HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Supplemental CorrespondenceHarris, Lillian 21::I 2 1\x :Cl
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
In the City Clerk's inbox.
Kim
Rieff, Kim
Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:36 AM
Brown, Leilani; Harris, Lillian
FW: Banning Ranch
With GLA comments pg 25 -26 of 121 apdx 1
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Banning Ranch
From: Alford, Patrick
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:35:46 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Banning Ranch
Auto forwarded by a Rule
From: Terry Welsh [ mailto:terrvmwelsh @hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:04 AM
To: Alford, Patrick
Subject: Banning Ranch
2212 JUL 19 ki :n. 13
Il.pdf
-
" k EPNIVEr' AFTER AGENDA
rltlivll. u " ^/
"The comments below and all references contained therein are hereby incorporated into the official record of
proceedings of this project and its successors."
Patrick, how are you?
Attached is a summary of Banning Ranch vegetation mapped by Jan Vandersloot, compared to the same
points mapped by Glenn Lukos and Associates for the dEIR. I had already submitted the entire collection of
Jan's data for the Administrative Record.
You will find that in some cases, there is agreement, but in other areas there is a discrepancy. I am
submitting this data so that these discrepancies can be resolved.
I ask that this material be made part of the Administrative Record and be part of the City Council hearing on
the Banning Ranch dEIR.
Thank you,
Terry Welsh
DATE
3PS Waypoin GPS Coordinates, Datum WGS 84
Vegetation Type
What GtA says
10/19/2008
BR1
N33.62867 W117.93721
10/19/2008
B2
N33.62919 W117.93775
10/19/2008
63
N33.62977 W117.93849
10/19/2008
B4
N33.62970 W117.93842
10/1912008
B5
N33.63015 W117.93873
10/19/2008
B6
N33.63028 W117.93871
10/19/2008
B7
N33.63007 W117.93853
10/19/2008
68
N33.63006 W117.93849
10/19/2008
B9
N33.63037 W117.93839
Dove Weed
Non - native grassland
10/19/2008
B10
N33.63050 W117.93823
10/19/2008
B11
N33.63020 W117.93813
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
10/19/2008
B12
N33.62858 W117.93716
Burrow Holes
10/19/2008
B13
N33.62878 W.117.93746
Burrow Holes
10/19/2008
B14
N33.62857 W117.93765
Burrow Holes
10119/2008
B15
N33.62813 W117.93955
Nassella Grass
Non- native grassland /disturbed
10/19/2008
B16
N33.62815 W117.93993
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland /disturbed
10/19/2008
617
N33.62858 W117.94019
10/19/2008
618
N33.62921 W117.94050
10/1912008
B19
N33.62927 W117.94035
10119/2008
B20
N33.62904 W117.94019
Nassella Grass
Disturbed encelia scrub
10/1912008
B21
N33.62960 W117.94051
10/19/2008
B22
N33.62931 W117.94094
Cholla Cactus
Non- native grassland
10/19/2008
B23
N33.62860 W117.94149
Encelia
Non - native grassland /ornamental
10/19/2008
B24
N33.62864 W117.94236
Short Bermuda Grass
Non - native grassland
10/19/2008
B25
N33.62842 W117.94330
10/19/2008
B26
N33.62794 W117.94393
Nassella Grass
Non- native grassland
10/19/2008
B27
N33.62718 W117.94487
10119/2008
B28
N33.62659 W117.94472
10/26/2008
B29
N33.62800 W117.94049
Deer Weed
Non- native grassland
10126/2008
B30
N33.62793 W117.94061
Nassella Grass
Disturbed encelia scrub
10/26/2008
631
N33.62768 W117.94064
10/26/2008
B32
N33.62735 W117.94067
10/26/2008
B33
N33.62690 W117.94108
10/26/2008
B34
N33.62649 W117.94117
CSS in Road Canyon
Non - native grassland /disturbed
10126/2008
B35
N33.62653 W117.94128
10/2612008
B36
N33.6265 W117.94128
Mulefat in Canyon
Southern coastal bluff scrub
10/26/2008
B37
N33.62567 W117.94109
CSS
Southern coastal bluff scrub
10/26/2008
B38
N33.62533 W117.94082
Goldenbush
-isturbed mulefat scrub /Goldenbrush scrub
10/26/2008
B39
N33.62496 W117.94068
10126/2008
B40
N33.62484 W117.94102
CSS
Non - native grassland /ornamental
10/26/2008
B41
N33.62506 W117.94187
Nassella Grass, Mulefat
Ornamental
10/26/2008
642
N33.62592 W117.94182
CSS
10/26/2008
B43
N33.62594 W117.94196
Goldenbush
Non - native grassland /ornamental
10/26/2008
B44
N33.62644 W117.94253
Goldenbush
Southern coastal bluff scrub
10/26/2008
B45
N33.62544 W117.94183
CSS
Ornamental
10/26/2008
B47
N33.62599 W117.94279
Mesa
Non - native grassland
10/26/2008
B48
N33.62595 W117.94346
Encelia, Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
10/26/2008
B49
N33.62602 W117.94311
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
10/26/2008
B50
N33.62633 W117.94316.
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
10/26/2008
B51
N33.62633 W117.94314
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
10/26/2008
B52
N33.62677 W117.94320
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
10126/2008
B53
N33.62666 W117.94334
Encelia, Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
10/26/2008
B54
N33.62659 W117.94401
CSS
Non - native grassland
10/2612008
855
N33.62632 W117.94448
Encelia
Disturbed encelia scrub
10/26/2008
B58
N33.92625 W117.94426
Dove Weed
Non- native grassland
10/26/2008
B59
N33.62593 W117.94413
Encelia
Non- native grassland
10/26/2008
860
N33.62588 W117.94472
10/26/2008
B61
N33.62625 W117.94465
Encelia
Non - native grassland
10/26/2008
862
N33.62625 W117.94515
Encelia
Non - native grassland..
10/26/2008
B63
N33.62688 W117.94472
Pepper, Nassella Grass
Non- native grassland
10/2612008
B64
N33.62676 W117.94451
Pepper Grass
Non- native grassland
10/2612008
B65
N33.62702 W117.94447
Frankenia?
Non- native grassland
10/26/2008
B66
N33.62710 W117.94446
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
11/1/2008
B70
N33.63016 W117.93962
Non - native grassland
11/1/2008
B71
N33.63014 W117.93983
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
11/1/2008
872
N33.62989 W117.94034
Nassella Grass
Non- native grassland
11/1/2008
B73
N33.63094 W117.94001
Willow riparian forest
11/1/2008
B74
N33.63099 W117.94013
Top of Headwall
Willow riparian forest
11/1/2008
B75
N33.63116 W117.94001
Mulefat
Non - native grassland
11/1/2008
B76
N33.63139 W117.94010
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
11/112008
B77
N33.63135 W117.94003
Encelia
Non- native grassland
11/112008
B78
N33.63154 W117.94032
Goldenbush
Non- native grassland
11/1/2008
B79
N33.63155 W117.94045
Nassella, Deer Grass
Non - native grassland
11/1/2008
B80
N3163156 W117.94091
Coyote Brush
Nan - native grassland
1111/2008
B81
N33.63189 W117.94102
Coyote Brush
Disturbed /Developed
11/1/2008
682
N33.63123 W117.94090
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
11/1/2008
B83
N33.63078 W117.94091
Opuntia
Disturbed Encelia scrub
1111/2008
B84
N33.63075 W117.84127
Opuntia
Southern cactus scrub
11/1/2008
B85
N33.63128 W117.94143
Nassella Grass
Non - native grassland
11/1/2008
B86
N33.63152 W117.94169
Nassella Grass
Non- native grassland
11/1/2008
B87
N33.63198 W117.94170
11/1/2008
B88
N33.63285 W117.94226
Encelia
Ruderal
11/1/2008
B89
N33.63324 W117.94256
Goldenbush
Ruderal
11/1/2008
B90
N33.63328 W117.94194
Coyote Brush
Not on NBR properly (NMUSD)
11/1/2008
B91
N33.63418 W117.94225
Mulefat
Disturbed mulefat scrub
11/1/2008
B92
N33.63447 W117.94174
Woolly Marbles
Disturbed mulefal scrub
11/1/2008
B93
N33.63381 W117.94330
Mulefat
Non- native grassland /Ruderal
11/1/2008
B94
N33.63432 W117.94373
Mulefat
Disturbed mulefat scrub
11/1/2008
B95
N33.63385 W117.94400
Mulefat
Non - native grassland /Ruderal
11/1/2008
B96
N33.63359 W117.94403
Nassella Grass, Pipes
Non - native grassland /Ruderal
11/1/2008
B97
N33.63269 W117.94459
Rocks
Disturbed
11/112008
B98
N33.63238 W117.94669
Encelia
Non - native grassland
11/8/2008
B99
N33.63780 W117.94344
Mulefat, Goldenbush, Sallgrass
11/812008
8100
N33.63766 W117.94421
Opuntia, Nassella Grass, Encelia
Disturbed Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
B101
N33.63787 W117.94427
Encelia, Opuntia, Goldenbush
Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
8102
N33.63824 W117.94387
Mulefat, Encelia
Ornamental
11/8/2008
B103
N33.63789 W117.94369
Frankenia?
Non - native grassland /Ruderal
11/8/2008
6104
N33.63821 W117.94327
Mulefat,
Ornamental
11/8/2008
8105
N33.63875 W117.94408
Goldenbush, Nassella Grass, Encelia
Non- native grassland /Ruderal
11/8/2008
6106
N33.63885 W117.94429
Encelia, Goldenbush
Ornamental
11/8/2008
B107
N3163856 W117.94450
Goldenbush, Encelia
Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
B108
N33.63858 W117.94413
Encelia
Non- native grassland /Ruderal
11/8/2008
6109
N33.63833 W117.94454
Opuntia, Encelia, Goldenbush
Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
B110
N33.63797 W117.94434
Opuntia, Encelia, Goldenbush
Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
B111
N33.63759 W117.94453
Mulefat, Encelia,
Disturbed Mulefat scrub
11/8/2008
8112
N33.63743 W117.94426
Encelia, Mulefat
Disturbed Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
8113
N33.63710 W117.94434
Encelia, Goldenbush
Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
B114
N33.63752 W117.94537
Goldenbush, Encelia
Disturbed Sage Scrub
11/8/2008
8115
N33.63821 W117.94559
Encelia, Goldenbush
Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
8116
N33.63810 W117.94601
Encelia, Goldenbush, Flower
Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
8117
N33.63795 W117.94632
Buckwheat, Encelia.
Encelia scrub
11/8/2008
B118
N33.63736 W117.94558
Buckwheat, Encelia
)rnamental /Disturbed southern bluff scrub
11/8/2008
B119
N33.63736 W117.94547
Mulefat
)rnamental /Disturbed southern bluff scrub
11/8/2008
8120
N33.63740 W117.94535
Opuntia
)rnamental /Disturbed southern bluff scrub
11/8/2008
8121
N33.63720 W117.94520
Opuntia, Frankenia
)rnamental /Disturbed southern bluff scrub
11/8/2008
8123
N33.63693 W117.94445
Encelia
Encelia scrub
11/22/2008
B124
N33.63340 W117.94802
Bladderpod, Encelia, CSS
Encelia scrub
11/22/2008
B125
N33.63325 W117.94756
Encelia
Disturbed encelia scrub
11/22/2008
8126
N33.63274 W117.94739
Encelia, Opuntia, Dudleya
Disturbed encelia scrub
11/22/2008
B127
N33.63271 W177.94715
Dudleya, Opuntia
Disturbed encelia scrub
11/22/2008
8128
N3163279 W117.94698
Opuntia, Encelia
Disturbed encelia scrub
11/22/2008
B129
N33.63300 W117.94659
Encelia, 86R2
Disturbed
11/22/2008
8130
N33.63284 W117.94590
Encelia, Mulefat, Opuntia
I /disturbed encelia scrub /disturbed mulefat scrub
11/22/2008
8131
N33.63295 W117.94555
Encelia, Mulefat
I /disturbed encelia scrub /disturbed mulefat scrub
11/22/2008
B133
N33.63261 W117.94587
Encelia, Mulefat, Yellow Flower, 225
I /disturbed encelia scrub /disturbed mulefat scrub
11/22/2008
B134
N33.63336 W117.94632
Encelia, Mulefat, Opuntia, 222, 301B. 244
Difficult to identify (border of map)
11/22/2008
8135
N33.63413 W117.94561
Opuntia, Mulefat, Encelia, Goldenbush
Disturbed /developed
11/22/2008
B136
N33.63441 W117.94604
Opuntia, Mulefat, Encelia
Ruderal
11/22/2008
B137
N33.63427 W117.94546
Buildings, Pallettes, Pipes, Heliotrope, 49R
Disturbed /developed
11/22/2008
B138
N33.63380 W117.94465
Opuntia, Encelia
Disturbed southern cactus scrub
11/22/2008
B139
N33.63354 W117.94418
Deer Weed, Nassella Grass, 419
Disturbed /ruderal
11/22/2008
B140
N33.63321 W117.94319
Opuntia, Mulefat, Deer Weed, Willow
Difficult to identify (border of map)
11/22/2008
B141
N33.63303 W117.94332
Willows
Disturbed mulefat scrub
11/22/2008
B142
N33.63264 W117.94329
Encelia
Non- native grasslands
11/22/2008
8143
N33.63229 W117.94316
Sall Bush
Salt bush scrub.
11/22/2008
8144
N33.63218 W117.94363
Encelia, Mulefat
Disturbed Encelia scrub / mulefat scrub
11/22/2008
B145
N33.63240 W117.94377
Opuntia, Encelia, Goldenbush
Disturbed encelia scrub
11/30/2008
B146
N33.63151 W117.94066
1.3 new Opuntia, Deer Weed
11/30/2008
8147
N33.63137 W117.94111
Deer Weed, Goldenbush?
11/30/2008
8148
N33.63101 W117.94169
Opuntia, Deer Weed
11/30/2008
8149
N33.63094 W117.94216
Opuntia, Deer Weed, Goldenbush
11/30/2008
8150
N33.63156 W117.94228
Goldenbush
11/30/2008
B151
N33.63161 W117.94231
Cholla, Dove Weed
11/30/2008
B152
N33.63160 W117.94241
Encelia
11/30/2008
6153
N33.63125
W117.94274
11/30/2008
8154
N33.63110
W117.94299
11130/2008
6155
N33.63085
W 117.94307
11130/2008
6156
N33.63041
W117.94309
11/30/2008
8157
N33.63020
W117.94342
11/30/2008
B158
N33.62991
W117.94317
11/30/2008
8159
N33.62970
W117.94322
11/30/2008
8160
N33.62967
W117.94311
11/30/2008
B161
N33.62969
W117.94332
11/30/2008
8162
N33.62983
W117.94379
11/30/2008
8163
N33.63000
W117.94369
11/30/2008
8164
N33.63065
W117.94383
11/30/2008
8165
N33.63084
W117.94373
11130/2008
8166
N33.63111
W117.94358
Goldenbush
Goldenbush, Deer Weed, Dove Weed
Encelia, Buckwheat?
Encelia
Encelia
Encelia, Deer Weed, Opuntia
Encelia, Opuntia
Opuntia
Encelia
Opuntia, Encelia
Bladderpod, Encelia, Opuntia
Goldenbush, Encelia
Opuntia, Encelia
Encelia
Harris, Lillian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
In the City Clerk's inbox
Kim
Rieff, Kim
Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:10 AM
Brown, Leilani; Harris, Lillian
FW: NEWPORT BANNING RANCH DEIR
Banning Ranch DEIR 07- 18- 12.doc; Banning
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:09 AM
To: Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: NEWPORT BANNING RANCH DEIR
From: Alford, Patrick
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:09:18 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: NEWPORT BANNING RANCH DEIR
Auto forwarded by a Rule
2012n19 All I]*I6
Ranch DEIR Review_d4_26- 12.pdf
From: Kris Madison [ mailto :kmadison(a)ootimumom.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:02 AM
To: Gardner, Nancy; Henn, Michael; Rosansky, Steven; Hill, Rush; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith
Cc: Alford, Patrick
Subject: NEWPORT BANNING RANCH DEIR
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Please find attached documents for your review. Hard copies in the mail.
Respectfully,
Kris Madison, CCAM
Certified Community Association Manager
Optimum Professional Property Management, Inc. (ACMF)
Accredited Community Management Firm
17731 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 212
Phone: 71.4/508 -9070 *Fax: 714/665 -3000
Newport Crest HOA On -site Office:
201 Intrepid Street, Newport Beach, 92663
On -site Office Phone: 949/631 -0925
On -site Office Fax: 949/631 -5433
www. newportcrest.ore
'Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt, US diplomat & reformer (1884 -1962)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E -Uaii is intended only for!he use of the individual or er.5ty to v,4mch if is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, contidenlial and exempt from disclosure mider appCcable law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not distribute if. Please notify
the sender by E -MEd a the adcress shown and delete the origins: message. Thank you.
APlease consider the environment. Print and Recycle this email only if absolutely necessary. Thank you.
NEWPOR(TCREST
NhWiloRT BEACH
July 18, 2012
Honorable Mayor Nancy Gardner and Members of the Newport Beach City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
An environmental consulting firm, Synectecology Inc., was engaged by a group of Newport Crest
residents to conduct a review of the Newport Banning Ranch draft environmental impact report (DEIR)
with a focus on air quality and noise (attached). The Newport Crest Homeowners Board of Directors
requests that the City review this report. Mr. Todd Brody is the firm's principal, and his report reveals
major discrepancies and defects in the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR. If you haven't read Mr. Brody's
report, we would appreciate it if you would do so.
The Newport Crest Homeowners Board of Directors is genuinely concerned about the number of issues
raised in this report. For example, the lack of input files and data used for air quality and noise analyses
as well as use of an out -of -date emission program to model air quality leading to an understatement of
the adverse impacts effecting the Newport Crest community. We believe it is your legal obligation to
review and analyze these issues and provide a fact -based explanation and resolution to the Newport
Crest Homeowner's Association in a timely, honest and thorough manner.
Additionally, based on Mr. Todd's report the Newport Crest Homeowners Association Board of Directors
requests that a revised DEIR be prepared and recirculated for public review.
Please include this letter and the attachment in the public record for the Newport Banning Ranch project.
We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Newport Crest Homeowners Association
Board of Directors
Mark Gonzalez, President
Ginny Lombardi, Vice President
Sharon Boles, Secretary
Mike Rosenthal, Treasurer
Attachment
cc: Patrick Alford, City Planner
City of Newport Beach
H O M E O W N E R S A S S O C I A T I O N
210 Intrepid Street - Newport Beach, CA 92663 ^ 949.631.0925 • Fax 949.631.5433
www.N'ewportCrest.org
ynec col
Environmental Consulting Services
April 26, 2012
Due Diligence Review of the Banning Ranch Project DEIR
To Whom It May Concern:
Recognizing that the average citizen has neither the background nor technical expertise to
adequately review the myriad of disciplines included in an Environmental Impact Report,
Dorothy Kraus hired Synectecology to provide due diligence review of the noted project
with emphasis on air quality and noise.
By way of introduction, Synectecology has been providing environmental consulting
services since 1994. It's Principal, Todd Brody, has been working in the Environmental
Consulting field since 1978 and Mr. Brody has prepared well over 600 environmental
documents to date. Mr. Brody prepared air quality and /or noise analyses for several of
these projects in the City of Newport Beach including, Dredging and Habitat Restoration
of the Newport Back Bay, Improvements to Buck Gulley, The Realignment of Irvine
Avenue, Mariner's Mile, Bay Island Sand Retention Wall and Bridge Refurbishment,
Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz, St. Marks Presbyterian Church, Olsen Homes Conversion
from Industrial to Multi - Family Residential, and the Aerie Residential Project. Other
relevant proximate projects include the restoration and development of the Bolsa Chica
Wetlands area, improvements to the UCI Campus, and the proposed stadium at
University High School. I've included my resume with this submittal.
With respect to air quality, we find that in many cases the air quality analysis extends
construction well beyond the dates included in the project description thereby avoiding
the indication of the potential impacts that are likely to ensue. We also find that the air
quality analysis uses trip rates that differ from those provided in the Traffic Appendix
thereby underestimating the number of daily trips and those emissions related to this
travel.
With respect to the air quality modeling, we find that the Applicant bases the human
health risk assessment and greenhouse gas emissions for the oilfield operations on the
outdated URBEMIS model, but bases the construction and operation of the project on the
current CalEEMod model. As we show through comment, the models use different
parameters and defaults and predict different results that are not compatible.
Furthermore, the health risk analysis overestimates the area for consolidated oil
operations thereby underestimating the emissions concentrations and health risks
associated with these operations. This is especially disturbing because human health risk
should receive as high a priority as criteria pollutants, which may or may not manifest
themselves miles downwind.
We also find that the Applicant does not adhere to the SCAQMD guidance for Localized
Significance Threshold for construction emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions for that
matter) leading to a claim of no significant impact where in fact using the correct
methodology, one does exist. The analysis is also deficient in that it does not address the
Localized Significance Thresholds for the operation of the consolidated oilfields with
respect to the proximate existing and proposed land uses.
Finally, we find that much of the analysis is undocumented and because no input files are
provided and only limited information was provided as to the construction and operation
parameters used in the model, the analysis is not replicable by an independent third party
and these data will need to be provided prior to final review.
With respect to noise, again we find that only limited information is provided and much
of the documentation to back the analysis is missing. For example, the Applicant took
15- minute noise reading and extrapolated them out to 24 hours with describing how the
methodology was performed. Additionally, the vehicle mix used in the analysis does not
match that of Orange County in general, nor does it follow Caltrans estimates, where
applicable, and no rationale is provided as to how it was ascertained.
We also find that the noise associated with haul trucks may be underestimated due to an
inconsistency in the document. Whereas the noise analysis estimates that no more than
20 trucks would visit the site on a daily basis, the traffic analysis puts this number as high
as 200 trucks a day.
We also find that the mitigation does not go far enough. The Applicant is to provide the
City of Costa Mesa with money for roadway improvements that the residents cannot be
assured of However, the mitigation makes no offer for sound insulation improvements
that would go directly to the sensitive homeowners.
Furthermore, "temporary' construction carried out during regular business hours requires
that residents be provided with sound walls when equipment comes to within 300 feet of
the residence. But the text notes that consolidated oilfield operations (which use similar
equipment and make similar noise levels except that they can go on 24 -hours per day
everyday for a week during drilling) could be within 250 feet of existing and 200 feet of
future residents, and requires no sound walls. CEQA notes that the mitigation is to be
commensurate with the impact and this on -going operational impact would obviously
outweigh the temporary impacts of on -site construction.
We feel that the Applicant's incorporation of the included comments will result in a
better, more defensible document. If you have any questions or need further information,
don't hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Svnectecoloav
Todd Brody,
Principal
1 • - MIN • • -1- �(' ••• •-••
ynec Colo
Environmental Consulting Services
Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Banning
Ranch Project
Prepared by:
Synectecology
10232 Overhill Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Prepared For:
Dorothy Kraus
10 wild Goose Court
Newport Beach, CA 92663
April 26, 2012
10232 Overhill Dr., Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 669 -9799
Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Reports Prepared for the Banning
Ranch Project DEIR, September 9, 2011
SECTION 4.10, AIR QUALITY
General Comment: The Health Risk analysis bases the projected pollutant
concentrations on a 20 -acre site for the consolidated oilfield operations. However, Page
3 -1 of the Project Description notes that the oilfield operations will be consolidated into a
16.5 -acre area. Because emissions concentrations are based on a volume of emissions
per unit area, decreasing the area to the 16.5 -acre size noted in the Project description
will raise the projected pollutant concentrations. Use of a 20 -acre site decreases the
projected concentrations by 21% (i.e., (20 acres / 16.5 acres — I x 100 %)). Therefore,
analysis not only underestimates the health risks at the proximate receptors, but also
underestimates the extent of the risk on the surrounding population.
General Comment: The project data for the health risk assessment and construction -
related greenhouse gas emissions was generated using the outdated URBEMIS model
while the analysis for criteria pollutants and operational greenhouse gas emissions was
based on the CaIEEMod model. These models use different equipment assumptions;
daily area graded, etc. and the results are not compatible. In fact, the Applicant
responded to a comment by Allen Forster on the use of the models and specifically noted:
"BonTerra Consulting's testing, confirmed through many contacts with SCAQMD,
showed that CalEEMod predicts higher emission rates than URBEMIS for development
projects in Orange County. Because CaIEEMod is more conservative than URBEMIS,
CalEEMod was used on the Newport Banning Ranch Project. Based on BonTerra
Consulting's testing of the model and continuing discussions with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) about CalEEMod characteristics, the City is
confident that there are no flaws in the model that would result in under - prediction of air
quality impacts to sensitive receptors."
So because the CalEEMod model is more conservative and predicts higher emissions,
and does not result in "under- prediction," we must assume that the health risk analysis is
flawed in using the URBEMIS model and that those emissions are in all likelihood
"under- predicted." This then invalidates the health risk analysis, and for consistency and
continuity, and so that the Decision Makers can make an informed decision as to the true
potential of the health risk, it must be redone using the CaIEEMod model.
General Comment: While the text notes that the project construction follows the
schedule provided in the Project Description, the results of the model runs included in
Appendix G show that this isn't so. In fact. the construction schedule was extended by
several years from the provided schedule just to reduce the daily emissions impacts.
For example, Table 3 -3 of the Project Description shows that the Phase 1 construction of
the models and homes would occur between 2/2016 and 9/2016, for a duration of just 7
months.
However, when one reviews the CalEEMod model results included in Appendix G, one
finds that the construction of the models and homes runs from 2015 through 2017. The
model heading pages included in Appendix G illustrating this point are included below:
Page 18 of 55, 3.5 Building Construction Phase 1 — 2015,
Page 20 of 55, 3.5 Building Construction Phase 1 — 2016, and
Page 22 of 55, 3.5 Building Construction Phase 1 — 2017,
So by artificially extending the construction schedule out from 7 months to 3 years, the
Applicant has reduced the daily emissions by approximately 85 percent (i.e., 1 — (7 mo /
48 mo) x 100 %).
Similarly, for Phase 3, the Project Description notes that the construction of the models
and homes would occur between 2/2020 and 9/2020, again for a duration of just 7
months. However, in this case the analysis extends the actual construction out over 5
years.
Once again, when one reviews the CalEEMod model results included in Appendix G, one
finds that the Phase 3 construction of the models and homes runs from 2019 through
2023. The model heading pages included in Appendix G illustrating this point are
included below:
Page 46 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2019,
Page 48 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2020,
Page 50 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2021,
Page 52 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2022, and
Page 54 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2023,
In this case artificially extending the construction schedule out from 7 months to 5 years
has the effect of reducing the daily emissions by 88 percent (i.e., I — (7 mo / 60 mo) x
100 %) grossly under - predicting the daily impacts.
So it would appear that instead of following the actual construction schedule, the analysis
simply allocates the construction over the both the construction and occupancy period
thereby artificially reducing the average daily emissions and leading to conclusions of no
significant impacts where impacts will in fact occur. The analysis must be redone using
the construction schedule projected in the Project Description and the impacts reassessed.
General Comment: The analysis does not include the dates /durations used in the
construction phasing nor does it provide the input files used in the CalEEMod model.
This makes replication of the results impossible and these data must be submitted for
independent verification.
General Comment: While the Applicant fails to include the data used in the number of
haul trips on a daily basis, review of the model output would suggest that no more than I
or 2 trips per day are included. However, Page 142 of Appendix F, Transportation and
Circulation. states that "Construction truck traffic will be limited to 16 trucks per hour
between June I and September I, and 25 trucks per hour at all other times of the year.°
Based on an 8 -hour workday as is used in the Air Quality Analysis, this would then infer
that 128 to 200 trucks per day could be used just in the remediation effort. The Applicant
has failed to address the impact of the air quality emissions and health risk from diesel
particulates associated with these 200 trucks per day that would visit the site, as well as
the augmented level of construction equipment necessary to fill them.
General Comment: The project description indicates the use of subterranean parking.
The air quality analysis is remiss in not considering the potential for elevated CO
emissions within the proposed parking structures.
Page 4.10 -7, 1" & 3rd Paragraphs: The analysis notes the use of the outdated
URBEMIS model for calculation of dust and oilfield operational emissions to be used in
the analysis of toxic air contaminants. However, Page 4.10 -5, 3`d paragraph notes the use
of the CalEEMod model for use in projecting criteria pollutants for construction and
project- related operational emissions. Because the two models predict different
particulate levels, the use of the two models leads to an inconsistency in the analysis.
The analysis should be redone using the CaIEEMod model in place of the dated
URBEMIS model and the impacts reassessed.
Page 4.10 -14, Table 4.10 -5: There is really no explanation as to how the values
provided in the table were prepared and the values would appear to be in error.
For example 1,3- butadiene shows 0.002453 pounds per hour and 0.5633 pounds per year.
This then infers that this toxic air contaminant is emitted for 229.6 hours per year (i.e.,
0.5633 lb /yr / 0.002453 lb/hr = 229.6 hr /yr).
But acetaldehyde shows 0.094807 pounds per hour and 0.2468 pounds per year. This
then infers that this toxic air contaminant is emitted forjust 2.6 hours per year (i.e.,
0.2468 Ib /yr / 0.094807 lb /hr = 2.6 hr /yr).
Finally, acrolein (2- propenal) shows 0.000001 pound per hour and 0.138261 pounds per
year. This then infers that this toxic air contaminant is emitted for 138,251 hours per year
(i.e., 0.138261 lb /yr / 0.000001 lb/hr = 138,261 hr /yr). It should be noted that there are
only 8,760 hours in a year (i.e., 24 hours /day x 365 days = 8,760 hr /yr).
7
Because these types of emissions are primarily associated with oilfield operations, it is
logical that these pollutant species, as well as most of the other emissions in the table,
would be based on a similar timeframe for release. Please explain these apparent
discrepancies and correct the analysis as necessary.
Page 4.10 -18, Table 4.10 -6: The table notes an industrial threshold of 10;000 Mtons per
year of Me. However, the project is not industrial in nature but residential and
commercial. The SCAQMD has a suggested threshold of just 3,000 Mtons per year of
CO2e for residential and commercial land uses, and this threshold should be used in the
analysis. Note that this threshold is half the 6,000 Mtons per year of CO2e used in the
analysis of impacts. Please revise the analysis to use the appropriate threshold criterion.
Page 4.10 -19, 5`h Paragraph: The air quality analysis references Table 3 -5 of Section 3
for the phasing plan. First, contrary to the text, there is no Table 3 -5 (it is Table 3 -3) in
Section 3, so please correct the reference.
Next, again, contrary to the text, the schedule used in the air quality analysis does not
match that included in Table 3 -3. Because both equipment and vehicle emissions vary
with the year, the air quality analysis is inherently incorrect by using the wrong dates.
Please revise the EIR to use a consistent set of dates and time frames for all disciplines.
Page 4.10 -20, 1" Paragraph: The analysis notes that it uses the URBEMIS model. That
model is now outdated and the analysis should be done using the CaIEEMod model.
Revise the analysis accordingly.
Page 4.10 -22, 2 "d Paragraph: There is no basis for the 7 -acre estimate nor does the
Applicant supply justification for using this size area.
The actual area to be disturbed is to be based on the equipment used and the SCAQMD
provides guidance as to how the acreage is to be allocated. The Applicant ignores this
guidance and this then leads to an underestimate of the emissions` concentrations and
their impacts.
