! soil JJCI NIL] till Imusiiig III iis jiu', 111114 1114 rrrnu 1111t Lg I11 g1n nil 1611111 31 .:Id dalaperli ug cu rla in. 41511 n MO 141' um l 14911511611 ct 2. Thr, el rvidn ll en wiII ullup 11€1 tIIC pilVpva'ty nf:pl Y. IN:srigCa of nil full rl er[vi llnienn • 14,,1. 1.111111; gp: qtr:: I I4$1Y I ll 11C 80110 tO :111 '(,p rhi I, Ij}r ng,C11CIL5 L41[IL'S-- fLII {;7M 1, stELIC, Cf1I11L t F11141 [Sit}: 1'Yh:u n Iheii: rOr Ir.; 2 and whuV LI I'L phi. }• Iu In: 1011 Ild? W M 11. W! 11. 1110 1:I. 1:«sol' rewuliulian 110 'I'11C c uEC Iw ilcpai €s it I1 Nr. detcu nlca 1. $. Alnulel all the 1?110[q;riy 1e1 hr, dRvrilnln•r1 Li• i \'cn jell li ruu Ling Rrn rrh is will ri II Llra llgt Ccuunty u Ili IIeorpyrluul Iauv1. 11HIVIL uni. I'M uncl Ili sny.rJernm: s to III. f aL I my in phi: 17KIK. Is C7i :uigc f]]uiity illllhfjn 11 llg.nk I 1 1111 ems[. IIl t he prV]jeI jy?TSv Ewly or du: cou illy cnrlea.necd co fx al]plicd io 11114 hLnd? R:Trojects\NewporN015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -876 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 'L 7'l pert• is III 11) r,, inw -NY; t in "dark sk ir;." 1bPhaps a simple wry of rsplaining diis is lhe.elesiro to kcch iL light gc Ill rnlul by rrraI'S ai:livil.y ara mini nnutn nf•spi11i rig ourinio ihcsky ar nigh r. Aitd.perhnIm one of the Iirst Iirnrs Iv dv Iliis is during new on usi ruction. A11 ligL Ii nb in Ilxc cl cve lnputcnl. xltor Jc l Iskc Il rix I ❑16 C+1r i$iltGttq i(il':. 3. 1rr di r-i.ranelrgrmiinit analysis, Is. 130 tic n'ansportIIion indiLidect? fi. L•l +lta[ Is the lilanninglurliiryc lc nsng+avilhiii Ihuicn:lulvuuarL ' llris 1%131 Ill iurlu[Iv: Ludo rrrurs tool ;ilm [rails. 7, ❑ens pirking 161, the Irousipig Voris m.CUillL Nt With IIUS fur e \u+'pari VC114:1t? Will 11 Itar. he all arraly�is In r pa rki ng Ann ra n Cl'? 9- 1 s.in not =urr. tvlud This IXi rnglaph on page 17 of iltr Nc+r ire uf'f'rep: u- a inr r i3 rry!ing rn eeuwy; 161h $best: The extension of 16th Street from Its existing terminus at the Lily of Newport Beach U111itte8 Yard to the Project site !g prroposed as a part of the Prpjesi. This of16sIte irripravement to 1 Glh Street would be partially core rueled.oii Unified School gislrlcI property and be within the right -af -way easerrfent provided for the City of Newport Beach thiliiins Yarti to juirl Me existing roadway at the easterly School District properly line. Mal Is connected to what and nn whose land? 9. "Interpretive Araks. Approximately one acre is proposed for Interpretive Parks to inell-rde a vernal pool reservalion area (located southwest of the proposed intersection of Bluff Read at 17th Street) and the •pmptlsoU TaIbe.rt Trailhead,StagIng Area ({located at 1ho.rlorthea9kii corner of the Project' site y. The vernal pool I ilerprelive area could ihclude-a g1jaya kigsks and displays. The Talbert.TraIIheadlStaging Area would provide public access to a regional network of nn and Off -8118 nature trails via a trail through the Upland Open Space.(b) Public parklno Is proposed oil sile'and . off'siLe along the southern side Of 19th Street. The iInterpretive Parks are planned to be privately owned and liialmirled but acCoossIble to the prikilic. Circulation Publicaccess. (a)' (a)°Tile lnlei'pietive parks are planned to be privately owned and maintained but accessible to the public." I have bean Linder the Impression that lower land parit area would become public land. (b) "The Talbert Trellhe1118 aglny Arao wuuld ff�ruvi[I public access to a regional network Of oh and off -site nature thalls via a trall through t3id Upland Open Spar:e," The staying area is in !ow lwid ur fairly lowland. What Is Itiaplan to get from 1110 staging area to the upland open space?.Are these Iralls lbal are malltidnad on any map? (c) "Public parking is proposed un site and uff site.along the southern side of '19th Street:" Al Ind ugh Costa Mesa would be.ON [go led Io Cooper &le Ih tIto coil rlectiansW roads as well as Ifaffis.:mltigation measures, is Ili& larking of 191h street subject to-the same conpirkralive rBglllralnar118.. 9. Has it been proven that there wlll bean adequate water supply for the devetopment7 1'.0. It used to be ill Fit mature wetland wlIlows were prolecled• Is Ill at sa toglay? To.lhe..best of 10 11 R:rPro jets Wewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -877 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments My knowledge there are mature lvetland willows in the nort.)ern porllon of the dcvelopmcnt, If i 11 fa nr re wetland willows are on the propert .and they are protected, have they clot been 41 PI11ded frh IhR QEIR, i1. is my understanding that the low laluls of the properly will be cleaned up and made Iiita open space that will be restored to- at least a pardon --to well ands. I don't helleve that the ❑EIR contains any Information how this will be acsompllshed. If There are Indeed to be wetlands, that Means. VcRre will Nr some kind Gf s;(Vh,nge of ocean water on Arrd.gfi Tire properly. Aggain how and here will this be accnrnplislled? Will Were he a:syst$m 61 dikes erut Fula$? s idawport manning Ranch ccnllpuous with a body of salt water, orwill access need to E1e obtained through another entity? 12. The Army Corps of Engineers nave jurisdiction by the moulh of The Santa Ana silver. To what extent Wlll they be iovolve(i in the prdject and zhutlld they be ineludell in the draft•IDEIR? 1.3. There is proximately 1.00. acres at 1 Ile. 8rnithern gd.ge.of the proposed development tEhal. Was'ereated.by the A {'my Corps of Engineers (gild. I underVMi(1 malntaii)ed by the Corps), as a cresting place for the lease turn. Because thls land ls.adjacent.to the proposed development, What consfileraliolis hgVa been.givarr to this sanctuary? Will there be a buEter between the proposed'develq.pinerhhtaking Ir1.to a0ciunt rloii a, tr4fic and vahlcirlar-traffic and use of nature trails? 14. What measures are there to Bhsure water gUalil� eTihd air quallty to loday's standards as well. as iu-ture standards slrace a.reasoltahle silpllosillurh is that highs 81arr0ards very wail might be enacted In other words !a mee16 nd exceed today's standards: 15. What are Tha provisfans that address global climate changc7 WIII California Global Warming Splutinns AP.I. {ASsanhbfy 327 159:one of the.guidelfnes' iB. As proposedl, there is no school site on the development. I hel€eve this wlII rhnf he an all adults Immunity,'so where will the children of the resldents.go to school'? 1.7. WIII there be testing For radon gas? 1a. 9 ace ntly I have heard a representative Frain tIle developer say thrit the projer..l will lira drealing an endowment for the maI ntenance of the Banning Ranch's parkland In perpetuity. Is this topic: addressed in the draft tike IR? 19- To what extent wlll paleontology be Investigated? There. exists the liossibillly of halive Alncdcan inhabitation on the sita.hecause of prexlmlly to the ocean and the securlty to be had on the upland. 20. VW`rerr tike renewal of The slle Is being acco.mplis€hed wlfl the soil is pxr:avated ne disluil)ecl me mh i€tor my Ihe•apppropifate agencies wether tlhey be cIfy, county stair•., or federal? When the soil Is dI Stu rfSed wfln lirhuws what will develop. 21. What delis will be taiW4i to minimize the impact of the development on. the Coastline Communlly College building arld tha people who use 1t. on Whittier? 22, What water quallty sampling plans are there for the constructlon. And on bulId out on regular basis? 23. Will the draft DIR tike affecled by kite r'pliulis of (The CMifprnia:nnsislal cnmmissinrh meeting on Wednesday, Novemiber 2, 2011? The aommisslon Indicated, but did not7atlfled, that thR Rnlranr:P 1o.%ri8el.Ridga Park from. Pacific Coast Highway will he modified from Ilia submitted plans of flhei City of Newport Beach which withdrevi its app €rpatran. 11 canl. 12 }4 €s 16 17 18 19 2d 2't 22 23 24 R:TrgectsWewp MJDI5rRTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -878 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 24 Will the Stomiwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP- Assembly BIN 32) be Implemented? 25. What role will the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) play in the development? 26. What will be the road and property runoff plans? Will they conform to the standard urban storm water managernent plans (SUSMP)7 27. What provisions are there for renewable energy? Thank you for your consideration. Please kccp me informed as the process continues. Sincerely, Dean Reinemann 25 25 27 28 R: mrojeets\NewpodUM &RTMUC- o3151zdoc 3 -879 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 078 Dean Reinemann November 8, 2011 Response1 As stated in Standard Condition 4.12 -4 in the Draft EIR, "In accordance with City of Newport Beach standards, rubberized asphalt, or pavements offering equivalent or better acoustical properties shall be used to pave all public arterials on the Project site and all off -site City of Newport Beach roads where improvements would be provided or required as a part of the Project". Noise from parks is addressed on pages 4.12 -34 through 4.12 -37 of the Draft EIR. The use of noise barriers is addressed in Mitigation Measures (MM) 4.12 -1, 4.12 -6, 4.12 -8, and 4.12 -10 of the Draft EIR. Many of the other MMs as well as the Standard Conditions are included in the Project to minimize noise impacts to residences. Response 2 As stated in Section 4.5.8 of the Draft EIR, "Oil and gas wells to be abandoned or re- abandoned shall be done so 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 shall be provided to the Orange County Fire Authority and the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Building Division, before issuance of the first certificate of occupancy ". DOGGR also has a process called the Construction Site Review that must be followed for oilfields that are abandoned for future development purposes — this process would be followed. The remediation scope and processes are provided in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Appendix D of the Draft EIR, the Draft Remedial Action Plan. Response 3 Because the property is in the City of Newport Beach and its Sphere of Influence and the Applicant has requested the property to be annexed into the City (rather than remain unincorporated), the City of Newport Beach would act as the Lead Agency. City requirements would be applicable to the proposed Project. Response 4 The comment is noted. As addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, and Section 4.2, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would restrict lighting associated with businesses (e.g., resort inn and neighborhood commercial uses) and HOA -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve to "dark sky" lighting regulations. The purpose of dark sky lighting restrictions is to (1) emit outdoor lighting for nighttime safety, utility, security, and enjoyment while preserving the ambiance of a dark sky; (2) curtail degradation of the nighttime visual environment and the night sky; (3) minimize glare and obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary; (4) conserve energy and resources to the greatest extent possible; and (5) help protect the natural environment from the damaging effects of night lighting by shielding and directing exterior lighting away from sensitive biological resources. No permanent night lighting would be permitted within the Open Space Preserve with the exception of safety lighting in the two oil consolidation sites. Outdoor lighting within the Interpretive Parks would be limited to low- profile bollard lighting for walkways and trails. R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -880 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Street lighting would be permitted only at roadway intersections for public safety and provided in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. All alleys would have lighting fixtures with sensors for automatic nighttime lighting. Light 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. Where not within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve or the Bluff Parks or for land uses not restricted to dark sky lighting standards within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve (e.g., private residences), community landscape /common areas, public facilities, streetscapes, parks, and other similar areas may contain accent or other night lighting fixtures. Commercial use lighting would include lighting of parking lots and drive aisles and building facades subject to the lighting requirements set forth in the Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -PC). Outdoor lighting for multi - family uses could include building and parking lot lighting. Response 5 Public transportation is addressed in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. Response 6 Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, and Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails, of 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. Response 7 Parking is addressed in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. All required parking for the Project would be provided on the Project site. Response 8 Please refer to page 3 -20 of the Draft EIR which discusses off -site improvements associated with 16th Street. In summary, extending and widening 16th Street and connecting it to the Project site was assumed by the City of Newport Beach as part of the planning and construction of the City of Newport Beach Utilities Yard located at 16th Street's western terminus on the south side of the roadway. Adequate setbacks are available to widen the south side of 16th Street. The widening of 16th Street on the north side would impact vacant property owned by the School District. The operation of North Bluff Road would also impact the School District's vacant property. North of 16th Street for approximately 800 feet, half -width roadway improvements for the east side of North Bluff Road are proposed on property owned by the School District. Response 9 The City suggests that the commenter review Section 4.8, Recreation and Trails, of the Draft EIR which includes graphics depicting all of the proposed parks and trails associated with the RT ,.pdsWewp.MJ0151RTMRTC431512A.. 3 -881 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Project. Project parking is addressed in subsection 4.9.13 of Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. No Project parking is proposed in the City of Costa Mesa. Response 10 The Water Supply Assessment, Newport Banning Ranch, prepared by AECOM (May 2010) was approved by the Newport Beach City Council on October 12, 2010. