HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - Newport Banning Ranch Traffic Mitigation - 7/17/2012CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 2012
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: NEWPORT BANNING RANCH TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENT
DATE: JULY 5, 2012
FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT - TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RAJA SETHURAMAN, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
MANAGER, (714) 754-5032
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the Traffic Mitigation Agreement between the City of Costa Mesa and Newport
Banning Ranch, LLC for mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the proposed Newport
Banning Ranch Project within the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach
(Attachment 1).
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Traffic Mitigation Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
Newport Banning Ranch, LLC is proposing the development of a mixed-use project in a portion
of the Banning Ranch property, which is located largely in unincorporated County of Orange
within the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach. The Banning Ranch area is at the
western boundary of the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach and is generally bounded by
the Santa Ana River to the west, West Coast Highway to the south, and the Talbert Nature
Preserve to the north. The project site is currently an active oilfield with production facilities
located throughout the 401 -acre site. The proposed project will consolidate oil production
operations into approximately 16.5 acres, develop approximately 149 acres into a variety of
mixed uses, such as single and multi -family residential, neighborhood commercial, a boutique
hotel, and a neighborhood park, and will reserve the remaining area for open space uses.
The proposed Banning Ranch land use development plan includes 1,375 single and multi -family
residential units (comprised of 952 residential condominiums and townhouses and 423 single
family residences), 75,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a 75 -room resort hotel,
and various park amenities. A significant concentration of this development, including over 700
multi -family units and 75,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, is proposed in the
eastern edge of the Banning Ranch property at the current terminus of 17th Street at the City of
Costa Mesa's west boundary. The project also includes a north -south roadway connecting 191h
Street and Pacific Coast Highway through the Banning Ranch property. Access eoirits to the
Banning Ranch property include Pacific Coast Highway, 15`h Street, 16t Street, 17t Street, and
19th Street. The site plan for the proposed project is shown in Attachment 2.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Newport Banning Ranch project was
released for public review and comment on September 9, 2011. The comment period closed
on November 8, 2011. The City of Costa Mesa City Council conducted a joint public meeting
with the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission to solicit public input on the
project on October 20, 2011. In addition, Costa Mesa City Council Members had several
questions on the project. These questions, along with staff responses, are included In
Attachment 3. The City's comment letter on the DEIR submitted to the City of Newport Beach
is included in Attachment 4.
ANALYSIS:
For the past two years, the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach have worked on the
background studies for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Given the close
proximity of the Newport Banning Ranch development to the City of Costa Mesa, and its impact
to the City's transportation system, a key concern of City staff was the traffic study for the
project. The City of Costa Mesa provided the list of key intersections that needed to be included
in the traffic analysis, participated in, and reviewed the various assumptions and inputs to the
traffic study. Based on the City's comments, a significant portion of the traffic analysis within the
City of Costa Mesa was revised prior to incorporation in the DEIR.
The proposed Newport Banning Ranch project is expected to generate 14,989 daily trips, with
each trip representing a one-way vehicle movement, either to or from the project site. Of these,
906 trips are projected to be generated during the morning peak hour and 1,430 trips are
projected to be generated during the evening peak hour. The City of Costa Mesa worked with
City of Newport Beach staff in arriving at the above trip generation as well as the distribution of
trips to the roadway network. It is projected that approximately 65% of project traffic would
utilize the City of Costa Mesa's roadway system for access. The project -proposed connections
to Costa Mesa are at 16`x' Street, 17`x' Street, and 19'h Street, with 17`x' Street providing a major
access gateway.
The traffic analysis for the DEIR included 13 intersections in Newport Beach, 9 intersections in
Huntington Beach, and 31 intersections in Costa Mesa. The DEIR identified impacts at seven
(7) intersections within the City of Costa Mesa. The mitigation measures are required at the
time of project buildout and not during the initial phases. While mitigation measures were
identified at the impacted locations, the City of Newport Beach has limited authority to condition
them on the development as they are outside of their jurisdiction.
The Banning Ranch development project was approved unanimously by the Newport Beach
Planning Commission on June 21, 2012, and is scheduled for a Newport Beach City Council
hearing on July 24, 2012. The project also requires approval from the California Coastal
Commission, in addition to other state and federal agencies. However, the Newport Banning
Ranch project does not legally require approval from the City of Costa Mesa.