Review of the CalEEMod model results show that the analysis allocates two excavators,
one grader, one dozer, one scraper, and two track/loader/backhoes to the grading effort.
The SCAQMD has provided a Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized
Significance Thresholds and provides the following table. Furthermore, the SCAQMD
specifically notes that this is "The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day"
(emphasis added).
Equipment T e
Acres /81ir -da
Crawler Tractors
0.5
Graders
0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers
0.5
Scrapers
1
Other pieces of equipment (e.g., excavators, tr'ack/loader/backhoes) work in conjunction
with those pieces that are more mobile so add little to the area of disturbance (e.g., an
excavator sits in -place digging a hole and a loader moves dirt from a pile to a tnrck).
So based on the equipment listing provided in the CalEEMod model results, the daily
area disturbed is not 7 acres as portrayed, nor even 5 acres as used in the analysis, but
only 2 acres (i.e., 1 grader x 0.5 acre + 1 dozer x 0.5 acre + 1 scraper x 1 acre = 2 acres).
The SCAQMD n7akes it clear that this is the vvay in which the analysis is to be condacted
and even provides the following example in the Fact Sheet:
"Example I
A 15 -acre development proposes to use one grader, one scraper, and one tractor for eight
hours each during Site Preparation activities (the peak day in this case). As the maximum
daily disturbed acreage for this equipment is 2 acres (0.5 + 1 + 0.5 = 2), the project
proponent should compare the CalEEMod reported emissions against the 2 -acre LST
lookup tables." Therefore, the analysis must be revised to comply with the prescribed
SCAQMD methodology.
Using the prescribed SCAQMD methodology, Table 4.10 -9 clearly shows that NOx,
PMIO, and PM2.5 would all be significant based on a 2- rather than 5 -acre site as was used
in the analysis. This then represents a previously undisclosed significant impact and no
mitigation has been proposed to reduce its effects at receptor locations.
Furthermore, even if the Applicant can demonstrate that the use of Offroad2011 model,
would show that Tier 3 equipment can reduce NOx to less than the value included in the
2 -acre LST lookup table (as is provided in the Topical Response to Comments), use of
Tier 3 equipment does not control particulate matter associated with the exhaust, nor does
it reduce the dust raised during construction activities and the impact remains significant
and previously undisclosed.
Furthermore, this points to another flaw in the analysis. For some undisclosed reason, the
Applicant assumes that 7 acres are graded on a daily basis, but according to the
SCAQMD, only provides enough equipment to grade 2 acres per day. Therefore, to meet
the desired timeframe, the listing of equipment, and their attendant emissions, must be
augmented by a factor of 3.5 times (i.e., 7 acres / 2 acres = 3.5), or the schedule will drag
on 3.5 times longer than has been portrayed in the Project Description. Either way, the
analysis needs to be revised accordingly.
Page 4.10 -22, Table 4.10 -9: In accordance with the SCAQMD data, the values
presented for CO for l- and 2 -acre sites are incorrect and should be 647 and 962 pounds
per day, respectively. While this does not change the outcome of the analysis, it shows
an inattention to detail. Please revise the table accordingly.
Page 4.10 -22, Table 4.10 -9: The table shows maximum daily on -site emission of just 7
and 4 pounds for PMio and PM >.5, respectively and notes that these values are below the
IN
screening threshold. However, Table 4.10 -7 clearly shows PMio and PM2.5 level of up to
48 and 13 pounds per day, respectively. These values are well above the 7 and 4 pounds
quoted for PM10 and PM�.5, respectively, as well as the presented threshold values of 14
and 9 pounds per day, respectively. Because the text doesn't describe which of the
emissions in Table 4.10 -7 are produced on -site and should be counted toward the
localized thresholds, the reader cannot make an informed decision as to the actual
significance, or even the validity of the values presented in Table 4.10 -9. In the interest
of full disclosure, the text must clearly show which of these emissions are being
considered. The Decision Makers will not review the technical appendix nor be expected
to understand it.
Page 4.10 -23, 2 "d Paragraph: The dates noted of analysis based on projected occupancy
do not agree with those presented in Table 3 -3 of the Project Description and because
emissions are based on the year analyzed, the analysis is in error. Revise the analysis to
address the dates in the Project Description.
Page 4.10 -25, Table 4.10 -13: The table shows 17.8 pounds per day for PM10 and 3.5
pounds per day for PM2.s. In accordance with the text provided in the Health Risk
Assessment included in Appendix G, these emissions are all produced on -site. From the
Appendix:
"It was assumed in this inventory that operational emissions occur 8 hours per day, with
the exception of oil rigs that operate 24 hours per day. All on -road vehicles, mainly
vacuum trucks, cement trucks, and crew trucks /vans were assumed to travel a maximum
of five (5) miles per on -site trip on unpaved roads.`
Also,
"The emission sources included in the inventory were natural gas fuel combustion for
building heat and hearth fuel (winter only), landscaping equipment fuel combustion,
consumer products and architectural coating. It was assumed that the portion of the trips
generated by the development that occurs on the Proposed Project site is 1 mile round trip
for residential trips and 0.2 miles round trip for commercial trips. The remaining length
of trips generated by residential and commercial buildings is assumed to occur off -site
and was therefore not included in the HHRA."
As noted, these are operational emissions that are all produced on -site. Many of the
oilfield operations would be consolidated into two common areas increasing the
emissions concentration in those and their surrounding areas.
Because these are localized emissions generated on -site, they are subject to the
SCAQMD Localized Threshold Limitations for project operations and the analysis is
deficit for not examining the impact of these localized emissions on both the proposed
sensitive land uses, as well as proximate off -site receptors.
10
Furthermore, in this case because the emissions are on -going operational, rather than
construction- oriented, the significance thresholds for PMro and PM,.5 are reduced from
10.4 µg /m3 to just 2.5 µg /m 3. In this case a 5 -acre site, as was erroneously used
elsewhere in the analysis, would be significant for PMro if just 4 pounds were produced
on a daily basis. PMZ s would be significant if just 2 pounds were produced on a daily
basis. Again, Table 4.10 -13 shows that on -site PMro and PM,.5 values are 17.8 and 3.5
pounds per day, respectively. These values are well above the SCAQMD Localized
Threshold Limitations for project. This then represents a previously undisclosed impact
that has not been addressed nor mitigated.
While it is conceded that based on the size of the site, some of these on -site emissions
would not contribute substantially toward elevated concentrations in any one area, it is up
to the analysis to aggregate the on -site oilfield emissions and any proposed sources as
appropriate, and address the localized emissions at all existing and proposed sensitive
receptor sites to show otherwise. This analysis has not been performed.
Page 4.10 -27, 2 "d Paragraph: While the SCAQMD may have different thresholds for
construction and operation, based on the simultaneous timing and proximity of phased
construction with the ongoing operational development, the combined impact of
construction and operation would represent a significant cumulative impact that must be
disclosed. Please revise the analysis as necessary.
Page 4.10 -28, 2nd Bullet: The text notes that the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District methodology would only be applicable if "The intersection, which
includes a mix of vehicle types, is not anticipated to be substantially different from the
County average." In this case the "County" represents Sacramento County and not
Orange County. To use the Sacramento County screening methodology, the Applicant
must therefore demonstrate that the vehicle mix in Orange County is similar to that in
Sacramento County. This has not been done and therefore, the Applicant is remiss in
using this methodology without validation.
In actuality, the Applicant should be modeling these intersections using the CALINE4
Model as is suggested by the SCAQMD, and not SMAQMD screening methodology for
intersection analysis.
Page 4.10 -30, 2 "d Paragraph: The analysis uses a distance of 100 meters from the fence
line for sensitive receptors. SCAQMD methodology requires that the proximate
receptors be modeled at a distance of 25 meters. Revise the analysis accordingly.
Page 4.10 -32, 3rd Paragraph: The analysis fails to consider any odor impacts associated
with the remediation of the site and disposal of contaminated soils. To simply say these
odors are "not anticipated" is not adequate assurance. Please address this potential
impact.
APPENDIX G
11
�:iV �1
Page 2 -7, 4`h Paragraph: The analysis makes use of data from the San Diego area when
more proximate data is available. The analysis should use the most representative data
proximate to the project area.
Page 5 -1, 6`h Paragraph: The Tier 1 analysis is based on a receptor distance of 100
meters. However, Figure 4 -3 would appear to include proposed receptors located more
proximate than this distance. The SCAQMD reconunends a minimum distance of just 25
meters when the actual distance to proximate receptors is unknown or closer than this
distance. Obviously, a closer receptor would experience a higher pollutant concentration
so Tier 1 methodology would not apply to any receptor closer than 100 meters. Please
revise the analysis accordingly.
ATTACHMENT A, TAC EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
General Comment: The analysis would appear to include those emissions from the
equipment and vehicles used in the oilfield operations as well as those produced by the
proposed on -site uses. The analysis also notes that it includes air toxics included in the
fugitive dust and hydrocarbon emissions associated with the oilfield operations.
However, we find no calculations that present how the emissions generated from this
fugitive dust and release additional hydrocarbon emissions were converted into the
various toxic pollutant species. Please supply the missing calculations.
Page 5 -30, Table: The calculation used for both PMio and PM2.5 from on -site dust are in
error and underestimate these emissions. The spreadsheet calculates PM2.5 using a value
of 10% of the PMi() (i.e., 3.511 for PM10 and 0.351 for PM2.5) for dust whereas the
CalEEMod models put this value at approximately 54% of the PM10 associated with
construction.
Furthermore, Page 18 of 30, CALIFORNIA EMISSION INVENTORY AND
REPORTING SYSTEM (CEIDARS), on which the analysis is based, puts these PM2.5
emissions at 21.2% of the PMio value.
Additionally, Page 17 of 30 puts PM2.5 at 16.9% of PM1o. (i.e., 0.00013774 / 0.00081571
x 100 %).
However, the Applicant chose to use the least conservative of all the values included in
the text of 10% (i.e., 0.070229 / 0.702286 x 100 %) as shown on Page 20 of 30. Still,
even the values predicted by this method for both PM10 and PM2.5 are in error and are too
low.
The amount of dust kicked up is a function of the silt content on the road. The analysis
assumes, without providing any reason or justification, a silt content of just 2 %.
However, AP -42, from where the calculations are derived, does provide guidance and
suggests a mean value of 8.5% for silt at construction sites. Use of the 8.5% value would
12
directly raise both the PMIO and PM,.5 emissions by 425% (i.e., 8.5% / 2% x 100 %).
Please revise the analysis accordingly.
Page 1 of 22, Newport Banning Ranch Proposed Project Residential and
Commercial Development, Criteria, Greenhouse Gas, and Toxic Air Emissions: The
table calculates greenhouse gases using the outdated URBEMIS Model. The CaIEEMod
model that replaced the URBEMIS model includes many greenhouse gas sources (e.g.,
energy use, water conveyance, vegetation COZ sequestering) that are not addressed in the
URBEMIS model. The analysis must be redone using the CalEEMod model as was used
for the criteria pollutants.
Page 1 of 22, Newport Banning Ranch Proposed Project Residential and
Commercial Development, Criteria, Greenhouse Gas, and Toxic Air Emissions: The
emissions projected in the table and used in the Health Risk and Greenhouse Gas analysis
differ from those included in the criteria pollutant analysis and the Decision Makers have
no way of knowing which is more accurate.
We have prepared a table showing the emissions used in the two analyses. Note that
contrary to what has been stated by the Applicant that the CalEEMod Model is more
conservative than the URBEMIS model, the URBEMIS model actually predicts higher
CO and particulate levels than the CalEEMod model.
Furthermore, based on the URBEMIS model, the project would also be significant for
PMIp (168.1 pounds per day reported with URBEMIS and 125 pounds per day reported
from CalEEMod). Of course these differences could also be that the health risk
assessment is not using the same set of assumptions as the analysis of the criteria
pollutants, and again, the results are not comparable.
The document needs to be revised so that all modeling is done using the same model,
where applicable, so that the analysis is internally consistent.
URBEMIS VS CALEEMOD Model Results Project Opera ons
Criteria
Pollutants
CO
I VOC I
NOx I
sox I
PMIO
PM2.5
(Ibs /day)
I (Ibs /day)
I (Ibs /day) I
(Ibs /day) I
(Ibs /day)
(Ibs /day)
URBEMIS Values Used in Health Risk and Greenhouse Gas Analyses
Residential and
Commercial
34.63
76.21
26.32
- --
0.74
0.73
Vehicles
676.76
67.43
78.94
1.00
167.33
32.38
Total
711.4
143.6
105.3
1.0
168.1
33.1
SCAQMD
Threshold
550
55
55
150
150
55
Exceeds
Threshold?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
CaIEEMOd Year 2023 Values Presented in the DEIR Analysis
Area Sources
1 115
48
1
<0.5
2
12
Energy Sources
15
1
11
<0.5
1
1 1
13
Vehicles
463
146
97
1
121
6
Total
583
195
110
1
125
9
SCAQMD
550
55
55
150
150
55
Threshold
Exceeds
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Threshold?
Difference
<128.4>
51.4
4.7
0
<43.1>
<24.1>
(CaIEEMod —
URBEMIS)
Page 14 of 22, URBEMIS Model Input: The text notes that the analysis is based on
12,096 average daily trips (ADT). The analysis specifically states that the project would
generate 14,447 daily trips, but the value is reduced to 12,096 ADT to account for the
"internal capture."
However, Page 25, Table 2 of the Traffic Appendix F shows that the project would
generate 16,115 ADT and with internal capture and pass -by trips, the value is reduced to
14,989 ADT. Thus, based on the traffic analysis, the air quality analysis is
underestimating mobile source emissions by approximately 20 percent and the analysis is
in error. The EIR needs to be revised so that all disciplines are based on the same set of
assumptions.
Page I of 5, SCREEN3: The analysis bases the projected concentrations on a 20 -acre
site. However, Page 3 -1 of the Project Description notes that the oilfield operations will
be consolidated into a 16.5 -acre area. Because emissions concentrations are based on a
volume of emissions per unit area, decreasing the area from 20 acres to the 16.5 -acre size
noted in the Project description will raise the projected pollutant concentrations. Use of a
20 -acre site decreases the projected concentrations by 21% (i.e., (20 acres / 16.5 acres — 1
x 100 %)) over those of a 16.5 -acre site. The analysis then not only underestimates the
health risks at the proximate receptors, but also underestimates the extent of the risk on
the surrounding population.
Page 1 of 5, SCREEN3: The analysis places the closest receptor at a distance of 500
meters (1,640 feet) and takes the analysis out to 2,000 meters (6,560 feet) from the
oilfield activity. Receptors would be located considerably closer than the reported 500 -
meter minimum distance and the concentrations, and cancer burden, will be far greater
than presented in the analysis at the proximate receptors. In accordance with SCAQMD
methodology, the closest receptors are top be located at a distance of 25 meters (82 feet)
and the analysis needs to be revised to address this minimum distance, or at least the
actual distances to existing and proposed receptor locations.
Page 14 of 22, URBEMIS Model Input: The Applicant has grossly underestimated the
area of construction leading to erroneous equipment use and emissions values. The
analysis uses the following values and therefore assumes that 118.5 acres of the site are
disturbed.
14
Use
Assigned Acreage
Condo /Townhouse High -rise
21.0
Tonwhomes /Condos
19.5
Single - family
63.0
Hotel
1 l
City Park
25
Strip Mall
No acreage allocated
Total
118.5
However, Table 3 -3 on Page 3 -39 of the Project Description clearly shows that 154.3
acres are dedicated to improvements. Furthermore, the table shows 246.8 acres
associated with the oilfield, much of which will need remediation. As such, the analysis
of construction emissions for grading clearly underestimates the brunt of the impact and
needs to be revised to fit the Project Description.
Page 16 of 22, URBEMIS Model Settings: While Page 14 of 22, URBEMIS Model
Input noted that the analysis is based on 12,096 ADT, (reduced from 14,447 daily trips),
the analysis actually uses a value of 13,323 ADT as shown on this page. Again, this
demonstrates an inattention to detail.
CalEEMod Modeling Results (1" Set)
General Comment: The Applicant has failed to include the "input tiles" for all
CaLEEMod model tuns and the CalEEMod model results do not report most of the input
parameters (e.g., volume of soil hauled on a daily basis) used in the analysis. This then
makes independent verification of the model result impossible to duplicate. The input
file must be included for review and consistency with the project description prior to
finalization of the document.
Page 7 of 55, Mitigation Measures for Construction: Again, the analysis fails to
quantify those measures used in the mitigation (i.e., assumed control efficiency) and
these results are not reported by the model. The Applicant must clearly list the assumed
mitigation measures and their control efficiency so that they may be verified.
The analysis requires the use of Tier 3 (and where feasible, Tier 4) equipment and to
implement the mitigation the CalEEMod analysis specifies "Use cleaner engines for
construction equipment" and "Use DPF (diesel particulate filters) for construction
equipment." The analysis then fails to quantify the assumed reduction for the "cleaner
engines" and the model output does not report these values for independent verification.
Furthermore, Tier 3 engines control the NOx and ROG associated with heavy equipment,
but not the diesel particulates. Use of the DPF mitigation without specifically calling out
the requirement for DPF as a mitigation measure in the document underestimates the
impacts of the diesel particulate matter (DPM). We've reproduced the SCAQMD table
showing the emissions associated with the various Tiers below. Again note that Tier 3
emissions require similar levels of DPM as Tier 2. Because the mitigation did not specify
15
the use of diesel particulate filters, no credit may be taken for their use, though the
analysis apparently has done this thereby underestimating these emissions and the impact.
TABLE 1T- OFF -ROAD ENGINE EMISSION RATES & COMPARISON OF UNCONTROLLED
TO TIERED RATES AND TIERED TO TIERED RATES
TABLE 11 -B
TIER 1,2,3, AND 4 OFF -ROAD ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS
Engine
Tier 1 ( /bh -hr)
Tier 2 (a bh -hr)
Tier 3 (g/bhp -hr)
Tier 4 ( hp-hr)
Size
NOx
ROG
PM
NOx
ROG
PM
NOx
ROG
PM
NOx
NOx
ROG
PM
h)
I
(interim)
(final)
75 -99
6.9
5.32
0.28
0.3
3.325
0.175
0.3
2.5
0.3
0.14
0.015
t00-
6.9
4.655
0.245
0.22
2.85
0.15
0.22
2.5
0.3
0.14
0.015
174
175-
6.9
1
0.4
4.655
0.245
0.22
2.85
0.15
0.22
2.5
0.3
0.14
0.015
299
300-
6.9
1
0.4
4.56
0.24
0.22
2.85
0.15
0.22
2.5
0.3
0.14
0.015
600
CalEEMod Modeling Results (2nd Set)
Page 2 of 11: The Applicant has unrealistically augmented the construction schedule
thereby avoiding the prediction significant impacts. This phase includes the construction
of just 228 dwelling units. However, the analysis pushes the painting of these structures
out to 545 working days (i.e., ArchCoatl 8/15/2015- 9/15/2017; 545 wd). This is
unrealistic (0.4 dwelling unit painted on a daily basis) and was obviously done to reduce
the daily impact of the VOCs associated with painting the structures that is typically
found to present a significant impact for a project of this magnitude.
The Applicant is aware that the CalEEMod default for painting of a project of this size is
approximately 35 days. Therefore, by artificially extending the schedule out to 545 days
reduces the daily emissions by 94% (i.e., I - 35 days / 545 days x 100 %). Page 6 of 1 I of
this model results shows architectural coatings produce 5.3 pounds per day during
construction. If the CaIEEMod default value of 35 days is used in the analysis, as should
have been done, these emissions are augmented to 82.5 pounds per day (i.e., 5.3 lb/day x
545 days / 35 days = 82.5 pounds per day). It should be pointed out that the daily
threshold for this pollutant is 75 pounds per day as shown in the table on Page 4.10 -21 of
the air quality analysis and this represents another previously undisclosed significant
impact of the project for which no mitigation has been proposed. Similarly, this same
artificial augmentation was performed with the other phases of construction leading to
erroneously low daily emissions and all need to be corrected.
CalEEMod Modeling Results Buildout 060911
Page 5 of 52, Mitigation Measures: The analysis notes that the Applicant will water
exposed surfaces but fails to quantify the efficiency of the mitigation for independent
verification and the model does not output this parameter. All assumptions (e.g., days
16
spent in each type of construction activity such as grading, building constriction,
painting, etc. must clearly be noted so that the analysis may be replicated by an
independent third party.
CalEEMod Modeling Results Phase 2 Operations
Page 2 of 9: The text notes that the analysis fails to include the ongoing release of ROG
emissions associated with the maintenance of paints and coatings thereby under -
predicting operational ROG emissions. Inclusion of these emissions could increase the
50.71 pounds per day for ROG, presented on Page 3 of 9, above the 55 pound per day
threshold presenting a significant impact. These emissions must be included in the
inventory to determine the significance of the impact. Revise the analysis accordingly.
CaIEEMod Modeling Results Buildout 062411
Page 5 of 10: The analysis estimates that the project generates 32,228.6 vehicle trips per
day. However, Page 25, Table 2 of the Traffic Appendix F shows that the project would
generate 16,115 ADT and with internal capture and pass -by trips, the value is reduced to
14,989 ADT. We recognize that the Applicant has "chopped up" these trips to determine
both on -and off -site trips in the emission calculations. However, the Applicant has
provided no guidance as to how these trips were allocated making the analysis
irreproducible. Please supply the missing conversion data for all model runs.
Page 8 of 10: The Applicant specifies the use of low VOC paints and coatings. VOC
content in paints and coatings is regulated by the SCAQMD. If the Applicant has used
the model default values, then these are not `low VOC" coatings as indicated, butjust
coatings that comply with the SCAQMD regulations and should not be called "low
VOC." If the Applicant is truly specifying the use of `low VOC" coatings that are more
stringent than the SCAQMD regulatory levels, then it must be out of the result of a
significant impact that has not been disclosed. (As we previously noted, the painting
schedule has been extended over the period of construction and occupancy reducing its
daily emissions.) In either case the Applicant has failed to disclose the VOC content and
this must be specified for all model runs.
SECTION 4.11— GREENHOUSE GASES
Page 4.11 -11, 4'h Paragraph: Contrary to the text, there is no basis for the use of a
6,000 -Mton threshold for greenhouse gases. At one time in the past, prior to the advent
of the noted SCAQMD Working Group, the City suggested that a standard should be no
higher than the 7,000 -Mton standard then proposed by CARB back in 2008, and drafted
before that time. As noted on Page 4.11 -9, the SCAQMD Working Group did not come
into being until 2008 and did not issue their approach and suggested threshold levels until
2010.
Regarding the City of Newport Beach's approach to greenhouse gas emissions, quoting
from Page 4.11 -11, 4 °i Paragraph, "To restate, until more guidance is provided from the
17
expert agencies..." This guidance was provided in 2010 by the SCAQMD Working
Group and for a project of this nature, the threshold is the stated 3,000 Miens per year of
CO2e for a mixed -use project. The analysis must be revised to address this threshold
value now suggested by the SCAQiMD.
Page 4.11 -12, 2nd Paragraph: The Applicant dismisses those greenhouse gases
associated with solid waste. The document notes, "Solid waste emissions are not
addressed in this analysis because of corrections in process to the model. Solid waste
GHG emissions are relatively a very small part of overall emissions and omission of
these data is considered to be acceptable."
Please provide a reference showing that solid wastes are being readdressed in future
model updates and that their inclusion is unnecessary as we can find nothing to this effect
on either the SCAQMD or CalEEMod Internet web sites.
Furthermore, we note that in their June 2011 "User Tips," the SCAQMD does indicate
that several other portions of the model are receiving modification. So by the same
token, why has the Applicant included these portions and not solid wastes?
Our experience with the CalEEMod model shows that the greenhouse gases from solid
waste amount to about half of those from unmitigated water use. The analysis indicates
that unmitigated water use for the operation of the project accounts for approximately
794 Mtons per year of CO2e. If the emissions from solid waste are half of this value (i.e.,
297 Mtons per year), they alone would account for over 13% of the 3,000 _Mton per year
threshold suggested by the SCAQMD for mixed -use projects. This is hardly a "very
small part of the overall emissions' and these emissions must be included in the analysis.
At the very least, in the interest of full disclosure, the analysis should present these
emissions for the reader then explain why they are omitted in the total.
Page 4.11 -13, 2 "d Paragraph: The greenhouse gas study prepared for the future oilfield
operations was prepared using the outdated URBEMIS model and as discussed, and
illustrated previously, are not comparable with those projected using the CaIEEMod
model. The HRA will need to be modified to use the CalEEMod model so that the
emissions may be added together to determine the full extent of the impact.
Page 4.11 -18, Vt Bullet: Again, the use of a 6,000 -Mton CO2 threshold is unwarranted
and the SCAQMD methodology suggests that a value of 3,000 Mtons be used.
APPENDIX H
Any changes made to Appendix G as a result of the prior comments must be carried
through into Appendix H.
SECTION 4.12, NOISE
18
Page 4.12 -11, Table 4.12 -6: The second column notes the inclusion of the date and time.
However these data are not included. Please correct the table and provide the missing
data.
Page 4.12 -11, Table 4.12 -6: Footnote C notes "The 15- minute short-tern noise level
measurements were converted into 24 -hour CNEL based on the hourly patterns from the
long -term measurements 15 and 16; see Table 4.12 -7 and Appendix L" While Table
4.12 -7 includes the CNELS for measurements 15 and 16, it does not indicate how these
values are applied to extrapolate the CNEL values for the short-term measurements.
Furthermore, contrary to what is stated in the table, Appendix I provides no reference to
how these values were ascertained. This then makes replication of the analysis
impossible and the missing data and methodology must be supplied for review.
Page 4.12 -16, 4'h Paragraph: There is no basis provided for the 20 days required for the
implementation of the mitigation. If the receptors are to be significantly impacted, then
mitigation must be provided.
Page 4.12 -17, 2 "d Paragraph: The text states "Although truck noise may occasionally
be noticed (i.e., mostly by residents along West Coast Highway, 16th Street, and 17th
Street), the volume of trucks would not be substantial, with truck trips not likely to
exceed 20 trips per day."
This would infer that volumes of up to 20 Ducks a day could be expected. However,
Page 142 of Traffic, Appendix F states that "Construction truck traffic will be limited to
16 Ducks per hour between June 1 and September 1, and 25 trucks per hour at all other
times of the year." Based on an 8 -hour workday as is used in the Air Quality Analysis,
this would then infer that 128 to 200 trucks per day could be used just in the remediation
effort.
Road noise is extremely sensitive to the volume of heavy trucks. Revising the truck
estimate from 20 trucks per day to 200 trucks per day increases the noise associated with
these operations by 10 dBA. The noise analysis needs to quantitatively examine the
traffic associated with project construction traffic in accordance with the traffic analysis
and not just dismiss it as "not likely to exceed 20 trips per day."
Page 4.12 -22, 2nd Paragraph: What is the basis for the assumption that rubberized
asphalt would decrease road noise by 4 dBA? Road noise is a combination of tire,
engine, and wind noise. Using rubberized asphalt, only tire noise would be reduced. The
claimed reduction of 4 dBA represents a decrease from the current volume of traffic by
60 percent, yet only the tire noise would be reduced.
Also, please address the impacts of the mitigation. For example, resurfacing the road
would locate additional construction equipment proximate to the residents and they
would be subject to augmented traffic, noise, and air quality impacts from this equipment.
19
Page 4.12 -22, 4d' Paragraph: As noted, a sound wall will not protect 2nd story balconies
and patios and the Applicant has provided no mitigation. However, viable mitigation
would include the installation of transparent material, at least up to the height of the
balcony railing. Because this noise is coming from below, this second story wall would
not need to be as high as a ground level wall and would provide additional attenuation.
Use of a wall only as high as the railing would still allow for interior airflow with the
window /door open.
In fact Page 4.12 -27, 1" Paragraph notes for those residents adjoining the project site,
"For second floor balconies, noise barriers could be installed around the balconies.
Although these measures are feasible and would mitigate the significant noise impact,
improvements would be implemented on private property thereby requiring the
permission of private property owners and the Newport Crest HOA.- Just as these
measures are applicable to the Newport Crest community, they are applicable to the
residents of Costa Mesa impacted by traffic noise and the Applicant is remiss for not
including this mitigation.
Page 4.12 -22, 5`h Paragraph: As noted in the text, the Applicant cannot be assured that
the money provided for roadway resurfacing actually goes for that purpose and thereby
notes that the impact is significant and unavoidable. However, under CEQA, the
Applicant must do all that is feasible, regardless of cost, to reduce the impact.
Because the level of interior noise is directly related to the exterior level, any increase in
road noise will result in a similar increase within the structures. In this case, because the
Applicant can't assure affected receptors that the City of Costa Mesa will resurface the
roadway, the Applicant must offer the residents of these homes the same amenities that
they offer the residents that border the site as included in MM 4.12 -7.
Page 4.12 -33, 0 Paragraph: The text notes, "MM 4.12 -10 would provide an 8 -foot-
high screening wall to reduce potential noise impacts if loading docks or truck driveways
are proposed as part of the Project's commercial areas within 200 feet of an existing
residence."
Noise from heavy trucks comes from the tires as they roll along the asphalt, the engine,
and the exhaust stacks. FHWA and Caltrans estimate the combined "average" height of
these three factors at about 8 feet and this is the height that the wall is based on with the
need to break the line of sight from the receptor to the truck. However, those trucks
engaged in loading activities are not rolling, so the tires make no contribution to the
noise. Both FHWA and Caltrans note that to be effective, a sound wall must block the
line of sight to the noise source. Both FHWA and Caltrans put the height of heavy truck
exhaust stacks at 11.5 feet and this is the minimum height wall that should be required as
mitigation for any noise shielding associated with truck loading/unloading operations.
Please revise the analysis accordingly.
20
4.12-36,2 d Paragraph: The text states, "As the nearest noise- sensitive uses are located
over 300 feet away, it is anticipated that the amplified noise would not be audible and the
impact would be less than significant.'
This 300 -foot distance is only the length of a football field and while the impact may be
less than significant, the amplified sound would certainly be "audible" above the
background. Please revise the statement accordingly.
Page 4.12 -36, 3`d Paragraph: The test states, '`It is anticipated that noise from use at the
North Community Park may be sporadically heard at the patios and balconies of the
Newport Crest condominiums when traffic volumes on Bluff Road are relatively low
because the character of park noise is different than vehicular noise. It is concluded that
noise from activities at the North Community Park would not cause disturbance or
annoyance at the nearest noise sensitive receptors, and no mitigation is required."
As noted, on -site noise will be created by both the traffic, the use of the park, and other
stationary uses. However, while these noise sources are all additive at the receptor
locations, the analysis fails to provide the noise associated with the sum total of these
sources, so understates the impacts at the receptor locations.
Page 35, 3`d Paragraph: As above from the text, "It is noted that traffic noise impacts
from Bluff Road would be above 60 dBA Leq, usually overshadowing noise related to
park activities to these homes.' So again, the actual noise is underestimated because a
sum of the sources is not disclosed.
Page 4.12 -37, 5th Paragraph: The text notes that oilfield operations, including the use
of heavy equipment, trucks, and drilling equipment, could occur at a distance of about
250 feet to the existing residents and 200 feet to the nearest future noise- sensitive
receptors. The text goes on to note that drilling would take place 24- hours a day when it
occurs. This is really no different than construction except that there are no time
limitations on the drilling as there are on construction.