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared in accordance with Section 10910(d)- 10910(f) of the California Water Code. The water demand for the Project site was included in the City's water demand forecasts (as identified by City staff and the 1999 Water Master Plan) is reflected in the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and in Metropolitan Water District of Orange County, Orange County Water District, and Metropolitan Water District planning documents. A Water Supply Assessment ( AECOM 2010) was prepared and concludes that the City would have sufficient water to meet the proposed project demands, as well as its current and future demand. Based on the WSA, the City, as water purveyor, has determined that a sufficient supply is available during average, single -dry, and multiple -dry years that would meet the anticipated water demand associated with the Project, in addition to the water demand of existing and planned future uses through the year 2030. Response 11 Habitat containing mature willows is discussed in detail. Please refer to the discussion of willow riparian forest on page 4.6 -18 of the Draft EIR. Areas containing willow are often regulated by several resource agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission). For the proposed Project, the loss of approximately 2.68 acres of riparian scrub /forest habitats and approximately 10.25 acres of disturbed riparian scrub /forest habitats would be considered significant because of these vegetation types' decline in the Project region 51 and also because these habitats potentially support special status wildlife species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.6 -5 and Project Design Features (PDFs) 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 would reduce impacts on these resources to less than significant levels. MM 4.6 -5 requires habitat restoration of permanent impacts to willow scrub /willow riparian forest at a 3:1 ratio either on site or off site. In addition, all permanently impacted disturbed riparian habitats and mule fat scrub and all temporarily impacted riparian habitats would be restored at a 1:1 ratio, for a total of approximately 15.77 acres of restored riparian habitat. In addition, the proposed Project would preserve approximately 23.03 acres of riparian habitat on site. 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 12 Please refer to the Habitat Restoration Plan which provides information on the proposed restoration program. Response13 Impacts to jurisdictional features, including those regulated by the USACE are discussed in detail on page 4.6 -70 of the Draft EIR. The Project would permanently impact 0.32 acre of "Waters of the U.S." and USACE wetlands, 1.87 acres under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, and 2.52 acres under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. A total of 3.93 acres of "Waters of 51 The proposed Project's regional setting includes the Central /Coastal Subregion NCCP /HCP. RTrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -882 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments the U.S." and USACE wetlands, 0.05 acre under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, and 6.48 acres under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission would be temporarily impacted by the proposed Project. Response 14 The commenter is correct that the USACE- restored wetlands are located adjacent o the Project site. However, the USACE wetlands were not created for or are it used for nesting by the least tern. The least tern nests at Huntington State Beach, immediately north of the Santa Ana River. The proposed Project's Open Space Preserve, including habitat mitigation areas and public trails, would be located adjacent to the USACE- restored wetlands. The approximate two -mile- long Lowland Interpretive Trail would have off -site connections to trails along the east side of the Santa Ana River. The proposed Project's open space is a similar use to, and is considered compatible with off -site wetlands and the Santa Ana River. No buffer from the developed areas (Bluff Road) is warranted because the USACE- restored wetlands occur from between 1,650 feet and 2,550 feet from the edge of the proposed Bluff Road extension in the northern portion of the Project site. The distance, along with the proposed open space is adequate the buffer the resources within the USACE- restored wetlands. Response15 Water quality and air quality requirements are addressed in Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 4.10, Air Quality, respectively. The Project would be required to comply with applicable and current regulatory to environmental laws in place at the time that permits are pulled for site development. Response16 Please refer to Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. Response 17 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 18 Soil gas surveys would be done as part of the Orange County Fire Authority Guideline C -03. In addition, surveys for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) would be conducted as part of the Project's site remediation program. 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. In general, high (greater than 4 picocuries /liter) concentrations of radon gas in residential homes are uncommon in Orange County. This is directly related to the fact that underlying soil and bedrock materials is relatively low in concentrations of uranium and thorium, the two elements that naturally occur in subsurface materials that decay to radon gas. The Project site is underlain by terrace deposits and bedrock of the San Pedro Formation both which are described in published geologic materials as highly unlikely to contain uranium and /or thorium, and therefore, unlikely to produce radon gas. It should be noted that bedrock of the Monterey Formation may underlie the site at deep depths below the San Pedro Formation. This formation has been postulated by some as a potential source of radon gas. However, review of the State Department of Public Health Radon Gas Database indicates that areas of Orange County RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -883 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments directly underlain by this formation do not have a higher concentration of radon gas exposure as compared to other areas of Orange County. In addition, the "Radon Potential Zone Map for Southern Los Angeles County, California," prepared by Ron Churchill of the California Geologic Survey in January 2005, indicates that the area of Los Angeles County northwest of the Project site (i.e., the Long Beach area) does not have moderate or high potential for high radon levels. This area of Los Angeles County is underlain by very similar soil and bedrock materials as the Project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that radon gas would be a potential hazard with the planned development. Response19 Habitat restoration would be the responsibility of the Applicant in the areas identified in the Draft EIR and Habitat Restoration Program (HRP). Should the proposed Project be approved, the Open Space Preserve would be permanently restricted as open space. Further, the conditions of approval would detail the structure and funding of the ownership and maintenance of the open space. It is anticipated that either a conservancy would be formed or a qualified existing organization would be named as the land steward, and funding for long -term maintenance would be provided by a number of sources including endowments, Homeowners Association fees, property transfer taxes, and other to be determined funding sources, or some combination of all. Response 20 A paleontological analysis was prepared as a part of the Draft EIR; please refer to Section 4.13, Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Response 21 The opinion of the commenter is noted. Response 22 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. No significant impacts are anticipated. Response 23 During construction activities, field monitoring of construction runoff would be provided in accordance with the 2009 General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009 - 0009 -DWQ; NPDES No. CA S000002). The General Permit requires field monitoring (pH and turbidity field measurements) for all rain events that provide measureable runoff and are 0.5 inch of rainfall or greater. The Applicant has agreed to implement a post- construction monitoring plan for up to three years following the full implementation of Project to evaluate the effectiveness of the Project water quality BMPs and compare with pre - project conditions. Details of the monitoring program including sampling locations, pollutant constituents, and frequency of sampling would be provided in the Coastal Development Plan permit application submitted to the California Coastal Commission. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -884 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 24 No action was taken by the California Coastal Commission on the Sunset Ridge Park Project; please refer to Topical Response: Sunset Ridge Park. The proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project is not a part of the Sunset Ridge Park Project. Upon receipt of a Coastal Development Permit application for the Newport Banning Ranch Project, the Coastal Commission would consider the Project. Response 25 As identified in Standard Condition 4.4 -3, prior to the issuance of grading permits, an Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NO[) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities would be prepared, submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), and made part of the construction program. This SWPPP would detail measures and practices that would be in effect during construction to minimize the Project's impact on water quality and storm water runoff volumes. Response 26 It is unclear whether the commenter is referring to the U.S. EPA for the California EPA (Cal EPA). Assuming the commenter is referring to the latter, Cal EPA encompasses the Air Resources Board (ARB), State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), the Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA), and Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). With respect to the ARB, please see Section 4.10, Air Quality; SWRCB and RWQCB, please see Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. The proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts to solid waste disposal (IWMB). The OEHHA does not have regulatory authority; it is responsible for developing and providing risk managers in State and local government agencies with toxicological and medical information relevant to decisions involving public health. And the DPR oversees pesticide regulation. Response 27 The road and property runoff plans are reflected in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR and in the Watershed Assessment Report (Appendix C of the Draft EIR). The proposed Project is required to conform to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements as they relate to new development. Response 28 Please refer to Section 4.11, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. 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. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -885 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Alford, Patrick Comment Letter 079 From: Stanley Rosenthal Is tanleyrosenthalCyme.comj Bent: Friday, Move,rnber 041 2011 2.45 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: DEIR Vedr Mr. AI+red I have the sae, thwughts as Ginny. We spent a lot of time on Sunset Ridge and the city 'has withdrawn and will resubmit. So we need more time to study the GEIR on Banning Ranch. Stanley Rosenthal Newport Croat R: mrojeets\NewpodUM &RTMUC- o3151zdoc 3 -886 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 079 Stanley Rosenthal November 4, 2011 Response1 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Section 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the minimum public review period for a draft EIR shall be 30 days. When a draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review (as was the case for the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR), the period is 45 days. Except under unusual circumstances should the review period be longer than 60 days. The City of Newport Beach provided a 60 -day public review period. RT,.jedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -887 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 080 November 8- 2011 Patrick J- A11ord, Pi asvmi n g Nla nagor City of itiewpori.Boach= Corn munily Devoloptnent Deparimenl 3300 Newport Soule vard P.O. Bug 1768 Newport F3eaoh. CA 9208. -8915 RE: DZIR. Ncnpwt 13:u1ning Ranch ProjcctNo 2009031061 Dery L%•lr. Alrnrd: P lcusc ncctipt Iliesc cus iuncu Ls in respunsc to Ilra ft }.'