Consequently, Costa Mesa staff met with the developers of the Newport Banning Ranch project
on numerous occasions to discuss the anticipated impacts to the City's transportation system
and to maximize potential options for mitigation to these impacts.
The attached Traffic Mitigation Agreement was formulated on the City's understanding of the
project, its traffic impacts, and resulting mitigations. Costa Mesa staff developed preliminary
cost estimates for the improvements required to mitigate the identified impacts. Based on a
detailed analysis, staff determined that the proposed traffic mitigation fee of $4,388,483 is
justified and commensurate with the traffic impacts expected from the Newport Banning Ranch
development at buildout. This mitigation fee represents the Newport Banning Ranch
development's share of the identified impacts which may be used by the City to leverage future
transportation grants to implement the mitigations at the time they are needed.
This Agreement merely provides the City of Costa Mesa with the legal means to impose traffic
mitigation fees for a development that is outside of the City's jurisdiction, which could not
otherwise be collected. The agreement guarantees funding of $4,388,483 to improve
transportation infrastructure if the project as proposed is approved by all authorities and is
K
implemented by the developer. If there are any revisions to the project that substantially
change the impacts, then a new agreement will be required.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council may elect to not approve the attached Traffic Mitigation Agreement. This will
potentially result in the Newport Banning Ranch development to occur without addressing the
traffic impacts in Costa Mesa. However, this alternative will require the City to be responsible for
implementation of improvement measures in the future using only City and grant revenues.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The Traffic Mitigation Agreement provides for $4,388,483 in revenues to the City phased with the
development of Newport Banning Ranch. These traffic mitigation funds will be used to implement
mitigation measures identified in the Newport Banning Ranch DEIR for Costa Mesa as well as
other improvements in the City's General Plan Circulation Element to improve overall
transportation infrastructure to support anticipated traffic increases.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's office has reviewed the Traffic Mitigation Agreement and has provided
comments, which have been incorporated. The City Attorney's office has approved the attached
Agreement as to form.
CONCLUSION:
In late 2011, a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed for the Newport Banning
Ranch project, which includes the development of 1,375 residential units, 75,000 square feet of
neighborhood commercial uses, a 75 -room resort hotel, and park amenities within the Newport
Banning Ranch property. The DEIR identified traffic impacts at seven (7) intersections within the
City of Costa Mesa. While this proposed project is outside Costa Mesa's legal jurisdiction, City of
Costa Mesa staff met with the developer to review mitigation options. The attached Traffic
Mitigation Agreement was prepared based on these discussions. The Agreement was also
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. According to the proposed Agreement, the
developer will be responsible for contributing $4,388,483 in traffic impact fees to the City of Costa
Mesa based on the project's phasing. These funds represent the project's share of impacts on
the Costa Mesa's transportation system and are determined to be reasonable. Staff requests City
Council's approval of the Traffic Mitigation Agreement and authorization to the Mayor to execute
the Agreement.
RAJA SETHURAMAN
17�1
ERNEST MUNOZ
Transportation Services Manager Public Services Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1 Traffic Mitigation Agreement
2 Newport Banning Ranch Project
3 City Council Questions and Staff Responses from the
Public Hearing of October 20, 2011
4 City's Comment Letter
3
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO
City Attorney
Finance/IT Director
City Clerk Division
ATTACHMENT 1
TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENT
This TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered
into as of , 2012, by and among the City of Costa Mesa (the "City"), and Newport
Banning Ranch LLC, a California limited liability company, ("NBR"). The City and NBR are
herein each a "Party" and collectively the "Parties."
In consideration of mutual covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties agree as follows:
1.0 DEFINITIONS
In addition to the foregoing defined terms, the following defined terms apply to this
Agreement.
1.1 "Effective Date" is defined in Section 19.
1.2 "Project" is defined in Section 2.1
1.3 "Property" means the property comprising the Newport Banuring Ranch
Site as described in Exhibit "A."
2.0 RECITALS
2.1 NBR proposes to improve the Property in accordance with the Project
which is currently under consideration by the City of Newport Beach as follows: [insert
detailed project description].
2.2 The City of Newport Beach has prepared a draft Environmental Impact
Report in connection with its consideration of the Project (the "DEIR").