The mitigation for construction of the project requires the use of sound walls when this
construction is to occur within 300 feet of any residents if they are to be bothered for just
20 days during regular working hours. Because oilfield operations would be closer than
this 300 -foot distance to sensitive receptors and could go on 24 -hours per day, the near
off- and on -site residents also deserve sound walls, or more, as mitigation.
Page 4.12 -38, 3`d Paragraph: The text notes "The drilling of wells requires sonic
periods of 24 -hour activity. Drilling noise, consisting principally of diesel engines and
tool maneuvering, could occur during the nighttime for periods up to five consecutive
days. Without noise reduction, intermittent noise levels at receptors 200 feet away could
be 75 dBA, although it is likely that the source to receptor distance would be greater.
MM 4.12-11 would be incorporated into the Project to use noise reduction strategies to
minimize drilling noise. With the implementation of MM 4.12 -11 and the consideration
of the limited noise generation time, the impact would be less than significant.'
21
While it may be subject to DOG requirements, and although it is operational noise, this
drilling still uses heavy construction equipment and is still subject to the City Noise
Ordinance for construction activities. Because these "construction operations" cannot be
maintained to those construction hours deems acceptable by the City, the impact remains
significant.
Mitigation MM 4.12-11 states, "Prior to the approval of a permit by the California
Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
(DOGGR) for the drilling of replacement oil wells in the Consolidated Oil Facility, the
Applicant shall provide to the City of Newport Beach descriptions of the noise reduction
methods to be used to minimize drilling activity noise. These methods may include, as
feasible, but not be limited to (1) use of electric power in place of internal combustion
engines, and (2) acoustical blankets or similar shielding around elevated engines on drill
rigs."
None of these measures limit this drilling to the City's requisite hours for construction so
even with the inclusion of the mitigation, the impact remains significant.
Page 4.12 -39, 3`d Paragraph: The text notes that the project is not located within 2
miles of any private air strip. However, the heliport located at Hoag Memorial Hospital
is well within this distance and qualifies as a private air strip, and the analysis has failed
to address this potential noise impact on the proposed residents. (It is of interest that the
Hoag Hospital heliport is addressed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials analysis on
Page 4.5 -16 which puts it a % mile from the project site.) Please address this potential
impact and suggest mitigation as appropriate.
Page 4.12 -41, Wh Paragraph: The 25 -foot distance is based on the proximity of the
construction equipment to the "residence" without properly defining the "residence,"
(i.e., the property line or the physical structure).
The text notes that some residents are located at a distance of just 5 feet from the project
site. The mitigation calls for the placement of temporary sound walls in sensitive
residential areas. Obviously it then becomes impossible for an equipment operator to see
the residential structure, or if any portion of the equipment is within 25 feet of the
structure. As such, the mitigation is unrealistic and unenforceable. All mitigations
specifying distance must be based on the distance to the project site's property line and
not distances to actual structures and this must be made clear in the analysis.
Page 4.12 -42, 3`d Paragraph: The measure would also reduce nuisance construction
noise for these residents. The mitigation should be amended requiring that those
residents that want the sound -rated window and door assemblies be provided with such
and reimbursed for their costs prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
Page 4.12 -33, 3`d Paragraph: As noted in various portions of the analysis, the wall must
be high enough to block the line of site from the to the noise source and an 1 1.5 -foot wall
22
is required to meet this objective with heavy truck exhaust stacks. Please revise the
mitigation accordingly.
APPENDIX I, NOISE
General Comment: Vehicle noise is extremely sensitive to the ratio of automobiles,
medium trucks; and heavy trucks. Each medium buck is equivalent to about 10 autos
whereas each heavy truck is equivalent to about 36 autos. In all cases the Applicant,
without explanation, uses a ratio of 98% autos, I% medium trucks, and I% heavy trucks.
However, the EMFAC model used in the CalEEMod model, as used in the Air Quality
analysis, notes that Orange County includes approximately 94.36% autos, 4.49 percent
medium trucks and 1.15% heavy trucks. As such, the Applicant has underestimated the
ambient and future noise from vehicle traffic. Furthermore, the vehicle ratio for West
Pacific Coast Highway should be based on data included in the Caltrans publication,
2010 Annual Aver age Daily Truck Traffic on The California State Highway System.
Please revise the analysis accordingly.
General Comment: Vehicle noise is extremely sensitive to the time of day as the
evening and night impose penalties on the noise created during those portions of the day.
The Applicant, without explanation, uses a ratio of 80% during the day, 7% during the
evening and 13% at night. However, the EMFAC model used in the CalEEMod model,
as used in the Air Quality analysis, notes that Orange County includes approximately
77.50% during the day, 10.77% during the evening, and 11.73% at night. These values
will change the calculated CNEL values and the analysis should be revised accordingly.
SECTION 4.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Section 4.5 -20, 2nd Paragraph: The text states, "As with all remediation projects, the
total remediation volumes can vary substantially when actual removals begin; thus,
contingency amounts were included in the estimates."
However, Page 4.9 -88 of the traffic analysis notes, "The Project's construction activities
would include the consolidation of the existing oilfields and soil remediation in addition
to the site development. Remediation is estimated to require approximately 900,000
cubic yards (cy) of cut and fill with an additional 1,500,000 cy of earthwork required in
the development of the Project. Essentially, all grading would be balanced on site. An
estimated 25,000 cy of export was assumed for removal of materials not suitable for
retention on site which would require approximately 1,563 truckloads of material
removal."
This value of 25,000 cubic yards is then used in the transportation, air quality, and noise
analyses. This value represents less than 2.8% of the total 900,000 cubic yard volume of
material to be remediated and does not represent a reasonable scenario, let alone a
'`contingency amount." Please provide a more realistic scenario in the analysis.
23
SECTION 4.6, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Page 4.6 -64, 4`h Paragraph: The text states. "Indirect impacts are impacts related to
disturbance from construction (such as noise, dust, and urban pollutants), and long -team
use of the Project site and its effect on the adjacent habitat areas." However; contrary to
the text, there is no analysis of the construction impacts on sensitive species and
construction impacts are never deemed as significant.
The sum extent of this analysis is included in the following quote taken from the
document, "The non - transportation noise impacts from human activity in the residential,
retail, resort inn, park, and trail areas would dissipate rapidly with distance and would not
cause significant noise impacts to wildlife on the Project site open space and lowland
areas. There would be no significant impact related to non - transportation activity;
therefore, no mitigation would be required."
Still, Page 4.6 -86, 3`d, 4h, and 5`h paragraphs require mitigation for construction noise
impacts on sensitive habitat. Under CEQA, no mitigation can be required unless the
impact is deemed as significant. The biological assessment is deficient in that it did not
delineate the significance criteria for sensitive species (they do exist) or do a proper
analysis to determine if the impacts of construction are significant prior to requiring
mitigation.
Furthermore, while the text states that "dust and urban pollutants' could create significant
impacts, the impacts of dust and urban airborne pollutants on sensitive species are neither
addressed in the Biological Resources or the Air Quality analyses. Please supply the
missing analysis.
24
McDonald, Cristal
From:
Alford, Patrick
Sent:
Friday, July 20, 2012 11:21 AM
To:
Dept - City Clerk
Subject:
FW: Banning Ranch Acquisition and Cleanup Funding
Attachments:
Fort Bragg Coastal Park.pdf
From: Bruce Bartram [mailto:b.bartram @verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:19 AM
To: Alford, Patrick
Cc: knelson @web - conferencing - central.com; robb @hamiltonbiological.com; greenpl @cox.net; medjkraus @yahoo.com;
shokobennett @gmail.com; blush 1996 @aol.com; davesutherland4 @gmail.com; pcmalkemus @gmail.com;
jtmansfield @ca.rr.com; mtabbertl5 @gmail.com; steve.banningranch @hotmail:com; mezzohiker @msn.com;
dkoken @hmausa.com; terrymwelsh @hotmail.com; jenniferfrutig @aol.com
Subject: Banning Ranch Acquisition and Cleanup Funding
July 20 2012
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 23, 2012 - NBR DEIR Banning Ranch Open Space Acquisition
Dear Mr. Alford:
Below are emails I prepared for the Banning Ranch Conservancy concerning sources of non -City of Newport Beach /local
taxpayer funding for Banning Ranch acquisition and cleanup. I wish this emails and the attached supporting documents
became a part of the administrative record to be considered by the Newport Beach City Council at its meeting referenced
above.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email as soon as possible. Thank you for your continuing cooperation in these
matters.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Bartram
2 Seaside Circle
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Bruce Bartram
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 11:17 AM
To: itmansfield@ca.rr.com ; steve.banningranch@hotmail.com ; mezzohiker(o)msn.com ; dkokenColhmausa.com ;
terrvmwelsh @hotmail.com ; ienniferfrutigCNaol.com ; votemcevoy @yahoo.com ; greenpUlcox.net ;
cblack94961hotmail.com ; iimmosher @vahoo.com ; pcmalkemusCalgmail.com ; roocCla sbcglobal.net ; knelsonColweb-
conferencing- central.com ; evenkeel4C31sbcglobal.net ; terry@tdoowell.com ; iimcassidy52Colearthlink.net ;
ginnylombardiColvahoo.com ; mikeoowell @ca.rr.com ; cheryl.johnston(ahbcsd.kl2.ca.us ; shokobennettCalgmail.com ;
swell mel4Co)iuno.com ; iamesrquigg @yahoo.com ; techcowboyColca.rr.com ; blushl996Calaol.com ;
davesutherland4(&gmail.com ; margaret.royallagmail.com ; jp seque(a)msn.com ; powell.michael(o)aaa- calif.com ;
bmiserv(o'biuno.com ; steohaniepa(a)socal.rr.com ; ion crawford(o)hurley.com ; christopherbunvan(a)yahoo.com ;
susantheresalee(o)msn.com ; medikraus(@yahoo.com ; sharon.boles(a)roadrunner.com ; dardentrade(o)yahoo.com ;
mamalili(alpacbell.net ; skvking965()a earthlink.net ; hbalig((bvahoo.com ; dodgeva()a sbcglobal.net ; ianeolinger(cbcox.net ;
rimi1937(a)verizon.net ; kristenbender0agmail.com ; nagemot(&pacbell.net ; valsanto(o)vahoo.com ;
nicolai(obnicolaiglazer.com ; beth(a)suply.com ; sandyfazio(o)gmail.com ; applelib(o)aol.com ; tevishill(a)aol.com ;
dennis.mchale(o)pcm- inc.orq ; ftrapper(o)hotmail.com ; paularms(a)socal.rr.com ; a71673.1300(a)netzero.net ;
robb(a)hamiltonbiological.com ; winifree(alearthlink.net ; bnerhus(o)gmail.com ; p.martz(o)cox.net ; norbpuff(o)sbcgloba1.net
; i shunda(o)vahoo.com ; slgenis(o)stanfordalumni.org ; alfredgcruz(lsbcglobal.net
Cc: sandie.frankiewicz @gmail.com ; Michelle Simpson(o)tix.com
Subject: Banning Ranch Acquisition and Cleanup Funding II
Dear Friends:
In my prior email below, I discussed the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's "Brownfields and Land Revitalization"
local governmental grant program as a source of non -City of Newport Beach /local taxpayer funding for Banning Ranch
cleanup. The next logical non -City governmental funding source is, of course, the State of California. As anyone familiar
with governmental can attest, it's not so much finding the particular agency with the "jurisdiction" over the "issue" involved
as it is to persuade the agency to act and, more often than not, determine the extent funding is available to "do the job."
The goal of the Banning Ranch Conservancy is to acquire the Banning Ranch for use as a public park and wildlife /natural
resources habitat reserve. Given Banning Ranch's use as an active oil field for 60 -70 yrs restoration /clean up will be
needed. Thus, the search is for the proper state agency(ies) and, most important, find the funding for acquisition and
restoration.
The obvious state agency to start with is the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Its Office of Grants and Local
Services "administers grant programs that provide funds to local and state agencies and other organizations. Grants are
generally for park, recreation and resources related projects." Its webpage is: http: / /www.parks.ca.gov/ ?page id =1008. As
you can see, the Office of Grants and Local Services lists a number of grant programs for parks, recreation and resource
related projects." Of particular interest among the grant programs listed to the Conservancy regarding Banning Ranch's
acquisition and clean up "Proposition 84 -2006 Safe Drinking Water Act." As discussed below, Proposition 84 is dead on
point as a grant program /funding source for the acquisition and restoration of Banning Ranch.
Proposition 84 -the "Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond
Act of 2006"- was passed by voters on November 7, 2006 and was codified as Public Resources Code 75001 et sea. The
ballot measure called for the preservation of safe drinking water, protection against catastrophic floods and pollution, and
"preservation of resources." Under its provisions a total of $5.388 billion were authorized for these purposes. Under
Section 75003 it is stated "by the people of California" that it is "in the public interest to do all of the following." As to
resource preservation Section 75003 includes the following:
"(c) Protect the rivers, lakes and streams of the state from pollution, loss of water quality, and destruction of fish and
wildlife habitat.
(d) Protect the beaches, bays and coastal waters of the state for future
(e) Revitalizing our communities and making them more sustainable and livable by investing in sound land use planning,
local parks and urban greening."
All of the above stated goals of Proposition 84 would be supported by the acquisition and restoration of Banning Ranch as
parkland /nature preserve.
Under Public Resources Code 75071 lists the "priority characteristics" to be used in evaluating potential "natural resource
protection" projects under Prop. 84. According to Section 75071:
"In evaluating potential projects that include acquisition or restoration for the purpose of natural resource protection, the
Department of Parks and Recreation, the board (Wildlife Conservation Board), and the State Coastal Conservancy shall
give priority to projects that demonstrate one or more of the following characteristics:
(a) Landscape /Habitat Linkages: properties that link to, or contribute to linking, existing protected areas with other large
blocks of protected habitat. Linkages must serve to connect existing protected areas, facilitate wildlife movement or
botanical transfer, and result in sustainable combined acreage.
(b) Watershed Protection: projects that contribute to long -term protection of and improvement to the water and biological
quality of the streams. aquifers, and terrestrial resources of priority watersheds of the major biological regions of
the state as identified by the Resources Agency. .
(c) Properties that support relatively large areas of under - protected major habitat types.
(d) Properties that provide habitat linkages between two or more major biological regions of the state
(e) Properties for which there is a non -state matching contribution toward the acquisition, restoration, stewardship or
management costs. Matching contributions can be either monetary or in the form of services, including volunteer
services."
Arguably, all of project priority criteria of Section 75071 above, is met by Banning Ranch. In brief, subsection (a) is met
due to Banning Ranch's adjacent location to the proposed Santa Ana River Parkway /Orange Coast River Park project(s)-
discussed on the BRC website- protected areas including the Talbert Nature Reserve; (b) is met by Banning Ranch's
adjacent location to the Santa Ana river and the Army Corp of Engineers' Semeniuk Slough wetlands restoration project;
(c) is met as Banning Ranch while privately owned has been designated as critical gnatcatcher habitat by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service; (d) is met as the Santa Ana River Parkway project encompasses the entire Santa Ana
River area which includes three counties - Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino; and; (e) is likely met with the
availability of Measure M funds and /or the Federal EPA's "Brownfields" grant program discussed in my email below.
Listed on the Dept. of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services webpage is a weblink to "Proposition 84
projects." One of the projects listed is the "Fort Bragg Coastal Park" described as a 30 acre new park which includes
restoration of a former saw mill site. According to the attached Memorandum the project will include local native plants;
industrial property will be restored to native habitat and the park will have four miles of multi -use trails and a ten acre
recreation field. For the project the City of Fort Bragg received $4,844,495 in Prop. 84 grant funds from the Office of
Grants and Local Services. The similarities between the BRC's park objective /proposed use for Banning Ranch and the
Fort Bragg Coastal Park project can hardly be any closer.
Lastly, it should be noted in Section 75071 in addition to the Dept. of Parks and Recreation, two other state agencies - the
State Coastal Conservancy and Wildlife Conservation Board -were given funding under Prop 84 for projects. Indeed,
under Section 75050 (i) the State Coastal Conservancy was expressly allocated $45 million "for projects to expand and
improve the Santa Ana River Parkway." A weblink regarding Prop 84 funding of the Santa Ana River Parkway project
is:http: / /bondaccountability. resources. ca .gov /plevell .aspx ?id= 28 &pid =4. According to another weblink on the Page. as of
8/08/11 the California Resources Agency lists Prop. 84 "Allocation Balance as $924,132,572." In any event, under Prop
84 /Section 75071 three separate state agencies - the Dept. of Parks and Recreation, the State Coastal Conservancy and
Wildlife Conservation Board - could be the source of Prop 84 grants.
Bruce Bartram
From: Bruce Bartram
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:23 AM
To: itmansfield(lca.rr.com ; steve .banningranch(o)hotmail.com ; mezzohiker(o)msn.com ; dkoken(a)hmausa.com ;
terrymwelsh(a)hotmail.com ; ienniferfrutig(o)aol.com ; votemcevov(ovahoo.com ; green p1(d)cox. net ;
cblack949(o)hotmail.com ; iimmosher(a)vahoo.com ; pcmalkemus(a)gmail.com ; ropc@sbcolobal.net ; knelson(a)web-
conferencing-central.com ; evenkeel40sbcglobal.net ; terrv(a)tdnowell.com ; iimcassidy52(o)earthlink.net ;
ginnylombardi(a)vahoo.com ; mikepowell(o)ca.rr.com ; cheryl .iohnston(a)hbcsd.kl2.ca.us ; shokobennett(a)gmail.com ;
swellmel4(a)iuno.com ; iamesrquigg(a)vahoo.com ; techcowbov(0)ca.rr.com ; blush 1996(o)aol.com ;
davesutherland4(ogmail.com ; margaret. royal K gmail.com ; ip seque(a)msn.com ; powell.michaelO)aaa- calif.com ;
bmiserv(a)iuno.com ; stephaniepa(a)socal.rr.com ; ion crawford(a)hurley.com ; christopherbunyan(a)yahoo.com ;
susantheresalee(a)msn.com ; medjkraus(obvahoo.com ; sharon.boles(d)roadrunner.com ; dardentrade(o)yahoo.com ;
mamalili(o)pacbell.net ; skyking965(a)earthlink.net ; hbalia(o)vahoo.com ; dodgeva(o)sbcglobal.net ; 'any eolinger(a)cox.net ;
rimi1937(averizon.net ; kristenbender0(abgmail.com ; nagemot(o)pacbell.net ; valsanto(&yahoo.com ;
nicolai(o)nicolaiglazer.com ; beth(o)suply.com ; sandvfazio(agmail.com ; aoplelib(alaol.com ; tevishill(obaol.com ;
dennis.mchale(abpcm- inc.orq ; ftrapperahotmail.com ; paularms(obsocal.rr.com ; a71673.13000a)netzero.net ;
robb(a) ham iltonbiological.com ; winifree(a earthlink.net ; bnerhus(o)gmail.com ; p.martz(ocox.net ; norbpuff(d)sbcglobal.net
; i shunda(olyahoo.com ; slgenis(astanfordalumni.org ; alfredgcruz(0)sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: BRC Meeting /Banning Ranch Clean Up Funding
Dear Friends:
At last night's Conservancy meeting, the problem of finding non -City of Newport Beachllocal taxpayer funding for Banning
Ranch's needed clean up was discussed. The following is a weblink to the Environmental Protection Agency website
concerning its "Brownfields Redevelopment and Land Revitalization" Grant Program to state and local governments:
httD://www.eoa.cov/SoCal/redeveloDment/brownfields.html#land
In brief, as described on the EPA website
"EPA is currently providing funding and other assistance to communities throughout southern California to help clean and
redevelop sites contaminated with wastes and other toxic substances. In addition to the Superfund program, EPA also
addresses sites through both its Brownfields and Land Revitalization programs.
Brownfields Redevelopment
EPA's Brownfields program empowers states, communities, and other stakeholders to work together to prevent, assess,
safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield site is real property which needs to have contamination
removed before it can be redeveloped or reused. EPA provides financial assistance for brownfields through four
competitive grant programs: assessment grants, revolving loan fund grants, cleanup grants, and job training grants.
Additionally, funding support is provided to state and tribal response programs."
The website then describes "Brownfields Success Stories in Southern California Communities." Of particular interest is
the City of Orange "Grijala Park Expansion." As described by the EPA:
"City of Orange was awarded Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Grant funds to redevelop two former landfill and
railroad properties into City park sites. While the City adopted the California state standard of three acres of parkland for
every 1,000 residents, there has been no park development in the areas around the targeted sites over the last decade.
The City has been unable to keep pace with the substantial increase in residential development in the areas around the
targeted sites. The grant funds targeted the city -owned Cerro Villa site and a former railroad property. Both targeted sites
have had a negative effect on the surrounding communities. Portions of the railroad property, which currently houses an
asphalt batch plant, have been used as a landfill, surface mine, and materials processing plant. The Cerro Villa property,
which also is a former landfill, is now surrounded by residential development. The assessment concluded that a landfill
cap will be needed before the 42 -acre Grijalva Park at Santiago Creek can be redeveloped. The park expansion will
include the City's first indoor gymnasium. The project is expected to be completed by the summer 2008."
Attached is the EPA's public announcement regarding the project. As you can see, the City of Orange "was in need of
open space." The City of Orange received a total of $400,000 in grants from the EPA for environmental assessment and
clean up. In addition, $3.9 million was obtained from "State Proposition 40 park grants."
The similarities between this City of Orange "park environmental clean up" project and our situation with Banning Ranch
are compelling. The City of Newport Beach voter approved General Plan prioritizes the acquisition of Banning Ranch as
"open space." The City's objection to its acquisition is based upon lack of alternatives to local taxpayer funding. Yet here
is a local Orange County community that acquired and cleaned up contaminated property for a park without "local
taxpayer funding."
Needless to say, this should be brought to the attention of the Newport Beach City Council and the general public by the
Conservancy.
Bruce
To: jtmansfieldPca.rr.com ; steve. ban ningra nch(a)hotmaii.com ; mezzohiker(o)msn.com ; dkoken(abhmausa.com ;
terrymwelsh(ftotmail.com ; ienniferfrutig @aol.com ; votemcevov(o)vahoo.com ; greenpl(&cox.net ;
cblack949(cbhotmail.com ; jimmosher(slyahoo.com ; pcmalkemus(o)gmail.com ; ropc(a)sbcglobal.net ; knelson(a)web-
conferencing- central.com ; even keel4(asbcglobal.net ; terry(o)td Powell. com ; jimcassidy52(a)earthl ink. net ;
ginnylombardi(o)yahoo.com ; mikepowell(o)ca.rr.com ; cheryl .iohnston(ahbcsd.kl2.ca.us ; shokobennett(a)gmaii.com ;
swellmel4(a)iuno.com ; iamesrguiQQ@)yahoo.corn ; b. bartram(o)verizon.net ; techcowbov(a)ca.rr.com ; blush19960aol.com
davesutherland4(a)gmail.com ; margaret. royal l(agmail.com ; ip seque @msn.com ; powell.michael(c)aaa- calif.com ;
bmiserv(Muno.com ; stephaniepa(o)socal.rr.com ; ion crawford(o)hurley.com ; christopherbunvan(d)vahoo.com ;
susantheresalee(a)msn.com ; medikrausCalyahoo.com ; sharon.boles(o)roadrunner.com ; dardentrade(o)vahoo.com ;
mamalili(o)pacbell.net ; skyking965(Oearthlink.net ; hbalig@yahoo.com ; dodgeva@sbcgloba1.net ; ianeolingeOlcox.net ;
dmi1937(abverizon.net ; kristenbenderO(a)gmail.com ; nagemot(a)pacbell.net ; valsanto(&yahoo.com ;
nicolai(olnicolaigiazer.com ; beth(a)suply.com ; sandvfazio @gmail.com ; apglelib(a)aol.com ; tevishill(cbaol.com ;
dennis.mchale(dpcm- inc.org ; ftrapper(a)hotmail.com ; paularmsCo)socal.rr.com ; a71673.13000a)netzero.net ;
robb(a)hamiltonbiological.com ; winifree0earthlink.net ; bnerhus(o)gmail.com ; p.martz(a)cox.net ; norbouff(a)sbcgloba1.net
; j shunda(a)yahoo.com ; sigenis0stanfordalumni.org ; a lfredgcruz(cbsbcglobal.net
Subject: Patrick Alford
I spoke with Patrick today to see if we could get a copy of the comments that were submitted for the Bannning Ranch
dEIR. Since we obtained a copy of the comments of the Sunset Ridge clEIR before responses were prepared by the City,
I figured we could get a copy of the comments for Banning Ranch, I explained. Patrick said he knew of no policy where
the City would release the comments prior to the official responses. Patrick suggested the comments for Sunset Ridge
were made available because the clEIR for Sunset Ridge had to be re- circulated. I didn't quite see the string of logic
there. Patrick said he would look into it. If I don't hear from him in a few days I will follow up.
One option is a Request for Public Records.
I mentioned to Patrick that I had read some of the comments and it was my opinion that, due the the rather large
deficiencies of the dEIR, the dEIR should be re- written and re- circulated. Patrick didn't seem too concerned about the
comments. He said that the number was about typical for a project of this size, and that some of the comments were
repeated by more than one person (which was also typical). He stuck to the City's planned timetable on when the dEIR
would be processed.
I asked him about the planning commission hearings for January and February and he said they weren't hearings, but
rather focused study sessions devoted to specific features of the project. He again said that while the study sessions
were open to the public, they were not considered forums for the public to voice their opposition, but rather for the public
to contribute to the specific nature of the particular study session.
The first study session is devoted to "Sub- division design and circulation" I think we need to link our comments into this
area. It shouldn't be too dificult as most of our concerns ultimately are tied to the subdivision design (footprint) and
circulation. For example, the current subdivision design has tremendous impact on wildlife habitat.
Dorothy, I will amend the "end of the year" message to reflect that they are study sessions.
He also said there would be more proper planning commission hearings in April.
Proposition 84
Statewide Park Program - Round One
City of Fort Bragg $4,844,495
Fort Bragg Coastal Park
This project will create a new park in the City of Fort Bragg through development of
approximately 30 acres to include removal of asphalt surface at a former saw mill site
restoring it to native coastal habitat, and construction of a ten acre recreation field, four
miles of multi -use trails, welcome plaza, three restrooms, two parking lots, access
roads, and safety fencing.
Through community based planning meetings, youth, seniors, and families selected
these features. Additional design ideas from residents to be included in the project are:
• Soft surface trail along coast with benches in view areas, few interpretive signs in
select spots, bluff edge safety signs, mile markers along trails. Separate paved
inland trail for fast paced use. Accommodate use for people with disabilities.
Trail system to create access points down to beach by Old Haul Road and Elm
Street.
• Whale viewing platform at Soldier's Point and overlook platform at the blow hole.
Include picnic tables.
• Retain and resurface the old airstrip for community events, skating, and cycling.
• Plant small groups of coastal trees. Create site as natural and simple as
possible. Low fencing around plant restoration, identify native plant species.
• Place large open space field at South end of site.
• Place the welcome plaza by a parking lot, two restrooms by both parking lots and
the third at middle of the park.
• 20 volunteer residents will create art tiles for the welcome plaza and three
restrooms.
• 20 -28 volunteer residents will restore natural habitat restoration.
The project will include these sustainable techniques:
No irrigation system will be used.
Access road and trails will include pervious surfaces. Bio- swales will be installed
for capture and filtration of runoff..
50% -100% recycled or 100% sustainably harvested materials will be used for
bike racks, traffic bollards, parking stops, picnic tables, benches, and
boardwalks; construction waste will be recycled.
Project will include local native plants. Industrial property will be restored to
natural habitat, vegetative outfalls at bluff edge, low flow plumbing fixtures, multi-
use bike trail, locally sourced materials.
The park will be open daily from sunrise to sunset. There will be no entrance or
membership fees to use the park.
Office of Grants and . C)
Fort Bragg Coastal Trail Project
N ng S1 fy f 4,'
'PIS b � *£r I i� F �t��ry Y�� "t` ''I•�F p �. 2
r
,�r. a
l a C I Y -pl 0y Asa.
4H i 1 R
F Ff t t l, � 4' ,I � � �•
3x s''� � Y''�,.�� ��" -'"��: a 9 - b r des �tc ,;✓ $� �
+ a � :Jtw2b
r` - } ,. i�` _ i 7 <" sir'•' ( ° _u ��'
x9m r'( 9�l �r r"lr
V C i G1
d
o r
s $= 1 `a:y • vi ..c:aMg s -v+' 4+
Ty
• �'d.,'x tt'' - J''P -�
Am.KIM/
�
e j.
��i�'
WO
4
nz
\ � ,�,/i.• , `fir, I. r.� i � ak w
\y rf ,t✓ 4"1
w +l CI S'F �4ifi
fy *
c .tom •��4 a NIL
L,
Oj
_r.w...."�o��Ml ttra
�
1 itf` oil 1�6- ! MIS Ki
/
'i VeA n
, 1�
% , "J
PACIM
00EA, 4
J,
Noyo
Fp
SOLDIER RAY
m
NOYO BAY
ruw W
CNIanWw 0M, 0 1
SOUTH FORT BRAGG COASTAL TRAIL CONCEPT PEAN rv�y
acy 6f Cori bradg UF
McDonald, Cristal
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:18 PM
To: McDonald, Cristal
Subject: FW: Save Banning Ranch - Please Say NO to proposed 'planned community' at Monday, June
23 City Council meeting
From: Margot D Eiser[SMTP:MDE4PEACE @GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:17:47 PM
To: CityCouncil @newportbeach.ca.gov
Cc: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Save Banning Ranch - Please Say NO to proposed 'planned community' at Monday, June 23 City Council
meeting
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Ms Brown,
Please make sure that the entire city council and other pertinent staff get the following message before
the City Council meeting on July 23, 2012. A response of receipt of this message would be appreciated.
me
To the City Council and Staff:
Many of us who are concerned with preserving natural open space might not be able to attend the
meeting yet are wanting to have our 'voices' heard via email and entered into the public record.
With so little open space which used to be one of it's attractions, left in your area, I am truly astonished
by what a huge proposed project this is (twice as large as any previous Orange County Coastal Project
ever built and at least four times as dense per acre). The proposed plan would use the absolute maximum
build out as allowed under the current City of Newport Beach General Plan. This is very bad for your city
and bad for residents and potential visitors. No one wants to travel just to see yet another glorified
housing tract. A much better alternative is to deny the proposal and let the Banning Ranch Conservancy
and other entities work together with the City to preserve, protect and restore the entire area to as close
to it's unique natural habitat as possible. You can follow the example of Riverside which has recently
heeded the people and rejected destructors and preserved open space. Banning Ranch can become a
renowned feature of your area and would draw hikers, bikers, eco and other tourists from all over the
state, country and world.
Save Time and Money
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH - Please sayNO to A PROPOSED 401 -ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF WEST COAST HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF 19TH STREET, AND EAST OF THE SANTA ANA
RIVER (PA2008 -114). a) Please listen to the public as you Conduct public hearing; b) do not adopt Resolution No. 2012 -58
certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2009 -002 (SCI-I No. 2009031061) thereby not adopting Findings and Facts in
Support of Findings; c) do not adopt Resolution No. 2012 -59 approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -008 and thereby
not adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; d) do not introduce Ordinance No. 2012 -16 approving Code
Amendment No. CA2008 -004 and Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PC2008 -002, and do not pass to
second reading on August 14, 2012; e) do not adopt Resolution No. 2012 -60 thereby not approving Master Development Plan
No. MP2008 -001, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O08 -001, Traffic
Study No. TS2008 -002, and the Newport Banning Ranch Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and f) do not
introduce Ordinance No. 2012 -17 approving Development Agreement No. 2008 -003, and do not pass to second reading on
August 14, 2012.