.] •il-On mein ul hnpnel lte purl. (I)F.I R)i For ihe. Newport F3:lnnin. Ranh Project No 2009031061.1 aill av ecol Ooi qt and haVe ennducted mtm:trnuc naliva and 11011- nativa %141�dtaliOP snnIcys in Drank County ovcrt.11s pagt tour and n half yearn and am profit ie11t in Orange Coo my ill Li ni. ident i fic atinn. I agree with inadequacies and Gauss ions pointed out in response to the DEIR FInn1 I 1{a mi lton. 13a my Ne.rlmr, Scon 'lllomas, and Tel welsh- All'A er exarliple of su oli inaderinacles IR hmod l81ow- Section 4.8.3 of the dEIR. atulcs that uue species of wriviam suuthcm Iarylanl (Centrom rdia paely i so p: rurstrafts). floncrs ill lute summer tnld onrly ral1. but " roe USLA plain sunwps" FGrso Mile rn IMP lont wcm not comp Iotod during the iarplanf lloworing season nl'2007, 2008, m 2009- Ii is dillicul1 i.n, iird, Fi nd " "a spcci0.s sand, sccnnd, discem spocilic spcci ch: ire ill one nn of her v%ilhuul the RG.IVCr]rig parts. More Focuscd plant. sun-eys should be oonducted during tllc actual flowering season of the southern tarpinnl in 3 IVC-' xSl VC yaars to MAID an accurtuc and gocoplmblo map Of larplam cov;r. This.i9 only one in a number oFcsampleg orFaiIures in ihe 17E1ft. to complcicly coil sidcr Ore biological resources on the Banning Ranch Property. Willloitt Celli plzte UowIedge of Ole full e,%7e11t of these resourCOS, 131e full intpact or the prQppsal cannot he Known. I apprcciaie dw opportunity to respond io [he DEFR- 'Ili ink %,oa for your tune. Marvarct Royall Iienlogisl Cnucemed uilircn R: Troject sWewp,MJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -888 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 080 Margaret Royall November 8, 2011 Response1 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Please refer to the responses to Letters 050, 073, 013, and 091a -d for Hamilton, Nerhus, Thomas, and Welsh, respectively. 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 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. R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -889 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Alford, Patrick Comment Letter 081 From: snioksdad �snfokatlaff Vent9on.rlatj Bent: MortUay, Non_nuxr 07, 2011 J.43 PM To. More, Patrick Subject: Banning Ranch DEIR Attachments: Comments to DEIR D SOMA68.pdf Hello Patrick, Thank you for the links to the web site for the DEIR - Banning Ranch. I have attached comments as a resident of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and the concerns I see wfth the prefect in Its current farm. Pease provide to ^_ _terra so they can add to the DEIR and evaluate at your planning commission. Thank you for the opportunity to comment Sand[ R: mrojeetswewportUD1 &RTMR-rC- 031512,doc 3 -890 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments CUM MCA Cs fu D E I R - Newpur: Ba nninU fie urh - City ul` N ew it urt B ea ell $vtto C.'leariitghol1sk -NIP- 2(KI903f061 i nl trod uctioulOve ry iew: The pu rl)fJK oh this 1'r.vl cN IS to Conn meat oil the DE CR prcpn red for 411c Cily of \ewpon ft eElell and It I'Mj ccl k1 V)Wll US 13t1nni ug ftn nub [Sttde Clul ri n g wusi: \10, 2f109031C1ti1 j. The notes heleiti• identify tile. SeCtign of the DFTP that have. pegalii'e iulpac�s onto a 11 ei0hnri11g Cary (C_psEA rMec;q) and the neighhedng communities- 'Phis D61R puts tiff in W gal ioil In Ilie deve Inner and the tim tilt hnri ill City. 'I he ID I;1R 9110 Lk Id non lyn lesser dnn8ilic_g .old dcyclupmrnl. allernalil'Ce Lhal will bring the prnjro:L Inln n IeKs Then signilicant im1ia4t vckmos mitivoidable. impicly, The project altornalML as proposed .I wtyuld rcquirc. rigdn 01' way dedicaliolvs, eminenl domain liotcntial1V upon private. propeny nN.n:iR and nX pnse: MKIdcnlx 1.0 CXCc. N CFIG Iha 1. iN deri ncd aN unas•nida hl L. The projccl. nccds to be redesigned so as to bring the project into conformity Wi {h S!nte mltndalcd GHG requirements and local City and County roadrvny nc works. This may incllwc the discontinued discaS6oi1 w-giudiog the Nest Con_5L liigh%%my connection that is curreudy not rn115irlenerl nerassarv. AFrer roview of ilia OVI12 11w.. Wcor PAcific Ccogt 1- fi�llri•as• ran necoou is nerrssa iv to rarlum the prof ant impnrrs In'1 :m3 than sig iii f rani. Scuian 1.0, page 1.2 and 1.3- Allcraalire Umu City may have a Pei•e.lopment Agire.niant that aIloi•'s tha tin, to aoquire I)R)F..ny as opal gl]Rea. 2 Kewi esllCi•m the nt: Copy of tht: 1DevclopmoiA .rlgrccmcnllAbnx:mcnt whh the rimpertv ❑'wlivr and I,hc CilylCounty For pwrhElSC dgltis. SCCUU11 LO. Pitgc 1 -3 - SOCClnld roadway cunucrliun Iu MA. Coast l•i.igliway is hcing determined nol to be necessary for the proj e}t. n'cun crl /Can unc ILI! Reject flee determination that the 11rest Cnast liigllx'nY Connection Lc not neueSSarp. 3 't[e im]wiclS 14 nut p151mng this lenahvny into Lhr. madoeoll• nct -%vork MlII impnCf ❑MAIng n urrower st reetc in rce i gh boring areal ill Q[ La ivfcsn and I hc< nci eh hori ng Ci ly should not hn r&..ri di csc intpaCls on e%isl i ng and proposed de-vol op meats. The ❑lest Caz st I cI hmay cnnlirtri irnt should he incl ad ed 3ga mliaviny im pmd to other maduav nel works ra ga rd lugs of i h c irnflic sl ud ies. (Refer in S[.OLiol4,9- Tra nsprinnl ion a nd Ci l' cu l atio n) Page 1 of 10 R: rProject sWewpodu015�RTCiRTC- 031512,doe 3 -891 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments CUR] MCA Cs ru D E I R - Ncwl>'urt Banning RA urh - City ul` N ew p urt• B ea d1. Slalo Clea ri it gho u se- N9- 2CKI903 f061 Se0 in11 .1.11, Pag..1.3 - Reitinv:al nrsecnnil con nnrtinn in West Coan t I fighwn1. The Project is requesting that the City or Newport Reach recommend that the 1VUSt Pauiriu Coast 1.1 igi Iw1k' Cut In :ution nut otwur as lidiowH: "As prnj)osed, I.IIC 1 ?roject reduires gII amendment to the Ccncnl Plan 01- cutaiion Element to drlele 'a secnnel road eonnectinll t7 Fl UL GgaSL Wigha:n' lheaugh ilia PieLj l situ from 1511[ S L-0. The iitdfic anfidysis dour far lhr Project dcmaustYrtus Ibnt this nwdway is nut. nucdcd to servo die lnlrliv deman(I if&NQuinicd wish llic propuS.d 1N'Qi e.t and Sub regional duvek4pmuui, Tkn'Clox. cnnstructinq of this second road to Wcsi Coast Hieliway.has not Men identified as a comi5onent ar the Pivj�xt. f'vr further diSQUSS10n of the tlitl'Cl dcttland, pleLlse see Scclion 4.9. Trngcpoltit ion and Ci rcu l at loo." RCnue-WConruicim ltejecl. l he prnjeet as prnpa.w -rl In re no ve Lhis sernnrl roadway U) trW1011 lrl ❑ C,91 C'nasi: I figs, way, ReviDw o tlle Coon ty of Orange dUC Jurfen1 rgtirding the N-fa%ler Plan for AFwrial Highways (i<1IPAH) is needed. Additional I'Cvicw needs to he completed sous Lo boxier u tide 1Tn ltd lho. iin pact before: discotulune a SecO1)da q� aU e-LM point to Ihe.. iVlaj6r :yrti•.ridl Thal rvnuld bCneT IaCiliTOW. ha fl is 11OWS t:nrnvn HS the. 13lcibC Coast Hi,4K'ty. 'this reyi ew needs tot he completed before the 1)QR i8 adupl eel, {])raft Gm•i n)n men tat Impact Rcpnrl CEIR] ('S(ntc Cl can aghousc No- 2009031 DG I )} Scclion Lit, N6 1 -3 - Stifles thn[ thu Orange Cuurtr l'll' U1 dusignalus NurtIt 13htff Road iw it PrimurY (l'uurvhurc divided) lu 17111 S[nrcl and it il'1liJUr (�i[ -lour diridcJ) hetwe¢u 17111 Street and 19111 Street. • li amendment to the Drauge County iffPrvlf fs regnired In change the rlmignnllnu frAin n ltnjnr to n Sernn[I:in• (Pamir -Inne undivided) between l7th Street and 19111. Street. Reg u cstlCnm ine Mil: A Review of North Bluff Road and the &Agnalinn of IG?. 17" and I9'" xtnx.ts and the 1)(AC31Lial ilnlvacls au future and prupascd prajuCts that [u1. eunC:nlly undcrcausidcrilinu itm& to eVa I unLe[l, section '1., fuse " - 'roanwive 'ri-aci [vial, ff"r4fj i \n. 17 im is requested. 'I'here,ls 16--11 u DcvclopnicuL Agreement (Dry) lrctwmii the Dev'chrper mid the Cil ;v of New purr 13 roe: h. Thk shu uld he ixv iewed by the Cil1' ur Cos to L'leSU. Reran LN llCnnt me, its- wont '1" rvi ineompteu in uhal lie. impacts have. not bec•.I1 ndiigalyd t{t a 10.vc1 of 1c s than sionifieam. Any 'PPM, PM or laird uSC cnlil]Cmcnt ucuds to fully rMCWU1 [Or pillential impclriS let 1x11.11 the Surnillnding, eummunii. CK Mind t.hr. potential damnp!r. m Page 291'10 R:t Project sWewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -892 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments CUM MCA is to D E I R - Neivp0rt Banning fie urn - City ulr N ew p urt B ea ch Stato C lea ri r1 gho a se- NIP- ?IHI903 f061 nn+et I nds an el enrlanyemd and list rd spat as hnth p1n nl. life, and ani rim l life, and points ial migration le rri tortes. Thercforc n enmphcte re; icm, of resent rce ngeticicx that arc affected mill need 10 Ix: cval«ulcd Ix N I e 11111 u1 i2a1ian of IILC DI' IR. Sec Section 3.0 for udditional iurornlation. 6 coot. 'I'lie ]]A hel.iveetl Iltr. I]evclnlacr .an:l 111e [;itv of :lcivpod 13eac11 17rrmia „s certain de.vclopmenl rights uu each side (CitylDc+•eloper). This DA muds to beJYtV.invud by the City or CVSta Ivlisa, as Ihi. dc+•clopmcnt is seeking aucclAartcc ur uun VORInblc imimcl iu the Ciky cif Ccnsia �'Icsa Conan kill ply and nei�_bhwrhoods that aill have lonj -more and pernlanc.In impacts. Se.Cli011 .1, PMC L -9 and 1 -14— Prujccl AIlcrnnliVIC "A" is a no lMtjcd alicrnaliVC. As stilled if the project did not nlove forward the following would be the ivstdt at this llnle: ""MS allcnnrtivc uvuld u0111ave ally titilhaClx thnl Hire xigui Ream[ and n1[111oid11hlC_ whtreas the Inuposcd proje0l would I LEI ve sign iBcunr unavoidable htlpeuls nSSOelnted with land use conlpOtib4lilY (due to n6s0, and night lighting), ae,tlleiid5, I rreusportal ion, air quaff fly, greenhouse e'kis enl iSSinlis, and nai Se, •• 1!r try ts•cf![`.nmmnnl: That tlle'Cit3• of Ne +vlwri 13euh support Ahernalive ".A:" at this lime and allow the d¢vr.loper tit rc- decien and lower the inglacas to "less thou signillcanC as defined by CFQA. Addilfnnally, Ihar the City riot. adopt rn rr- ridiu} rnnsirteratinns, 'flute, air, oilier projccl. alternativGS that 119ve not. Ircen explored, Addihonalty, Thal the Cain• of Costa MWU should hake [lie some rccummc »d-ulinns dIK Lhc City of \c+vpnn Beach neucpl Alternative `'A" at this linty in that the IvQaI and N& LL I impacts Ila V'C nal Ixcen mit iga lcd to a Ic vc.l of 142Ss than si gni ll cant. Additionally, that additional n hl =of wa: is Mid private property impacts that al'lcct the. City ofCosla Mesa be, reduced so as not to be required or impacted upon such ;teens ax Ycwlaort BOLLICNZ rd and 17' St reel, IS;' St reel, 18"' Street and lWonrovia Street. This is not in [ell dcd to be nn all inclusive im]ncL listing huL rather the indentifying ractols of impacts that are unacceptable even with the proposed project mitigation nleasure5- Section '1, 1'age 1.16 and l -.11 - Project ARernalive ".13" This project is deemed aeceplublt I %y [tic DIx112; Sonic 01111e impacts arc as I'utluws: 7 °'Ilicre would be land use inconiparNliiy with respcct io night illunlinntion 8 asgocial LA %Vii ll 1he CmmIl1ILE Mh • Fxrk and long -term np ixQ Plipacl$ nn IhosC tf,lewp4ln Crest residences inmlcdiateh• conliguuus to the Projccl site. In addilioa,. lucre wound be LL poteraiul loug -taugc uuise impttuts l'or r'esidcuta. uu 17111 Shred west ul'4lonruvin Avcnue. Por noise, though. mitigation is proposed; noise impacLc would remain Page 3 of 10 R:TrojectsWewpn J0I5�RTMRTC- o3lsizdac 3 -893 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Cum MCA Cs ru D E I R - Ncwl>'urt Banning fie urh - Ci ry ult N ew p urr' B ea rli Stare (!learitlghou se. NIP- 2CKI9031'061 S ignilfea nt if the foil de nt3 4f Mx%'130111 C.lWt elect not la itn pleme.nl the Ili ii12111[oll Ilvz:lcures to reds tca I h a in creased interior noire lave is inrt if Elie C;i iv of C: ema NI �-Ra dnex not ilnplcmcnt. th:: meaxun: of resurfacine [hc slrxl. with rubberized asplialI (A lilvsl old 4.1 -1]. • Allenta[ivo 13 would invoduaa niphuima lighting into a uunulilly milit area 'Ilw Comm un 4V Park is IRIA Li pal : d In have nigjtl Iigh Ling 0f active; xports [lcldx, wit ich could resuh in Iighl spills vtr uulu ndj aocul Propart ics. '[Ike rugllI Iighli ag iul pue is ore considered .s igni ficant and unln•o idribk. The 'City of NQwpon Beach ?. -cool Plan Final EIR found [hat the inuoductian of naw xourc�e Of lighting awaclawd with dcvclupmenl of 11W site would be euusi krrd si&AdIdrnd and n1NIVUldable. in -eel ti]j -ing the Ge Lien Pian Pin al EfR and approvi ng the General Plan pro jeyt, the City approved a Statement of Overriding C olisidarations, which notas [flat iltore are aeon[. Sped fic Ucon Dini c_ sec is 1, mid DI wr pub lie he ne III that outer iKll die Nigni lleznl and Una vunla b lt: ill]ptic IN :is:lucl rated with the Ck nc rul Plus prujcct('11 it CSl a) l d 4:2 =3)" kenuesVComineld: Reject I "rojocl AIlcinislive 1113" at Ill is LiIRC. •I he C.iLy x11011 Id nut lrckipr uvcr riding uonsidcniIiUlls on any pwject. L"spccially Ibis pinjcct• thou arc it ltvrllaliVCs Lhat with it re.desigil would Iessau the ilupacls. 'These. ran be resolved and mitigated to a level of Iess rh an M Vii I) omit as deli ned by the Slate of Californ ia CGQA gu id cline& Thu. City of NC.n•pnA. Rcn1:11 and Lhe. C:il_y of C.0xtn LMCM should lulopl. Ihis poi ir.%.• Will nnL MIN.' nn ovcr riding considerations. With [his project there ore. alrr.ma[ivrx that just ha4U not kvn considered or need to.hc rc- evaluated. Section -I, Page M2 and 1 -13 - DF1R Pm'jecf Alternative C describes impacts, that are In control by 11e.wNIL( Beach and rrlll negatively Impart the City ol'Costa Mesa [I.c.r F:rl etima11 nr fil a ll'Nnarl fn 17,.S Ct'cef]. 'I'Irr. Section 14 as kit lntvx: "Alte.ma[ive C would have. inipatl9 on intemectwits in the City of Costa klesa. 1mpJementation or MM 1,9.2 w%:IokI miliguc, llie. impacts to a te.vel caiiside.red Ic5_. 