2.3 The DEIR has identified certain traffic impacts that may occur within the
City and has identified certain mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a less
than significant level (the "Mitigation Measures"). These mitigation measures are as follows:
(a) Newport Boulevard -- 19t" Sheet: Addition of a southbound left -turn lane;
(b) Newport Boulevard -- harbor Boulevard: Addition of a southbound
through lane;
(c) Newport Boulevard — 18"' Street: Additional of a southbound through
lane;
(d) Newport Boulevard — 17"' Street: Additional of a southbound through
lane;
301434756.1
Page 1-------
(e) Superior Avenue –17`1' Street: Addition of a westbound right -turn lane;
(f) Pomona Avenue – 17"' Street: Signalize intersection; and
(g) Monrovia Avenue – 19"' Street: Signalize intersection.
2.4 The City has adopted a fair share fee program applicable to projects
within the City for the mitigation of project traffic impacts.
2.5 The Parties understand and agree that the DEIR Traffic Study indicates
that initiation of mitigation measures related to the pro,ect must be implemented in Costa
Mesa in conjunction with the construction of the 300" residential unit. Nevertheless, in
advance of this 300t" residential unit threshold, the project will, pursuant to Section 4.2 below,
pay the Traffic Impact Fees, totaling $384,900 prior to issuance of the 300t" building permit.
2.6 Even though the Project is not within the City and would not be subject
to the City fair share program, the City and NBR agree that the project will have significant,
yet mitigatable impacts in Costa Mesa. In order to mitigate the potential traffic impacts of the
Project within the City, the Parties have entered into this Agreement. This Agreement will
provide for funding and phasing of the implementation of the Mitigation Measures and other
improvements based on Project development phasing.
3.0 Incorporation of Definitions and Recitals. The foregoing Definitions and
Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement.
4.0 Traffic Mitigation Program.
4.1 In order to address the impacts of the Project on the City, NBR agrees
to fund the cost of the Mitigation Measures in the total amount of up to Four Million Three
Hundred Eighty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Three Dollars ($4,388,483.00), depending on
the level of residential development within the Project, as set forth in this Section (the "Traffic
Mitigation Program").
4.2 NBR shall pay a traffic mitigation fee in the amount of One Thousand
Two Hundred Eighty Three Dollars ($1,283.00) per residential unit constructed within the
project (the "Traffic Mitigation Fee"). The fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit for each unit.
4.3 In addition to the Traffic Mitigation Fee, NBR shall pay lump sum fees
as certain milestones during the build -out of the Project (the "Milestone Fees") as follows:
(a) Prior to Issuance of 3015` residential building permit -- $500,000
(b) Prior to Issuance of 6015 residential building permit -- $500,000
(c) Prior to Issuance of 9015` residential building permit -- $750,000
(d) Prior to Issuance of 1,20Ot residential building permit -- $875,000
301434756.1
-- — Page 2
161
4.4 Prior to applying for any residential building permit, NBR, or its
successors and assigns pursuant to Section 9 below, shall submit a certified schedule to the
City detailing the projected timing of the issuance of building permits by the City of Newport
Beach and will remit the payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fees and Milestone Fees, then due,
prior- to the issuance of building permits. Prior to issuance of each applicable building permit
by the City of Newport Beach, NBR shall obtain a certification from the City that all
applicable fees under the Traffic Mitigation Program have been paid.
5.0 Full and Complete Mitigation
The City agrees that the payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fee and the Milestone Fees will result
in full and complete mitigation of all of the Project traffic impacts within the City as identified in
the DEIR. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City agrees that new traffic impacts caused by
modifications to the existing City Circulation Element or as a result of new projects requiring a
General Plan amendment or new circulation improvements, shall not result in an increase in the
mitigation provided for in this Agreement except as lawfully and reasonably required in connection
with changes, modifications or amendments to the Project Approvals sought by Developer that
significantly increase the traffic impact on the City and to mitigate traffic impacts of the Project
which were not and reasonably could not, have been anticipated at the time the City entered into this
Agreement.
5.1 The City further agrees and acknowledges that the Project will not
create and DEIR does not identify any other adverse impacts on the City, environmental or
otherwise.
6.0 Non -Interference. The City will not oppose the approval of the Project or
initiate any litigation related to the Project Approvals, the Environmental Impact Report
prepared in connection with the Project Approvals or any subsequent Project Approvals
including but not limited to the issuance of Coastal Development Permits, use permits or
building permits so long as they are consistent with the Project as described in Section 2.1
above.