In regard to the the following specific section of the Project Plan:
-The Interim Oil Facilities (Open Space land use district) includes (i) the existing oil operations site near
West Coast Highway;(ii) the new oil consolidation site near the middle of the Lowland; and (iii) an oil
access road (non- exclusive easement) connecting the two oil field consolidation sites.
please note the fact sheets compiled and posted on www.saveourmontebellohills.com to counteract
another proposal to build a housing tract on top of a different oil field which itemize various dangers to
humans and the environment posed by oil fields, both operating and defunct.
Oil Field Safety Risks Fact Sheet #i
The Montebello Hills Specific Plan is a proposal to construct 1,20o residential units atop an active oil field. The Montebello Hills oil field
has been in continuous operation since it's discovery in 1917 and contains approximately 30o active and abandoned oil /natural gas
wells. Plains Exploration and Production (PXP), the oil company land owner, intends to continue slant drilling and extracting
oil /natural gas from under the proposed family residences.
Each homebuyer in this proposed development would be required to sign a disclosure acknowledging the presence of on -going oil
operations. Source: Montebello Hills Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report — Appendix V: Analysis of Impacts of Oil
Operations on Montebello Hills Specific Plan Residential Development, page 31.
The potential safety risks associated with Living in close proximity to active oil /natural gas pro- duction hells and facilities are as
follows:
METHANE
Methane (the key component of natural gas) is a highly explosive, odorless gas. For safety reasons, natural gas is "odorized" before
being sent to customers.
In the late 1970's, odorized methane gas leakage from an underground storage facility operated by Southern California Gas Company
led to the eventual condemnation of 13 homes in Montebello. It was determined that the gas traveled up to the surface via old,
abandoned oil wells. "Un- odorized" methane gas has also been detected leaking directly from an abandoned oil well
into the garage of a home in Montebello Source: LA Times, "Gas Leak Renews Fears Over Methane Under Montebello,' By RICHARD
HOLGUIN, Times Staff Writer December 21, 1986
(Continued on back)Methane gas from the Los Angeles oil field led to the 1985 explosion of the Ross Dress for Less Department store in
the Fairfax district which injured 22 people.
Potential buyers in the proposed. Montebello Hills development need to know that all resi- dences will include gas barriers in their
foundations and only passive ventilation systems. Underground oil well cellars on the property will be equipped with active, electric —
powered ventilation systems. There is no provision for back up generators in case of a power outage due to an earthquake or other
causes.
OIL FIELD EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
According to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB), oil field storage tanks have led to the deaths of 36 teenagers and six young adults
since 1986. The CSB has recently released a free video entitled "No Place To Hang Out" to warn teens and young adults about the
dangers of oil sites.
Oil tank explosions can also occur during routine maintenance. The Partridge- Raleigh Oilfield explosion and fire killed three workers..
In this explosion, a lid from a crude oil storage tank was thrown 750 feet. Source: CSB Safety Videos 2005 -2009 "Death in the Oil
Field."
Oil field equipment, support facilities and maintenance vehicles also pose mechanical and electrical hazards that could lead to
amputation, paralysis, electrocution and death.
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
Hydrogen sulfide is a highly dangerous gas associated iNith oil and gas fields. In small doses it can be detected by it's "rotten egg" smell
but at higher doses and longer exposure times it dam- ages the sense of smell. Hydrogen sulfide exposure can lead to severe
neurological damage, unconsciousness and death. Hydrogen sulfide collects in shallow ground depressions and low lying structures,
placing small children and pets at risk.
Constructing a crowded development of 1,20o family residences atop an ACTIVE oil field is an unacceptable public safety risk and poses
a preventable source of temptation for Montebello's youth.
Fact Sheet: Oil Field Pollution
Orange County developer Cook Hill Properties LLC claims their proposed development, the Montebello Hills Specific Plan (MHSP), will
benefit Montebello. What they don't say is that this 90 year old active oil field poses a significant risk to the health of future residents.
There are approximately Soo active and abandoned oil wells on the site. The oil company land owner intends to continue slant drilling
and pumping oil from under the proposed family residences. Many studies show that people living close to oil fields suffer serious
health effects. This is because of the toxic chemicals found in the air and soil of oil fields.
Below is a partial list of the toxic, chemical components of crude oil and other chemicals used in oil field operations, and their effects on
human health.
Hazardous Chemicals'
Adverse Health Effects
Acetaldehyde
Irritation to eyes, skin and respiratory system; symptoms of long term exposure resemble al- coholism; probable human carcinogen
Acrolein
Irritation to respiratory system; congestion
Arsenic and Compounds (inorganic)
Poisonous, can cause cancer
Benzene
Irritation to eyes, skin and respiratory system; dizziness; rapid heart rate; headaches; tremors; confusion; unconsciousness; anemia;
can cause cancer
Ethylbenzene
Irritation to eyes, skin, and respiratory system; loss of consciousness; asphyxiation; nervous system effects
Formaldehyde
Irritation to eyes and throat; nausea; difficulty breathing; asthma, may cause cancer
Hexane
Narcotic agent and neurotoxin, irritation to eyes, skin, upper respiratory : system; dizzi -ness; confusion; nausea; headache; muscle
weakness; nerve damage
Lead
[In Children}
Damage to brain and nervous system; behav -ior and learning problems; slowed growth; hearing problems; headache
[In Adults]
Reproductive problems (men and women); high blood pressure; hypertension; nerve dis- orders; memory and concentration problems,
muscle and joint pain
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. [PAHs]
Irritation to eyes and skin; can cause cancer, possible reproductive effects; immune system effects
Toluene
Irritation to eyes, skin, teeth, and upper respi -ratory system; fatigue; confusion; dizziness; headaches; memory loss; nausea; nervous
sys -tem; liver; kidney and blood effects
Xylene
Irritation to eyes, skin, respiratory system; diz- ziness; confusion; change in sense of balance; nervous system; gastrointestinal system;
liver; kidney and blood effects
"Partial list of chemicals present in the Montebello Hills Oilfield,
Source: Montebello Hills Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report — Appendix V: Analysis of Impacts of Oil Operations on
Montebello Hills Specific Plan Residential Development.
Placing a crowded development of 1,2oo residences atop an ACTIVE oil field represents an unacceptable risk. Other cities have been
sued for approving development on polluted land. The City of Montebello doesn't need the large economic risk from future liability
posed by this development.
You most likely have read many and will be hearing more pertinent comments on the deficiency of the
dEIR. Please heed those of us who are part of the real people, the 99 %, who are concerned with
preserving a living treasure, who have taken the time to do the research, attend meetings, send
comments and info to you about the value of preserving the Banning Ranch as a Natural Open Space
Recreation Area. Just say NO to a nonliving corporation.
Respectfully submitted,
Margot Eiser, private citizen and Co- Founder Save Montebello Hills Sierra Club Task Force
Montebello, CA 90640
McDonald, Cristal
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:00 PM
To: McDonald, Cristal
Subject: FW: Opposition to proposed Banning Ranch Development
From: Sheila Pfafflin lSMTP:SPFAFFLIN((DGMAIL.COMI
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:00:08 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Opposition to proposed Banning Ranch Development
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Newport Beach City Council:
We are strongly opposed to the proposed development at Banning Ranch. It will have disastrous impacts on
Costa Mesa and surrounding communities in terms of increased traffic, air pollution from tons of contaminated
earth which will be dug up, noise pollution, and many other adverse impacts, as well as destructive impact on a
delicate ecosystem. Serious questions have been raised about the adequacy of the EIR approved by your
planning board. The chairman of your planning board himself stated that many aspects of the development are
uncertain at this time. He further stated that the high estimated costs of clean -up which have been used as an
argument for this project are, in fact, unknown, and could be much less than claimed. There are serious issues
raised by a proposal to build over 1300 residences on a former oil field in an earthquake -prone area, which are
inadequately addressed. It is not even in accord with your city's own master plan for this area. This land is one
of the last major open spaces which is available along our coast. The puiblic would be far better served if it
were made into a nature preserve, similar to the what has been done in the Back Bay. We do not need another
huge housing development and strip malls destroying this environmently sensitive area.
We ask the Newport Beach City Council to reject the EIR for this project.
Sheila Pfafflin
Dolores Minerich
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
contact #: (949) 646 -3123
To the City Clerk: please circulate this email to the Newport Beach City Council. This email needs to be
included in the official administrative record for the Newport Banning Ranch project and its successors.
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENi)A
ap•�. R.re
McDonald, Cristal PRi al a. +' °'° rA
From: Sheila Pfafflin [spfafflin @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 2:41 PM l 12 TUL 23
To: City Clerk's Office PM 3 Oq
Subject: Banning Ranch Development not good for Costa Mesa 'l r
I� t �i
R My rn
C',in � e
To the Newport Beach City Council:
A news story says that one of your councilors has stated that the proposed Banning Ranch development will be
good for Costa Mesa. You should understand that many of us in Costa Mesa disagree vehemently with his
views. The noise, traffic and other negative impacts will degrade our quality of life. Even the monetary costs
for this development fall heavily on Costa Mesa, while the taxes go to Newport Beach. I would also note that I
have met many people from Newport Beach who also oppose this project. The quality of live for the citizens of
our cities should not be sacrificed to gain for a few.
Sheila Pfafflin
Costa Mesa
McDonald, Cristal
From: Susan Lester [susan.lester @ca.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:20 AM <° ,,-PEI F A° wa.
To: City Clerk's Office "" ` "� t' d " A r ,
Subject: Banning Ranch Development Proposal PRINTED:" � - - --
7 -2.3 - f Z
As a resident of Costa Mesa, the adjacent city that will have to be used as access for this proposed development, I
oppose this assault on our natural wetlands and flood plain. This needs to be included in the official administrative record
for the Newport Banning Ranch project and its successors.
Yours truly,
Susan M. Lester
220 Rose Lane
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
McDonald, Cristal
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:58 AM " RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
To: McDonald, Cristal
Subject: FW: ATTENTION MANAGERS - Coyotes & Banning Ranch PRIsmTEs ' '�jj
7 X3-3 -/ ?--
From: Locey, Mary
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:57:59 AM
To: 'sowgol77 @yahoo.com'
Cc: Kiff, Dave
Subject: RE: ATTENTION MANAGERS- Coyotes & Banning Ranch
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Hello Ms. Roget,
I will forward your email to the City Clerk's Office for distribution to the City Council members.
Thank you,
Mary
Mary Locey I Public Information Specialist
949 -644 -3031
From: sowgol77(5yahoo.com [rnailto:sowao177(J1yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:08 PM
To: Kiff, Dave
Cc: Locey, Mary
Subject: ATTENTION MANAGERS
ATTENTION: CITY MANAGERS
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
My name is Christy Roget, I am a local resident of the Newport Mesa
area, recently my dog was attacked and killed in my backyard surrounded by 8ft. walls in a gated community.
Coyotes are here and there are a lot of them.
There have been reports all over town that cats and dogs have been taken and killed in their own backyards in
broad daylight.
This is a high alert for wild life management officials for this behavior, which has not yet been expressed; do to
feelings of guilt from owners thinking it was there fault when really it's an existing problem.
It has been escalating more and more through our neighborhoods.
This is the deal... if you vote for the housing development to succeed, I can guarantee you will have more
issues than you ever hoped for. Here are just a few reasons...
Coyotes going to be forced to find new territories for their family packs to live in, only if other packs allow
them to venture on to their new territories. This can create major conflicts between coyote packs and may bring
them closer to urban areas where children live and can cause a great threat to our citizens security and well
being.
Creating such an ambush can threaten lives and create high public safety concerns within our community. This
can result in unwanted protests from Newport Beach residents. It will be a loss rather than a gain in the long
run. Coyote conflicts are on the rise and the development of Banning Ranch will only make the situation worse.
If we be proactive we can expect more families to feel safe living here and we can preserve the image of
Newport Beach as a safe and responsible city rather than as a place of negligent management. Just a few weeks
ago a child was killed in southern California from a coyote attack, which took place in a residents own back
yard. Sooner or later there will be raising issues on safety concerns.
I would like to ask you to vote no on the development of Banning Ranch due to the wildlife and safety
concerns.
Respectfully yours,
Christy Roget
McDonald, Cristal
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 9:25 AM
To: McDonald, Cristal
Subject: FW: Banning Ranch Development
From: m sommars [SMTP:MMSOMMARS(a)YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 9:25:17 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Banning Ranch Development
Auto forwarded by a Rule
City Clerk:
pPR, P! 'I E'Ut i -k
R { 3.c. LV.
7-d-3--f;?-
This is to give official notice that I am opposed to the development of 19th Ave. in Costa Mesa CA as listed in
and /or connected with the Banning Ranch Development.
Please include this email in the permanent record regarding ")Banning Ranch ".
Thank you.
Mike Sommars
1750 Whittier Ave., 44
Costa Mesa CA 92627
McDonald, Cristai
From:
Sheila Pfafflin [spfafflin @gmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, July 23, 2012 2:41 PM
To:
City Clerk's Office
Subject:
Banning Ranch Development not good for Costa Mesa
To the Newport Beach City Council:
A news story says that one of your councilors has stated that the proposed Banning Ranch development will be
good for Costa Mesa. You should understand that many of us in Costa Mesa disagree vehemently with his
views. The noise, traffic and other negative impacts will degrade our quality of life. Even the monetary costs
for this development fall heavily on Costa Mesa, while the taxes go to Newport Beach. I would also note that I
have met many people from Newport Beach who also oppose this project. The quality of live for the citizens of
our cities should not be sacrificed to gain for a few.
Sheila Pfafflin
Costa Mesa
NEXIPORTGGRE S TA 19
NEWPORT BEAC1-1���:
July 18, 2012
Honorable Mayor Nancy Gardner and Members of the Newport Beach City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
An environmental consulting firm, Synectecology Inc., was engaged by a group of Newport Crest
residents to conduct a review of the Newport Banning Ranch draft environmental impact report (DEIR)
with a focus on air quality and noise (attached). The Newport Crest Homeowners Board of Directors
requests that the City review this report. Mr. Todd Brody is the firm's principal, and his report reveals
major discrepancies and defects in the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR. If you haven't read Mr. Brody's
report, we would appreciate it if you would do so.
The Newport Crest Homeowners Board of Directors is genuinely concerned about the number of issues
raised in this report. For example, the lack of input files and data used for air quality and noise analyses
as well as use of an out -of -date emission program to model air quality leading to an understatement of
the adverse impacts effecting the Newport Crest community. We believe it is your legal obligation to
review and analyze these issues and provide a fact -based explanation and resolution to the Newport
Crest Homeowner's Association in a timely, honest and thorough manner.
Additionally, based on Mr. Todd's report the Newport Crest Homeowners Association Board of Directors
requests that a revised DEIR be prepared and recirculated for public review.
Please include this letter and the attachment in the public record for the Newport Banning Ranch project.
We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Newport Crest Homeowners Association
Board of Directors
Mark Gonzalez, President
Ginny Lombardi, Vice President
Sharon Boles, Secretary
Mike Rosenthal, Treasurer
Attachment
cc: Patrick Alford, City Planner
City of Newport Beach
H O M E O W N E R S A S S O C I A T I O N
210 Intrepid Street • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • 949.631.0925 - Fax 949.63 1,5433
www.NewportCrest.org
ynec colo v
Environmental Consulting Services
April 26, 2012
Due Diligence Review of the Banning Ranch Project dDEFR
To Whom It May Concern:
Recognizing that the average citizen has neither the background nor technical expertise to
adequately review the myriad of disciplines included in an Environmental Impact Report,
Dorothy Kraus hired Synectecology to provide due diligence review of the noted project
with emphasis on air quality and noise.
By way of introduction, Synectecology has been providing environmental consulting
services since 1994. It's Principal, Todd Brody, has been working in the Environmental
Consulting field since 1978 and Mr. Brody has prepared well over 600 environmental
documents to date. Mr. Brody prepared air quality and/or noise analyses for several of
these projects in the City of Newport Beach including, Dredging and Habitat Restoration
of the Newport Back Bay, Improvements to Buck Gulley, The Realignment of Irvine
Avenue, Mariner's Mile, Bay Island Sand Retention Wall and Bridge Refurbishment,
Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz, St. Marks Presbyterian Church, Olsen Homes Conversion
from Industrial to Multi - Family Residential, and the Aerie Residential Project. Other
relevant proximate projects include the restoration and development of the Bolsa Chica
Wetlands area, improvements to the UCI Campus, and the proposed stadium at
University High School. I've included my resume with this submittal.
With respect to air quality, we find that in many cases the air quality an extends
construction well beyond the dates included in the project description thereby avoiding
the indication of the potential impacts that are likely to ensue. We also find that the air
quality analysis uses trip rates that differ from those provided in the Traffic Appendix
thereby underestimating the number of daily trips and those emissions related to this
travel.
With respect to the air quality modeling, we find that the Applicant bases the human
health risk assessment and greenhouse gas emissions for the oilfield operations on the
outdated URBEMIS model, but bases the construction and operation of the project on the
current CaIEEMod model. As we show through comment, the models use different
parameters and defaults and predict different results that are not compatible.
Furthermore, the health risk analysis overestimates the area for consolidated oil
operations thereby underestimating the emissions concentrations and health risks
associated with these operations. This is especially disturbing because human health risk
should receive as high a priority as criteria pollutants, which may or may not manifest
themselves miles downwind.
We also find that the Applicant does not adhere to the SCAQMD guidance for Localized
Significance Threshold for construction emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions for that
matter) leading to a claim of no significant impact where in fact using the correct
methodology, one does exist. The analysis is also deficient in that it does not address the
Localized Significance Thresholds for the operation of the consolidated oilfields with
respect to the proximate existing and proposed land uses.
Finally, we find that much of the analysis is undocumented and because no input files are
provided and only limited information was provided as to the construction and operation
parameters used in the model, the analysis is not replicable by an independent third party
and these data will need to be provided prior to final review.
With respect to noise, again we find that only limited information is provided and much
of the documentation to back the analysis is missing. For example, the Applicant took
15- minute noise reading and extrapolated them out to 24 hours with describing how the
methodology was performed. Additionally, the vehicle mix used in the analysis does not
match that of Orange County in general, nor does it follow Caltrans estimates, where
applicable, and no rationale is provided as to how it was ascertained.
We also find that the noise associated with haul trucks may be underestimated due to an
inconsistency in the document. Whereas the noise analysis estimates that no more than
20 trucks would visit the site on a daily basis, the traffic analysis puts this number as high
as 200 trucks a day.
We also find that the mitigation does not go far enough. The Applicant is to provide the
City of Costa Mesa with money for roadway improvements that the residents cannot be
assured of. However, the mitigation makes no offer for sound insulation improvements
that would go directly to the sensitive homeowners.
Furthermore, "temporary" construction carried out during regular business hours requires
that residents be provided with sound walls when equipment comes to within 300 feet of
the residence. But the text notes that consolidated oilfield operations (which use similar
equipment and make similar noise levels except that they can go on 24 -hours per day
everyday for a week during drilling) could be within 250 feet of existing and 200 feet of
future residents, and requires no sound walls. CEQA notes that the mitigation is to be
commensurate with the impact and this on -going operational impact would obviously
outweigh the temporary impacts of on -site construction.
We feel that the Applicant's incorporation of the included comments will result in a
better, more defensible document. If you have any questions or need further information,
don't hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Svnectecoloev
Todd Brody,
Principal
0232 • ' _ - -. -)FO 11 •�� i ii
ynec -c0IO v
Environmental Consulting Services
Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Banning
Ranch Project
Prepared by:
Synectecology
10232 Overbill Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Prepared For:
]Dorothy (Kraus
10 Wild Goose Court
Newport ]Beach, CA 92663
April 26, 2012
10232 Overhill Dr., Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 669 -9799
Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Reports Prepared for the Banning
Ranch Project 1DE1R, September 9, 2011
SECTION 4.10, AIR QUALITY
General Comment: The Health Risk analysis bases the projected pollutant
concentrations on a 20 -acre site for the consolidated oilfield operations. However, Page
3 -1 of the Project Description notes that the oilfield operations will be consolidated into a
16.5 -acre area. Because emissions concentrations are based on a volume of emissions
per unit area, decreasing the area to the 16.5 -acre size noted in the Project description
will raise the projected pollutant concentrations. Use of a 20 -acre site decreases the
projected concentrations by 21% (i.e., (20 acres / 16.5 acres — 1 x 100 %)). Therefore,
analysis not only underestimates the health risks at the proximate receptors, but also
underestimates the extent of the risk on the surrounding population.
General Comment: The project data for the health risk assessment and construction -
related greenhouse gas emissions was generated using the outdated URBEMIS model
while the analysis for criteria pollutants and operational greenhouse gas emissions was
based on the CalEEMod model. These models use different equipment assumptions;
daily area graded, etc. and the results are not compatible. In fact, the Applicant
responded to a comment by Allen Forster on the use of the models and specifically noted:
"BonTerra Consulting's testing, confirmed through many contacts with SCAQMD,
showed that CaIEEMod predicts higher emission rates than URBEMIS for development
projects in Orange County. Because CalEEMod is more conservative than URBEMIS,
CaIEEMod was used on the Newport Banning Ranch Project. Based on BonTerra
Consulting's testing of the model and continuing discussions with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) about CaIEEMod characteristics, the City is
confident that there are no flaws in the model that would result in under- prediction of air
quality impacts to sensitive receptors."
So because the CalEEMod model is more conservative and predicts higher emissions,
and does not result in "under- prediction," we must assume that the health risk analysis is
flawed in using the URBEMIS model and that those emissions are in all likelihood
"under- predicted." This then invalidates the health risk analysis, and for consistency and
continuity, and so that the Decision Makers can make an informed decision as to the true
potential of the health risk, it must be redone using the CalEEMod model.
General Comment: While the text notes that the project construction follows the
schedule provided in the Project Description, the results of the model runs included in
Appendix G show that this isn't so. In fact, the construction schedule was extended by
several years from the provided schedule just to reduce the daily emissions impacts.
For example, Table 3 -3 of the Project Description shows that the Phase 1 construction of
the models and homes would occur between 2/2016 and 9/2016, for a duration of just 7
months.
However, when one reviews the CalEEMod model results included in Appendix G, one
finds that the construction of the models and homes runs from 2015 through 2017. The
model heading pages included in Appendix G illustrating this point are included below:
Page 18 of 55, 3.5 Building Construction Phase 1 — 2015,
Page 20 of 55, 3.5 Building Construction Phase 1 — 2016, and
Page 22 of 55, 3.5 Building Construction Phase 1 — 2017,
So by artificially extending the construction schedule out from 7 months to 3 years, the
Applicant has reduced the daily emissions by approximately 85 percent (i.e., 1 — (7 mo /
48 mo) x 100 %).
Similarly, for Phase 3, the Project Description notes that the construction of the models
and homes would occur between 2/2020 and 9/2020, again for a duration of just 7
months. However, in this case the analysis extends the actual construction out over 5
years.
Once again, when one reviews the CalEEMod model results included in Appendix G, one
finds that the Phase 3 construction of the models and homes runs from 2019 through
2023. The model beading pages included in Appendix G illustrating this point are
included below:
Page 46 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2019,
Page 48 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2020,
Page 50 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2021,
Page 52 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2022, and
Page 54 of 55, 3.10 Building Construction Phase 3 — 2023,
In this case artificially extending the construction schedule out from 7 months to 5 years
has the effect of reducing the daily emissions by 88 percent (i.e., 1 — (7 mo / 60 mo) x
100 %) grossly under - predicting the daily impacts.
So it would appear that instead of following the actual construction schedule, the analysis
simply allocates the construction over the both the construction and occupancy period
thereby artificially reducing the average daily emissions and leading to conclusions of no
significant impacts where impacts will in fact occur. The analysis must be redone using
the construction schedule projected in the Project Description and the impacts reassessed.
General Comment: The analysis does not include the dates /durations used in the
construction phasing nor does it provide the input files used in the CaIEEMod model
This makes replication of the results impossible and these data must be submitted for
independent verification.
General Comment: While the Applicant fails to include the data used in the number of
haul trips on a daily basis, review of the model output would suggest that no more than 1
or 2 trips per day are included. However, Page 142 of Appendix F, Transportation and
Circulation, states that "Construction truck traffic will be limited to 16 trucks per hour
between June 1 and September 1, and 25 trucks per hour at all other times of the year."
Based on an 8 -hour workday as is used in the Air Quality Analysis, this would then infer
that 128 to 200 trucks per day could be used just in the remediation effort. The Applicant
has failed to address the impact of the air quality emissions and health risk from diesel
particulates associated with these 200 trucks per day that would visit the site, as well as
the augmented level of construction equipment necessary to fill them.
General Comment: The project description indicates the use of subterranean parking.
The air quality analysis is remiss in not considering the potential for elevated CO
emissions within the proposed parking structures.
Page 4.10 -7, 1" & 3`d Paragraphs: The analysis notes the use of the outdated
URBEMIS model for calculation of dust and oilfield operational emissions to be used in
the analysis of toxic air contaminants. However, Page 4.10 -5, 3`d paragraph notes the use
of the CaIEEMod model for use in projecting criteria pollutants for construction and
project - related operational emissions. Because the two models predict different
particulate levels, the use of the two models leads to an inconsistency in the analysis.
The analysis should be redone using the CalEEMod model in place of the dated
URBEMIS model and the impacts reassessed.
Page 4.10 -14, 'fable 4.10 -5: There is really no explanation as to how the values
provided in the table were prepared and the values would appear to be in error.
For example 1,3- butadiene shows 0.002453 pounds per hour and 0.5633 pounds per year.
This then infers that this toxic air contaminant is emitted for 229.6 hours per year (i.e.,
0.5633 lb /yr / 0.002453 lb/hr = 229.6 hr /yr).
But acetaldehyde shows 0.094807 pounds per hour and 0.2468 pounds per year. This
then infers that this toxic air contaminant is emitted for just 2.6 hours per year (i.e.,
0.2468 Ib /yr / 0.094807 lb/hr = 2,6 hr /yr).
Finally, acrolein (2- propenal) shows 0.000001 pound per hour and 0.138261 pounds per
year. This then infers that this toxic air contaminant is emitted for 138,251 hours per year
(i.e., 0.138261 lb /yr / 0.000001 lb/hr = 138,261 hr /yr). It should be noted that there are
only 8,760 hours in a year (i.e., 24 hours /day x 365 days = 8,760 hr /yr).
Because these types of emissions are primarily associated with oilfield operations, it is
logical that these pollutant species, as well as most of the other emissions in the table;
would be based on a similar timeframe for release. Please explain these apparent
discrepancies and correct the analysis as necessary.
Page 4.10 -18, Table 4.10 -6: The table notes an industrial threshold of 10,000 Mtons per
year of CO2e. However, the project is not industrial in nature but residential and
commercial. The SCAQMD has a suggested threshold of just 3,000 Mtons per year of
Me for residential and commercial land uses, and this threshold should be used in the
analysis. Note that this threshold is half the 6,000 Mtons per year of CO2e used in the
analysis of impacts. Please revise the analysis to use the appropriate threshold criterion.
Page 4.10 -19, 5fh Paragraph: The air quality analysis references Table 3 -5 of Section 3
for the phasing plan. First, contrary to the text, there is no Table 3 -5 (it is Table 3 -3) in
Section 3, so please correct the reference.
Next, again, contrary to the text, the schedule used in the air quality analysis does not
match that included in Table 3 -3. Because both equipment and vehicle emissions vary
with the year, the air quality analysis is inherently incorrect by using the wrong dates.
Please revise the EIR to use a consistent set of dates and time frames for all disciplines.
Page 4.10 -20, 1" Paragraph: The analysis notes that it uses the URBEMIS model. That
model is now outdated and the analysis should be done using the CalEEMod model.
Revise the analysis accordingly.
Page 4.10 -22, 2 °d Paragraph: There is no basis for the 7 -acre estimate nor does the
Applicant supply justification for using this size area.
The actual area to be disturbed is to be based on the equipment used and the SCAQMD
provides guidance as to how the acreage is to be allocated. The Applicant ignores this
guidance and this then leads to an underestimate of the emissions' concentrations and
their impacts.
Review of the CalEEMod model results show that the analysis allocates two excavators,
one grader, one dozer, one scraper, and two track/loader/backhoes to the grading effort.
The SCAQMD has provided a Fact Sheet for Applying CaIEEMod to Localised
Significance Thresholds and provides the following table. Furthermore, the SCAQMD
specifically notes that this is "The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day"
(emphasis added).
E ui ment Type
Acres /3hr -day
Crawler Tractors
0.5
Graders
0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers
0.5
Scrapers
1
Other pieces of equipment (e.g., excavators, track /loader /backhoes) work in conjunction
with those pieces that are more mobile so add little to the area of disturbance (e.g., an
excavator sits in -place digging a hole and a loader moves dirt from a pile to a truck).
So based on the equipment listing provided in the CaIEEMod model results, the daily
area disturbed is not 7 acres as portrayed, nor even 5 acres as used in the analysis, but
only 2 acres (i.e., 1 grader x 0.5 acre + 1 dozer x 0.5 acre + 1 scraper x 1 acre = 2 acres).
The SCAQMD makes it clear that this is the way in which the analysis is to be condricted
and even provides the following example in the Fact Sheet:
"Example I
A 15 -acre development proposes to use one grader, one scraper, and one tractor for eight
hours each during Site Preparation activities (the peak day in this case). As the maximum
daily disturbed acreage for this equipment is 2 acres (0.5 + 1 + 0.5 = 2), the project
proponent should compare the CalEEMod reported emissions against the 2 -acre LST
lookup tables." Therefore, the analysis must be revised to comply with the prescribed
SCAQMD methodology.
Using the prescribed SCAQMD methodology, Table 4.10 -9 clearly shows that NOx,
PM]o, and PM2.5 would all be significant based on a 2- rather than 5 -acre site as was used
in the analysis. This then represents a previously undisclosed significant impact and no
mitigation has been proposed to reduce its effects at receptor locations.
Furthermore, even if the Applicant can demonstrate that the use of Offroad201 I model,
would show that Tier 3 equipment can reduce NOx to less than the value included in the
2 -acre LST lookup table (as is provided in the Topical Response to Comments), use of
Tier 3 equipment does not control particulate matter associated with the exhaust, nor does
it reduce the dust raised during construction activities and the impact remains significant
and previously undisclosed.
Furthermore, this points to another flaw in the analysis. For some undisclosed reason, the
Applicant assumes that 7 acres are graded on a daily basis, but according to the
SCAQMD, only provides enough equipment to grade 2 acres per day. Therefore, to meet
the desired timeframe, the listing of equipment, and their attendant emissions, must be
augmented by a factor of 3.5 rimes (i.e., 7 acres / 2 acres = 3.5), or the schedule will drag
on 3.5 times longer than has been portrayed in the Project Description. Either way, the
analysis needs to be revised accordingly.
Page 4.10 -22, Table 4.10 -9: In accordance with the SCAQMD data, the values
presented for CO for 1- and 2 -acre sites are incorrect and should be 647 and 962 pounds
per day, respectively. While this does not change the outcome of the analysis, it shows
an inattention to detail. Please revise the table accordingly.