111911 si gilifi ca rat- However• 111c City of 1\ewpnit. Henrah CA mini illipnse ralt.i ga Linn nn 11 i wll lc r j It rival iction. The rc rorc, it IIic Altp1icunl is It u hlC 110 1ClICh an H"' NU mint with Ihe. City Of C Stil iblcaa [hill. would Unsure- that Pivject irnpaCla OW111 iuY, iu Cus[a Nllesa wronld be nliligazed c{mcnnew urith or preceding the impact, 1dr lllirlXlSes 4 9 th is .El Rr the impntlz to be mil. ign ted by rho. im Provemmlis Hotl itl -LMdin n-n i Cut ni and unavuidabIU. PUTSIM III to `fhres11 old 4.9-2, 11 W f011Urvi11 g impacts VICN itluntdWd with the venous traffic scenarios evaluated: - is i0.ing 1 :1 us Alrernalive (:: AIlcrnnti ve C u�,idd sign iflea tits impact four i n lc mcetiorw in Coda Mum. wlih ire11x 1110 propoIicd Project MT1LIld xi gn l F1 Gn at ly ImpaCl three iurU rRc Li ons in Caaa lklusu. - Year 2010 Wiih Alwirimove C TranBpoanfiou Phnsing Urdinaacc Page 491' 10 R: Trojec tsWewpntU0t5tRTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -894 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Cum MCA Cs Cu D E I R - Ncwpurt Ba nninS fie uch - City ul` N ew p urt B ea rh State C.'leariiighouse -NIP- 2(KI903f061 A lterna[i r n, (: utxild m iii Fi cant ly impao Rve, in rnrsert ions, ronipn red Irisrven fnr the proposed Projrct. - Year 2016 C,anla13ll1'e [Vida Alternative. C- Alternative C: would significantly impact 6YL inier.,-ections: the. proposed Project Would mpact seven 1mer5ecri0n5: -- Cieneral Dian Build 0w. w9h Alternative C. Alremlrive C would significanl.ly imfaacl. four inlersce[ ions rnmpoucrl ha Elie plraposcd Pioj=t. wradd sign i tic 11 ill I impact Iwo intcascc[iuns. • �Vilhnrn mitigazian, regional (mass) cmimions of nitrogen oxidrs Qs11Ox) are furu:astcd In cscccd applicable lhrc:ehulrls hr some cunNtnretion years, Though ML jV1 3.10 -1 wouId iedarce the. emissions to a less than siriiifda It IeveI, the. Iva iIIbiIity of su rliciLnt Tier 4 diesel. engine Co nst ntet i oil e� 0 pnle.nt Cannot he. a.Lau ro,d, 'rb&rO ore, For purposes of this 1-112, 111 e, imluris arc Fnrmd ICY 1ae gi yn ifiC,n nC Intl una voidah[e impact (1'hreshrald 4. Lung- EVIIII UIPMR6011id rmissiuns OF u11EVI'in pullki[anis wur4d nul eruLd 111V SCAQMD mnSS cmis'sirins th res holds from in Iinl occupancy Ihrouoh 202 {l. Howc.vei. as Alic.niaiive C devclopolcnt Coln hulcs beyond 2028 emissions of volatile. organic compounds (VOC) and carbon monoxide (C-D) would rxccc:d the. significnncc. thresholds, principully due [I] vchielc uperu[irms. Tlwiefurc, Ehc inlpacts mi -nuin significant and uI]IVOidable (Threshold 4.10 -2), • Alternative, C would h_at•¢ Cmmlllalivr.Ev' cnnsidr_.rahle rni l.rilnHinns to peginital pol1ulnn1.eonecntradons pl [rronc ([73] C1'hr4s1io(1 4,11] -,3J • A ten ualivu C wukild unit g kin ill it ies of grcuullunsu. gkisus (GI$Gs) thin Would exceed the Ciiv`s 6,000 .niciric tons of carbrna dioxide rgniv;alow per yc7u {�•1'1'CO?clyr) si,tliEicance. threshold. Ucveiopmont associated with. Alternative C would. make a cumulntivcl}• considcrah[c wntrihulinn to the global CHG invcnton• afteuin-� global cIimote chnIIgc (Thrta lIIold 4.11- I'). • Pot the ]:;Xisline• FJu Project, 30115 with Project, and General Plan Build out scenarios, the increased lum Ffic v,ALimLLz, an 17111 Sireal. west of Mmkrnvia Avenue would wepr= sensitive mccpio m in ncnw Icvcl incranse.K in c,%ucsz of Ehc City of X'VNV 'L Brach`s standards for uilaugrs to I.IvI: anibic.ut nuisc Icvc.ls.. At build uki[, u0isr cvcls vevuld ulsu rxrred Niguilicuncc tlueslwlds iu tltc City ar CUS141 ?vlesa. MA-1 -t. 12.5 mquires. the Applicant t❑ provide Ikinds to the City of Coda C9CSU 16 TcsurrgW the street with rubberized asphalt; however, the C'in•'of Ncvvpon Beach has 110 ability to enduring that. the mitigation would. be implemented. Therefor. the rorecastcd impact to residents of 1711 Sueet wesr of i09tinovil is .00nsidemd si ryli Fica nl and ki n a}•oidn ble (Th re. h old =1.12 -2). • Fur Ixxlinitx Of the alaru•Ixnt CM-sl dcvclnlnncul, tlarrr. would he it sip niGcunc nueuse in tlar ambiuni noise lrrcl due to Ehc prgjWud tragic vulnmrx in the. build out eon0ition of Alte.maiive.[:. ,MM 11.12 -6 u•qu]d induce. iMJXL s to Iere.ls within lhe- Pave 5 Of 10 9 coat. R: Troject sWewp,MJ015aRTMRTC- o315azdoe 3 -895 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Cum MCA Cs ru D E I R - NLwpar: Ba nninS fie urh - City ul` N ew p urr B ea ch $veto C.'learillghoase -NIP- 2(KI9031116 1 "C:IvTIV CampAblr." or `INimmilly C�nmpatihll:' r.lassiRt:tlinns hill cvnttld .remain .ahwvc. ihc. 5 dAA si- niiicancc criterion in the Gcni;ml Plan. NCIA 4.12.7 would provide into for nuisc mtcnPaid 011 but beCa nSC. LI1c City of \cwt xxl L3ruc11 &AN not have. the authority to mandate like. iaipleinr:ntatiml of mitigation on pdvate property that i; not ou the. Frojeoi rile. the. impact would N. signiGcaoi and unavoidable. (1'h mOol ds 4.12 -4): • luau of cu usl cucl ion cgniln ne ul %w t4d M811 It in a Suhst mllial It: rnpurir-v iitcmiisc in a mbi cat noise Icwc is to nearby noise - sensitive rece piors in the vicinity of the Pi ojeot. Duc in the 10W existing ambient n6SC I.:1'c19, thc..proxiinily of the naisr- snuiti.vc rcupwN.. and dw itiill of imasLruc l i ml uulivi Iics, Lhc tcmlxxary nui se iuuic vs would V..signi III Mal and nitavnidable. (Threshold 1,12 -2)," keno LAICnm me ng: That LIIU Cily Of Cuala. a'ksa sltunld Hc,jcut arty Pr jccl Alternnlive `V' iltc will nagatively impact the. CJ INr even if mitigated- The. City of Newpoa Beach 'honEd redlliFt. that all impacts lx. rvaindd. wil hin [heir j 1 risd icli all and sphcm oh in11 ucwc, 'I'hcm lire. the. nlarjw;ws and inlcrxt:rliolm within t.hs: [;'itv of t1'ewpyrl 13cnrh shomld Ix: xidcned aumi-dingiy (Vest Pacific Coast Highway connectiun should he le- inslitutcd as Paul. of On: ptojcci tdlcrnalivca. Seetion'1.0, Page 1 -14 and 1.15 docribr -s tinavoitiable impacts It III Ms City of Cosin Mesa Iecepis lnitIgatlon and some impacts are nnavoidahle as foQowst "• Cunt• cautrwtrLd to tlir ptapusW Projwc Altcniativc D would 11iWC ti tcductiai of average. daily lri lis (A QT) and K-1 Kcal hour tripe, but an ine rease ill r1 N4 peal: hour I ri ln, llaSaA on the lowor vniutne of AID I' and 1'M pest: hour vniit mns, A11 I rwrimiva 17 w•nnld not rreate additional roadivav or inlemaclinn deficioncias. Both Allcrnativa I;] nitd Lhc prrilnlacd ProjcU would Ix cspedled to resuh in tt N gl n f1C11nL ial pucL III uac intersection in t[IV Cily or Ntwpurl Beach and SCYCH.i Ole i5cetiutus in t 11 City of Cush Drlesa. lmpacxi to tllc intelveett6ll of \'e.wpor[ 13oulo'ard at West Cow Highway in V the. City of Newport Beach can Lu mitigated to a 1evA co. nmdertd Iess than siynilieanl- Allt:rnalivc. I) woul4l impact the. following DLKl . Mr_va iwvmcciionK- tlmvport Ann levard at 191h Strccf, Newport Rou Icvard at I•la rbor Aou leeard- 0C w•porl Boldevtud dl 1811 StrretlRuchest(xr Nvrivpurt Boulet'acd at 17111 SlrecL 1•lannul'ia al 190 Street. Pompna avenue at 1T" Street. and SAlpe.dor Avontle at 1701 jrreer, lmplcmelxalion of 1•IA•1 49.2 would mitigale the impact to n level considered less tluin siyliricnnl. H[;%VVel', Ulu City of Ncn•lanl I3cac11 caunnt irulwsc miliKalion nu 111 o leer ju tisd iction- The re fare; if Ilie. Applicant is unable to reach an agreenl e.nt with the City rat Costa N4csa Thal %••tl W rn:urc• Ihal Alternative. Q impact; occurring in C:osln l4 eta would be mitt gateij cnllc a rim ill with n preceding the im1mcl, for pn rposes of this EIR, the impacts In he n•on ld remain A nifi ca at and tin non i d ctlolr. (Th m: hnld 4.92). Page 40 1'10 oal. R: Troject sWewpnMJ0l5�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -896 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Cum MCA Cs ru D E I R - Newport Banning fie uch - City ulr N ere p urt B ea rli Slats rlearilrghouse -NIP- 2(KI903f061 A lterna r,i v e,, :17 WnrEld nm il. rl lla nt it ics of .C; 1.1[;s door WORN exrr.Cd rho, t_:1 I.us (;•[XI h TT'Cl72cly r sign iii on nee IhruNh old. Similar to the Project, :k Itcrna li r'e D wou td make cumuIEdiveIV conaidcrahle coiLL6buticm to the global L1I-ICr inventor%' affecting glolwl C I i mate cha uge, (Th res It old 4- [ I - I ), •'I'he inclvased ua Ff-c. volnEne. on [7tlt $Ereet west.of Mlnnmvia Aven"a wntnld exlioa scnsidvc. rrrx:plom In noise lcvek in c.sccss or Lhc Cil.y of NlcminrL Ii c:noai'!s!usndanls fur changes to lhcambicrd nuisc Icvcls. At build oul, miss ICYCIs would also uxccud s ign i iica ncc thresholds in the. City el Costa M4 sn re (1'Itslw I 3.13'?)." 113 ronl. N egn aslj[inmmenl: Rcjco( Project Alternative "D" and that the IaEIR and Projws cannot pass -oil iU reasonability into an adjoining City and if put ace elged it is unavoidable- There should hr. no lxnject IEn J.1 r hesemil i ye- r inns ran hr, all approved arms rnnside, red. CIIG's imwl I lin in comp Iia nee and deve. l olnne lv. alternatives developed harem adopt inn of Ilre 110R- Nei' c iMlvar:IS need to be umsidcrd 1)601'to lvui €d nu[ of dre prgjccl. These impacts need to be mitigated prior tu.cuusidenlliwr of the DEsIR. Section 1, page '1 -14 and 1 -17 describe prmjecl alternate 1; and negaiire impact. to in iemections in the City of Crut:r Nl esa that 1hU sat' are n Pt. af their cont rat as well m G1:1.(; and it naccc. pi a hie. nntgp. leveN as fill luwg: "Allornatil'c E is c.tpeclyd to 11ip'C an incEvase in AUr Turd peak how- lmf5c vdlunECs when compe rcd to the proposed Project_ Haws vLr, this increase in pea k hot r .vol a mes ia nor antiei pnl ed to car isr any of Ihe,, ini orseer inns operntiny ar an nccepta hie l wI of sc.ry ice with the T'fojeCt to nperal e. al an unacce ptahle Icvol of u.n•ice this al[ernative- Both Allenialiyu E Und the proluwd Projcct nnould Iw raltccicd to resod in deficiencies at the isle rsection of NTewpe, It Roul ev ofd at West Coast Idi gh way in tile. 11 City ti'eu'pon Beach, which can be. mitigated Ian a level considered lets than si�nifirani, 13ot.h Allerlmrive I3 and t.ha proposal Project. would Ix. expected to ., ,I -nirx: ndy imllnr:t _ i:Vcn inICE!x:[:I,Iona is C; l h'Icsn: i\L'wpnrl. firlrrlm,?ml al. 191.h strcat, Nurvlwrl Boulcvrial al Mirbor Boulevard, Nclrpurl 20LlI Ford al 18th StrectlRocleestef, Nrewpon Boulevard at 17111 Strcct. Monrovia at Irhh :[feet, Poniona Avon uc.:or 17th Sk reot, :aid Superi or Ave.n rte a 17th Srrxr. 1mple me -waion of lk'[M 3.9-2 mould mili;atc the iml acu to a Icr'cl enrwidcred Ics� than sig[liCcant. Ilowevu, the, City of NemImn Beach cannot impose nliti;natinn on another junsdietion, 'Therefore, if t 11 applicant is unab€e. to reach an agrc•efneltt with the. City of Ca.ta Masi Ihat would ensura that Altemative I; impacls Arm IM -in. i11 ['nGEa hlasa wonlrl he miiigaled cunourmnl with or preceding Ihr, impnol, For purlx)ses of Ulm 1 -11P, Like impacls Iu be miligalcd by the impruvclucnts vvuul[I rc.Enain signifieEUIl and rl I HI V6 dil We (T l neshulrl 0..9-2). PAge70r10 R: Troject sWewpodu01 5rRTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -897 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Cum MCA Cs Cu D E I R - Newport Ba nninU fie uch - Ci ly u]` N ew p ort B ea rlt Stale C'leariinghou5e -NIP- 2(KI903f061 A lterna r,i r r, 3; nnuld etn it epua alirie5 of C11IC15 rhal wrtu14 rrreml rlre Ci ly's ij,[ltHI T%TT•Ct72d%-r si gn ifica nee Ili res he Si on par r to the .Project, AItcm a t we E would make a curnulalivU €p cxmsidcrnblu contribution to Llrc glnhlll 01ICr invcrdar]' infecting globe I Cl i mate. c ban ge (TIa res hold 4 -1 1- I )- - The i¢crensed rraFfn volumes n❑ 171h SiMet. west OF IVE0111nVia £venue would c.spocuc xcnKitivc rec.cplors Lo .nnixt: Icvclg in cxcoYS of Lk Cily of CoAx MiI m-s slandAids. A141 4.12 -3. requires llnc Applicant to pruvido funds to the Cily u Cush Adcsi to fesurfncc the street with niblxni d asplialt: hosvavcr, the City or N'Qwport 13cach Inns no abiIiIy io assure. that the. miti4,atiOil would Ix: implcmeFIL'd. Thc.rclore, 11 Writ. din furccsutcJ imlwcL to msiduntK of 171E SO&I west of Moue -Mill ix muAdurul si fan ificn nl and un avoid attic (Th reshold 4.12 -4)." Menu uAlCom me nl: Ri jcv.l frojcd Allur•urrlive `--L ". Allcrnalivu 'T should .out Lc cunsidercvl a1s ugav {idaUle and {nit5W- Ol the Cily of Nen•p {n l3 cacti judsditli0n, Al i ill paaS AouId be contained %%Iilhin [hc iMlmicipatl boundary of Nrre vpm[t Bcach. If flit inpacLe are. not n:drnx:d Io Icss than xignifcnnl. 1.h2Ln Ihr. pn>jcct xhamld nor. he oppnn'rd in its cunrnl. form. Scoiun 1.0, Pisgc 1 -17 and 148 - PrgjcYt Allernnlirr: "T" has uuaviAdulllu inqurc Ls as follows.and.should he re,jeclyd. The listed pmpacts nee ns follows: "• Ahcmwivc F wKUrld be projected to result in a decrease. inn ADT and peak hour h-.1 TLV v0luLM; when Uwu Pit red to the pr \,pusW Piujuct. This decrease ii µ}ak hour volmnea would not cane. any of the intersections ppernling at an 6"e- ptahle. level of srn•iGC wirh rhr. Prnje,G nn nprrarr, an art naaCCrprahEa Irvr n1' san•ir,e. 15Th A hernativa F and the prolimed P1 Lapel. wrrrdd he expected to msnII in deficiencies al. the in tcixection of Newp urn F3011 levnrJ et tiro# CuuaL Bigh way iii Ll ac City ❑f i \U i[•pm. 13eac11 Inuit Vi 111 be.•. miligaleJ lu it lu.vvJ cunsidvivd ]css Brun sigu if-ma at. rhElcruativc I" and the p ?rL�ppsed P0jeet WC1111d siguircainly jmpari iu CCIS1a Mesa: Newport Boulevard ai I%b Strccl, Mwpoil 13nulcvarcl a1 Harbor Boulevard. 12 Plrmprm 13nulr:vanl nl 1M.11 SIrC.r:lfldnncc.xtrr, rOmm9ind. 13nnkwnnl al. 17th Sl.rcc.L, klon rov to at 19th Strccl, Pnmo an Ave ,tic at 171h Strccl, mud Superior Avc.n uc. nI 17th Street. Imp€erncicuiwr of E3,1'I 4.9 -2 ivau €J mitigate (he impact to a ttMl WHAdercd less nhan slgntfirarll. I•loxma'er, nc,�. Girt' of Ze.wpon Reach cannon Impose. miagnrton nn another jurisdiction. Thomforc, if Llic Applicant is ilnahle to reach an agrccnnc.nt with [tic City of (L.%rsiu 1'Icsn that would Unsure that Ahcrnauvc I` impacts uc:cur611g in Costa Mesa would be. mitignled concurrctnL with or preoeditng the impact, for purposes Of this 131R, thc impaci5 t0 be.. mi6MIL0 by llic imprr?.'CmcniS wmold remain si gni Bca nl and unavoidable (Tin resho kl 4, 9- 2), A11ernativa Itu•on ltd emir 11 on it it.ies of Gi-1CTK 1112 1. nrcndd e,x crr:d Ihr. [:in'`s (i MO %WTM— 2clyr si rn i r en n IM t.ln rmholil. Similar In the Prviuct, AIicrmllive F wuIIId mnkc 11 cumtdnlivdy Considerable. C,(,ntribution to thr global 0IIG iln•elltol3r -Lffectilig global clilnale chtulge (I'll reshald 4.11 -I). Page R of 10 R:TrojectsWew,,nMJ0t 5�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -898 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments CUM MCA Cs Cu D E I R - Newpur: Banning fie uch - City u1` N ew p urt B ea ch $vtto C.'leariI1ghoase -NIP- 2(KI903f061 • The incrcnsT.d Irafric rolumcse on 17W Strcct nest of .4Fonrovin j'rvc.nuc would CKIMSc scnsiti ru lcccptn ix to anise to vela in cxocxs of the City of 'Newport 1.i C au 11'A Siandatxls for cllnnges to 6he ambient noise levels, At build our, Noise levels would also Cawi'd 5ignifiwuce. thwOoldS in ;he. ow or rg5ji Nu,4,' mim i.n -] requires. life Allplirnnl to provide Funds to the City of C;nsta Mesa to resurPnca the street with rnhNnircd nxphnll.; hnncvrr, the Cirp of Nc"1Y.0 Bmmll :has; nn Hhiliy m s:nsuring Ilyd the ndtigidiell n'uuld lzc irnplcmntdul. Thcrcforc.. AM FUICUUSt6d impact W residents of 17111 Strcct west of Mollrvvin is considered significant and unavoidable ('I'hreshald 4.12 -2J." 1? 