7.0 Clranges to Projects. The Parties recognize that the Project will be subject to
various regulatory approvals that may result in changes in building types, development
footprint, unit count, density, proposed uses and in other substantive ways, and that such
changes will not change their respective obligations hereunder except to the extent that they
result in increased traffic impacts in the City. The Parties agree to cooperate with one another
in good faith should changes in the Project result in increased traffic impacts in the City and
require modifications to the Traffic Mitigation Program in order to mitigate any increased traffic
impacts. The parties agree that the approval of any such modifications to the Traffic Mitigation
Program will not be unreasonably withheld.
8.0 Permits. NBR will obtain all appropriate permits and approvals necessary to
proceed with the Projects.
8.1 NBR, or its agents or affiliates, are solely responsible for obtaining any
Permits.
301434 75 6. E
Page 3
CT)
8.2 The City will not oppose, interfere with, or object to NBR's application for
any permits.
9.0 Default and Remedies.
9.1 Notice And Opportunity To Cure. Before this Agreement may be
terminated or action may be taken to obtain relief in a manner consistent with this Agreement, the
Party seeking relief ("Non -Defaulting Party") shall comply with the notice and cure provisions
of this Section 9.1. A Non -Defaulting Party in its discretion may elect to declare a default under
this Agreement in accordance with the procedures hereinafter set forth for any failure or breach of
any other Party ("Defaulting Party") to perform any material duty or obligation of said
Defaulting Party in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. However, the Non -Defaulting
Party must provide written notice ("Default Notice") to the Defaulting Party setting forth the
nature of the breach or failure and the actions, if any, required by the Non -Defaulting Party to cure
such breach or failure. The Defaulting Party shall be deemed in "default" of its obligations set
forth in this Agreement if the Defaulting Party has failed to take action to cure the default within
twenty (20) days after the date of such Default Notice (for monetary defaults), within thirty (30)
days after the date of such Default Notice (for non -monetary defaults), or within such lesser time
as may be specifically provided in this Agreement. If, however, a non -monetary default cannot be
cured within such thirty (30) day period, as long as the Defaulting Party does each of the
following, then the Defaulting Party shall not be deemed in breach of this Agreement:
(i) within twenty (20) days of the Default Notice, notifies the Non -Defaulting
Party in writing with a reasonable explanation as to the reasons the asserted default is not curable
within the thirty (30) day period;
(ii) within twenty (20) days of the Default Notice, notifies the Non -Defaulting
Party of the Defaulting Party's proposed course of action to cure the default;
(iii) promptly commences to cure the default within the thirty (30) day period;
(iv) makes periodic reports to the Non -Defaulting Party as to the progress of
the program of cure; and
(v) diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.
9.2 Remedies. In the event of a default, the Non -Defaulting Party, at its
option, may institute an action to cure, correct, or remedy such default, enjoin any threatened or
attempted violation, enforce the terms of this Agreement by specific performance (including
injunctive relief), or pursue any other remedy otherwise available.
10.0 Assr�nt.
10.1 Right To Assi n. NBR and its successors and assigns shall have the right
to assign a portion or all of its rights under this Agreement to any person or entity that acquires an
interest in said portion or all of the Property; provided that such person or entity assumes in
writing all of the obligations of NBR under this Agreement applicable to the portion of the
Property transferred and notifies City in writing of the same.
c�
301434756.1
— Page 4
10.2 Assignee Subject To Terms Of Agreement. Following an assignment of
this Agreement as provided in Section 9.1 above, the successor or assign shall be subject to the
terms of this Agreement as it may apply to the portion of the Property transferred to the same
extent as if the successor or assign were NBR. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding
upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to
this Agreement.
10.3 Release Upon Transfer. Upon an assignment as provided in Section 9.1
above, the NBR or a transferring successor shall be relieved of its legal duty to perform such
future assigned obligations as may be applicable to the portion of the Property transferred, except
to the extent NBR or a transferring successor is in default hereunder with respect to the particular
assigned obligations prior to said transfer.
11.0 Attorneys' fees. Each Party will bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred
in connection with the negotiation, execution and implementation of its obligations under this
Agreement. Should any lawsuit, action, or proceeding be brought to enforce, avoid, nullify,
reform, rescind, or seek damages based on an alleged breach of this Agreement, or in any other
way arising out of, related to or referencing this Agreement, then the prevailing party or parties
in such a proceeding shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the other party or parties for all costs
and expenses incurred as a result, whether or not ordinarily collectible, including but not limited
to, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and costs for the services rendered to such
prevailing party or parties.