Page 4.10 -22, Table 4.10 -9: The table shows maximum daily on -site emission of just 7
and 4 pounds for PMro and PM2.5, respectively and notes that these values are below the
screening threshold. However, Table 4.10 -7 clearly shows PM10 and PM2.5 level of up to
48 and 13 pounds per day, respectively. These values are well above the 7 and 4 pounds
quoted for PM10 and PM 5, respectively, as well as the presented threshold values of 14
and 9 pounds per day, respectively. Because the text doesn't describe which of the
emissions in Table 4.10 -7 are produced on -site and should be counted toward the
localized thresholds, the reader cannot make an informed decision as to the actual
significance, or even the validity of the values presented in Table 4.10 -9. In the interest
of full disclosure, the text must clearly show which of these emissions are being
considered. The Decision Makers will not review the technical appendix nor be expected
to understand it.
Page 4.10 -23, 2 °a Paragraph: The dates noted of analysis based on projected occupancy
do not agree with those presented in Table 3 -3 of the Project Description and because
emissions are based on the year analyzed, the analysis is in error. Revise the analysis to
address the dates in the Project Description.
Page 4.10 -25, Table 4.10 -13: The table shows 17.8 pounds per day for PM10 and 3.5
pounds per day for PM,.5. In accordance with the text provided in the Health Risk
Assessment included in Appendix G, these emissions are all produced on -site. From the
Appendix:
"It was assumed in this inventory that operational emissions occur 8 hours per day, with
the exception of oil rigs that operate 24 hours per day. All on -road vehicles, mainly
vacuum trucks, cement trucks, and crew trucks /vans were assumed to travel a maximum
of five (5) miles per on -site trip on unpaved roads."
Also,
"The emission sources included in the inventory were natural gas fuel combustion for
building heat and hearth fuel (winter only), landscaping equipment fuel combustion,
consumer products and architectural coating. It was assumed that the portion of the trips
generated by the development that occurs on the Proposed Project site is 1 mile round trip
for residential trips and 0.2 miles round trip for commercial trips. The remaining length
of trips generated by residential and commercial buildings is assumed to occur off -site
and was therefore not included in the HHRA."
As noted, these are operational emissions that are all produced on -site. Many of the
oilfield operations would be consolidated into two common areas increasing the
emissions concentration in those and their surrounding areas.
Because these are localized emissions generated on -site, they are subject to the
SCAQMD Localized Threshold Limitations for project operations and the analysis is
deficit for not examining the impact of these localized emissions on both the proposed
sensitive land uses, as well as proximate off -site receptors.
10
Furthermore, in this case because the emissions are on -going operational, rather than
construction - oriented, the significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 are reduced from
10.4 pg /m3 to just 2.5 µg/m3. In this case a 5 -acre site, as was erroneously used
elsewhere in the analysis, would be significant for PM,o if just 4 pounds were produced
on a daily basis. PM2.5 would be significant if just 2 pounds were produced on a daily
basis. Again, Table 4.10 -13 shows that on- site PMio and PM2.5 values are 17.8 and 3.5
pounds per day, respectively. These values are well above the SCAQMD Localized
Threshold Limitations for project. This then represents a previously undisclosed impact
that has not been addressed nor mitigated.
While it is conceded that based on the size of the site, some of these on -site emissions
would not contribute substantially toward elevated concentrations in any one area, it is up
to the analysis to aggregate the on -site oilfield emissions and any proposed sources as
appropriate, and address the localized emissions at all existing and proposed sensitive
receptor sites to show otherwise. This analysis has not been performed.
Page 4.10 -27, 2 °d Paragraph: While the SCAQMD may have different thresholds for
construction and operation, based on the simultaneous timing and proximity of phased
construction with the ongoing operational development, the combined impact of
construction and operation would represent a significant cumulative impact that must be
disclosed. Please revise the analysis as necessary.
Page 4.10 -28, 2 °d Bullet: The text notes that the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District methodology would only be applicable if "The intersection, which
includes a mix of vehicle types, is not anticipated to be substantially different from the
County average." In this case the "County" represents Sacramento County and not
Orange County. To use the Sacramento County screening methodology, the Applicant
must therefore demonstrate that the vehicle mix in Orange County is similar to that in
Sacramento County. This has not been done and therefore, the Applicant is remiss in
using this methodology without validation.
In actuality, the Applicant should be modeling these intersections using the CALINE4
Model as is suggested by the SCAQMD, and not SMAQMD screening methodology for
intersection analysis.
Page 4.10 -30, 2 °d Paragraph: The analysis uses a distance of 100 meters from the fence
line for sensitive receptors. SCAQMD methodology requires that the proximate
receptors be modeled at a distance of 25 meters. Revise the analysis accordingly.
Page 4.10 -32, 3`d Paragraph: The analysis fails to consider any odor impacts associated
with the remediation of the site and disposal of contaminated soils. To simply say these
odors are "not anticipated" is not adequate assurance. Please address this potential
impact.
APPENDIX G
11
l
Page 2 -7, 4`h Paragraph: The analysis makes use of data from the San Diego area when
more proximate data is available. The analysis should use the most representative data
proximate to the project area.
Page 5 -1, 6`h Paragraph: The Tier I analysis is based on a receptor distance of 100
meters. However, Figure 4 -3 would appear to include proposed receptors located more
proximate than this distance. The SCAQMD recommends a minimum distance of just 25
meters when the actual distance to proximate receptors is unknown or closer than this
distance. Obviously, a closer receptor would experience a higher pollutant concentration
so Tier I methodology would not apply to any receptor closer than 100 meters. Please
revise the analysis accordingly.
ATTACHMENT A, TAC EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
General Comment: The analysis would appear to include those emissions from the
equipment and vehicles used in the oilfield operations as well as those produced by the
proposed on -site uses. The analysis also notes that it includes air toxics included in the
fugitive dust and hydrocarbon emissions associated with the oilfield operations.
However, we find no calculations that present how the emissions generated from this
fugitive dust and release additional hydrocarbon emissions were converted into the
various toxic pollutant species. Please supply the missing calculations.
Page 5 -30, Table: The calculation used for both PM10 and PM2.5 from on -site dust are in
error and underestimate these emissions. The spreadsheet calculates PM2.5 using a value
of 10% of the PM10 (i.e., 3.511 for PM10 and 0.351 for PM2.5) for dust whereas the
CaIEEMod models put this value at approximately 54% of the PM10 associated with
construction.
Furthermore, Page 18 of 30, CALIFORNIA EMISSION INVENTORY AND
REPORTING SYSTEM (CEIDARS), on which the analysis is based, puts these PM2.5
emissions at 21.2% of the PM10 value.
Additionally, Page 17 of 30 puts PM2_5 at 16.9% of PM10. (i.e., 0.00013774 /0.00081571
x 100 %).
However, the Applicant chose to use the least conservative of all the values included in
the text of 10% (i.e., 0.070229 / 0.702286 x 100 %) as shown on Page 20 of 30. Still,
even the values predicted by this method for both PM,o and PM2.5 are in error and are too
low.
The amount of dust kicked up is a function of the silt content on the road. The analysis
assumes, without providing any reason or justification, a silt content of just 2 %.
However, AP -42, from where the calculations are derived, does provide guidance and
suggests a mean value of 8.5% for silt at construction sites. Use of the 8.5% value would
12
directly raise both the PM o and PM2.5 emissions by 425% (i.e., 8.5% / 2% x 100 %).
Please revise the analysis accordingly.
Page 1 of 22, Newport Banning Ranch Proposed Project Residential and
Commercial Development, Criteria, Greenhouse Gas, and Toxic Air Emissions: The
table calculates greenhouse gases using the outdated URBEMIS Model. The CalEEMod
model that replaced the URBEMIS model includes many greenhouse gas sources (e.g.,
energy use, water conveyance, vegetation CO2 sequestering) that are not addressed in the
URBEMIS model. The analysis must be redone using the CaIEEMod model as was used
for the criteria pollutants.
Page 1 of 22, Newport Banning Ranch Proposed Project Residential and
Commercial Development, Criteria, Greenhouse Gas, and Toxic Air Emissions: The
emissions projected in the table and used in the Health Risk and Greenhouse Gas analysis
differ from those included in the criteria pollutant analysis and the Decision Makers have
no way of knowing which is more accurate.
We have prepared a table showing the emissions used in the two analyses. Note that
contrary to mhat has been stated by the Applicant that the CalEEMod Model is more
conservative than the URBEMIS model, the URBEMIS model actually predicts higher
CO and particulate levels than the CalEEMod model.
Furthermore, based on the URBEMIS model, the project would also be significant for
PMIo (168.1 pounds per day reported with URBEMIS and 125 pounds per day reported
from CalEEMod). Of course these differences could also be that the health risk
assessment is not using the same set oJ'assumptions as the analysis of the criteria
pollutants, and again, the results are not comparable.
The document needs to be revised so that all modeling is done using the same model,
where applicable, so that the analysis is internally consistent.
URBEMIS VS CAILEEMOD Model Results, Project Operations
Criteria
Pollutants
CO
VOC
NOx
SOx
PMro
PM2.5
lbs /day
lbs /day
lbs /day
Ibs /day
lbs /day
]bs /day
URBEMIS Values Used in health Risk and Greenhouse Gas Anal ses
Residential and
Commercial
34.63
76.21
26.32
- --
0.74
0.73
Vehicles
676.76
67.43
78.94
1.00
167.33
32.38
Total
711.4
143.6
105.3
1.0
168.1
33.1
SCAQMD
Threshold
550
55
55
150
150
55
Exceeds
Threshold?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
CatEEMod Year 2023 Values Presented in the DEIR Analysis
Area Sources
115 148
1
<0.5
12
2
Energy Sources
5 11
11
<0.5
1 1
1
13
Vehicles
463
146
97
1
121
6
Total
583
195
110
1
125
9
SCAQMD
550
55
55
150
150
55
Threshold
Exceeds
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Threshold?
Difference
<128.4>
51.4
4.7
0
<43.1>
<24.1>
(CalEEMod —
URBEMIS
Page 14 of 22, URBEMIS Model ]input: The text notes that the analysis is based on
12,096 average daily trips (ADT). The analysis specifically states that the project would
generate 14,447 daily trips, but the value is reduced to 12,096 ADT to account for the
"internal capture."
However, Page 25, Table 2 of the Traffic Appendix F shows that the project would
generate 16,115 ADT and with internal capture and pass -by trips, the value is reduced to
14,989 ADT. Thus, based on the traffic analysis, the air quality analysis is
underestimating mobile source emissions by approximately 20 percent and the analysis is
in error. The EIR needs to be revised so that all disciplines are based on the same set of
assumptions.
Page 1 of 5, SCREIEN3: The analysis bases the projected concentrations on a 20 -acre
site. However, Page 3 -1 of the Project Description notes that the oilfield operations will
be consolidated into a 16.5 -acre area. Because emissions concentrations are based on a
volume of emissions per unit area, decreasing the area from 20 acres to the 16.5 -acre size
noted in the Project description will raise the projected pollutant concentrations. Use of a
20 -acre site decreases the projected concentrations by 21% (i.e., (20 acres / 16.5 acres — 1
x 100 %)) over those of a 16.5 -acre site. The analysis then not only underestimates the
health risks at the proximate receptors, but also underestimates the extent of the risk on
the surrounding population.
Page 1 of 5, SCREEN3: The analysis places the closest receptor at a distance of 500
meters (1,640 feet) and takes the analysis out to 2,000 meters (6,560 feet) from the
oilfield activity. Receptors would be located considerably closer than the reported 500 -
meter minimum distance and the concentrations, and cancer burden, will be far greater
than presented in the analysis at the proximate receptors. In accordance with SCAQMD
methodology, the closest receptors are top be located at a distance of 25 meters (82 feet)
and the analysis needs to be revised to address this minimum distance, or at least the
actual distances to existing and proposed receptor locations.
Page 14 of 22, URBEMIS Model Input: The Applicant has grossly underestimated the
area of construction leading to erroneous equipment use and emissions values. The
analysis uses the following values and therefore assumes that 118.5 acres of the site are
disturbed.
14
Use
Asst ned Acrea e
Condo /Townhouse High -rise
21.0
Tonwhomes /Condos
19.5
Single- family
63.0
Hotel
11
City Park
25
Strip Mall
No acreage allocated
Total
118.5
However, Table 3 -3 on Page 3 -39 of the Project Description clearly shows that 154.3
acres are dedicated to improvements. Furthermore, the table shows 246.8 acres
associated with the oilfield, much of which will need remediation. As such, the analysis
of construction emissions for grading clearly underestimates the brunt of the impact and
needs to be revised to fit the Project Description.
Page 16 of 22, IIIRBEMIIS Model Settings: While Page 14 of 22, URBEMIS Model
Input noted that the analysis is based on 12,096 ADT, (reduced from 14,447 daily trips),
the analysis actually uses a value of 13,323 ADT as shown on this page. Again, this
demonstrates an inattention to detail.
CaIEEM[od Modeling Results (V Set)
General Comment: The Applicant has failed to include the "input files" for all
CalEEMod model runs and the CalEEMod model results do not report most of the input
parameters (e.g., volume of soil hauled on a daily basis) used in the analysis. This then
makes independent verification of the model result impossible to duplicate. The input
file must be included for review and consistency with the project description prior to
finalization of the document.
Page 7 of 55, Mitigation Measures for Construction: Again, the analysis fails to
quantify those measures used in the mitigation (i.e., assumed control efficiency) and
these results are not reported by the model. The Applicant must clearly list the assumed
mitigation measures and their control efficiency so that they may be verified.
The analysis requires the use of Tier 3 (and where feasible, Tier 4) equipment and to
implement the mitigation the CaIEEMod analysis specifies "Use cleaner engines for
construction equipment" and "Use DPF (diesel particulate filters) for construction
equipment." The analysis then fails to quantify the assumed reduction for the "cleaner
engines" and the model output does not report these values for independent verification.
Furthermore, Tier 3 engines control the NOx and ROG associated with heavy equipment,
but not the diesel particulates. Use of the DPF mitigation without specifically calling out
the requirement for DPF as a mitigation measure in the document underestimates the
impacts of the diesel particulate matter (DPM). We've reproduced the SCAQMD table
showing the emissions associated with the various Tiers below. Again note that Tier 3
emissions require similar levels of DPM as Tier 2. Because the mitigation did not specify
15
the use of diesel particulate filters, no credit may be taken for their use, though the
analysis apparently has done this thereby underestimating these emissions and the impact.
TABLE 11- OFF -ROAD ENGINE EMISSION RATES & COMPARISON OF UNCONTROLLED
TO TIERED RATES AND TIERED TO TIERED RATES
TABLE II -B
TIER 1,2,3, AND 4 OFF -ROAD ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS
Engine
I Tier 1 /bb -hr
Tier 2 g /bh -hr
Tier 3 (g/bhp-hr
Tier 4 /bh -hr
Size
NOx
ROG
PM
NOx
ROG
I PM
NOx
ROG
PM
NOx
NOx
ROG
PM
li
I
I
interim
final
75 -99
6.9
5.32
0.28
0.3
3.325
0.175
0.3
2.5
0.3
0.14
0.015
100-
6.9
4.655
0.245
0.22
2.85
0.15
0.22
2.5
0.3
0.14
0.015
174
175-
6.9
1
0.4
4.655
0.245
0.22
2.85
0.15
0.22
2.5
0.3
0.14
0.015
299
300-
6.9
1
0.4
4.56
0.24
0.22
2.85
0.15
0.22
2.5
0.3
0.14
0.015
600
CalEEMod Modeling Results (2nd Set)
Page 2 of 11: The Applicant has unrealistically augmented the construction schedule
thereby avoiding the prediction significant impacts. This phase includes the construction
of just 228 dwelling units. However, the analysis pushes the painting of these structures
out to 545 working days (i.e., ArchCoatl 8/15/2015- 9/15/2017; 545 wd). This is
unrealistic (0.4 dwelling unit painted on a daily basis) and was obviously done to reduce
the daily impact of the VOCs associated with painting the structures that is typically
found to present a significant impact for a project of this magnitude.
The Applicant is aware that the CaIEEMod default for painting of a project of this size is
approximately 35 days. Therefore, by artificially extending the schedule out to 545 days
reduces the daily emissions by 94% (i.e., 1 - 35 days / 545 days x 100 %). Page 6 of 1 I of
this model results shows architectural coatings produce 5.3 pounds per day during
construction. If the CaIEEMod default value of 35 days is used in the analysis, as should
have been done, these emissions are augmented to 82.5 pounds per day (i.e., 5.3 lb/day x
545 days / 35 days = 82.5 pounds per day). It should be pointed out that the daily
threshold for this pollutant is 75 pounds per day as shown in the table on Page 4.10 -21 of
the air quality analysis and this represents another previously undisclosed significant
impact of the project for which no mitigation has been proposed. Similarly, this same
artificial augmentation was performed with the other phases of construction leading to
erroneously low daily emissions and all need to be corrected.
CaIEEMod Modeling Results Buildout 060911
Page 5 of 52, Mitigation Measures: The analysis notes that the Applicant will water
exposed surfaces but fails to quantify the efficiency of the mitigation for independent
verification and the model does not output this parameter. All assumptions (e.g., days
16
spent in each type of construction activity such as grading, building construction,
painting, etc. must clearly be noted so that the analysis may be replicated by an
independent third party.
CaIEEMod Modeling Results Phase 2 Operations
Page 2 of 9: The text notes that the analysis fails to include the ongoing release of ROG
emissions associated with the maintenance of paints and coatings thereby under -
predicting operational ROG emissions. Inclusion of these emissions could increase the
50.71 pounds per day for ROG, presented on Page 3 of 9, above the 55 pound per day
threshold presenting a significant impact. These emissions must be included in the
inventory to determine the significance of the impact. Revise the analysis accordingly.
CaIEEMod Modeling Results Buildout 062411
Page 5 of 10: The analysis estimates that the project generates 32,228.6 vehicle trips per
day. However, Page 25, Table 2 of the Traffic Appendix F shows that the project would
generate 16,115 ADT and with internal capture and pass -by trips, the value is reduced to
14,989 ADT. We recognize that the Applicant has "chopped up" these trips to determine
both on -and off -site trips in the emission calculations. However, the Applicant has
provided no guidance as to how these trips were allocated making the analysis
irreproducible. Please supply the missing conversion data for all model runs.
Page 8 of 10: The Applicant specifies the use of low VOC paints and coatings. VOC
content in paints and coatings is regulated by the SCAQMD. If the Applicant has used
the model default values, then these are not "low VOC" coatings as indicated, but just
coatings that comply with the SCAQMD regulations and should not be called "low
VOC." If the Applicant is truly specifying the use of "low VOC" coatings that are more
stringent than the SCAQMD regulatory levels, then it must be out of the result of a
significant impact that has not been disclosed. (As we previously noted, the painting
schedule has been extended over the period of construction and occupancy reducing its
daily emissions.) In either case the Applicant has failed to disclose the VOC content and
this must be specified for all model runs.
SECTION 4.11 — GREENHOUSE GASES
Page 4.11 -11, 4`s Paragraph: Contrary to the text, there is no basis for the use of a
6,000 -Mton threshold for greenhouse gases. At one time in the past, prior to the advent
of the noted SCAQMD Working Group, the City suggested that a standard should be no
higher than the 7,000 -Mton standard then proposed by CARB back in 2008, and drafted
before that time. As noted on Page 4.11 -9, the SCAQMD Working Group did not come
into being until 2008 and did not issue their approach and suggested threshold levels until
2010.
Regarding the City of Newport Beach's approach to greenhouse gas emissions, quoting
from Page 4.11-11, 4'h Paragraph, "To restate, until more guidance is provided from the
17
expert agencies..." This guidance was provided in 2010 by the SCAQMD Working
Group and for a project of this nature, the threshold is the stated 3,000 Mtons per year of
CO2e for a mixed -use project. The analysis must be revised to address this threshold
value now suggested by the SCAQMD.
Page 4.11 -12, 2nd Paragraph: The Applicant dismisses those greenhouse gases
associated with solid waste. The document notes, "Solid waste emissions are not
addressed in this analysis because of corrections in process to the model. Solid waste
GHG emissions are relatively a very small part of overall emissions and omission of
these data is considered to be acceptable."
Please provide a reference showing that solid wastes are being readdressed in future
model updates and that their inclusion is unnecessary as we can find nothing to this effect
on either the SCAQMD or CalEEMod Internet web sites.
Furthermore, we note that in their June 2011 "User Tips," the SCAQMD does indicate
that several other portions of the model are receiving modification. So by the same
token, why has the Applicant included these portions and not solid wastes?
Our experience with the CalEEMod model shows that the greenhouse gases from solid
waste amount to about half of those from unmitigated water use. The analysis indicates
that unmitigated water use for the operation of the project accounts for approximately
794 Mtons per year of CO2e. If the emissions from solid waste are half of this value (i.e.,
297 Mtons per year), they alone would account for over 13% of the 3,000 -Mton per year
threshold suggested by the SCAQMD for mixed -use projects. This is hardly a "very
small part of the overall emissions" and these emissions must be included in the analysis.
At the very least, in the interest of full disclosure, the analysis should present these
emissions for the reader then explain why they are omitted in the total.
Page 4.11 -13, 2nd Paragraph: The greenhouse gas study prepared for the future oilfield
operations was prepared using the outdated URBEMIS model and as discussed, and
illustrated previously, are not comparable with those projected using the CalEEMod
model. The HRA will need to be modified to use the CalEEMod model so that the
emissions may be added together to determine the full extent of the impact.
Page 4.11-18, 1" Bullet: Again, the use of a 6,000 -Mton CO, threshold is unwarranted
and the SCAQMD methodology suggests that a value of 3,000 Mtons be used.
G121214► GN41111
Any changes made to Appendix G as a result of the prior comments must be carried
through into Appendix H.
SECTION 4.12, NOISE
Page 4.12 -11, Table 4.12 -6: The second column notes the inclusion of the date and time.
However these data are not included. Please correct the table and provide the missing
data.
Page 4.12 -11, Table 4.12 -6: Footnote C notes "The 15- minute short-term noise level
measurements were converted into 24 -hour CNEL based on the hourly patterns from the
long -term measurements 15 and 16; see Table 4.12 -7 and Appendix I." While Table
4.12 -7 includes the CNELS for measurements 15 and 16, it does not indicate how these
values are applied to extrapolate the CNEL values for the short-term measurements.
Furthermore, contrary to what is stated in the table, Appendix I provides no reference to
how these values were ascertained. This then makes replication of the analysis
impossible and the missing data and methodology must be supplied for review.
Page 4.12 -16, 41h Paragraph: There is no basis provided for the 20 days required for the
implementation of the mitigation. If the receptors are to be significantly impacted, then
mitigation must be provided.
Page 4.12 -17, 2 °d Paragraph: The text states "Although truck noise may occasionally
be noticed (i.e., mostly by residents along West Coast Highway, 16th Street, and 17th
Street), the volume of trucks would not be substantial, with truck trips not likely to
exceed 20 trips per day."
This would infer that volumes of up to 20 trucks a day could be expected. However,
Page 142 of Traffic, Appendix F states that "Construction truck traffic will be limited to
16 trucks per hour between June 1 and September 1, and 25 trucks per hour at all other
times of the year." Based on an 8 -hour workday as is used in the Air Quality Analysis,
this would then infer that 128 to 200 trucks per day could be used just in the remediation
effort.
Road noise is extremely sensitive to the volume of heavy trucks. Revising the truck
estimate from 20 trucks per day to 200 trucks per day increases the noise associated with
these operations by 10 dBA. The noise analysis needs to quantitatively examine the
traffic associated with project construction traffic in accordance with the traffic analysis
and not just dismiss it as "not likely to exceed 20 trips per day."
Page 4.12 -22, 2 °d Paragraph: What is the basis for the assumption that rubberized
asphalt would decrease road noise by 4 dBA? Road noise is a combination of tire,
engine, and wind noise. Using rubberized asphalt, only tire noise would be reduced. The
claimed reduction of 4 dBA represents a decrease from the current volume of traffic by
60 percent, yet only the tire noise would be reduced.
Also, please address the impacts of the mitigation. For example, resurfacing the road
would locate additional construction equipment proximate to the residents and they
would be subject to augmented traffic, noise, and air quality impacts from this equipment.
19
Page 4.12 -22, 4`h Paragraph: As noted, a sound wall will not protect 2nd story balconies
and patios and the Applicant has provided no mitigation. However, viable mitigation
would include the installation of transparent material, at least up to the height of the
balcony railing. Because this noise is coming from below, this second story wall would
not need to be as high as a ground level wall and would provide additional attenuation.
Use of a wall only as high as the railing would still allow for interior airflow with the
window /door open.
In fact Page 4.12 -27, V Paragraph notes for those residents adjoining the project site,
"For second floor balconies, noise barriers could be installed around the balconies.
Although these measures are feasible and would mitigate the significant noise impact,
improvements would be implemented on private property thereby requiring the
permission of private property owners and the Newport Crest HOA," Just as these
measures are applicable to the Newport Crest community, they are applicable to the
residents of Costa Mesa impacted by traffic noise and the Applicant is remiss for not
including this mitigation.
Page 4.12 -22, 5h Paragraph: As noted in the text, the Applicant cannot be assured that
the money provided for roadway resurfacing actually goes for that purpose and thereby
notes that the impact is significant and unavoidable. However, under CEQA, the
Applicant must do all that is feasible, regardless of cost, to reduce the impact.
Because the level of interior noise is directly related to the exterior level, any increase in
road noise will result in a similar increase within the structures. In this case, because the
Applicant can't assure affected receptors that the City of Costa Mesa will resurface the
roadway, the Applicant must offer the residents of these homes the same amenities that
they offer the residents that border the site as included in MM 4.12 -7.
Page 4.12 -33, V Paragraph: The text notes, "MM 4.12 -10 would provide an 8 -foot-
high screening wall to reduce potential noise impacts if loading docks or truck driveways
are proposed as part of the Project's commercial areas within 200 feet of an existing
residence."
Noise from heavy trucks comes from the tires as they roll along the asphalt, the engine,
and the exhaust stacks. FHWA and Caltrans estimate the combined "average" height of
these three factors at about 8 feet and this is the height that the wall is based on with the
need to break the line of sight from the receptor to the truck. However, those trucks
engaged in loading activities are not rolling, so the tires make no contribution to the
noise. Both FHWA and Caltrans note that to be effective, a sound wall must block the
line of sight to the noise source. Both FHWA and Caltrans put the height of heavy truck
exhaust stacks at 11.5 feet and this is the minimum height wall that should be required as
mitigation for any noise shielding associated with truck loading /unloading operations.
Please revise the analysis accordingly.
20
4,12-36,2 d Paragraph: The text states, "As the nearest noise- sensitive uses are located
over 300 feet away, it is anticipated that the amplified noise would not be audible and the
impact would be less than significant."
This 300 -foot distance is only the length of a football field and while the impact may be
less than significant, the amplified sound would certainly be "audible" above the
background. Please revise the statement accordingly.
Page 4.12 -36, 3 "d Paragraph: The test states, "It is anticipated that noise from use at the
North Community Park may be sporadically heard at the patios and balconies of the
Newport Crest condominiums when traffic volumes on Bluff Road are relatively low
because the character of park noise is different than vehicular noise. It is concluded that
noise from activities at the North Community Park would not cause disturbance or
annoyance at the nearest noise sensitive receptors, and no mitigation is required."
As noted, on -site noise will be created by both the traffic, the use of the park, and other
stationary uses. However, while these noise sources are all additive at the receptor
locations, the analysis fails to provide the noise associated with the sum total of these
sources, so understates the impacts at the receptor locations.
Page 35, 3 "d Paragraph: As above from the text, "It is noted that traffic noise impacts
from Bluff Road would be above 60 dBA Leq, usually overshadowing noise related to
park activities to these homes." So again, the actual noise is underestimated because a
sum of the sources is not disclosed.
Page 4.12 -37, 5th Paragraph: The text notes that oilfield operations, including the use
of heavy equipment, trucks, and drilling equipment, could occur at a distance of about
250 feet to the existing residents and 200 feet to the nearest future noise - sensitive
receptors. The text goes on to note that drilling would take place 24 -hours a day when it
occurs. This is really no different than construction except that there are no time
limitations on the drilling as there are on construction.
The mitigation for construction of the project requires the use of sound walls when this
construction is to occur within 300 feet of any residents if they are to be bothered for just
20 days during regular working hours. Because oilfield operations would be closer than
this 300 -foot distance to sensitive receptors and could go on 24 -hours per day, the near
off- and on -site residents also deserve sound walls, or more, as mitigation.
Page 4.12 -38, 3 "d Paragraph: The text notes "The drilling of wells requires some
periods of 24 -hour activity. Drilling noise, consisting principally of diesel engines and
tool maneuvering, could occur during the nighttime for periods up to five consecutive
days. Without noise reduction, intermittent noise levels at receptors 200 feet away could
be 75 dBA, although it is likely that the source to receptor distance would be greater.
MM 4.12 -11 would be incorporated into the Project to use noise reduction strategies to
minimize drilling noise. With the implementation of MM 4.12 -11 and the consideration
of the limited noise generation time, the impact would be less than significant."
21
While it may be subject to DOG requirements, and although it is operational noise, this
drilling still uses heavy construction equipment and is still subject to the City Noise
Ordinance for construction activities. Because these "construction operations" cannot be
maintained to those construction hours deems acceptable by the City, the impact remains
significant.
Mitigation MM 4.12 -11 states, "Prior to the approval of a permit by the California
Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
(DOGGR) for the drilling of replacement oil wells in the Consolidated Oil Facility, the
Applicant shall provide to the City of Newport Beach descriptions of the noise reduction
methods to be used to minimize drilling activity noise_ These methods may include, as
feasible, but not be limited to (1) use of electric power in place of internal combustion
engines, and (2) acoustical blankets or similar shielding around elevated engines on drill
rigs."
None of these measures limit this drilling to the City's requisite hours for construction so
even with the inclusion of the mitigation, the impact remains significant.
Page 4.12 -39, 3rd Paragraph: The text notes that the project is not located within 2
miles of any private air strip. However, the heliport located at Hoag Memorial Hospital
is well within this distance and qualifies as a private air strip, and the analysis has failed
to address this potential noise impact on the proposed residents. (It is of interest that the
Hoag Hospital heliport is addressed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials analysis on
Page 4.5 -16 which puts it a' /2 mile from the project site.) Please address this potential
impact and suggest mitigation as appropriate.
Page 4.12 -41, 8t6 Paragraph: The 25 -foot distance is based on the proximity of the
construction equipment to the "residence" without properly defining the "residence,"
(i.e., the property line or the physical structure).
The text notes that some residents are located at a distance of just 5 feet from the project
site. The mitigation calls for the placement of temporary sound walls in sensitive
residential areas. Obviously it then becomes impossible for an equipment operator to see
the residential structure, or if any portion of the equipment is within 25 feet of the
structure. As such, the mitigation is unrealistic and unenforceable. All mitigations
specifying distance must be based on the distance to the project site's property line and
not distances to actual structures and this must be made clear in the analysis.
Page 4.12 -42, 3"d Paragraph: The measure would also reduce nuisance construction
noise for these residents. The mitigation should be amended requiring that those
residents that want the sound -rated window and door assemblies be provided with such
and reimbursed for their costs prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
Page 4.12 -33, 3rd Paragraph: As noted in various portions of the analysis, the wall must
be high enough to block the line of site from the to the noise source and an 11.5 -foot wall
22
is required to meet this objective with heavy truck exhaust stacks. Please revise the
mitigation accordingly.