1.1111 }, k egn ael!(inmmenl: Rcjcct Ptvjcct Alternative 'Y' as the impacts into the neighboliilg communitylcitV' are u nacce.piable and pure the impact+ 01110 the ue.ig l t Lori ng city to leeti fy rot the. City of Newpod. 8 ;fch attrl III I''injecr..[]rl•r,Eq]�rr, Cancb tsinnsltinm was As pru posed the NLwpurC Banning Ranch - CF[y ur N ewpo r C'$ each Statc. Cleana house, M). 2009031061 should be cuuti11M'd turd or rcj,etcd as currently propwcJ bailed ❑u the impacts that Ila ve Iona MIige. im pl i eat i0n� and should W. redesigned for fit nhe.r ct udy and considm.nrinn. IZelnw is a $I1nIM61V of the, m- Mdeminl ctompnnrnt and hole it can hc. rc.- degignerl to lecsrn the imlmct. nn the eonnnunil.i• and esisliny planned, prnl;oa.d pirjecrs tlml csiSt uo1 only in \uwlxvrt 13cuch lad CAMW MUSE1 'It rid thu Cuuuty un- incurlwraled a 'CAS. i 3 7'11c projw u proposod is secking 137! rGcidc.ntial units to be placed in 841 acres ror hoth uwnntereial and residential land area. If wa ttwro in only ectnsidor residential that nvc.ntac would be 2,300 squlue. fcct of land arcs (Alternative L- and f-) per chit. 'This is vcr[• dune. A 31ig11 -cad uornmunit%' kt ruWiva high 11101 rt7• value cud Icssun d1c ingwut on adj ace.nt mm munity s and ii gh hnrbc,,c, s the land aren a] locatiout fur lrsiden tial uni>_5 Should b& adjusted accordiagly, Omailed below z a brief vnmmaty d land 3r1iWi-6 font n ges:that. wit l ,ileac ,higher -and cnlnmunity with lartie land area and open slice, In, Ic.vv.ning the nmnnnr ❑f ruidrnrinl unilx. This will alsn Ir.wm the imfmo on the mAing ruadwas- nvI wurk 7h� rwud to W. Wusidercd by fore nwviug f;&MYa M! will. the DMA. Page90r10 R: tProject sWewpodu015�RTC\RTC- 031512,doe 3 -899 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comments to DEI R - Newport Banning Ranch -City of Newport B each State Clearinghouse Nn. 2CK19031061 Reside aria I land a era 1 ]ensity T :ihle Residential component ciaily Lot Sue or land Area Dwelling Sq. Ft per ResldenthtlVnit Vrtlts Total Acres Now 8,000 456 3,648,000 fad Not lacing considered lt1;tXxl 365 3,61M M) tW Ynt being enrigidered 1'? 000 30:4 3,648,000 84 Not being cousidered Raposcl Project - 2,653 1,375 3,648,000 84 Alt "Ii -and "l 7' Proposed Project - 3,536 1200 4,242,744 97.4 Alt "" and "U" Prujeut Altemativc '97" is still to high or a residential unit count fur the proposed land area. This also is shown in the. aforementioned table above. The density should oat UW calculated over the entire project. The density is hued on the acreage for residential unit% and the square footage average per unit on the acreage used. The entire project will give the reader a skewed undenilanding on density and impacts aaux:iatcvi with the generation of traffic and impacts on GHG, etc, The project needs to break out land area for commercial and residential separately. This will provide the reader and elected official to better undersrand the irispnets. As proposed the project is tern dense regarding the populated land nscs (commercial & residential) excluding the park dvments+opsn space. Page l0 of 10 13 Gent R: mrojeetsiNewpodUO151RTMUC- 031512,doc 3 -900 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 081 Sandi (no last name provided) November 7. 2011 Response1 Please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Bluff Road and North Bluff Road would provide a new north -south roadway connection to provide roadway capacity that is not currently available in the general Project vicinity. As addressed in most detail in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, Bluff Road is shown as a future north -south roadway connection between West Coast Highway and 19th Street in both the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The roadway shown on the City's Circulation Element is not labeled; the roadway shown on the MPAH is labeled "Balboa ". The Newport Beach Circulation Element classifies Bluff Road as a Primary from West Coast Highway to 19th Street; the Orange County MPAH classifies it as a Primary from West Coast Highway to 17th Street and as a Major from 17th Street to 19th Street. Consistent with the Circulation Element and the Orange County MPAH, the construction a new arterial connection to West Coast Highway would provide an additional route for regional travelers to minimize impacts on Newport Boulevard and Superior Road. Both the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County MPAH assume a road through the Newport Banning Ranch property from West Coast Highway to 19th Street regardless of whether the property is retained as Open Space or developed as a Residential Village. Response 2 The City of Newport Beach is not proposing to purchase the Newport Banning Ranch property. The terms of the draft Development Agreement for the proposed Project 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 3 Please refer to the response to Comment 1. The provision of a second connection to West Coast Highway through the Project site would not alleviate traffic on local roads. Please refer to Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR which addresses the potential traffic effects of the deletion of the second connection. The deletion of this second connection would also preclude environmental impacts associated with the construction of this road including but not limited to grading and biological resources. Response 4 Please refer to the response to Comment 3 RTrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -901 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 5 The requested review is provided in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. Response 6 The opinions of the commenter are noted. The City of Costa Mesa is not a party to the Development Agreement. Response 7 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Please also refer to Letter L3 from the City of Costa Mesa. Response 8 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Please note that the City of Costa Mesa does not have approval authority for the proposed Project. Response 9 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Please note that the City of Costa Mesa does not have approval authority for the proposed Project. Response 10 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response11 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response 12 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response 13 The opinions of the commenter are noted. R: \Projects \NewportUOls�RTC\RTC- o3isi2eoe 3 -902 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR crises to Comments Comment Letter 082 Alford, Patrick From: Jolla Shunda jj_51hurxfaoAhdo.comj Sent: Suod@y, Nuvernrr3r 08, 20117:51 FM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Bruce Bartraln Newport Banninrj. Ranrh ❑E IR Comment Ill N uvenibe1 5, 2011 Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager, City of N ewport 13 each, Community Ve ve lopmant Depa rtm ant 3300 N ew per t 80 u l eve rd P:O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 Re: Bruce Bertram Newport 8arining Ranch OEIR COMMent III Dear Mr. Alford: Our family is appalled by the con seq uences of She Newport Banning Ranch 0ruj ec 1. After reading our niAghb or 13 rune 13a rtram ;s N4wpo rt 13a n n l rig. Rn nth 1]Clld Comment ill, If is cl ear the d1recf reurlt of the N13R Project Is to a l low the ponvers inn of Tmonde reign inip a "Commuter Roadway" as cl esrr]bed under Newport Rear, h's General Plan. Proof for this foreseeable extension can he found in the "A graem ent for 71con de raga Street" entered into h etween the City of Newport 5each (City) and the Newp ort. Crest Hom P.owne rs Ass ochtton {Acsricl ationf an September 19, 1984 and recorded with the Orange County Recorder on September 26, 1984 - On Pg 2 Section S of the Agreement it is expressly stated: "The Association Shall allow TI ton de roga Street to lie exf and Ad westerly and con ner-t with 15th - Street at siirh time as 15th Su eet avid Bluff Road are co nst ruct ed to connect to Coast Hi ehwa v." {Emphasis adde d.) This pursuunt to thr: 7icunderuga Agreen fen t; u b rn i t Cu d to you by Bruce Bertram, Under the Agfe fn run 1, Ticonderoga now connected only with Superior Aven u e, a Primary Art erial Highway, is to he extended to connect to Bluff Road, a PH maryArterial I•Ilghway once It lstonnected to PacItic Coast IdIChway AlI.tHis is to OCCU r.as part of the NBR Project. Although thr uxtensiva of Ticonderoga into -a coniniufcrroadway to connect with 15' "Street is a rorr:,ecable consequence of the N B R Project, it is not even mentioned in the IN 89 I7f IR. Consequently, the N8 R. ❑E IR is clearly defrclent under the Ca liforn le. I:n vironm entaI Uual ity Act whirh requires the environmental imIna cts of prof ect5 to disclosed, analyzed and mitigated if pos sihle and the Newport 8each General Plan. My tamily and I are deeply disturbed by the city's neglect to include an environmental review of the. fn reseea hle ran version of a two lane, dead and, private road Into a cnrnmuter roadway as detined by Th O.City of Newport Beaell int the NBR OEl R. The City's General Plan Citculat €on EIern Nit on PC, 7 -5 cl efi nes a "Corn muter Road way'as a "two - to -four -lane. unrestricted access roadway with a dailv cap aeily randinA from 7,000 to 11.000 will a tvu ical daily cav a6ty of 10.[X10 VPD. II. differs rrurn a local slr eel in its .ability Lo handle rnuAh traffic movements between arterials." ;Emphasis added) The pa;si1)iIity of 10,OGOcars mere every day polluting our ,community's air vii exhaust and noise is absolrttcly I19rrifying to us. On top of insreasirig. the changes of contracting illness directly linked to car ex 11 us 1, there will a lsn be the inc reared risk for us, and even more discon C erti rig, our children, to get h it b y speed in g ca rs. R: rProject sWewporN015�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -903 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Again, with all of the above it can not he that a plan that would clearly have a dire impact to our community is not included, much less discussed in the NRR Dr R. Far ail of the above reasons we oppose the Nat? project in its present form. Kind regards, Julia. George and Sebastian Shunda 7 Seascape Drive Senw ind Newport Community R: mrojeets\NewportUO1 &RTMUC- 031512,doc 3 -904 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 082 Julia Shunda November 6, 2011 Response1 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 151h 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 2 The commenter's opposition to the Project is noted RTrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -905 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 7th November. 2011 Comment Letter O83a 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. In reference to the Transportation Section 4.9 -74: When the MPAH with the proposed extension /widening of 19th Street and the bridge linking it to Banning Ave was designed, it could not have taken into account the endangered and protected wildlife and the delicate ecosystem that exists today in the wildlife area (Talbert Marsh) adjacent to the Banning Ranch parcel at the end of 19th Street. There is a great liklihood that it woulr not be feasable today to develop in this area. What alternatives to mitigating the impact this project will have on traffic in Costa Mesa if this Wdening /bridge /extension is not allowed? Sincerely, Ms. Michelle Simpson 900 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa Costa Mesa,CA, 92627 949 - 280 -2670 michellesimpson5@att.net 1/1 R: Troject sWewpnMJO15�RTMRTC- 031512,dac 3 -906 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O83a Michelle Simpson November 7. 2011 Response1 Please refer to the construction of the 19th Street Bridge is not a part of the proposed Project. As addressed in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, both the Orange County MPAH and the City of Newport Beach General Plan Master Plan of Streets and Highways reflect the extension of 19th Street from its current terminus in the City of Costa Mesa, over the Santa Ana River, connecting to Brookhurst Street at Banning Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. As such, the proposed Project General Plan Buildout scenario assumes the completion of the 19th 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 19th 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 19th Street Bridge. The opinions of the commenter are noted. R\ RrgedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -907 Responses to Environmental Comments 7th November. 2011 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Patrick Alford RE: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR Dear Mr. Alford, Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter O83b 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. In reference to the Transportation section 4.9 -11: Now that the Coastal Commission has indicated that the proposed Bluff Road access from West Coast Highway would not be approved, what impact will this have to the circulation system of the development? What is the alternative access into the site and how will this alternative change the circulation system and the effects on 151h, 16th, 17th and 19th Streets in Costa Mesa? Sincerely, Ms. Michelle Simpson 900 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa Costa Mesa,CA, 92627 949- 280 -2670 michellesimpson5@att.net 1H R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -908 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O83b Michelle Simpson November 7. 