12.0 Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding among
the Parties and neither of the Parties shall be bound by any conditions, warranties, or
representations other than as expressly stated in this Agreement.
13.0 Cautions — Pronouns. Any titles, captions, or subheadings contained in this
Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the context of this
Agreement or considered in any interpretation or construction of this Agreement. Whenever the
masculine, feminine or neuter genders are used herein, as required by the context or particular
circumstance, they shall include each of the other genders as appropriate. Whenever the
singular or plural numbers are used, they shall be deemed to be the other as required. Wherever
the present or past tense is utilized in this Agreement and the context or circumstances require
another interpretation, the present shall include the past and future, the future shall include the
present, and the past shall include the present.
14.0 Consideration. The Parties hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that each
and every term and condition of this Agreement is of the essence of this Agreement, constitutes
a material part of the bargain for consideration without which this Agreeinent would not have
been executed and is a material part of the Agreement.
15.0 Modifications. This Agreement may be amended or modified only in a writing
executed by all of Parties.
16.0 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed as two originals (one for each
Party) and may be executed in several counterparts and all so executed shall constitute one
(T)
301434756.1
Pages
agreement which will be binding on all the Parties hereto notwithstanding that all of the Parties
are not signatory to the sante counterpart.
17.0 Representations and Warranties. Each Party represents and warrants to the
other Parties as follows:
17.1 Such Party has received independent legal advice from attorneys of its
choice with respect to the advisability of making this settlement and release and with respect
to the advisability of executing this Agreement.
17.2 Except as is expressly stated in this Agreement, no Party has made any
statement or representation to any other Party regarding any fact, which statement or
representation is relied upon by such Party in entefing into this Agreement. In connection
with the execution of this Agreement or the making of the settlement and release provided for
herein, such Party has not relied upon any statement, representation or promise of any other
Party or their attorney not expressly contained herein.
17.3 The terms of this Agreement are contractual and are the result of
negotiations among the Parties. Each Party has cooperated in the drafting and preparation of
this Agreement. Hence, in any construction to be made of this Agreement, the same shall not
be construed against any Party.
17.4 This Agreement has been carefully read by such Party and the contents
thereof are known and understood by such Party, and this Agreement is signed freely by such
Party.
18.0 Warranty of Authority. Each person whose signature is affixed hereto ill a
representative capacity represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to execute this
Agreement on behalf of and to bind the Party on whose behalf his or her signature is affixed.
19.0 Notices. All notices shall be sent to the Parties at the following addresses:
To the City: City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Post Office Box No. 1200
Costa Mesa, California 92628-1200
Attn: Peter Nagha Vi, Deputy Chief Executive
Officer/Economic Development Director
With copy to: City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Post Office Box No 1200
Costa Mesa, California 92628-1200
Attn: City Attorney
To Developer: Newport Banning Ranch LLC
Attn: Michael A. Mohler
1300 Quail Street, Suite 100
301434756.1
Page 6
Newport Beach, CA 92660
With copy to: George L. Basye
Aera Energy LLC
3030 Saturn Street, Suite 101
Brea, CA 92821
With copy to: Roger A. Grable
Manatt, Phelps and Phillips LLP
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor
Cost Mesa, California 92626
20.0 Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the execution of
this Agreement by both Panties.
21.0 Severability. In the event that any provision or any part of any provision of this
Agreement shall be void or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then such provision shall
be stricken and of no force and effect; provided that no party would be deprived of a material
consideration by operation of this section, the remaining provisions of this Agreement, will
continue in full force and effect, and to the extent required, shall be modified to preserve their
validity.
22. Applicable Law. Any legal action pertaining to this Agreement and the obligations of
the Parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The parties agree that any
legal action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or otherwise, is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Orange County Superior Court.
23. Amendments and. Waivers. Any modification to this Agreement shall be in writing
signed by both parties. Further, any waiver by either party of any obligation of the other party
shall not limit a party's right to seek recourse for future violations of the other party.
24. Statutory Inapplicability. Developer acknowledges and agrees that Government Code
Section 65864 et. sect. and Government Code Section 66000 et_ seq. is not applicable to this
Agreement.