APPENDIX 1, NOISE
General Comment: Vehicle noise is extremely sensitive to the ratio of automobiles,
medium trucks, and heavy trucks. Each medium truck is equivalent to about 10 autos
whereas each heavy truck is equivalent to about 36 autos. In all cases the Applicant,
without explanation, uses a ratio of 98% autos, 1 % medium trucks, and 1 % heavy trucks
However, the EMFAC model used in the CalEEMod model, as used in the Air Quality
analysis, notes that Orange County includes approximately 94.36% autos, 4.49 percent
medium trucks and 1.15% heavy trucks. As such, the Applicant has underestimated the
ambient and future noise from vehicle traffic. Furthermore, the vehicle ratio for West
Pacific Coast Highway should be based on data included in the Caltrans publication,
2010 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on The California State Highway System.
Please revise the analysis accordingly.
General Comment: Vehicle noise is extremely sensitive to the time of day as the
evening and night impose penalties on the noise created during those portions of the day.
The Applicant, without explanation, uses a ratio of 80% during the day, 7% during the
evening and 13% at night. However, the EMFAC model used in the CalEEMod model,
as used in the Air Quality analysis, notes that Orange County includes approximately
77.50% during the day, 10.77% during the evening, and 11.73% at night. These values
will change the calculated CNEL values and the analysis should be revised accordingly.
SECTION 4.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Section 4.5 -20, 2 °d Paragraph: The text states, "As with all remediation projects, the
total remediation volumes can vary substantially when actual removals begin; thus,
contingency amounts were included in the estimates."
However, Page 4.9 -88 of the traffic analysis notes, "The Project's construction activities
would include the consolidation of the existing oilfields and soil remediation in addition
to the site development. Remediation is estimated to require approximately 900,000
cubic yards (cy) of cut and fill with an additional 1,500,000 cy of earthwork required in
the development of the Project. Essentially, all grading would be balanced on site. An
estimated 25,000 cy of export was assumed for removal of materials not suitable for
retention on site which would require approximately 1,563 truckloads of material
removal."
This value of 25,000 cubic yards is then used in the transportation, air quality, and noise
analyses. This value represents less than 2.8% of the total 900,000 cubic yard volume of
material to be remediated and does not represent a reasonable scenario, let alone a
"contingency amount." Please provide a more realistic scenario in the analysis.
23
SECTION 4.6, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Page 4.6 -64, 0 Paragraph_ The text states, "Indirect impacts are impacts related to
disturbance from construction (such as noise, dust, and urban pollutants), and long -term
use of the Project site and its effect on the adjacent habitat areas." However, contrary to
the text, there is no analysis of the construction impacts on sensitive species and
construction impacts are never deemed as significant.
The sum extent of this analysis is included in the following quote taken from the
document, "The non - transportation noise impacts from human activity in the residential,
retail, resort inn, park, and trail areas would dissipate rapidly with distance and would not
cause significant noise impacts to wildlife on the Project site open space and lowland
areas. There would be no significant impact related to non - transportation activity;
therefore, no mitigation would be required."
Still, Page 4.6 -86, 3rd, 4`", and 5`b paragraphs require mitigation for construction noise
impacts on sensitive habitat. Under CEQA, no mitigation can be required unless the
impact is deemed as significant. The biological assessment is deficient in that it did not
delineate the significance criteria for sensitive species (they do exist) or do a proper
analysis to determine if the impacts of construction are significant prior to requiring
mitigation.
Furthermore, while the text states that "dust and urban pollutants" could create significant
impacts, the impacts of dust and urban airborne pollutants on sensitive species are neither
addressed in the Biological Resources or the Air Quality analyses. Please supply the
missing analysis.
24
i�" N poi
4 1= ?
�n.
7.9LIF'O X��
Memorandum
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
(949)644-3297
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Brenda Wisneski, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director
Date: July 23, 2012
Re: Special Meeting - Newport Banning Ranch
Please see the attached for minor corrections to CC1, Exhibit B and CC2, Exhibit A related to the
Statement of Overriding Considerations. Please note, the calculation of public benefit fee is
correctly stated in the Development Agreement which indicates the fee shall be applied to all on-
site residential units.
operation consolidation would allow for habitat restoration activities to occur in advance
of when it would have absent the Project's ability to require consolidation.
5. Provision of areawide water quality benefits
The Project is designed to include water quality basins that are proposed to be sized to
treat off -site urban run -on from areas of the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach
developed with commercial, industrial and residential uses. These areas currently drain
through the Project site and flow untreated into the Project's lowland areas and to the
Semeniuk Slough. The water quality basin would also capture and treat on -site urban
runoff from within the Project. The 103 -acre Semeniuk Slough is identified in the City's
Coastal Land Use Plan as an Environmental Study Area which is characterized by open
estuarine, southern coastal salt marsh, and ornamental plant communities. Potential
impacts to the Semeniuk Slough include water quality degradation and sediment build-
up. (Coastal Land Use Plan at pages 4 -15 and 4 -16) By capturing and treating this urban
runoff, the Project would provide significant water quality benefits to the Semeniuk
Slough.
6. Payment to City of a public benefit fee
In addition to any other fee or charge to which the Project would be required to pay, the
Project would to the City a public benefit fee of approximately $30,909 for each rnarket
rate residential unit constructed on the property
7. Net fiscal benefits to the Citv
FJ
The Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Newport Banning Ranch Annexation to the
City of Newport Beach prepared by Applied Development Economics concluded that the
Project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2 million per year if all of the proposed
land uses are fully developed. Furthermore, even if the resort Inn and retail and service
commercial uses are not developed, the Project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly
$1.4 million per year.
The City's Housing Element establishes as a goal: A balanced residential community,
comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and
economic segments. (Housing Element Goal H2) The Project would provide a wide
range of housing types from single - family detached to higher density attached and multi-
family units that would provide a variety of housing opportunities within one site — a
feature not available in many other areas of the City or new developments elsewhere in
the City due to the limited number of sites and the sizes of parcels available for new
residential development. In addition, the Project would provide a minimum of 50 percent
of its affordable housing requirements on site which would provide greater opportunities
for all segments of the City's population to enjoy living on the Project site.
9. Fire station improvements
The Project would contribute $510 per residential unit or up to $700,000 with full build -
out towards the redevelopment of Newport Beach Fire Station No. 2, and in the event
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
6. Payment to City of a public benefit fee
In addition to any other fee or charge to which the Project would be required to pay, the
Project would to the City a public benefit fee of approximately $30,909 for each- rRws*t
fate residential unit constructed on the property
7. Net fiscal benefits to the Citv
The Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Newport Banning Ranch Annexation to the
City of Newport Beach prepared by Applied Development Economics concluded that the
Project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2 million per year if all of the proposed
land uses are fully developed. Furthermore, even if the resort Inn and retail and service
commercial uses are not developed, the Project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly
$1.4 million per year.
8. Provide a variety of housing opportunities within the City consistent with the
City's General Plan
The City's Housing Element establishes as a goal: A balanced residential community,
comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and
economic segments. (Housing Element Goal H2) The Project would provide a wide
range of housing types from single - family detached to higher density attached and multi-
family units that would provide a variety of housing opportunities within one site - a
feature not available in many other areas of the City or new developments elsewhere in
the City due to the limited number of sites and the sizes of parcels available for new
residential development. In addition, the Project would provide a minimum of 50 percent
of its affordable housing requirements on site which would provide greater opportunities
for all segments of the City's population to enjoy living on the Project site.
9. Fire station improvements
The Project would contribute $510 per residential unit or up to $700,000 with full build -
out towards the redevelopment of Newport Beach Fire Station No. 2, and in the event
the redevelopment of a station is not completed by the City prior to development of
certain areas of the Project site, the Project would make available an on -site location for
a temporary fire station.
10. Sustainable design
In addition to its emphasis on a mix of uses and housing opportunities, the Newport
Banning Ranch Project is designed to be a sustainable and green community that
provides energy efficiency and resource conservation to reduce the Project's
greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with AB 32. The following Project components
implement sustainability:
The Project would provide a network of public pedestrian and bicycle trails to
reduce auto dependency by connecting proposed residential neighborhoods to
parks and open space within the Project site and to off -site recreational
amenities, such as the beach and regional parks and trails. The Project would
coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority to allow for transit
routing through the Project site.
136 Exhibit B
"Wi 1 ft ((V rf n T-
CD/NnDE{N7YAL A7TORlNEY °CLIENT PRryiLEGE
DATE: July 23, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of City Council
FROM: Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney
MATTER: Banning Ranch: EIR
No.: A10 -00572
SUBJECT: Special Meeting July 23, 2012, Agenda Item 1 — Banning Ranch EIR
The Office of the City Attorney and City staff request minor modifications to the Resolution
for Certification of the EIR (Attachment No. CC 1); Resolution Approving the Master
Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan,
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Traffic Study (Attachment No.
CC 4); and the Development Agreement No. DA2008 -003 (Attachment No. CC 5).
A redlined copy of the revised pages is attached as Attachment 1. Clean copies of the
revised sections are attached as Attachment 2.
The applicant concurs with these revisions
We request and recommend that the City Council approve these recommended revisions.
Submitted by:
Leonie Mulvihill
Assistant City Attorney
[A10- 00572] -Memo re Special Meeting July 23, 2012, Agenda Item 1— Banning Ranch EIR
L�y,� I���l I � f tj -
- '.! �, 4 µms- ,�' f! Y �,
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Page 4 of 5
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the Final EIR, Responses
to Comments, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both
written and oral, regarding the Project that have been submitted to and received by the City
Council, the City Council certifies that the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR (Exhibit A -1),
Exhibits (Exhibit A -2), Appendices A Through F (Exhibit A -3), Appendices G Through Z (Exhibit
A -4), Responses to Comments and Errata (Exhibit A -5), and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit A -6) for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over
the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the Final EIR, which reflects the City
Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the Final
EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the
information contained in it and the full administrative record prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093,
the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
S€QA- "Findings and Facts in Support of_ Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Proiect included in as shAWR -AR the attached Exhibit B, both of which exhibits are
Cr„i rn ,,.. +.., L...,n.,+ Qn.,n.+ Nn,.,.,n.+ QnaGh Galifomin a v,hinh n..hihot is incorporated herein
by reference.
SECTION 34.Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development
Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based,
which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in
accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government
Code Section 6250 et seq.).
SECTION 45.Notice of Determination. The Community Development Director shall cause the
filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the
State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval.
SECTION 56. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property
owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and
commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims,
demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines,
penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in
any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Project including, but not
limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -008, Code Amendment No.
CA2008 -004, Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2008 -002, Master Development
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Page 5 of 5
Plan No. MP2008 -001, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003, Development Agreement No.
DA2008 -003, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001, Traffic Study No.
TS2008 -002, and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the
certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program. This
indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any,
costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action,
causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant or property owner, City,
and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner shall
indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in
enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the
City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements
prescribed in this finding.
SECTION 67. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to
the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July 2012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM,
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Aaron Harp, City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
29
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING MASTER DEVELOPMENT
PLAN NO. MP2008 -001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2008-
003, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO.
AH2008 -001, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS. AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2008 -002
FOR A 401 - GROSS -ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY LOCATED
AT BANNING RANCH (PA2008 -114)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Newport Banning Ranch, LLC, with respect to a 401- gross-
acre property generally located north of West Coast Highway, south of 19th Street,
and east of the Santa Ana River, requesting approval of a planned community for
development of 1,375 residential dwelling units, a 75 -room resort inn and ancillary
resort uses, 75,000 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 51.4 gross acres of
parklands, and the preservation of approximately gross 252.3 gross acres of
permanent open space ( "Project "). In addition to a General Plan Amendment, Zoning
Code Amendment, and Development Agreement, the application included the
following requests:
a. A Master Development Plan to establish detailed design criteria for each land
use component to guide the review of subsequent development approvals;
b. A Tentative Tract Map to establish lots for public dedication or conveyance, lots
for residential development and conveyance to homebuyers, and lots for
financing and conveyance;
C. An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan specifying how the Project would
meet the City's affordable housing requirements; and
d. A Traffic Study Approval pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing
Ordinance).
2. The subject property is located within the City of Newport Beach Planned Community
(PC -25) Zoning District and the County of Orange Zoning Suburban Multi- family
Residential (R -4), Local Business Commercial (C -1), Light Industrial (M -1) with Oil
Production (0), Sign Restriction (SR), and Floodplain Zone (FP -2) Overlays. The City
intends to annex that portion of the subject property currently within the County of
Orange.
3. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element category is Open
Space /Residential Village (OS /RV).
O-Q.5
Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the
provisions set forth in Article 10 and Section 13.10 (as well as any other Landowner obligations
set forth in this Agreement that are expressly written to survive the Termination Date) shall
survive the Termination Date of this Agreement.
2.5 Annexation of County Propert y.
Subject to the provisions set forth in the immediately succeeding paragraph, from and
after the Agreement Date, Landowner at its sole cost and expense shall diligently pursue to
completion all necessary proceedings before the Orange County Local Agency Formation
Commission ( "LAFCO ") for the annexation of the County Property into the City. Landowner
and City shall cooperate with LAFCO in connection with the annexation of the County Property,
at no cost to City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Landowner shall have the right to defer annexation of one
or both of the Oil Well Operational Areas into the City (and, thereby, to phase the annexation of
the County Property into the City) as long as (i) Landowner determines in its sole and absolute
discretion that such areas will or may continue to be used for a period of time for oil drilling and
related purposes and (ii) such a phased annexation is consistent with applicable statutes and
LAFCO rules and regulations and will not hinder or delay annexation of the balance of the
County Property into the City.
In addition to the foregoing, the Parties mutually acknowledge and agree that Landowner
shall not be required to consent to completion of the annexation of any portion of the County
Property into City prior to the date that the California Coastal Commission approves a Coastal
Development Permit for the Project consistent with the Development Plan and such approval
becomes "final." As used herein, the Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal
Development Permit for the Project shall be deemed to be "final" on the later of the following
dates, as applicable: (i) the day after the date on which the statute of limitations for filing a
judicial challenge to the California Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal Development
Permit expires without any such judicial challenge being timely filed; or (ii) if a judicial
challenge to the California Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit is
timely filed, the last of the following dates: (A) the date upon which such judicial action is
dismissed with prejudice; (B) the date upon which such judicial action is dismissed without
prejudice and the statute of limitations for re -filing the same or similar action challenging the
California Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit expires without
such action being re- filed, (C) or the date upon which such judicial action is successfully
resolved in a manner which results in the California Coastal Commission's approval of the
Coastal Development Permit being upheld, either by a final non - appealable judgment or final
binding settlement agreement.
It is understood that the Property is "uninhabited" within the meaning of the Cortese -
Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code
Section 56046) and Landowner agrees to promptly provide all necessary approvals, written
consents, and waivers of protest or election rights as may be necessary and appropriate to cause
said annexation to be completed at the earliest feasible date; provided, however, that (i) nothing
in this paragraph is intended to modify or limit Landowner's right to defer annexation of one or
both of the Oil Well Operational Areas, as hereinabove set forth, and (ii) Landowner shall not be
112/066751 -0090 12
3021844.12 a07/23/12
3d-
required to provide such approvals, consents, and waivers of protest or election rights if, as a
condition to the annexation of the County Property (or applicable portions thereof) to the City;
LAFCQ subjects the County Property to any conditions or burdens inconsistent, with the terms.
and conditions set finth in this,Agreetnent.
Upon reeei }it of ,Landowner's written request, City agates to support Landowner's
annexation applicaf on(s) w1ith LAFCO by means of, a written letter or City Council resolution,
and Cityr�fiuther agrees #o cooperate witL Landowner with respect to sttclr a }?plioatiou(s), all at no
cost to City. �t } =lst�- ages- te- tmel- y- }��rfiatni= all- ei=iYs statutetd {atdGS as- 4hec�ducti
The Parties agree that the Development Regulations for the Pfoparty .satisfy' the
requirements of Government (:ode Sections O 59, and 56375 with rcgpeet w pre zoning of the
County Property.,
3, Public Benefits.,
3.1 Public Benefit Vcc
Suhieet to the provisions set forth in (lie next paragraph below and in $ections 12 and
3.3, and as consideration for City's approval and performance of its obligations set forth yr this
Agreement, Landowiter shall lay to City a fee, referred to herein as the PubR BUieft Fee," in
tine sum of Thirty Thousand Mine Hundred Nine Dollars ($30,909.00) p "er residential dwelling
unit De`>eloped as'part of the Project (including all on -site market rate and afforddlile units);, Tlic
Public Benefit Fee shall be paid on r 'a per, basis as a condition. to the issuance of eal;h
residential buildirigperrnit.
Tl e' afnciurit of the Public •Bdireft'Fee shall be increased (as to,residentiAl dwelling, units
fof acriricb; fhe Public Benefit`rep . has not; preriousiy beenttaid) based upnn percentage inc
in the CPI Index. The first OPI adhrsttncnt to the Public 13encit rec shall `occur on the third,
annivcnsgry of the ,Agrecuretrt Date of this A Ireement (the fi'tst "Adjustnienl 'Date ") anti.
s'ulisequ6lrt; CPT 'adjustments-Shall occur on each mniversary of the first',Adlustaiept.';Date
thereat'tcr until: expirati011, of- -the Terri of this Agreement (each, an "Adju'shnent Date'; Tlic
amount of'tlie CP1 adjushnetit on the' first Adjust neat Date. shall be the pereeritage hibease in
the, GPI index, between ibe•seciurd aiuriversary of:the Agrecjueni Orl and the fkrir'd annive •nary,
the Agreement. Duce. The aruount.oftfle CPT adjusinrent on,each subsequeit t\tl}t}stiuent`Date
shall be the percentage increase between said Adjustment Date acrd the iiinnecii� {o }y pteeedinrg
Ailji>snncut Date, l lre amount of thc' percentage'' iricfeage n the:CPI`tt Index oil: the applicable
rldj'usnneirt Dates shall in each instance be caiciil?ted. based' -on #be them most recently available
CPI Index.figutci such fhat, f6r exaarples;if the first Adiustn cut Datci ceuis ou 7 ly 1, 2(1.1;6, aSid
the most recently available CPI Tnci @x figure on thatc date is tire' CPT Index for May 20I S (2
months prior to Are f3rst,Adjustnicut Date), the ,percentage increase in:tlte -CPI Tndex on the=first,
Adjustment Date shall be calculated h_ -y comparing the CPT '::Index foi .ATa}r'2014 4,ith the, CPl
index for May 2015. hi, no, event, liowev6r, shall ap }ilic atibn i f #Ire CPI Index cite any
Adjushuent Date reduce the annount of the Public Tienefit Fee ('or"unpaid por'fion! thereof) l cloN,
the amount in effect prior to flrat Adjustment'Daie. Not}adthstaiuiing any othex provjsioa set,
forth in this Agre6rnert to the contrary, during dre Term: -of this Agreement °city shall not
increase the Pubfic'B'cnc(iY FceeYCept'pitisu alt to the CPi hidex as- "stated in tin s ^Section 3,1
:i i +uv:xsr navn
32.9
be paid to City with respect thereto and the cost of obtaining and maintaining in effect security
instruments for the work (collectively, the "Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs "). The
Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs shall not include any costs that Landowner
anticipates it will incur to deliver the North or Central Community Park in a Rough Grade
Condition. Construction management fees included in Eligible Estimated Park Improvement
Costs shall not exceed five percent (5 %) of the estimated "hard cost" of construction/installation
and no other costs for developer profit, overhead, or similar charges, by whatever name called,
shall be included in Eligible Park Improvement Costs. The contingency amount included in
Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs shall not exceed ten percent (10 %) of the sum of the
other costs. In the event Landowner retains third party contractors, planners, engineers,
landscape architects, or other contractors and consultants to perform work with respect to
construction of the North and Central Community Parks, on the one hand, and other elements of
the Project, on the other hand, Landowner shall fairly allocate costs between Eligible Park
Improvement Costs and other (non - eligible) costs.
City shall have the right to review and approve the final plans and specifications for the
North Park and Central Community Park improvements, the Park Improvement Cost Estimate,
and the Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs, including without allesa6e>3- limitation the
reasonableness of any allocation of costs between Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs
and other non - eligible costs. City shall not unreasonably delay, deny, or condition approval of
any of said matters.
Prior to the later of (i) City's issuance of a building permit for Development of the one
hundredth (100th) residential dwelling unit (excluding model homes) within the Project and (ii)
City approval of the final specifications for the North and Central Community Parks, the Park
Improvement Cost Estimate, and the Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs, City shall have
the right, but not the obligation, to deliver a written notice to Landowner informing Landowner
that City has elected to construct/install the North and Central Community Park improvements
itself (the "City Park Notice "). City's failure to timely deliver the City Park Notice by said
deadline shall conclusively be deemed to constitute an election by City to not construct /install
the North Park and Central Park improvements and to require Landowner to construct/install the
same.
If City timely delivers the City Park Notice, the following obligations shall apply: (i)
within thirty (30) days after City's delivery of the City Park Notice Landowner shall deliver or
cause to be delivered to City (A) ownership and true and correct copies of all plans, drawings,
specifications, surveys, and other records in the possession of Landowner and any contractor or
consultant retained directly or indirectly by Landowner with respect to the North and Central
Community Park improvements (collectively, the "Park Plans "), free and clear of any claim of
any third party that would restrict City's free and unfettered right to use the same, but without
any representation or warranty by Landowner as to the completeness or adequacy of the same or
suitability for City's intended use, and (B) a written assignment of all of Landowner's right, title,
and interest in and to the Park Plans, (ii) upon Landowner's satisfaction of all of the
requirements set forth in clause (i) Landowner's obligation with respect to the North and Central
Community Parks shall be limited to delivering such parks to City in a Rough Grade Condition,
which Landowner shall do at least one (1) year prior to the estimated date upon which
Landowner (including Permitted Transferees) will be requesting the two hundredth (200th)
certificate of occupancy for a residential dwelling unit within the Project, and thereafter
1121066751 -0090
3021844.12 a07123/12 16
331
y t fi
11 ii 71 fir_" �l 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE-FINAL
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
NO. 2009031061) FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. GP2008 -008, CODE AMENDMENT
NO. CA2008 -004, PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. PC2008 -002, MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. MP2008 -001, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. NT2008 -003, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. DA2008 -003, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2008-
001, AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2008 -002 FOR
THE NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT IN
ACCORDANCE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL
GUILDLINES AND MAILING CERTAIN FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
1. An application was filed by Newport Banning Ranch, LLC, with respect to a 401- gross-
acre property generally located north of West Coast Highway, south of 19th Street,
and east of the Santa Ana River, requesting approval of a planned community for
development of 1,375 residential dwelling units, a 75 -room resort inn and ancillary
resort uses, 75,000 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 51.4 gross acres of
parklands, and the preservation of approximately gross 252.3 gross acres of
permanent open space ( "Project "). The application included the following requests:
a. A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport
Beach describing development rights and public benefits;
b. A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to
delete the planned segment of 15th Street west of Bluff Road;
c. A Code Amendment to rezone the Project site from Planned Community (PC-
25) to Planned Community (PC -57) and a pre- annexation zone change for
those portions of the Project site located within the City's Sphere of Influence
from County zoning to PC 57;
d. A Planned Community Development Plan to establish the allowable land uses,
general development regulations, and implementation and administrative
procedures;
e. A Master Development Plan to establish detailed design criteria for each land
use component to guide the review of subsequent development approvals;
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Paoe 2 of 5
f. A Tentative Tract Map to establish lots for public dedication or conveyance, lots
for residential development and conveyance to homebuyers, and lots for
financing and conveyance;
g. An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan specifying how the Project would
meet the City's affordable housing requirements; and
h. A Traffic Study Approval pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing
Ordinance).
2. Staff of the City of Newport Beach determined pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "), the CEQA
Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council
Policy K -3, that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus
warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ").
3. On March 16, 2009, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a
Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to public agencies,
organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the Project.
4. On April 2, 2009, the City held two public scoping meetings, one for government
agencies and one for the general public, to present the Project and to solicit input from
interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the
EIR.
5. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR "),
which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project
and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and on September 9,
2011, circulated the Draft EIR for public and agency review and comments.
6. On September 19, 2011 and October 17, 2011, the Environmental Quality Affairs
Committee of the City of Newport Beach held meetings to review and comment on the
Draft EIR.
7. On November 3, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a
study session on the Draft EIR process.
8. A 60 -day public review and comment period closed on November 8, 2011.
9. On January 19, 2012, February 9, 2012, and February 23, 2012, the Planning
Commission held study sessions on the Newport Banning Ranch Project.
10. On March 8, 2012, the Planning Commission held a study session on the Draft EIR.
City Council Resolution No. 2012-
Facie 3 of 5
11. Staff of the City of Newport Beach reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR
during the public comment and review period, and prepared full and complete responses
thereto, and on March 16, 2012, distributed the responses in accordance with CEQA.
12. The Planning Commission held public hearings on March 22, 2012, April 19, 2012,
and June 21, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid
meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR, draft Responses to
Comments, draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, staff report, and
evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at these hearings.
13. On March 22, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1873
recommending to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certification of the
Newport Banning Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009031061).
14. On June 21, 2012, the Planning Commission reaffirmed their March 22, 2012
recommendation to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach for the certification of
the Newport Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009031061).
15. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing on July 23, 2012,
in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided
in accordance with CEQA. The Final EIR, Responses to Comments, Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral,
were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing.
6. The environmental documentation comprising the Final EIR for the Project, including the
Comments and the Responses to Comments and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and
Reporting Program, was presented to the City Council, as the decision - making body of
the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the
provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA.
17. The City Council has read and considered the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR
considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete
and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and
local CEQA Guidelines.
18. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and
approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project
opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project
applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such
applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and
bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be
awarded to a successful challenger.
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -
Paae 4 of 5
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the Final EIR, Responses
to Comments, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both
written and oral, regarding the Project that have been submitted to and received by the City
Council; the City Council certifies that the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft -EIR (Exhibit A -1),
Exhibits (Exhibit A -2), Appendices A Through F (Exhibit A -3), Appendices O Through Z (Exhibit
A -4), Responses to Comments and Errata (Exhibit A -5), and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit A -6) for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over
the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the Final EIR, which reflects the City
Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the Final
EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the
information contained in it and the full administrative record prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093,
the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program dated July 2012 included in the Newport Banning Ranch Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) included in the attached Exhibit A; and, the
"Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Project included in the attached Exhibit B, both of which exhibits are incorporated herein by
reference.
"SECTION 3. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development
Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based,
which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in
accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government
Code Section 6250 et seq.).
SECTION 4. Notice of Determination. The Community Development Director shall cause the
filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the
State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval.
SECTION 5. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property
owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and
commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims,
demands, obligations; damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines,
penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in
any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Project including, but not
limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 =008, Code Amendment No.
CA2008 -004, Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2008 -002, Master Development
Plan No. MP2008 -001, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003, Development Agreement No.
DA2008 -003, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O08 -001, Traffic Study No.
City Council Resolution No. 2092 -
Paoe 5 of 5
TS2008 -002, and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the
certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program. This
indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any,
costs of suit, attomeys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action,
causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant or property owner, City,
and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner shall
indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in
enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the
City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements
prescribed in this finding.
SECTION 6. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to
the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July 2092.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APP
R ED AS TO FORM,
O LC HE CITY A /TT RNEY
W
Aaron Harp, City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING MASTER DEVELOPMENT
PLAN NO. MP2008 -001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2008-
003, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO.
AH2008 -001, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2008 -002
FOR A 401 - GROSS -ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY LOCATED
AT BANNING RANCH (PA2008 -114)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Newport Banning Ranch, LLC, with respect to a 401- gross-
acre property generally located north of West Coast Highway, south of 19th Street,
and east of the Santa Ana River, requesting approval of a planned community for
development of 1,375 residential dwelling units, a 75 -room resort inn and ancillary
resort uses, 75,000 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 51.4 gross acres of
parklands, and the preservation of approximately gross 252.3 gross acres of
permanent open space ( "Project'). In addition to a General Plan Amendment, Zoning
Code Amendment, and Development Agreement, the application included the
following requests:
a. A Master Development Plan to establish detailed design criteria for each land
use component to guide the review of subsequent development approvals;
b. A Tentative Tract Map to establish lots for public dedication or conveyance, lots
for residential development and conveyance to homebuyers, and lots for
financing and conveyance;
C. An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan specifying how the Project would
meet the City's affordable housing requirements; and
d. A Traffic Study Approval pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing
Ordinance).
2. The subject property is located within the City of Newport Beach Planned Community
(PC -25) Zoning District and the County of Orange Zoning Suburban Multi- family
Residential (R -4), Local Business Commercial (C -1), Light Industrial (M -1) with Oil
Production (0), Sign Restriction (SR), and Floodplain Zone (FP -2) Overlays. The City
intends to annex that portion of the subject property currently within the County of
Orange.
3. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element category is Open
Space /Residential Village (OS /RV).
City Council Resolution No.
Paoe 2 of 5
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The City's Coastal Land Use
Plan (CLUP) designates this property as a Deferred Certification Area; therefore, the
policies of the City's CLUP do not govern the development of the project site.
5. Study sessions were held on January 19, 2012, February 9, 2012, February 23, 2012,
and March 8, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California.
6. Public hearings were held on March 22, 2012, April 19, 2012, and June 21, 2012, in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of time, place and purpose of these meetings was given in accordance with the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to,
and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting.
7. On March 22, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1873
recommending to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certification of the
Newport Banning Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009031061).
8. On June 21, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1879 reaffirming
their March 22, 2012 recommendation to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
for the certification of the Newport Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2009031061).
9. At the June 21, 2012, public hearing with a vote of 6 -0, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 2012 -1880, recommending to the City Council approval of
Master Development Plan No. MP2008 -001, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003,
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001, and Traffic Study No.
TS2008 -002.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
1. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The City's
finding is based, in part, on the reasons set forth in the consistency analysis of the
proposed project with the City's General Plan goals and policies provided in the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
2. City General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.4.1 provides that "If not acquired for open
space within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property
owner, the site may be developed as a residential village, containing a mix of housing
types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active community
parklands with a majority of the property preserved as open space."
3. On January 27, 2009, the Council authorized the City to request Measure M funding
and the request was submitted to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
on April 15, 2009. On June 15, 2009, OCTA responded that a "prioritization process"
was under preparation.
City Council Resolution No. _
Pape 3 of 5
4. The City hereby finds and determines that the Property has not been acquired for
open space and that a reasonable amount of time has elapsed within the time periods
established by the City, based on the following facts"
a. On January 12, 2008, the City Council adopted as a priority to "conduct an
appraisal of the Banning Ranch property and assess funding available for the
purchase of the property for open space."
b. On December 23, 2008, an appraisal report was completed that estimated the
acquisition costs for the property to be between $138,000,000 and
$158,000,000. The report also concluded that State or private funding was
unlikely at that time; although, some funding from Measure M may be possible.
C. On August 11, 2009, the City Council acted to continue the exploration of open
space acquisition possibilities and monitor funding opportunities and directed
City staff to move forward with review of the Newport Banning Ranch
application.
d. On March 30, 2010, Orange County Transportation Authority's Environmental
Oversight Committee removed Banning Ranch from list of potential acquisitions
for funding.
5. The City finds that approval of the Project is consistent with LU 6.3.1 and LU 6.3.2, in
that acquisition for open space has not occurred, and that the land uses described in
LU 6.4.1 shall be approved.