2011 Response1 The Applicant of the Newport Banning Ranch Project is proposing the Bluff Road connection to West Coast Highway as a part of the Project. The Coastal Commission will have to consider this request once a Coastal Development Permit application is filed with the Coastal Commission following action on the Final EIR and the Project by the City of Newport Beach City Council. Please refer to Topical Response: Sunset Ridge Park, Topical Response: Coastal Commission Consent Orders, and Topical Response: ESHA. R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -909 Responses to Environmental Comments Novemher4.201.1 Pairick Mold Flawing Mmager, Newport Beach. P,U: Bog 1758 Out Mr. Alrard: Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments r 'Ul fy Comment Letter 094 NOV 07 2411 p-7rEl.oPMFi r cl f +vewPOt'� e I, John. Siskcr, wish logo on record as to my personal comments and concerns as a resident of Newport I- ermce, in refcronceto the Draft Environmental hpaeI Report for the BanniogRunch PrnjecL After detailed analysis or. the Drat Fnvimnmcnral Impact Repov,'I wish to submit the following coounenrs andlnr questions regarding sold project. .My goal at this time is to only bring up my most impartnnt cancems regarding this project, for I may nta later lime, expand on some of the more im.pailant things that will affect our community rho most- However, l did want to get.my general cove u,msu5 in before the November 8,10 11 deadline..In Rdd Won, end as already pointod out, this is my personal commenM and concerned as it relates to Newport Terrace, but does not try to speak For any gihcr individual, who is naturally free I submit their own particular wncems. Banning Ranch ProjccS but with the following exceptions. I feel the overall prdjcci would better serve our community, and surrounding areas far more cffctc]y, if it were downs ized iniresidential density to no mare that a tole] .1100 home: In odier words, mgarding this 1 downsize in overcall deosAy, would not this project still serves il5 purpose jusEus well with this residential reduciiau, and as already.pointcd out as a possible aitcmalive in the.Draft Environmental Impact Rcporrt? (Section 4.1 I f mrd Use) In addilioik I feel B1uf ..Road shauld completed be eliminated From I.7th to 19% Stm-c thus terminating at 171h StrecL The origin, plans for Sanuing Ranch did have the major ingresslegrem points.foc Banning Ranch at 151h, 16th, 17th Sheets and Pacific CoastHighway, so why theneed for this 2 particular BIufFRoad extension to 19Th Street now, when many ti mes at miattsI presrntations it is pointed out, Ihatthe overall project does not call Far it? (Seciian 4- 9.1 and Circulation) Likewise, and even though not seem ingly part of the present. Draft En.viroam catal Impact Report; I see no nerd For the 19th Sucet.Bridgc, originally slated to connect at Braokhurst at Barning-.ln fact, if this Sridgc is not crucial to the overall project as claimed ai -all -the preseptati On meetings, why arc slops not 3 being taken by the City of Newport Beach to bave.it removed from the Master Plan of,Adcrlal Highways? (Section 4 -91 TramMriewon 4,zd Circularior;) Sinccn:ly 00 John Sisker I I Moonri se Canri Newport Beach Cot!fomia 92663 (949) 791 -8302 R:TrojectsWewpn J015rRTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -910 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 084 John Sisker November 4, 2011 Response1 Section 7.0, Alternatives to the proposed Project, of the Draft EIR addresses several Project alternatives. Similar alternatives to the commenter's suggested alternative of 1,100 residential dwelling units (compared to 1,375 units for the proposed Project) area addressed in the Draft EIR. For example, Alternative D would allow for 1,200 units. Alternative E assumes the same number of residential units as the proposed Project but within a reduced development footprint; the development area (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses) would decrease from 97.4 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres. Alternative F assumes the same number of residential units as proposed by the Project within a reduced footprint; the development area (residential and commercial) would decrease from 97.4 gross acres to 84.0 gross acres, an approximate 14 percent reduction compared to the proposed Project. It is important to understand that the significant environmental impacts of the Project are not necessarily related to the number of proposed residential units nor would impacts be substantially lessened or avoided by reducing the number of units to 1,100. A reduction in residential density does not necessarily result in reduced impacts as suggested by the commenter. A reduction in development (whether residential, commercial, or other use) can result in reduction in traffic generation and related air quality emissions and noise depending on the on -site interaction of trips (how much traffic is captured internal to a project site). However, a reduction is density would not mean a reduction in impacts related to topics such as biological resources. It could result in an increase in impacts if a larger area were to be disturbed. The criteria for selection of alternatives to the proposed Project are discussed in Section 7.3 of the Draft EIR, and reflect the guidance set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, including that the range of alternatives selected for consideration are those that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project'. The alternatives selected for consideration in the Draft EIR, include the mandatory No Project Alternative, as well as alternatives that could meet the criteria set forth in Section 15126.6. The significant impacts of the Project are identified in Section 7.3.2. The land use and aesthetic impacts are related to night time illumination of the Project site including the proposed Community Park. A reduction in dwelling units would not avoid or substantially lessen this impact. While the noise impacts associated with Bluff Road and North Bluff Road may be incrementally reduced by a reduction in dwelling units, the majority of the traffic on Bluff Road and North Bluff Road is as a result of forecasted local off -site traffic using the road as another option to existing roadways. Traffic impacts in both the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa can be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, because the City of Newport Beach cannot impose or guarantee timely implementation of improvements in an adjacent jurisdiction, traffic impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Reducing the number of units on the Project site would not assure implementation of traffic improvements in another jurisdiction. Finally, while air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are, in part, the result of vehicular emissions and a reduction in the number of units would incrementally reduce these emissions, the impacts are as a result of cumulative impacts and would not be avoided or substantially lessened. In conclusion, because the significant impacts of the Project are not entirely attributable to the number of dwelling units proposed, and would not be substantially lessened or avoided by reducing units from 1,375 to 1,100, a reduced density alternative would not be required. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -911 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 2 Please refer to Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR which addresses the impacts of the proposed Project without the extension of North Bluff Road to 19th Street. Bluff Road and North Bluff Road would provide a new north -south roadway connection to provide roadway capacity that is not currently available in the general Project vicinity. As addressed in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, Bluff Road is shown as a future north - south roadway connection between West Coast Highway and 19th Street in both the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The roadway shown on the City's Circulation Element is not labeled; the roadway shown on the MPAH is labeled "Balboa ". The Newport Beach Circulation Element classifies Bluff Road as a Primary from West Coast Highway to 19th Street; the Orange County MPAH classifies it as a Primary from West Coast Highway to 17th Street and as a Major from 17th Street to 191h Street. Consistent with the Circulation Element and the Orange County MPAH, the construction a new arterial connection to West Coast Highway would provide an additional route for regional travelers to minimize impacts on Newport Boulevard and Superior Road. Both the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County MPAH assume a road through the Newport Banning Ranch property from West Coast Highway to 19th Street regardless of whether the property is retained as Open Space or developed as a Residential Village. Response 3 The comment is noted RT,g edsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -912 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR crises to Comments (iWrnmrent Letter 985 Alford, Patrick From: fsMrinermd UshirinemidVol.comj sent: Friday, NuvernUca U, 0117:58 IPM To: Alford, Petrick subject: DannIN Ranrh JEER rpmrnenl RE: Availability of water supply for the proposed Banning Ranch development Not long ago, our Newport Beach community was informed of a severe statewide draught and all residents were asked to cut hark on the use of water in their homes and landscaping in order for the city ID meal [ha Wmler purveyors rearrir:lions, We warm Fuld fiuea Cur the C€Iy MILild follnw if Ihx required decrease in water use ritywide was not 'achieved. As I recall, we were told we needed to achieve a 15 percent decrease in water use. At the same time the Newport Beach City Counoll received a presentation from a oonsultant regarding projected water avatl stall ity for the proposed Banning Ranch development expected to include 1375 new residential dwelling units, 75,000 feet of co inmercial uses, and a 75 -unit retort. hotel. The consultant assured the City Council that there would he enough wafer tnr the Banning Ranch development by listing various sources that were not currently available but that he anticipated would be available later! For instance, he cited a proposed desalination plant that is very conlruvelaial and may never be built. He also mentioned the Groundwater Replenistlment Systern (GNlRS) that is currently treating wastewater to the drinking +crater level as a possible future source. However, he seemed not. to N aware that the e fro rts.to ask people to conserve has resulted in less wastewater available to turn into drinking water, I am told the GWRS is only at 60 percent of capacity due lu a reduc.°Iian in (lie source water. That means they Have the capacity to treat more wastewater but they cannot do so because eonservalien has cut down on the available source. So to count on the GWRS for future water supply seems short sighted to me. Somewhat the same situation Is occurring with the diminishing volume of flows coming down the Santa Ana River due to conservation efforts by upstream cities, The Santa Ana River water is the principle sou rice. oi water For recharging the Orange County aquifers- It seems like a Catch 22 situation to me -- the more people conserve, the less useable water we have available from reclaimed scums. I think one needs to plan far dry years while hoping for wet yea rsl All of the above strongly suggests that the availability of future water will act ually he less than a rill oi pate d by the consultant. There are waterquality professionals who have serious concerns about our tutu re water supply, These unce rtainties raise important questions regarding the mvmitmbilily rrf water for future re aide ni iii l needs. New porl Beach has mmrlm a rzrn8idarmh6l Fir rmndimI commitment to encourage its citizens to conserve water. It doesn't make sense to me to ask residents to conserve while• at the same time making a determination that there Is plenty of wa*r for large future developrnerrls. N a ncy .Skinn er 1724 Highland Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 R: Troject sWewporN015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -913 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 085 N. Skinner November 4, 2011 Response1 The discussion in the Draft EIR under Threshold 4.15 -2 analyzes whether sufficient water supplies are available to serve the proposed project from existing entitlements and resources or whether new or expanded entitlements are needed. The water demand for the Project site was included in the City's water demand forecasts (as identified by City staff and the 1999 Water Master Plan) is reflected in the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and in Metropolitan Water District of Orange County, Orange County Water District, and Metropolitan Water District planning documents. A Water Supply Assessment (AECOM 2010) was prepared and concludes that the City would have sufficient water to meet the proposed project demands, as well as its current and future demand. Based on the WSA, the City, as water purveyor, has determined that a sufficient supply is available during average, single -dry, and multiple -dry years that would meet the anticipated water demand associated with the Project, in addition to the water demand of existing and planned future uses through the year 2030. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -914 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 0188 Alford, Patrick From: Danielle Edmso,iano3iLbaol Coml 8enl: I rn•,uuy, Nu uirilx•r O8, 201110.11 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Newrk rt Ranninol Ranch CEIR Dear Mr Agora, Thank you for the opportunity to commer2 to the DEIR After a careful reading of the decurrvrets I tolieve the City of Newport Beach should consider analyzing the following Allermlwe to the Project - Bulf Road with a 2 -Lane street secborSprohle [rum Weal Guest I lighway to 151h Street North Blul Read with a 2 -Lane atreet sec}iontprahle to 17th Street only No muff Road sxtsnsmn to 19lh Street Maximum denaily of 1 d100 home&, no resort rooms and 76,000 s.f of commercial An A1tCtrk3tivr, such as this respona, to virtually all the public o4mnleMs I hate heard - with the exception of OrDISO who would see nothing happen The ability W shape Bluff Road sorre is greater with a 2 -Lane road - and the trafho would drop dramatically As to those who mythr -y want to bury the fmpertyt - they appeartn have no plan and no honest arrmen; - lust a desire that cannot be lulhlled They Should consider compromise -like the rest al rrs do. 75% plus of the land as open space and parks appears significant -even when compared to many prior Coastal area decisions If planned uurrecl]y, this could .. be good lur evelyue. look furw a. id W you w9porrae. TYk]nk you for the op(xxWrnty W address Rlls rrraHer. Danielle M. Soriano Laguna Beach, CA Mrs no3,aaol.com R: mrojeets wewpodUO151RTC�RTC- 031512,doc 3 -915 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 086 Danielle Soriano November 8, 2011 Response1 The commenter suggests an alternative that would reduce development density to a maximum of 1,000 dwelling units, eliminate the resort inn, and reduce Bluff Road to a 2 -lane road. The commenter also requests consideration of an alternative that eliminates the Bluff Road extension to 19th Street. With respect to the latter request, please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR; Alternative C eliminates the construction of the segment of North Bluff Road from approximately 17th Street to 19th Street. With respect to the suggestion that an alternative consisting of 1,000 dwelling units be considered, 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. It is important to understand that the significant environmental impacts of the Project are not necessarily related to the number of proposed residential units nor would impacts be substantially lessened or avoided by reducing the number of units to 1,000. 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 the number of units on the Project site would not assure implementation of traffic improvements in another jurisdiction. Finally, while air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are, in part, the result of vehicular emissions and a reduction in the number of units would incrementally reduce these emissions, the impacts are as a result of cumulative impacts and would not be avoided or substantially lessened. In conclusion, because the significant impacts of the Project are not entirely attributable to the number of dwelling units proposed, and would not be substantially lessened or avoided by reducing units from 1,375 to 1,000, a reduced density alternative would not be required. The commenter has also suggested that Bluff Road be reduced to a two -lane road. The commenter has also suggested that Bluff Road be reduced to a two -lane road. The proposed Project provides access points from 15th Street, 16th Street, 17th Street, 19`h Street, and West Coast Highway. The Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR includes a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Project and considers alternative intensities of development on the site which would reduce the amount of traffic on Bluff Road and North Bluff Road. Please refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR. 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 Bluff Road to a location farther from the existing homes. In order for the cumulative noise level increase to be less than RTr.pd.\Newp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -916 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments significant, that is, less than 5 dBA above the existing noise level, it was calculated that the realigned Bluff Road would need to be approximately 700 feet from the Newport Crest homes. The realigned 15th Street east of Bluff Road would need to be approximately 440 feet from the Newport Crest condominiums. These 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 and the South Family Village. As a result, the roadway would bisect the open space area adjacent to West Coast Highway 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 15`h Street, Bluff Road would bisect the Community Park, 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. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) sets forth the criteria for the selection of a range of reasonable alternatives for consideration in an EIR. "The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects.... Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts ". Reducing the number of traffic lanes from four to two lanes to the Project site from West Coast Highway would be inconsistent with Project Objective 1 and Project Objective 7 identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, for the reasons set forth below. Project Objective 1 states "Provide a Project that implements the goals and polices that the Newport Beach General Plan has established for the Banning Ranch area ". A reduction in lanes from West Coast Highway would fail to meet this Project objective because the Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways contemplates the construction of a four -lane divided Primary Road that would provide a new connection from West Coast Highway to 19th Street. The provision of a new four -lane connection from West Coast Highway to 19th Street is a fundamental goal of the City and both the development option (Residential Village) under the General Plan and property acquisition for open space (Open Space) land use option for the Banning Ranch property both contemplate development of an arterial extending inland from West Coast Highway through the Project site. A two -lane road from West Coast Highway would conflict with attainment of this Project Objective. Project Objective 7 states "Provide for roadway improvements to improve and enhance regional circulation, minimize impacts of Project development on the existing circulation system, and enhance public access while not developing more roadways than are needed for adequate regional circulation and coastal access ". The provision of two rather than four vehicular lanes from West Coast Highway would only partially provide the needed roadway system to improve or enhance regional circulation as set forth in the City's General Plan Circulation Element that was designed to provide an alternate means of coastal access to provide regional traffic relief from existing coastal access routes (e.g., Newport Blvd and Superior and Pacific Coast Highway). The Draft EIR includes an exhibit showing the General Plan buildout traffic volumes for this roadway segment. The projected volumes indicate the need for a four -lane roadway in the General Plan buildout condition. In addition to the City's General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways, the Bluff Road arterial is included in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways R\ RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -917 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments (MPAH). The Orange County MPAH is the regional transportation system administered by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The variation would also be inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Specifically, General Plan Goal CE 3.1, as implemented by Policies CE 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, require both integration, and regional consistency with the Orange County MPAH. Therefore, the inconsistency with the Orange County MPAH would preclude the proposed Project from meeting Project Objective 1 and Project Objective 7. Finally, reduction the number of vehicular lanes from West Coast Highway would not avoid or substantially lessen all of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and could create new significant impacts when compared to the proposed Project. With respect to biological resources, it has been suggested that eliminating access from West Coast Highway would avoid impacts to two areas adjacent to the proposed access road. Although construction of Bluff Road would affect sensitive vegetation communities, the Draft EIR concludes that these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. As part of its evaluation of these comments, the City considered the traffic impacts of reducing the number of traffic lanes from West Coast Highway and believes this could create burdens on the existing circulation system. This belief is based on the fact that Bluff Road is anticipated on the Orange County MPAH to serve regional traffic in addition to traffic generated by the proposed Project. Therefore, fewer lanes from West Coast Highway would result in the continued impact to the existing arterials including Newport Boulevard, West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, and Placentia Avenue. The City evaluated whether fewer traffic lanes from West Coast Highway would preclude significant unavoidable noise impacts to certain residences in the Newport Crest condominium development. Noise impacts from future traffic on Bluff Road and 15th Street were evaluated in the Draft EIR. This analysis establishes that, after mitigation, noise levels at existing residences in the Newport Crest development would be considered "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible ", and that the resulting exterior and interior noise levels at these residences would remain consistent with the City of Newport Beach noise standards (MMs 4.12 -6 and 4.12 -7). However, the analysis also confirms that long -term noise increases at some Newport Crest residences would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion for noise increase. Therefore, the proposed Project's noise impacts as to some of the Newport Crest residences are significant and unavoidable. Although a reduction in traffic lanes may reduce this significant noise impact, it would not eliminate the impact as well as increase significant noise levels on other existing roadways such as 15`h Street resulting in significant noise impacts to other off -site sensitive receptors including schools and other residents in the vicinity. For these reasons, the City determined that the consideration of the a two -lane roadway connection from West Coast Highway as a part of the currently proposed Project was not warranted. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -918 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Alford, Patrick Co mime nt. Letter O87a From: Norm (normsuker@sdogfoba1.netl Bent: MQnday, Nuventue[ G7, 2011 8:19 PM To: Alford, Petrick Subject: Danning Ranrh ❑FIR Planck Alford, Planning %Iftna�6er Ci ly aF\rcwpnrt Rcnch. Cnm mun il.y flevclnpmc nl. ❑cpl. 3300 \'ewpolt Blvd. 1',p box 1763 Newport Beach: CA 92659 -1,M5 DEar Mr. All Ord. I ant a hooteovvner in hoth Costa A•lesa and Neml>:wt Beach and have lived in Newport CYest for Ole past 25 verve. My proparry III ls Iit:u rill inS ldannh and Irtm Nell eslmylhr; 6h Tel cod I w daadhne for rrnnntamt nn dlr; DEIR for Banning Ranch which is the third dcv-e[opm cnt plan fdr thix Ale that f have ccperi enccd. My reason. are as fallow.: 'flu: puhl iCMIJ nn. n F lh c ❑FiR for Ranninn Ranch and cnnnncnl. period has ovci Nppcd llic Stmsc 1. Ridge Park app li calinn from the Cite to the Ca li fonlia Coastal Coinntiss i on. '[lie tNrrf3R 1) UR 1E LA'er 7.000 pnge: Ling, very aotnplicate.d' cliliiairll lq 1) avigale Ihj'ou41 A110 daeg not 04likorm In CI'Ll QA standarcN itiga rdina the num hi r Of pa Yes. Botli du YUl up meats are. extrewel-v it I putM1aul lu me and di. lttture:xI NCwI]V]'L Ctti:'st.stnCe hlltlt WIII hilYQ V IlMjOr intpatl Oil illy quality o] - Iifo. ,Many 11 [)In have been very involved in the Consial cnitl III ission Sunset Ridge fork application and dlercfOTV.lmvr spent less Linte un lhu t3iumittg kmiuh DEIR.. '1110 public eommen[ period is an csson[ial and Yital pan 01 1130 process_ 11 pro vidus, 1111 tnmsuiOn 10 a I I psrW3S inenl vad and cool ri InLIM In m Iikvl.ine• issues. '111erefw, in my opinion, the process needs to be e»ended to allmv for inoi e quality input, 'flunk you for considering illy reques[, Noonan 1. Suker, P•]. R: Troject sWewpnMJO15�RTMRTC- o3islzdoe 3 -919 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O87a Norman Suker November 7. 2011 Response1 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Section 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the minimum public review period for a draft EIR shall be 30 days. When a draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review (as was the case for the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR), the period is 45 days. Except under unusual circumstances should the review period be longer than 60 days. The City of Newport Beach provided a 60 -day public review period. RT,.jedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -920 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR crises to Comments Co mme nt Letter 0876 Alford, Patrick From: Norm (normsukerosbogloba1.netl 8eltt: '1 ue•;Cl2y, NUVL'lYlt}L'r OS, 2011 11:18 AM To: Alford, Petrick Subject: Danning Ranrh ❑FIR rrimme:ds Why has i1m 13"' SEI'cet Road connection to Wen Coaai 1-1ighway (WC 1-1) (along the Newport Shores haunda rv) h c en. al On inated in the present p1111 since the inl hacl. n f 1:e rvm•ing 1hi,; rnad is 1n inct'aase tra fide lie sK. W our hontis in Wwriorl CrexO Whyltan lilt t0ur Eo Si;t lane niterial Bluff Road beeli moved to Wzweeo 20 to So }ter or our west prope.ny line at the nnt1h and of Ncwporl Cimst ❑•hen 1hC OV and County MUICrplanx shmv nIILf1 -P0:6d heading in a westerly di NO i ell (ahoy frnly X-C WI)Ort Cresl) as it CVn tillYL'S :ilur )1 toward I`lnk SLceE'? Why is iha pnopasw dowbripinonl bbuw6Li.g our eowul Ind mountain views and iguoring.Ihe City U1. Nolvport Retch (Penal Plan Air cndnl ant S I - I slalcd that. «ices kt the wc Rl. and snl kh :11T a:l lu ITC to he prose rs+cd for a per�uu still ldi rig tin rile lower b111OUn)' le vat uP the 1tiMvpuR Crest dr vdulnncld In kil to Ilu uxlent feasible, boildingS locutedw the noflh of NL crvpo.I Crest arc required to be tcnaocd bclaw CXialing mitt• ]Ioriaons oslablishud by a parson stand big on tho 1 o+vm-bnIWI1v Iove1 of dw hiowport C'resi dcvchpmuni -'? Why is this vices rcgIfh'Mn t not appliCJ 10 the County's portion of the project Nvhich vei11 result in IIu Ioss or the occtln mien's and oouId invc a signmemxly negative i npact on the 1lmrlcet vnlucs or our homes? Why 1s Ihe, tropnsdd de vo I opnion r:-Ro class to ollr hol Ind ;4M 111d 11 Di I71•nv4L a Wit roll 1) 111'for gepi ratl o n that. would atic rapt 10 suhst itule 1'or the 40i1 urea. of open space we ha VC enjoyed for nhout'30 years and is needed to ro iti gate adverse impacts of llie proposed develo pnwal on both \lewporl Cresi residents, llie riatin al vegetalion and wildlife That inhabit ale bluffs? Why is the cxccssivo density orthcpropnscd dcvelopracnlnccded since dw ncgalive impncis it will have on our increasingly seaircc ualunlI rusuur= fold over- tElxed iufrusLuuhn'e_ Crealiug mare trufc, congestion kill red uci rig our 2lu alit} of tile.? 141n•wasIIle inl arse clion of iY" Nt, ind Newporl 13Ivd WS c1Ecu1alions basap oil %•lay,1 2U071raMe count dolt aru vow murc ih ELL four )'curs uId in id inken ill nn off -puuk monill whcu tmff e is 111ue11 Iiglxcn-11 UU1 the Sum Liter months wbcn tra111c is heaver 'viM. to the beIC11 ilreae [Ca li Ialtk indicates that peal: nwnth tfalVic on III(!. SR -i7 is 89,000 !1.1?'1'vorse3 70,0 V) xU)'F1 or 14 %higher) and I porSOnn113, have soon southbound ln:oway traffic hack ad Ilp tnv11 19 Ill tit_ to Vi ctolu }t. wh icll',L'ol lid resod inill LOS of: " IT' '7 Why was the inier_erlion ul' 19`1' St. and \cn'port 131 V LOS e:dcuhdiuns bases on n sou111buand volume of 3114 (car imatcd for 20091ra 11 is vcar) when rn1 page 4.9.1 9 pf-I ha•rrsl asp ❑ft a lion Mid Cinalhninn seC1 i p11 or 1112: 1)UIN. sl:dcJ 111'1 -able 4.9.6 t1tEd the fnuwlly scglueIIt fnrSLlltlibl111r.1J bUAL in the Pd'1 beI1L•BCII V]CtOlia Lind 192' St is 3;2'23.