(Signature blocks begin on following page)
301434756.1
Page 7
Dated: . 2012 "NBR"
Newport Banning Ranch LLC, a California limited
liability company
By:
Name: George L. Basye
Title: Manager
"City"
City of Costa Mesa
By:
Mayor
Attest:
By:
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
By:
City Attorney
I s
301434756.1
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 2
ifrn
-
! F _ )F{t,s ,�'iT� - 141h Street
ab
LU
I8N 5Deet } 1
c.... ... ___ _- _._ .. .
Urban Colony
/ r OO
a : 'ie
V
i
ACOE
Wetlands m 0 Nevfia�sheet ! i
Restoration s
Area ` ;: _ .........
North Family Village
NMUSD it
Street_ . 3.._
' O
N,
At'31ks� �
3m Yarr 'y
LEGEND
Rajee-'p
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE i qw_
f» -a rota c�r,�,v-ee«� aeee�ea<n ar.i t1.ta�€� - y��,`�-
`}.- 15 Slre et
PibFc Yterrrtte.e Tral t' - 0a
A
aareye AAa�a3�re+i 0.ess _ � � 1ie Q- "rte-_
tric�PddO15C.7Rcru�is.e Mreu Eas•--cert \77``�' - J •'i LSI�P -
-
PARKLANDS -3 -k � �,- -
\{
so
South Family Village
P�t[t sfs Pei, /� S ��11.� -' onProposed Pumanent
V - - Cnec6'on to Sunset Ridge Park
is 'S
R[Ee Ftrrpre'lr Perp �
WLAGES AND COLONIES �`� .� Y ' Resort Colony
lith a -d ScVh Fx+71 W>yes 'e �.. f `�i_�I�f \ of -.--
�s?
F I tr}�c r , Proposed �`' ��i -94
#a Sun Parsetke
0 cs<.M rernr d Pedestrian Bridge `
PsleSnan Psseo
6111
PUBLIC ROADWAYS
M--„Ro . PACIFIC y _.
OCEAN
® ria«
llllE�e.�a�V kvnR l�&R's Es '>F�fexrdr/!a Eaita Na Ri.g.
_--- Exhibit 1-4 I
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Site Planning Areas Map l
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MRSA
City of NerrporI Beach - California I I I I I I f J r ,�„!11fCOE ac•,3•a,u
sa.uo�+Ex, !�1Rr�i9:t�M9vba0.ssRw�i sPeje'-v lYhrara e�.+�h��es�n �,i
ATTACHMENT 3
JOINT CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARKS & RECREATION
COMMISION MEETING ON BANNING RANCH
OCTOBER 20, 2011
Councilinenrber Eric Bever:
I. Does the Banning Ranch project consider all impacts on the Cily's General Plan?
The Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) includes analysis of various
traffic conditions. The analysis for the year 2016 conditions includes consideration of all
projects approved by the City of Costa Mesa to date. The General Plan conditions assume the
full buildout of General Plan and include land use as well as circulation improvements. The
project analysis did not assume any improvements to the SR -55 Freeway.
2. Will the cost for traffic mitigations be paid for by the project?
At this point, there is no final agreement regarding the payment or implementation of traffic
mitigations. The developers have indicated that they would work with the City in the
implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project.
3. Can the 131zrff Road be jogged so that it i.s not a through street from Coast highway to 19`t'
Street?
The Bluff Road, according to Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Mastcr Plan of
Arterial Highways (MPAH), extends from Victoria Street to Pacific Coast Highway in generally
a straight north -south alignment. However, the Banning Ranch project is proposing a
modification to this alignment. Between 19"' Street and 15'h Street, Bluff Road is proposed to be
constructed in a north -south alignment. At 151h Street, a T -intersection is proposed and the Bluff
Road alignment changed to east -west and then curved in the southwesterly direction to connect
to West Coast Highway.
4. The project should be store reflective of the densities that are being proposed on the Costa
Mesa's Westside. 40 units per acre appears to be too high.
The density of the Urban Colony proposed as part of Banning Ranch project is approximately 40
units per acre, considering 730 units in 18.3 net acres. This part of the development is at the
eastern boundary of the project on both sides of 171h Street.
Westside Costa Mesa primarily consists of industrially -zoned properties. With regard to select
areas of residential development, Westside Costa Mesa is generally characterized by a mix of
different residential densities, including low density residential development (about 7 dwelling
units per acre), medium density residential (12 to 15 dwelling units per acre) and high density
residential (20 dwelling units per acre). Immediately adjacent to the Banning Ranch property,
between W. 18'h and W. I 91 Streets in the City's corporate limits, there are single-family homes
(R1 zone: single-family residential district) and the Seabreeze Residential Community (Planned
Development Residential -High Density zone).