6. The City finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, and although the
FEIR identified a land use incompatibility environmental impact associated with
vehicular noise from Bluff Road on those Newport Crest residences immediately
contiguous to the project site, the City finds the Project consistent with the General
Plan because the proposed alignment is consistent with the Circulation Element and
the landform and biological resource protection policies of the General Plan.
7. The City finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, and although the
FEIR identified a land use incompatibility impact associated with nighttime lighting
from the North Community Park on those Newport Crest residences immediately
contiguous to the project site. the City finds the Project consistent with the General
Plan because it would allow the development of active community park pursuant to the
Land Use Element and Recreation Element, and would provide the ability to use the
park at night which is consistent with the General Plan of the City in development of
new active parks, while furthering biological resource protection policies of the General
Plan.
8. The certified CLUP designates the Banning Ranch as a Deferred Certification Area
due to unresolved issues relating to land use, public access, and the protection of
coastal resources. Therefore, no other CLUP policies are directly applicable to the
Banning Ranch property.
City Council Resolution No. _
Page 4 of 5
9. Pursuant to City Council Policy D -2, a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed
annexation on City finances and related City services and facilities was prepared. The
fiscal impact analysis concludes that based on the revenue and cost projections, the
proposed project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2.0 million per year at full
build -out.
10. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. NT2008 -003 in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Section 19.12.070 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code are provided in Exhibit A.
11. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of Traffic Study No.
TS2008 -002 in accordance with Section 15.40.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code are provided in Exhibit B.
12. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001 in accordance with Section 19.54.070.D of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code are provided in Exhibit C.
13. The Newport Banning Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
2009031061) was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council
Policy K -3. By Resolution No. 2012 -xxxx, the City Council, having final approval
authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Newport
Banning Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009031061), and
adopted "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Newport Banning Ranch
Project 'Final Environmental Impact Report, Newport Beach, California" ( "CEQA
Findings ") and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations are hereby adopted and incorporated herein
by reference.
SECTION 3. DECISION.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Master Development Plan No. MP2008 -001 is hereby approved, attached hereto as
Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference;
2. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated
herein by reference, is hereby approved and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit
F, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, including compliance with
Government Code Section 66454 authorizing approval of pre- annexation tentative maps;
3. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001, attached hereto as Exhibit
G and incorporated herein by reference is hereby approved; and
City Council Resolution No. _
Pape 5 of 5
4. Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002 is hereby approved.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of .Duly 2012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM,
FF� THE CITY ATTORNEY
6'6C
Aaron Harp, City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the
provisions set forth in Article 10 and Section 13.10 (as well as any other Landowner obligations
set forth in this Agreement that are expressly written to survive the Termination Date) shall
survive the Termination Date of this Agreement.
2.5 Annexation of County Property.
Subject to the provisions set forth in the immediately succeeding paragraph, from and
after the Agreement Date, Landowner at its sole cost and expense shall diligently pursue to
completion all necessary proceedings before the Orange County Local Agency Formation
Commission ( "LAFCO ") for the annexation of the County Property into the City. Landowner
and City shall cooperate with LAFCO in connection with the annexation of the County Property,
at no cost to City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Landowner shall have the right to defer annexation of one
or both of the Oil Well Operational Areas into the City (and, thereby, to phase the annexation of
the County Property into the City) as long as (i) Landowner determines in its sole and absolute
discretion that such areas will or may continue to be used for a period of time for oil drilling and
related purposes and (ii) such a phased annexation is consistent with applicable statutes and
LAFCO rules and regulations and will not hinder or delay annexation of the balance of the
County Property into the City.
In addition to the foregoing, the Parties mutually acknowledge and agree that Landowner
shall not be required to consent to completion of the annexation of any portion of the County
Property into City prior to the date that the California Coastal Commission approves a Coastal
Development Permit for the Project consistent with the Development Plan and such approval
becomes "final." As used herein, the Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal
Development Permit for the Project shall be deemed to be "final" on the later of the following
dates, as applicable: (i) the day after the date on which the statute of limitations for filing a
judicial challenge to the California Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal Development
Permit expires without any such judicial challenge being timely filed; or (ii) if a judicial
challenge to the California Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit is
timely filed, the last of the following dates: (A) the date upon which such judicial action is
dismissed with prejudice; (B) the date upon which such judicial action is dismissed without
prejudice and the statute of limitations for re -filing the same or similar action challenging the
California Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit expires without
such action being re -filed, (C) or the date upon which such judicial action is successfully
resolved in a manner which results in the California Coastal Commission's approval of the
Coastal Development Permit being upheld, either by a final non - appealable judgment or final
binding settlement agreement.
It is understood that the Property is "uninhabited" within the meaning of the Cortese -
Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code
Section 56046) and Landowner agrees to promptly provide all necessary approvals, written
consents, and waivers of protest or election rights as may be necessary and appropriate to cause
said annexation to be completed at the earliest feasible date; provided, however, that (i) nothing
in this paragraph is intended to modify or limit Landowner's right to defer annexation of one or
both of the Oil Well Operational Areas, as hereinabove set forth, and (ii) Landowner shall not be
112/066751-0090
3021844.12 a0723/12 12
required to provide such approvals, consents, and waivers of protest or election rights if, as a
condition to the annexation of the County Property (or applicable portions thereof) to the City,
LAFCO subjects the County Property to any conditions or burdens inconsistent with the terms
and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
Upon receipt of Landowner's written request, City agrees to support Landowner's
annexation application(s) with LAFCO by means of a written letter or City Council resolution,
and City further agrees to cooperate with Landowner with respect to such application(s), all at no
cost to City.
The Parties agree that the Development Regulations for the Property satisfy the
requirements of Government Code Sections 65559 and 56375 with respect to prezoning of the
County Property.
3. Public Benefits.
3.1 Public Benefit Fee.
Subject to the provisions set forth in the next paragraph below and in Sections 3.2 and
3.3, and as consideration for City's approval and performance of its obligations set forth in this
Agreement, Landowner shall pay to City a fee, referred to herein as the "Public Benefit Fee," in
the sum of Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred Nine Dollars ($30,909.00) per residential dwelling
unit Developed as part of the Project (including all on -site market rate and affordable units). The
Public Benefit Fee shall be paid on a per unit basis as a condition to the issuance of each
residential building permit.
The amount of the Public Benefit Fee shall be increased (as to residential dwelling units
for which the Public Benefit Fee has not previously been paid) based upon percentage increases
in the CPI Index. The first CPI adjustment to the Public Benefit Fee shall occur on the third
anniversary of the Agreement Date of this Agreement (the first "Adjustment Date ") and
subsequent CPI adjustments shall occur on each anniversary of the first Adjustment Date
thereafter until expiration of the Term of this Agreement (each, an "Adjustment Date "). The
amount of the CPI adjustment on the first Adjustment Date shall be the percentage increase in
the CPI Index between the second anniversary of the Agreement Date and the third anniversary
of the Agreement Date. The amount of the CPI adjustment on each subsequent Adjustment Date
shall be the percentage increase between said Adjustment Date and the immediately preceding
Adjustment Date. The amount of the percentage increase in the CPI Index on the applicable
Adjustment Dates shall in each instance be calculated based on the then most recently available
CPI Index figures such that, for example, if the first Adjustment Date occurs on July 1, 2016, and
the most recently available CPI Index figure on that date is the CPI Index for May 2015 (2
months prior to the first Adjustment Date), the percentage increase in the CPI Index on the first
Adjustment Date shall be calculated by comparing the CPI Index for May -2014 with the CPI
Index for May 2015. In no event, however, shall application of the CPI Index on any
Adjustment Date reduce the amount of the Public Benefit Fee (or unpaid portion thereof) below
the amount in effect prior to that Adjustment Date. Notwithstanding any other provision set
forth in this Agreement to the contrary, during the Term of this Agreement City shall not
increase the Public Benefit Fee except pursuant to the CPl Index as stated in this Section 3.1.
112/066751-0090
3021844.12 a07/23/12 13
be paid to City with respect thereto and the cost of obtaining and maintaining in effect security
instruments for the work (collectively, the "Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs "). The
Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs shall not include any costs that Landowner
anticipates it will incur to deliver the North or Central Community Park in a Rough Grade
Condition. Construction management fees included in Eligible Estimated Park Improvement
Costs shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the estimated "hard cost" of construction/installation
and no other costs for developer profit, overhead, or similar charges, by whatever name called,
shall be included in Eligible Park Improvement Costs. The contingency amount included in
Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs shall not exceed ten percent (.10 %) of the sum of the
other costs. In the event Landowner retains third party contractors, planners, engineers,
landscape architects, or other contractors and consultants to perform work with respect to
construction of the North and Central Community Parks, on the one hand, and other elements of
the Project, on the other hand, Landowner shall fairly allocate costs between Eligible Park
Improvement Costs and other (non - eligible) costs.
City shall have the right to review and approve the final plans and specifications for the
North Park and Central Community Park improvements, the Park Improvement Cost Estimate,
and the Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs, including without limitation the
reasonableness of any allocation of costs between Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs
and other non - eligible costs. City shall not unreasonably delay, deny, or condition approval of
any of said matters.
Prior to the later of (i) City's issuance of a building permit for Development of the one
hundredth (100`h) residential dwelling unit (excluding model homes) within the Project and (ii)
City approval of the final specifications for the North and Central Community Parks, the Park
Improvement Cost Estimate, and the Eligible Estimated Park Improvement Costs, City shall have
the right, but not the obligation, to deliver a written notice to Landowner informing Landowner
that City has elected to construct/install the North and Central Community Park improvements
itself (the "City Park Notice "). City's failure to timely deliver the City Park Notice by said
deadline shall conclusively be deemed to constitute an election by City to not construct/install
the North Park and Central Park improvements and to require Landowner to construct/install the
same.
If City timely delivers the City Park Notice, the following obligations shall apply: (i)
within thirty (30) days after City's delivery of the City Park Notice Landowner shall deliver or
cause to be delivered to City (A) ownership and true and correct copies of all plans, drawings,
specifications, surveys, and other records in the possession of Landowner and any contractor or
consultant retained directly or indirectly by Landowner with respect to the North and Central
Community Park improvements (collectively, the "Park Plans "), free and clear of any claim of
any third party that would restrict City's free and unfettered right to use the same, but without
any representation or warranty by Landowner as to the completeness or adequacy of the same or
suitability for City's intended use, and (B) a written assignment of all of Landowner's right, title,
and interest in and to the Park Plans; (ii) upon Landowner's satisfaction of all of the
requirements set forth in clause (i) Landowner's obligation with respect to the North and Central
Community Parks shall be limited to delivering such parks to City in a Rough Grade Condition,
which Landowner shall do at least one (1) year prior to the estimated date upon which
Landowner (including Permitted Transferees) will be requesting the two hundredth (200')
certificate of occupancy for a residential dwelling unit within the Project, and thereafter
1121066751 -0090
3021844.12 a07/23/12 16
s _ a
��J! � �:•.1 .icy �
"W" MARINI
2001
2001
2001 -2005
2006
2009
2011
2012
Nov 3, 2011
Jan 19, 2012
Feb 9, 2012
Feb 23, 2012
March 8, 2012
March 22, 2012
City Commences General Plan Community Visioning /Workshops
GPAC Formed - Public Meetings Commence
Community Participation /Planning /Deliberation
Newport Beach Voters APPROVE General Plan
NBR Notice of Preparation released for public review /comment
NBR DEIR released for public review /comment
NBR Public Workshops /Hearings Commence...
Newport
Beach
Planning
Commission
Study Session
Newport
Beach
Planning
Commission
Workshop #1
Newport
Beach
Planning
Commission
Workshop #2
Newport
Beach
Planning
Commission
Workshop #3
Newport
Beach
Planning
Commission
Workshop #4
Newport
Beach
Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
April 19, 2012 1 Newport Beach Planning Commission Public Hearing
June 21, 2012
Newport Beach Planning Commission Public Hearing
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Jwuary6.2nll
Steve Ray
Booing Nmmb ConunvlsY
PO Box 36071
%rw, lBneh.CA93fS9 -60?I
Re: Neapmrl fluanmp Raam ° %VIIIimd out LeMer,
naa:Me Ray:
ITC putpomordis lever is m nso and ra ymur rvil foea"xtJhr,,sdler" Imaw Rom
then moflhc Nexynn famring Reach proprnY C-NIMjm in yoweMm
to tome and meure hopes, fur awuiellion ofNBR a open sp-m You %ill toil.
beromymr rumors nor tests Imlw not be pmsemd In then— fer,Mr,
m,ensaam. we ho nakedvon to Inndmx a'wling hover'Imur Bw we dmine
the vadms Irnns Use Would Fc as ow, dimusice ruwA.. an ac,sifti e
ol'tlu IX rneny. al Imo vaopmtmmly eommimud to do ro in Scylm,b omisom we
Aux nor mxeivN nnphmg fmm yon. You M1we inueed mnmdd your eommilmmt m
adux fmslosersp terms thin xuuNnmlm be wasyus, igiuyer, er"
Mix. This Imam to dr, ..that rzq.... sore %e ttxny<ynm'laillir,gbmrs'ICluf.
iw -ill ryesenl tAat in xhe oxntts ire Bxv vonnd[nl ion
Aeyouknw.NBRsiloisaxvrymmplexpiv ofprpmv_ Thcland Is M1nvily
impReLLdby morethen 60yearsofimenuirnilryoduclinnuelivlryelsplf rn eMBR
thesmco Inseopamtinmam 6orunW IrymmutyRepme col Wpm fmm Re NBR
smf sex mmpgmup. M1try tau eosaryuia iendiumsi %ill need to tldi xilM1 Re
nsmx relotcd to lhisdivrnemalty ofwfaaand mrxalaxnmbipmd ripMv Ihemsa.
Yevcrlhcl cn xx mtlmunJ rMt dmpile Re psm,e o f nmrlY B sec yxxrs sines Ciry
Coumll enB voter epPrwG ofNe Gercml Pim l�ptlam wilhml vnYapgr<nt gopns
r w Min mwdw public moolue Ned. yae desire tocmmnnc top.lsloo Ihe"npen
gmY"rrlmPerm ward. weckwed lubatInbthin thealpuoplim is
win Oemrsl Pena Ilmimd, plan in OR, and, an emblu Iebednn, -an pwa.mnr Imo
mmpm omUVand rosement plan, is OR, coof u,"rele to ,o ve-mdmm ung
elect samre.wdproxwlmom asses 60,6 ofthepmpvtyu pymenam open apace vlro
eonmlM WAlie.
he order to reported to your ".. be follosoll Is intended ra online. nlunbnof
homeless oress,ofammm Rod moms Ihel xwrd low to he deGniJwxlyaddressed in my
Retain, Rorer Cmvetvenry
"Willmg BUW "Lever
remarry 6, 3011
immune 'milling berycr" mluy lu Require the pmpnot moment lu ne, we seams
Moral
p ieR mos t. implies the NBRawoms am willing sellers sad that permit.
can duty be made by the modern end their respeetivc bwMs who Main she
Mule and onfemared dberetion 1d e<mpt or ojmt Much s notion.
Iawffi 'r. non ar Pn,muN Bmxr (-Rew e
F.vlden¢tM1M Buyer is ,wmryuU, empnn mile entity fst for the
primuy, or sxduvve purycx of nyupuaR —w, us, and:miaty,dnR, swe
era Bur beea m ability so pry she Pm<bvc Own (exdefinition below).
Deaaiplie, of a,— avgemmx team aM NerN severs caeca tints,
Buyw'e home, Rod am, Al, evidrnd m w Bdye. npmiir,mkmd m oil odd
slowes , h.M al rernmBnn,am Il ,.. wormweml efine popea,
_ RN I••n�luster ,
Under the Gent Plan Rom spec vlmemiw them would be no 1[gulatery
.noirtmml m Strauss I inerntiwe far the mincol road ovwr as mmi rwou stMazse
opumionc Ilew does the Su e,,re nor mAambr Rin maslM
nmvdo
ed Yaum el f wmNls afsdl iM mnif Ginn d
m x o[IUbiliry? b'?
•RaWfl). the, mannot inowthe rot enmicamorot cations me fording
mecwary rot mmed'wi mIM is dirteBy asmcialed rite IM1e limited develnpmem
Andrew- M Re Groom phut (hers, wnmd by her morn nFvBR,r ptdoor acne
Rod babas duarsa iw is likely.. be Mloyd e,wgmnrly, of could only occur rd
,nail ...an and mmswwd mile thenommlax doyen nrdinmg .1 ad,.
smretwAisldatn , ells. andmbwfacilitia. llawdwerho Bveywpmwmm
handle W. movers?s
Banning Rand, Cmr —mry
"wilBng Be—, Inver
January 6, NO
• YTilewtnaly ,F Cep the City I. 20he neldthnl a C, far Ras ,Akin, BndY
irdmxaxleng1000 ed by the City in 3009 dceivdsrelue fmlM1eproptq•in
exaem nrnw.ohg,onB
N° pwiil »titiisBs
• Acknwi nom am lsMtnt iwMt lnpxM1aer mtirz Pmp,N at <immnr[vwx
we uml Rxp am w pmpuN lmnml .w.ina +ore.
NnNnv
DmvIN WeMifuadun of Buyer's nw,cmlingme funding xo mas uM evidentt of
eomalmte s,
(Tlmr
• rkknnxidgcmcnl Ret NBR x311<mrinm lopm[tts lbca191;.niem nemimtym
developlklimimd. mixN- x¢residcnlul vilmyq.•, maulhnriaud by llrc(Immd Plan
• A<knorylwel parks leBUywxnultl mark with Bm Ciry.f NCwwm mrzmlm Public
Ackmoy nA, parks acids.
trustee Mg[mml Bu19DR, ifv[gnired, be tlttd m9ricled in pnp[wby ear open
• apxe
1..1.1. xx rind like so reimmm nor twn, Pier so5aitatims le Ye. and on Bennie.,
Ranh Cmxm c,, that part rowdik,..At., wire us to nown v muemm plan for
Nuwwp,n Wnnmg Rarrch- n Me, NL:
• Includes an a,pomse dewl,ment suppor t test on help wwmplish all preen
delieagd wJined in this Infer -m on rose la Be public:
• Inclvba it major..rtwl,pen sp [e memmp thin wo. as a mnmrdo,e Wlhu
(Muse, Orange Coact Rim Park;
Irseli a role far Banning Bores Co., —, in Memo., moral R, and mam,ing
the dw mM one alter clement.
m Itflifle
We Iwk RlwnN Ie'em,swnm rcspome loth, issued mind in thk be'. Thank You.
Core,iii- MiemmMdolwfie wxlowinn. Tlepme''usPrieenhallmroun defair
madnmlwof\ewpom Baming Ranchmdmumumlbyanappmis .lpreprtdby
Bin lye
se MAI apprise, sciwu, by NRRf a list orMAI appmisem mutually agreed to
1, be CRY ofNexpon Beane and NBR, and AM[ an. Nat all emu have hem
sepeldd by NOR or ft Us moved. the Newport Ramhs Ranch Re the
I
L'
dnwdnommle and few In acwdm mlplc
ptass.T
RndaVC
Deludd in the Pmdmm Prise. The Ctemewolan's
Rps plan's
would use thential
'churl a. Mohler
1,375 po
Omxlnoment Ahmemire( i, ulnding hl]S mwkn mm residential uniu)mlhchigl,ot
w
N yml WVningR LLC
red h51 ou,.M fiell exwne(p ececint ofa11 e¢9ui :see ¢nvv'mmmmt mlillmelBS.
NEWPORT 6ANNING RANCH
lanwuy fi, Mil
Slane Xav
Rmming hanch Corscremcy
P0. Bev 16071
4»1un pee[h CA 93659.64)1
Ra: N!wpnrl Bunning Ranch °Willing 11,ce Uftaa
Don -M, Ray,
Th[Wlpme ariniv laRar it In rtrlwM In ynurmy,ns for 1nil adlcaf b11n 1'mm
Ih1.,m,. o— NrmdnBanningisiii pNBRn njWe. Yaouinyoor'n e
m IeounM mum fettling fmawuisilimtaf NBR eopen spce. You »ill mcnll.
MfineyouruyWU f «swha lemr moll mcmxtl Io JY a »Hers r «loot
4ou9yevmmival u do sn in gapwmbc3010, »e
%v Yea ato mlbtl —al id )der WmmiMenl m
vela. Oc au M oddernetl in avy °rvilling M1uycr'
nluaa. Oiwv x<rtaive your "vriptng Myei' Inter.
Asyau kno »'.NBR sin iaa veryaamplm pieeeofpmp 8'. M ImA is M1[nily
M1e suAct.
ImpwLL 0m60 yamsofimm <ive ril plMUnbin aenviry WcwnM1edngnlom of
Ice. Thac opmlimnamguv[netl Man WtitY cpoml antl apm kom IM NBA
xnf nwnersnilrgrnup. Any m- utt or weuishiondiwusairu willnw-0mdWl xiln lM
imua mIeIN w IM1isdiewe rtalily ormrfue aaJ minmi v »nvMipand npA¢NrnXO,
NeveM[IessxvwMxlaM IM. aemiu the pmsageornwly five spaz5ince City
,in. anJ vderoppmvaloflhe General Plm CptleRwilhoutanynppmenl pmy[e1
Wcter innnavc, Wbliem pave¢fuMa you tl!avem eanaMUe to puma @e'bpw
yw[c''almnmiva. On Inc o1M1n M1UM, we Wminua m Mlkve awe IXe ravM option
IMOWnvl Pkn.vlimimJ. miaad.n+chc -1y Mh vilkguu Mda.abPd pmwanlma
nmpmnuland....mcenaodura amenlyMMauna Plmm_ t.,a alnm an
dean wort, and pram[( mnrt IMn 6455 nflM pmpMY mpammnent op[n sW[e al no
[muoJUWblie.
Inc order 10 mpmd In Incur return, IM follewhrg is inundcd to whoca number of
imrerurt— ofwneeW and Irnns that »nuld have u Mrbpmliamiy addmmetl in any
Bnnning Ranch Ccn n,anay
"Willing Boyar ^Linn
jacow, 6. WI
BemmVg RaMh cra— nn
"Wining Bqm" Lmcr
Imuary 6, 3011
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your request for a
"willing seller" letter from the owners ... to assist you in your
efforts to locate and secure funding for acquisition of NBR
as open space...
Riduc 9
Without Ine ttonomie itxmlive lm eanwlldvlim ofoil vpuxtio or fulling
vary fur nwdinbn Jwl iatlimsJyaamrimedwith lM limMddevelopmcn
and hdiva in �M1achoncml ika to bus pvnad hY dre ewvmpf VpRa. yoccur an
and Mbim Vounalan islikclya0Mddvy[dnnialm Mahnom oovldonly occur urin
mull ertmamuM end inrtmruM with IM [0mpinnnwnrk ofuining on f rmtls,
r[medkwdaps, uills.aMOlhn farililia. Horvtlues lM Wsya PmWsc lv
MnNe W4 mm<ra
In closing, xm could like m mMWc our mWy prim taliciuliuns b Yea and lM B.umbrg
Rmch Cmaservm Y. that you Wnslaer narking wig m to ewe a aan., plan rot,
�expm Binning Rancn - e pW that:
• lot luaet, an appromiaeacvelanmem Wmpoecm Owl WV help aacaraN In ell orlM
chWlrnBa onlincd In lne kern alWwwlhcpublic;
• Includmamgormluml oWnspwc elemml Nat un mrr <vaaanlerpitte fminv
forvrc ..1,larl Ric Park;
• incllticnal,no fm Bamivg NmaA Cmrsnavxnryin plamavg, rtt,lorio8 and mmaging
4lennunl open spat• element.
Welook fomwN m ymr aMnrn respomc to IM iaaua rahal in This Into. ITMk You.
Si y,
We-
I, chwl A. 6lofiku
N pun pnonmgR HELL
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
S, Ray
narrmg'Randtc..mrvan<I
P o. Bac 15011
>'<ufnn Bmm. CA P709 6071
Re: N<wpnrt B...... brash 1Vilhan Byar "Cale,
.earl' Rays.
Fhaina ns<nf1b'i<nnisle- 1.11.1- 11slennrpra ",soling xn<r" rLnm
lh< raofiberrlaB.... FRan<b nmlvarry l'SIIR"t to vssia invou.<RUna
mlaal<und xcum furvlin6 for acquiririon pf 4BRss open sp. ou vial n<all.
Mort ynm rcquo I rer soch. briar can bcpmsrnl[dto mrs fnnheir
nsaemriaq,s'c ba,<uk<d yarn produce a'lsillia ere Iers" ar z.b. outline
.he rare., arms that annelid he prnrequiaims I. any diuossic a rcpvdine an acquisition
.1'Ibe prop<ny. nlmnegh a.n pro;mtxly enmminNrodomiaerarther3010.-
br airtd melbas rm.Y.u. Ynu he's innandameadMyW, Wmmdaria"o
arkus I., an nuJine.f terms 1511 14 need an he adder -.ad iant'4illing buyer"
I<1<1 1'bix lnmr nspo.asmthvuequesv Qaec xe rtaci..ynm "asilfn, hu'ar lance.
A, you knee, IBR sim is a sa,sa,darx piece r,aa,ey. Th[ bond is heavily
Zratelef by mmelhan 60 vc rs of m u[eil lnMUC na cnenhuiol, 01011 of
Ihes face These nlemiomaa pmaancd byan mail, mpvmb and earn fiat he NBR
serlanrill. apprnup. AnY m- um oracquhbion divcrosann will rent an del wilM1 lM1c
'x:015 mlare mIFrs a }vx rcalily of rurfzec and minerd mmcrshtrand rgMa 1Arneu.
VevnlFdess nr understand Ilut J[spim the Pa,s c nfnv r1y Gee ,inc, Clue
'he al andalar, ,b;alof ri Gencnl Plan or ran itM1Om anyapperulproFrcx
anaSC ring p.aFlc nr pnv to furAS. Ynu de4 mpurstm the "opanx
spaa'nllemu e. On M[rlM1tt hanJ.x Ie bd io allot lM1essmntl ratio
Ne Gdd Plan,a.In iane mised.uue it, ihviable anr,devdnland pursuam tea
n— nialone atlev[Inpmeta plen.la the at, re re, as parave t.,r are will
dead rabm, and gamer m1rt Ih n 60.6 of the pmpeny.m permanem aprnspa¢ al no
con In Jte publi[.
In enter rexpnndto our redued, the (.haring is ended m outline a number of
imrvneoi a— fears— and tearsmy Dada ha 1. he aefl -knly aaaresssd in any
Banning Irish Canxrvonay
"Willin&Buyei "4uar
l.1., d. 3011
B)nmoB Ron,,, Conservancy
,willinn Bnyei 1,ra.
fammsy 1. 2011
... we have asked you to produce a "willing buyer" letter that
would outline the various terms that would be pre- requisites
to any discussion regarding an acquisition... you previously
committed to do so in September 2010 we have not received
anything from you...
Without the econamir iisdarthe for wnsolitlatan ofoil opeatins or funding
easmy lr — dirrai is dimcrly asmeiamd erlh the Rmaed dev<Iopm<nt
alarr ieinthe Oeneml Plan(aaang pnrsrN by the a— re, ofNBR), xiblic acme
im
and ht rardera nis like ly m be delvyM significantly, or<nald only o¢prin
small area ummM and inmmixM wilb arc anmplex nd,mrk N Viflinp. toads.
emMled —, Dells. and other facilities. l low does the Bayer prnpos ao
bond. this mane'?
Vela ,l rR
Commitment a mnhadoin,y for mluation. The FereM1ue Prica shall mean IM1e Gir
marl.valn <nf Ncavpon BeatingRmchatd<I mmcdbyanappmisllpmpmdby
In MAI eppmixn.lestN by NBR ram n liar of MAI.,,re.rs m.mally aPard t1
by Its CilyafNm rn Bcazh and NBR, and ShJI a5mms her all cats line born
upcntkd by NOR Io fully remeJtae the Nrr,,p Stoat Rateir far the
nodelnpm<mnlaunaaive Per, ,sp Coats Dadfnsto o <gvrrt Seri menu aI norM
included in ahe Puearee el The 1,175 ad weld ax the General Plan's
Dcelnpmcm AI¢mmivl rne(1)ne optamarkern¢rcsiecrearl units)axaheht8lrest
and het.ivM shell asss]orro eeeipinraumania r<gouammemalar i0antrnta.
subdivt, pidmap), or de vl pean, an net plans n 4 other theml¢(arnd than
boildt, rand Al) !or nal I proms an arm I¢s than <rM(.al1M1e \BR, and (ii) Ghat ahe
o[..dnpm<nt ngreemmtus in 'fins,
Inraider a.1"itate dnalepmencc.mpnnrntlbarren help ncrnan.bah all .fin,
ehullenga outlined in this lens -a niihedi
Includes major., Menpenspnco dement @art ren.xrvcasacenleryiece fonhe
ore roar, Coh s- pmk:
Induces a ale for Banning Ranch Cnmeoaney in planning rcnaring and manapinF
thcnalurel upon span dement.
we look F, odmym1 aviI msponx to 'be issue'diedin this lea,, Thank yea.
ale
!.'elavd A. MOFIer
H xpran BnnninF Rnn M1 LLC
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Joe., 6.1011
S :•a Rav
Batmmg kam9 Comera'amr
P.O Be, 16071
Nuwryrn B ®N CA 916116071
R. .YmPnrl Bmnina Rauch -WHIR., Rance Letter
near Mo Ray:
face MBmee nfmis Immr is in mrod 1. Jwe mquea for e'vaillhm aa] W
the nwrtn ardor Nexyan Remring RenA pmpWty I'NBRry In a,,* you
l.locasad xxure funding fmacquisition of NBR m opm space You Wi
the varsous ldocas Am rmda k pre- requisites to any discussion rega ding an azrryisil
orals Friary. Amvugh you previously enmmind roan so in!"croasr 1010, xx
Mve nor rtteivd elryfFinPfmm you, yoohmxinamd— udNrourcommocaur i
auk an for -..li- t ammo lM1Pl x'.uM need In k adre. di. nnv'lallinn raver"
Banning RenaM1 Co..,
-eAll gBUyar U."
JanuaJ' 6. N111
pnlenud`wiffi, huvn" Imo- kl oa,iIcih. Moperlyp o jach,,ce open sPUSc
niwmvies:
Nuffi ft heroin implies the NER owner am with., seller and that shcId.n
only he made by the ewaer nod their.1.101. hoards who yeuiu the
sots cad unfe0ered discretion. accept or reject such n nptien.
R.T
minted farm,
and rchudl mpvioma docu.!,
u In Bes ,&s celubilidarcIau41a oil(ew
411 aercediRlan and Clear—
Untln@e German Plan um sgtx al¢rnative Ils. would he lm randalary
rtgdrcmms or Bnmrdal inccrow fw lace mioural fi9h0 armor m conselideso crlae
operodure, IMa does IL, Bnycr pmpme m handle dds morel^
• Hone do you ProNse m handle tM Nnaamrnlal lime a(seller iMemniferim ad
rdmae of lubiliry'
Identification and Qualification of Proposed Baer...
non-profit ... has the ability to pay the Purchase
Price... evidence as to Buyer's capabilities related to oil field
clean -up, habitat restoration, and long -term management of
the property... Purchase Price shall mean the fair market
value of Newport Banning Ranch as determined by an
appraisal prepared by an MAI appraiser...