(1111 trURIC 211 UIis seglncol Las to un'i.Q Li t 1901 Street? 14hy was the trat)ic analysis oC t tic: ME -55 rls:CW3V Iilnilcd In s01 u.l1 ❑I' 111csa 1>i %,C , when n orl h W Ind rnxsvay Ira flit is already hiked up beginning at the SR -73 CXi1 and the Banning Ranch 1ra17ic not considcrCd adding the lu bLWRup? R: Project sWewpodu0151RTC1RTC- 031512,doe 3 -921 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments WIIy wmjIit CallnuL iulnLilvi S included in the 17L11H since Ilicy would need to appruvc llu LBIuIT Ruud i nlesection and the tum al lali on of 4k ImIT -1b signal (knnwi nd []]at ilia 1001i ion of Lil utT R- 1..�ia laias Caltrm>3 policy refai•ding Spacing of si finalized i ntemert i one)'? R'III ILUI t11C prOPOWd Witk:lliIIg of WCH CnCroueh upW1 Qeu19? Iva I buimitiw argils mid kvws II'addreBsud in the 00PI? Has ilia IrAllc analysix conxidcicil gwn1Lilxlwdy Illc crnshnn Inntl5c tlial. wi II he dived oil frmn Wcslxi de Cnxta Musu kind Hill it Beach to the pruposcd 31uff Road and has Ihnt [ra[Tr Lceu.includcd in the LOS calculations? Why do::s Ili:: rlaxv ri pli 7n nl115ill SI- nn pap,: $- 7.17.n 1' the Trn nxporr:il.inn an-1 Ci rc i Ilan inn v:n:i i nn of 111 DFIR• noY5lale in dic Iasi %or] cc we that 1511i $t, exIengion wcyt of 51Ll ITRvad connecls to WOW Why does the FJFIR eonxidcr n proposed trrllle sigr.Il [it the hllnR: inictsee1iM01'131LlW Rued and 15 °' St. when Ilic dc%cfuper's iprupuscd plan shoivs u r GUI d4LwuL intcraccliun'? IVas ilia naisa and air poLlutIon generawd by the prr posed transit bus tral•1ic on 131u11 Road cansldowd in the, en ❑Brniln enl. I na Whyon page 4,9 -23 under Trip Generation are there two IIstIngs for condos .& [ownhouses? hv wasn'1 all the LOS ca lcu lal inns haseA upon 2011 Ira Ric counts him gad of 2{11N Inldic col nits'! R,lint is nlaxilmnn plvpvsed trrif..Tic vulumc 017.131ufT.Rd. unoluding I]IC prgjeet mid diXM1Vd 11711 'ie Mid WIIiiT is. toe Ievel oFSelroice per ti) e Change Cowlty 1-1ighway ]jesign Mamlal pave 100.5 dated August 19 "'? �a 12 13 1.4 15 16 I 7 18 R: Troject sWewp,MJ0l5�RTCIRTC- 031512,doe 3 -922 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O87b Norman Suker November 8, 2011 Response1 The need for a second connection to West Coast Highway through the Project site (via the extension of 15th Street west of Bluff Road to West Coast Highway) was first studied as part of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update, and was revisited as part of the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR. It was determined that the volume of traffic that would access West Coast Highway through the Project site (consisting of new traffic generated by the Project itself, plus traffic that would shift to Bluff Road from other existing roadways) could be accommodated by a single roadway connection. Response 2 Please refer to Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. Response 3 The policy mentioned by the commenter was not included when the City of Newport General Plan was updated in 2006. Response 4 Please refer to the response to Comment 3. Response 5 Proposed development located proximate to the Newport Crest condominium development would include single - family residences, a Community Park, and resort inn land uses. All land uses proposed as part of the Project are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan alternative land use of Open Space /Residential Village (OS /RV) for the Project site. The Newport Beach General Plan does not restrict the location of any land use permitted under this General Plan land use designation. The proposed Project includes the restoration and preservation of over 50 percent of the Project site as permanent open space. The type and scale of proposed residential land uses adjacent to Newport Crest are compatible with the scale and type of development found within Newport Crest, a single - family condominium development. The evaluation of the proximity of proposed Project land uses to off -site land uses is addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use and Related Planning Programs, of the Draft EIR, in particular on page 4.1 -38 and as depicted on Exhibit 4.1 -2g which contains two Sections E1 -E1 and E2 -E2. The commenter asks why the development does not provide a 200 -foot buffer separation that would attempt to substitute for the loss of open space and mitigate for impacts on Newport Crest residents, vegetation, and wildlife. For approximately 90 percent of the approximately 1,800 - foot -long perimeter adjacent to the Project, building development is proposed to be more than 200 feet away from the condominiums within the Newport Crest community. The area between the proposed roadways (Bluff Road and extension of 15th Street) and Newport Crest would be the Central Community Park. The Draft EIR acknowledges that as Bluff Road curves around the sharp (90 degree) R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -923 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments corner to 15th Street the edge of the road would be approximately 22 feet from one of the condominium buildings; this could be described as a pinch point. The Master Development Plan Section E1 -E1 depicts the point where Central Community Park is narrowest (approximately 22 feet wide) adjacent to the Bluff Road right -of -way. Bluff Road would be approximately 40 feet to the closest Newport Crest condominium patio /deck. The grade for the northbound lanes is proposed to be depressed approximately 12 feet below the existing patio /deck at this location. The use of a sloped median would depress the southbound lanes to approximately 16 feet below the existing patio /deck. Section E2 -E2 shows that the distance between Newport Crest and Bluff Road would increase in both directions from the "pinch point". Located 100 feet to the south of Section E1 -E1, Section E2 -E2 shows that the South Community Park is approximately 90 feet wide in this location. The width of the park increases similarly north of the pinch point. Approximately 90 percent of the perimeter of Newport Crest with the Central and South Community Park areas would provide a buffer of 200 feet or more of non - active recreational space. The reason the road is proposed in this location is addressed in Topical Response: Bluff Road /North Bluff Road Location and Alignment. Response 6 The proposed Project is consistent with the Alternative Use General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Village. The potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are addressed in the Draft EIR. The opinion of the commenter is noted. Response 7 At the time the traffic data for the Traffic Impact Analysis was collected, Newport Boulevard was under construction between 17`h Street and 19`h Street. The City of Costa Mesa provided peak hour counts that were conducted before the construction began. Based on direction from the City of Costa Mesa, a growth factor of 1 percent per year was applied to the traffic data to represent 2009 turning movement data. The 2007 traffic counts were the most recent and applicable counts available at the time of preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis. It should also be noted that the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires that the analysis be prepared based on traffic counts taken between February 1 and May 31. Response 8 The peak hour data for the intersection of Newport Boulevard at 19th Street is based on manual turning movement counts collected at the intersection during the morning and evening commute periods. The traffic volume on the freeway mainline is based on daily traffic volume data collected by Caltrans and posted on their website. The daily number is then factored to get a peak hour volume, based on a peak hour percentage of the daily and direction of travel. The Caltrans data and the peak hour intersection data at the adjacent intersection would not match exactly because the data is collected at different times, and the Caltrans daily data is factored to derive peak hour volumes. Response 9 The analysis of the SR -55 Freeway mainline was not limited to south of Mesa Drive. The analysis extended from the terminus of the freeway at 19`h Street to the 1 -405 Freeway in the City of Irvine. R\RrojedsWewp.MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -924 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 10 Caltrans has been consulted in the course of planning the location and design of the Bluff Road intersection with West Coast Highway. Please refer to Comment Letter S2 from Caltrans. Response11 Please refer to Topical Response: ESHA. Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of all impacts to biological resources resulting from the development of the Project which includes the widening of West Coast Highway within the boundaries of the Project site. Response 12 The Traffic Impact Analysis does consider that some local traffic can be expected to shift off the existing street system near the Project site to take advantage of the new connection to West Coast Highway (see page 4.9 -25 of the Draft EIR). The shift in existing traffic was estimated based on select link runs of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM), which isolated the trips using Bluff Road to identify origins and destinations. Response 13 15th Street is shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) as extending west beyond Bluff Road and connecting to an extension of 17th Street. 15th Street as shown on the Orange County MPAH would not connect directly to West Coast Highway. Response 14 A roundabout is not proposed for the future intersection of Bluff Road at 15th Street. Response15 The noise model inputs for traffic volumes include one percent medium trucks and one percent heavy trucks. Buses would be included in the medium truck volumes. The CaIEEMod model for estimating air pollutants includes buses in the fleet mix. It is noted that the Orange County Transportation Authority has replaced more than 50 percent of its diesel buses with low - emission natural gas fueled buses. Please refer to the OCTA website, www.00TA.net in the Air Quality section of their site. Response 16 The two listings on page 4.9 -23 for residential condominiums and townhouses reflect the 222 units proposed for the Resort Colony and the North Family Village, and the 730 units proposed for the Urban Colony. There is no statistical significance associated with listing them separately in the Draft EIR text. All proposed residential units were evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Response 17 The traffic counts for the Traffic Impact Analysis were either traffic counts that were provided by the City of Newport Beach as part of their Traffic Phasing Ordinance annual count program, were provided by the City of Costa Mesa for the intersections on Newport Boulevard that were under construction, or were new traffic counts conducted specifically for this analysis at the time the environmental review process was initiated. R\ RrgedsWewp .MJ0151RTC \RTC431512.do. 3 -925 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response18 The Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) forecasts indicate a daily volume of 15,440 trips on Bluff Road north of West Coast Highway. This segment of Bluff Road would be a four -lane divided roadway, with a daily LOS E capacity of 37,500 vehicles per day, based on Table 102.1 of the Orange County Highway Design Manual. On Bluff Road north of 17th Street, the NBTM forecasts indicate a daily volume of 17,150 trips. The Project shows this segment of Bluff Road to be a three -lane divided roadway (two northbound and one southbound) to the commercial center boundary, narrowing to a two -lane undivided roadway north of the commercial center boundary. The capacity of a three -lane divided roadway would be estimated to be 28,000 trips, and the daily LOS E capacity of a two -lane undivided roadway would be 12,500 vehicles per day based on Table 102.1 of the Orange County Highway Design Manual. The capacity of a roadway segment will increase when there are no driveway access points and no intersections, such as the planned segment of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street. Please see Exhibit 4.9 -25 which shows traffic volumes. R\RrojedsWewpaMJ0151RTC \RTC431512.doc 3 -926 Responses to Environmental Comments