Bammg R.,h conx+vmry
"Willies Rum.. Sou
Jonwry 6,1011
• inddradissly argC::y by tho.iivinnidkII LLarolr orsh presser, i BndY
iNeMdmJY Mrfnnd by 16e Ciry in 1o09tlo-ivetl o solos frtM1epmpem in
excen.fg100.000,0M.
NoPn - -el ACnuisilinm
Adnuabdgemmt Thal Byer in.&le porrMtt en,,a pmpary al ale. or
and Ihl Ilan[ are no pmMZed pnial nequiz Ions
pudinn [csum
eamUdalldnear, Yon of Bnrtrsnnmm�lingml fuMillg so er me ermmecor
mrmrmu.
01hal
Ackmxiedgemenl Jml M1Bk will eamiaue to MneesslhauNdmoaam nttmaary to
desnl.P the RmlicAL rrrvduc accounted WUge, mauduai'xd by the(Ieneml Plan.
Aekroddbmrrrenl Rhoi RaYur would wort Wido lM City arNeapud w remise WN.
r adany ud Parks accts.
• Aeknowldgenrnl thus NBR, ifacquired, be dttd a.arl in Mrycmity fez open
'MO,
In clmi ng, we x'odd like hr chermr our many Prior mhei Moos m you and me Forestry
RmrcM1 Cmuermacy. Ihrt you wnzi lce WmWn6 with us ra omem a cons[nsus also fm
Ncxpon Isar., peach - a Plan fan:
Includm an erlanclu a devebpmnn mmporyyt Jw can hall accomplish ell of the
dal Imgm ou0irud in I his lever - a im ma to tk Mbl s,
• Co. Fn puttelement dul[m s[ve se0[mleRie[e fv lk
Includes n Omngc Cams Rhmr Paak;
• 0.re role s Rarming ftanch(aigmancy in plPnning mamins and managing
NcrsNril open spax ekmene.
We "d forward In yom.wlll" "lea. to Ik issus raised in His Imer. lack you
RI rely .
w a.
khad A. Nnhler
v mRnmdedi I.IC
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
lammry 6.2011
61nx Nay
lint"n6 Pmrch Calken'an,y
PO Ba.a 16041
.I—In p<a<k CA.i659.6071
Re: Newport Bruning Rm<M1 'Willing pulse 4Hn
@e pummm�ltM1ia lever is •a mreMbymrzrcquen fore eflling selkf9mla fmm
Ila owmrn of IM1e Nerqun Rnmling Rarch pmpem ('\HR "I to eatiagoo in your eRUnx
U losamand aaurt fimtling fineequis nofNBN oaten spvx. Vau will rsnll.
Frfmcy 110%wea f.ressod Ieatt ern Mrmsmetl 1.[M msmn r u-.1
mtiw, we M1aveaud ywmpmJUee a'Yilling buyci'ktm 1noWdwulim
rev' lro,s rmsnttwuget Inl t.lbor ours xoa mpodineanregawe
oftM pneamedumbet'ho pen usly<ommiodl.domin'aarensuralam
M1vvc rexPodannM1mgfmm yen. Yw Mv:inR,ad mnmWd you mm"'
wk ux (arutnollimo! terms Ilat xnulJ 1md,n he Mdreaad in onv bilti ¢'FUVer
Banning Ranh Cma rroutery
hnuvy 6.1011
Pon tiJ`w -0ang W,` kner m squire the O sort, pununl wtM.pxspas:
ahemalive:
Nothing lerdo implies the PIER moure are willing tellers end that dote ton
only be made by the owners sad their respelft. holiest, who retain the
role end unfettered discretion m attepr or reject snort a ..lion.
Wd Iil ling uddQ,r s Ran+t"Ba.e;'
Cvidraseme lu)vnalumpmfl:ury.ndun ae milar saw fmmN fm We
primary a, ..[.I- pmpow of xgairia, pmsery eg and untarnished a,. star,
and an has lbw.1ndip to par lM1c Put me, (are defmilire tat
Oexriplion or3n, mgmrn and reined matfirae dausen g
Bum', an." am pmui]i.p evideare u m drier'. it,biddm relald 10 ail fcm
liken Nbehiln aeonratan and IM-1. ..ad., .170the prals,
return
serfan
Oil Remediation and Clean -up...
the General Plan open space alternative... no regulatory
requirement or financial incentive for the mineral rights
owner to consolidate surface operations... How do you
propose to handle? How do you propose to handle the
fundamental issue of seller indemnification and release of
liability?
therm, Ranch Canxvvamy
'Willing Buyu,' Lena
tenons, 6.3011
While net cMmsing Cayabdo, brought he noted ana a COmultalim Prising Rmdy
idsgeMemiy pturbanned by the Cily in ON dedsed a sale, for the pmpa[ry in
as. nrnM,M,000.
No PalialAepl -Pi ga
Ackroxledgemml ins, D"s,inxnda to "share saline Ot at close ofea<mw
and sal [1-- na.mlrorM pmial e<quiaitims
Pon at«...
D ... and idmlirisnaws, ro.m-r nousuMingem fuMingaourcez and eiidenx of
useandrust
Racer
Aeknoxid¢mm, doe NBR mill amino : la pnweaa lM amhediam mcemry to
dowlop tMbmued. mixed-us msldmlirl When. as aullumod by an (ieval Plan.
Adnm edimanm hot RUyn would work win the City oftinwpn la rtml ,took,
mad —y and yaks rusts.
Aelnowldg,mem Zhu NBR ifaaquired, bw dad rtarinal 1n I smnldiy for apm
,Pmt
In elm up. x mod like m rcileme me many Our miicintiuns to rout and Ne Banning
Rough Cmarrvaat and you wreaks working with us to Carlo aeonsemm plan has
Newport Bmnmg Ranch - a Pfau that
• Iwuds:muppmpdalvewtlopmmtcnmryurcm tMt nn belt mmmMiaF ail ohF,
elallxgn uuRixA in via kno— at no <om to the public:
foridesr. ge Core minpsn spore clement [hn1 ern mveasamtwryie,e fm rte
fneludes ahg,Cea,t Rim Pack;
.he a inks a Harming Naneh Ctmurvalmy in pOnning, nslenng and managing
ale mNml oleo apex ekmmt.
We bok fomad m yam wdn e"'Pon' no an inua reird Innis Inter. Thank M.
RI
all
w e.
i:M1azl A. NoM16+
N flnvningR AI.IC
Restoration...
Without the economic incentive for consolidation of oil
operations or funding necessary for remediation... ublic
access and habitat restoration is likely to be delayed
significantly ... How does the Buyer propose to handle this
matter?
berorc yam msms far such. 1. ran Mwvcnrcd as she owners fig, shear
nsidention. we bsvc inked -van se panaidnew a'Nviliin, buy r" Ieder that would mdiac
dm va —a meal wola be ,whin. to daydiwsdon seraph, m n[gabi �
arthenopenr nliM1nupl yea lm+tlnuelr [ummMedw an sea in Srytembn 3ol0.,,r
ha5emtrmeiv,dmYadnpfrom You. Yourawinsrandamond,d YOUrmmMlmcnllo
ask r fmm maimearterms Ant wauladadwhenddrmcd. a ju linghuyer
Ielm.11aaara mspmtla In Wtmryesl. Orce xc ve yn.r'1valMg EUyn' "Infer.
—will prtsenftMte. Aeowners1w ACirenndderni i
As you know. NO 0 h is a vary emnplex pies of pmfenx 'f hr land is M1eavily
impmmd by more Am nR ye.n orimensiv< ml Imaucsi nn nttiviry mcumMNng nuns of
Mew Themopcmtbriaare govnnN M1ym emirysap.mleand apnea fromlhe YRR
snface oxnmhipgmup. Any muse mxquinumdisr¢sion sill need ordeal with is
lirvn mlelM mAia divcraarmliry ofmfaa amt miney.wneadipmdnigh¢the ter
N'vdMelcnwem mdshat.dwpiwthepnsugenrnaarir fiveyeart dice [ ray
Comeil aM VNer approval Oft Grnenl Phan Update xilhom myapsur[m pmpren
thus fer to muriappublic m prison mndc yeu "er,no ronsinmmO wd'g it. .open
spade' nllemnli.0 m she other lmrd we -able m Mlinv ls, the iemnd option in
me emn.l plat. numilN. mixed.u,e re,'mrntid aillo, to bad --ere l reassumed ma
mm"Osda[deeelapment plan is she only m`.:mble allmunva and ode IM wiB
doom rdlero.fM gotnt more twn6o enrNc ryopenr as pdnucem open epaaal nn
[ov
.,he pudid.
In ndano .expand myom rrqualfM tali fig is inuMMrn cullinc anumM of
impmm�l asar ofrnndmr vN umms tbs nould L.ue b hedafnifvdlyndtlredN in any
Mm[r to
cpmlinns. Trowel —'.
rcowdeyoupropnxm
Imseorliamlit"
Widlom rod ode soar ve fmmndliawim ordl op[ximssm[unding
ascends, foraistandonhandia, is tlimnnYayseaercdwiA tM linitM development
almmlivc In Ac Gmdeal plan (Ming pursued Oft.— of NBR), public adna
anal hol to rcrontion in Maly, m be Ani.N ,i gfl deny. or sould only occur in
men.mn wound and imcmixM wiA the[mnNd nap wd: ofwund, ad road..
ts-yeadmiledweau.—Ma.gandshinflocildius, Hwvaoes me BuynpmPw'cw
bundleddamonn?
C.-i anal
• Comndestate omewping$ fur didnon. The Pnuhre Pam shall mew Aefair
math. valfmof\ewplle BthyNO Rmch in, mloea byndwas gaidnal,, nedW
an he iw orNcwdnRby NOR OR, alit hall.!WMrrmamaus have bY.IM CdbyN Rid Bachand NOR, and! hall BaumeIReail Fors have Mm
c.pndetl by NOR to fully rcmaGmCdrc Nexknn Is Reach Rx dr
awelapmni Puretivdliee, ,Cooand fcsweyuF[mamm�enushall mlM
MdWad in IM PunOna Pam. Theggnrisvl would use the General Plan's
and bMpmmt Nlmnnwuess oring muMVnlcrnidmud mooed Mndese,p
end ben uw. vM fill nmmc li) rcdeen, all rtgw,ne gr pamm dal er Inrmmla
subdivision maps, For rat ormginano l in R and hi of ft NO . and Aan
building pemib) far end IsI meet on no lain Am 9M /. ofAe VBR, and Iii) IM1vt The
Bevdhpmonf Alnaeoem IsieeRaed
animing Ranrb Conmrvamr
"What, Shoot Uttar
!moan 6.2011
NgNemd andarsing C r dM.. it umuld Mama that a Con ition- lhid,Sa dy
independently parr ed by drc city in 2M tlWvea a dlm far Ae prap[ny in
aueeatiMMARGOO..
Na Pan�gpniBOU
• AM,nenwv111p5Aufn lntrnas In purtNSecnliro PmParryuelmcof <ttmw
add Il.ra, di th[m pe na PmPnmi P[nul ecgniviiinnx
rhdaiiled Identification agBay[re mmseon a ent ruMmg denudes ma wNnrve or
enmmidrena
"Nf
• Acknnxdadgement that NOR will eameinue to pmeen Ac ap,bealties necc ,In
deee,l the limnedmixed -w. nsldmlial"Hia , as auftsixd by the fhneaul Man
• elanuledgaseal that Buyer snub work whit the CiIYOfTewpenh neat !:, public
tonal nd parks decd,.
Aeknowiadgemrnt Rai NOR,if.cmlrcd. he dead mulcted in porpnulty to, M
'pose
In atom¢ we wavld like to mwrnc our dow, Mier mlicaniom ra yap ond than Bashing
Fonda Coander .that kuuassaider wudoop with us in n„ne a snncecsse plan for
\cwpon Bann, Ranah- a N. Out
•
Made, as appropriate aevelopmmt mmpmenvhut can hap asaomplish oil rme
cMlkngsomlM[d in tMa RV U+ -a rocosmfb.,a ic:
Indodesa n,., .open a,. Mon. wf cm xna o...,ied fw the
Nrvrc Natip Coal Mder Park;
Inelutln. mlea s al...
ConsmmcY in plemin¢mnonngmtl manaFing
Av mf unl open yace elpnms.
We Ind fomwN to ymnwaurn ruspons lorhe bind niswl In tbls Imp. Thew you.
Sin Jlnhml ,LC
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
knlm, 6.2011
Save Ray
Boning Raab ('mumalcy
P . So. 16071
Vlm,an nonaX. CA 9M50.h01
Rr. Newp.rlRmn "mRRm[M1 "W110nR doear"Leder
Rmming Ranh Cenmamm'
"Wiilingeuyn "Lmlw
rewary 42011
rylen lli� buy[r" Imam u9vire me propcnY Pwnlmm In Je opm nrwt
allmovinlivc: vi:
NmhinR be
n t
n an implian IFo NBR owners arctnllirlg sellers and rhml dmisiov
only he made by the ownen and 1FeG reapeetlee hoards wM1O reftln me
mole and unfelfinetl msem0en In emapf ar reject such a ration.
Valuation Issues...
...it should be noted that a Consultative Pricing Study
independently performed by the city ... derived a value for the
property in excess of $200,000,000.
Nit -alder no undaromadibm. enplm mcranwg[ormrerh By —um. Cil,
va C.
C.
Cantu and Mar approval offt eemral Plan U le wiionalo
paa gvnpfemnl pml0t+v
mvkn
Nin" samdng puFlie mprivnm funds. Mu4esimmcondmce mpOrsm Jrc "open
Nam'as n xcontl
in.. rhl mnalh[raamo me c9minoem hl1.h
by mm
1 Plan.
ma eenmlPlan. nlhl r �. miaaeum lvArnl.il rillun[It beeevelnped p- oamlo11
th—1 am, to.
npcnd
pmhnarvc M <lopm 1plm lathe only achmahk aimmatinx -ad Wlneili
de li
[lean, mntart.4 praR[I mare Ilan CO56MIM1[ pmpany m pcmmnem open sPaee al m
inclu de
eon l9 ms pn Nk. n.
Uevelu
to oNwlp mnrnnd ul}vur re0mnl. me following u intended to oulRlm a mm�bn of
and M
v
impnnml alias mfmnmma d mural Ran —N ban to be dertnitiMyadJrzsxJ in am
wube, "l
fair
ma m[
Mal". "a'aint latillcmmos 567111"d'a
xl wnoid use lbc Genenl plain's
mark... resldmlial noias) ss lbe hlgbm
Santa, Ra.b Camxaam,
"wliung dollar Lanm
jmau 6, My
Iamid h[mma that a Connuhmiwe dieing Study
n 2009 derived a value mr dam mope.' in
d mama. lwrtbaw arlc pn,, m lb— oreamu
lama finial a'airhinm
'• IJmdiw mani6mfwn or rmar's rum- ingam hlading yonrclillad ill—of
mmnlilmrnLL.
/$1f
'mar wledg[mem dial h'mt Mill c.nnm to mmms the orrliemi -a nmcaury In
4111 me imdlad. lab ad -ux mwlamal vilm9a, as nummi.if by toe rl mval Ran.
• MinmNadgemem not Balm wnuld work wim lie City of na..pon to mso1w public
roadway and park[ needs.
Aekmmvledgmiam lbo NRR, ifae9uimd, be deed atauk" in p ulau ily for opm
In claim,. am would Be to reinnme am at Mar mlicimtions to you and 111 [ Banning
Rateb Cone, ncY. INS you mailer t,adollg with ac to orate a eamsensa that for
n.apan Nanning Rnncb -aplao that:
1-1 Mao aRaandim dnannmmlaunpon. Ima mn bap x mil'IM an nrthc
[imllmgo omtkid in thin Im ar- at no mm to tort pullw:
ho ludes.lvjm.1 on Rao olmorm Nm rat xma asn milum ieea fm the
fnanot tyrant, C.-it Siam park
Indudna mm rat Banning Nench Cmmarvawy inplanniti msimin0ond- ma,inC
me oamml open spxs d aram"
Welmk fomaN paw wntlmmparuclo eh issl mind in Chia leper. Yhonk you
Sin ety.
icNd A. Nohkr
V wpm Roening Rn h LLC
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Bnnni, Ranch COlsmremry
"Willing Buya "Cello
J., d, 2011
...we would like to reiterate our many prior solicitations to
you and the Banning Ranch Conservancy, that you consider
working with us...
amine
As you key, NBR sic is avert eompex Pie. efp plic., Tic IaN is hesji,
imryalM by moo thin M YaRefiunnume it Production xlrvig mumhnmgm.. of
the somr... The. opcmiav are b "amens by un only upunk spoilsport fcen the NBR
sition discussion will rcens to deal xiW the
us.. relt to this dyers sitofsmrfu lend mrecolammhtp and nith, Wan..
Nevergelesa wdcrstaW Jm. dcaPitt lhcPssuge of nearly rive tree City
Cemrcllandvd mMovtlorlk6mem1Plan Cpdeumtho mryaµas[nt posPee,
thus fain scouring ylblic copdvsee funds, you desire to comtnup to ismo a du"opm
the or. Ma, 2 lr. !ed. miscil -mc ousidepoultillop to be lmmcM1eseconeopit t is
hnstve dmeln 1 Pen ron..mma
mmpm amen Pm,is WC.nlY adntvabitalmmalivc- sins ant Was xe0
dean mWte, aMPtp.l mme thvr/il6 mflhe p.pmYas PCmtan<'nt.prnypaval no
<mt to Jw ptblie.
in nrtin. r<apnne mm.rmual. she (.Il.rvins is inundN m mJ;nennumkr of
impnnm amen ofc.ncem cons teems Jut nnuN M1avno kdefnllivolyoddreaW in anh
imam; Plm npcn sync u1¢muiic then wovw be rm rceupmy
I finm[ial 1.1.11,c fm the mina& JpW .mne<t. mosclidne Wrote
II b m dues the Buyer pmryrse is hostile this meW
. impnae m handle he mulammul lest of.11.;robs mm<aJnn and
RcBem(im
• WWput the seonomk iamdvefor anaolidnion NOil optmiona n Noting
epary for rominfixion lisp is flirt[Jya<focispol x;m me IimbeddMdepmenl
altamJm In the (i col Plon(MM posauN by Lou uenme.1"BR), Puhli. atw.
and M1vbim ..Mien is bluely so be M i signift.tnly, or could .1, ..or in
email ama emuM and imomdxed wph Ne mmplen network of note, oil r.ads,
umrcmedie4M cram wells eM abler fail ilia. I low duto the Htry. pmpo¢ e,
hostile this manor?
Costa
. The Pumlmm Prim sb.11 mean the fair
a dsc mminm by an appnleal psperee by
Iir of MAT "ounces mmual ly Mosed to
iii AM] anume thou .11 mra have been
enym Bmnms Ranth fmW
NBR, and Oil thsnhe
BenoingRan<h Co —soncy
"Willing BUyu" Lnur
January e. 2011
• While not condoning C:Y eROrs.iteItmld k opens that a Consu0atin pricing Sndy
independently uperneed by tk City in 2009 derivM a ueNe for pe loopcM In
cave u[MG0.000,000.
No PnX vl wrnu n'nn
Acknvwledgemem11he16uyainuMS In Purchase smite pPaly n time o(emnx
and Wu them out uc innpnxd parcel vm.16,finis.
Fundin 1. ,t
• DmailN bhniguad.o of Bo >e.ton mtinsmt pootlin,... and evidence F
c.mmtmcnu.
Acklmwleigment tress NM mill eomitnem on— the iMlIcsti.m epeoperrm
dinsele,,bel ;milN.mi: ens -usc resident, 1v'16K as eulbor"d by the fhmeml Plan.
A[knorNedg¢menl Thal Buynwwltlxmk uitbfieCily a(biextwn It rcetbr public
AaW.,y me pmksln,an.
<knmdMgament that NM, 1fasyoired kdad msincmi in P oscun(v fm open
apsee
In Jng,nex'oukJ likemmhmte mrmmY pi.rmhciWtidns to you and @eDmninp
Rye Comempee% JUt you careiderxorking wiN=to comic a consensus pion in,
O'wµX Hmnin, Rancli - a Plan that:
[no Ind. so appleduse lettlnpmml component thus ten Mlp xopeco lMI of be
eMUmgm outlined in Ibis Ie0.- a no ant to tM public:
Imiudm p mojm consel open space dmmt that con—In as a anumlae for the
lhtore Ormge Cann Rivet Per.:
Includaa It per Batmivt Rauch Comm - in piamiey niacin it mamging
NCnnNnl ups spat, clement.
We lmk (ommJ In vMSwlltm.spame to the iasln nisN in this Inter. 11hbnk yset
41-L�'A e . M.M1Ier n Bnemo¢ Ran h LLC
ALTERNATIVE ONE PROGRESS REPORT
1999
2001
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2011
2012
Banning Ranch Conservancy (BRC) Forms
GPAC Formed - Public Meetings Commence
Newport Beach Voters APPROVE General Plan
NBR initiates meeting w /BRC
Project submitted to City of NB & made available to community
City reports study to assess funding available for site acquisition
City reports appraisal of the property
NBR Notice of Preparation released for public review /comment
NBR named as "real party in interest" by BRC in lawsuit against CNB
NBR Sends Willing Buyer Letter to BRC
NBR DEIR released for public review /comment
Public Hearings
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Bg
t Northerly Habitat I `+
a' ! r Mitigation /ProtuRinn Are. -`
w
� ! eo /
z o
z 1 r
e
z I \
m / \
\
Southerly Habitat
1 Mitigation /Protection Area
1 Water Quality Basin 1
ACOE
tAWrlantls
Resbration
Zen \ \
Northerly
Oil Site Buffer
Northerly Oil
C.inalu atlOn Site
If�l- � nurser
ore. row.n orr,.amEexwrvoa.n.°�..
rem el—I
North Upland CSS /Grassland Area
Minor Arroyo Grassland Area
North Upland CSS /Grassland Area
uirllre.
Northern Arroyo Grassland Area
South Upland CSS /Grassland Area
Vernal Pool Preservation Area
\
F \
xwnnn anrei
\ Scent Bluff r, _r_,_ rsu si.r•m
\ ��CSS /Grassland Area %x> city
Wilillea�-
�'a \ Yard
Southern Arroyo/ \
CSS /Grassland Area !n \
,/— Odfuset Basin/Habitat Area e'
.- southerly.Oil _
I � Operations Suc m
� j I
'r ° Swtfierly ' w �
Oil Site Buffer
' Pew Sunset Ridge
eevrn.n annge `L rte. Park
H
West Coast Highway Bloff Area
Paruu
Water Quality
Basin
Potential 3rd
Party Mitigation
I Diffimnr Rmin N
MVE.N! Lowland
-.44MPreservation &
Restoration
CA
Upland Habitat
Preservation
Restoration
Arroyo
Restoration/
Bioswale Creatior
Water
Quality/Detention
Basin for Offsite
Run-on
Upland Habitat
Preservation &
Restoration
MIXED USE VILLAGES
�k
Y
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
R I. •
J`e
a
W
N
e
r
a
a
2
e
m
ALOE
Welt udder
Restoration
Area
Project Site Boundary
OPEN SPACE
U.owland Open Space [Public Trails & Families
UgaiM Open Space I Pudic Trails 8 FactlNes
Intedm Oil Facilities (OF)
PU13UC PARKS I RECREATION
1=1111 Commubity Park (CP)
8IU1f Pafk (SP)
Interpretive Parks IF)
VISITORSERVING RESORT I RESIDENTIAL
Visitor- Serving Resort I Reslden6ai (VSRIR)
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density Readentlal(RLI
Low - Medium Density Retud i(RUM)
Matl= Densty Residential (RM)
Pedestrian Pasco
MWED -USE 1 RESIDENTIAL
Mixed-Use I Residential MU/R)
ROADWAYS
Arterial Roads
— Collector Roads
Right-of -Way Reservation for l 9th Street
Top of Edge M BIM
SO �3 ibe u p of Edge of Bluff
for Halal Sucppa
O
1
PA( 11 l(
fit I. I%
R-
vrepes.a
xanman ri�ess
H
ler,r1eaH
b
5
F
RoWxtlPplrrareltl
CcnrttKn b SwM RESe PvA
CP
UOSPiF
Sumet Ridge
Park
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -
PUBLIC BENEFIT
o Water Quality
o Capture & treatment of offsite surface water
drainage
• Exceeds "business as usual"
• Resulting in significant water quality
benefits to the property & downstream
properties including Semeniuk Slough
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
ft
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -
PUBLIC BENEFITS
o Parks
• Community Parks — 26.8 acres
• Bluff Park & Interpretive Parks — 24.6 acres
• Total Parks — 51.4 acres
• Exceeds Quimby Act requirements by 36.3
acres
• All parks improved by proposed project
• Additional Benefits:
• Improvement of City owned parks - $8
million
• Trail System (7+ miles)
• Pedestrian /Bicycle bridge
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
4
5
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -
PUBLIC BENEFITS
o Public Benefit Fee
• $30,909 /residential unit
• Full build -out $40 +/- million
o Roads
o Construction /installation of public
streets /traffic improvements in excess of
project's obligation
o Fire Station Fee
o $510 /residential unit
o Full build -out $700,000+
NEWPORT BANNING RANCZ
i 10�w
STAFF REPORT / PC ERRATA
The Planning Commission has recommended that the PCDP be
amended to add language to Section 2.5, Visitor - Serving
Resort /Residential District (VSR /R) that will require:
"In the event a resort inn is not developed in the VSR /R district, ...An
Application for Site Development Review for residential development
within the entire VSR /R district shall not be permitted to be submitted
any earlier than two years from the effective date of an approved
Development Agreement for the Project Site."
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Email from Coastal Commission staff 7/20/12, to be made part of Administrative
Record
From: Kari.Schwing @coastal.ca.gov
To: terrymweish @hotmall.com
CC: John.DelArroz @coastal.ca.gov; Sherilyn.Sarb @coastal.ca.gov;
Jonna.Engel @coastal.ca.gov; Teresa.Henry@coastal.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Banning Ranch Vernal Pools
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:22:58 +0000
Terry,
Commission staff has already provided comments on the Banning
Ranch DEIR, and we stand by those comments. In April, we met with
the Banning Ranch reps and advised them that we were not satisfied by
the response to our comments in the DEIR and advised them that they
will need to fully address those comments if /when the project is
submitted to the Commission. Since then, some of our staff including
our staff biologists have had a site visit and I believe they underscored
the need for further study during that site visit.
However, none of our staff is in a position to write another letter on the
Banning Ranch matter in time for a hearing on Monday. As I know you
are aware, all of our time has been consumed by projects that are
active and pending before the Commission.
But, that shouldn't prevent you from submitting your own comments.
Karl Schwing
California Coastal Commission
South Coast Area Office /Long Beach
KARL. SCHWING @COASTAL. CA. G OV
Facility INformation Detail
sOnTN COh3T'
AOM
Facility INformation Detail (FIND)
Page 1 of 2
Search Again I Search Results I Facility Details I Equipment List I Compliance I Emissions I Hearing Board I Transportation
Emissions
Facility ID 42775
Company Name WEST NEWPORT OIL CO
Address 1080 W 17TH-ST
OSTA ESA, CA 92627
Select AER Yea : 2011
Criteria Pollutants (Tons Der Yearl:
Pollutant ID
Pollutant Description
Annual Emissions
CO
Carbon Monoxide
1.941
NOX
Nitrogen Oxides
0.831
ROG
Reactive Organic Gases
1.549
SOX
Sulfur Oxides
2.164
TSP
Total Suspended Particulates
0.165
Toxic Pollutants (Pounds Der Yearl:
Pollutant ID
Pollutant Description
Annual Emissions
106990
1,3- Butadiene
0.147
91576
2- Methyl naphthalene [PAH, POM]
0.064
83329
ACENAPHTHENE
0.002
208968
ACENAPHTHYLENE
0.010
7664417
Ammonia
132.837
7440382
Arsenic
0.001
191242
B[GHI] PERYLENE
0.000
71432
Benzene
26.855
205992
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
0.000
192972
Benzo[e]pyrene [PAH, POM]
0.000
7440439
Cadmium
0.001
56235
Carbon tetrachloride
0.071
18540299
Chromium (VI)
0.000
218019
Chrysene
0.001
106934
Ethylene dibromide
0.085
107062
Ethylene dichloride
0.045
206440
FLUORANTHENE
0.002
86737
FLUORENE
0.010
50000
Formaldehyde
3.203
7439921
Lead (inorganic)
0.005
75092
Methylene chloride
0.038
91203
Naphthalene
0.169
7440020
Nickel
0.002.
1151
PAHS, total, with components not reported
0.028
85018
PHENANTHRENE
0.020
129000
PYRENE
0.002
75014
Vinyl chloride
0.028
ll
Gt (J� ( j
Note - Data for 2007 represents the six -month transitional period, July through December 2007, when the rules requiring annual emissions
reporting changed from a fiscal year to a calendar year basis.
http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/Prog/emission.aspx?fac-id=... 7/23/2012
Section 4. 10
and Water Quality
sediment, and fecal coliform bacteria) or narrative statements that represent the quality of water
that support a particular use. The USEPA also promulgated the California Toxics Rule (CTR) in
1992 (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFRj 131.38), which established numeric water quality
criteria for the protection of human health or aquatic life in California surface waters. The CTR is
also discussed further below under State regulations.
When water quality issues compromise the designated beneficial uses of a particular receiving
water body, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires the identification and listing of that water body
as "impaired ". Once a water body has been deemed impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) must be developed for the impairing pollutant(s). A TMDL is an estimate of the total
load of pollutants from point, non - point, and natural sources that a water body may receive
without exceeding applicable water quality standards (plus a "margin of safety "). Once
established, the TMDL allocates the loads among the water body's current and future pollutant
sources.
Section 404 of the CWA is a program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) that regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into "Waters of the U.S. ",
including wetlands. Activities in "Waters of the U.S." that are regulated under this program
include fills for development (including physical alterations to drainages to accommodate storm
drainage, stabilization, and flood - control improvements); water resource projects (such as dams
and levees); infrastructure development (such as highways and airports); and conversion of
wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. The USEPA and the USACE have issued Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) that regulate dredge and fill activities, including water quality
aspects of such activities.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that any person applying for a federal permit or license that
may result in a discharge of pollutants into "Waters of the U.S." must obtain a State water
quality certification ensuring that the activity complies with all applicable water quality standards,
limitations, and restrictions. Section 404 permits and authorizations are subject to a Section 401
certification by the local Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).
Federal Antidegradation Policy
The Federal Antidegradation Policy was released in 1968 and was included in the USEPA's first
Water Quality Standards Regulation. This policy represents a three - tiered approach to
maintaining and protecting water quality. If an activity is going to be allowed to degrade or lower
water quality, the Federal Antidegradation Policy requires that (1) the activity is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social development in the area, (2) water quality is
adequate to protect and fully maintain existing beneficial uses, and (3) the highest statutory and
regulatory requirements and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for pollution control are
achieved.
State
California Porter- Cologne Act
California's Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 grants the State Water Resource
Control Board ( SWRCB) and the RWQCBs power to protect surface water and groundwater
quality; it is the primary vehicle for implementing California's responsibilities under the federal
CWA. The Porter - Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility
to adopt plans and policies; to regulate discharges of waste to surface and groundwater; to
regulate waste disposal sites; and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and
R: \Projects \New,rrJ01601.ft EIRA.10 Hydro- 102209.doc 4.10 -2 Sunset Ridge Park
Draft EIR