The 2000 Costa Mesa General Plan does not allow residential development at densities greater
than 20 dwelling units per acre in the Westside without a General Plan amendment or rezone, as
applicable. The mixed-use overlay zones in this area may allow residential development at
densities of 13 dwelling units per acre for a purely residential project or densities greater than 20
units per acre for live/work development. A mixed-use project in the overlay zone could
potentially feature high density live/work projects in the 20 to 30 unit per acre range.
Councilmember Stephen Mensinger
I. What is the fatal cost of traffic mitigation in Costa Mesa?
The total cost of traffic mitigation is projected to be several million dollars. The project's
responsibility including contribution to the traffic impact fee program is projected to be
approximately $8 to $10 million. This is based on a very preliminary review of traffic
mitigations proposed for the project.
2. Over what time frame ivould the traffic mitigations occur and at what point in the life cycle
of the 1)3,oject
The implementation of all the mitigations is required before the buildout of the project. The
project is proposed to be completed in phases between 2016 and 2024. A phased implementation
plan of mitigations that corresponds with actual project phasing will need to be developed.
3. Provide additional information to gain a better understanding about the project's open
space.
According to the proposed plan, approximately 51 gross acres (42 net acres after accounting for
public right-of-way) of land will be open space. Ofthis, approximately 16 acres are dedicated for
active park space including athletic fields. The remaining 35 acres comprise of passive parks,
interpretative trails, and other open space. According to the DEIR, the 16 acres of active park
uses, between ISri' and 16th Streets, is proposed to include 6 lighted tennis courts, I basketball
court, 3 lighted soccer fields, I youth baseball field and 1 adult softball field overlaid on soccer
fields, tot lots, picnic areas and restrooms. The fields and courts are proposed to be lit till 10:00
p.m.
4. How rvill the project inlet -act with Talbert and the county island issue? Hort mill that be
resolved?
The DEIR does not address the Talbert Nature Preserve and County island issue.
S. What are the imapacts ftorn the project to the 55 corridor? Is this going to have a hinge inipact
on Newport Blvd. and the imrprovemtents the Cite just made?
15
The project adds significant traffic to SR -55 Freeway. According to the traffic study in the
DEIR, approximately 40 percent of Banning Ranch's project traffic would use Newport
Boulevard and the SR -55 Freeway. This translates to approximately 6,000 vehicles per day. The
DEIR identified impacts at all major intersections on Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and
17th Street. The project utilizes some of the increased capacity provided in the northbound
direction with the recently completed improvement project. The project mitigations require
improvements in the southbound direction of Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and 17th
Street.
6 Hort, does the project mitigate the additional trips corning in and out of the city?
Mitigation measures were identified at seven intersections within the City of Costa Mesa. In
addition, with the project buildout, the City of Costa Mesa may need to implement General Plan
Circulation Element improvements such as widening of 17"' and 19'1' Streets,
7. Hotta ~will this project impact the flow to the eastside?
Eastside Costa Mesa is not expected to be impacted with the project due to the project location as
well as potential project distribution.
8. Hotta will this impact the flotit, to Net>>port Beach?
The project impacts to Newport Boulevard are discussed in earlier paragraph.
Mayor Gary Manahan
1. laking into consideration the 55 freettpay extension study that OCTA and the City is looking
at, rt,ould the impacts increase or decrease if the Banning Ranch project were to go through?
The SR -55 Access Study is analyzing long -tern solutions for SR -55 Freeway/Newport
Boulevard to address future traffic growth based on buildout of General Plan land uses in Costa
Mesa, Newport Beach and other jurisdictions. The proposed Newport Banning Ranch
development is within the buildout assumptions in the Newport Beach General Plan. The DEIR
identified improvements in the Newport Boulevard corridor with the proposed Banning Ranch
development. Even with the proposed improvements, the DEIR shows that several intersections
would be operating at unacceptable levels requiring consideration of other alternatives as
identified in the SR -55 Access Study.
2. On Bluff Road, could it stop at 17"' Street?
The DEIR includes a Bluff Road Alternative that assumes Bluff Road will terminate just north of
17th Street. This alternative results in one less impact at Monrovia Avenue — 19th Street
intersection.
3. Can ive get a picture of what the increase in pressure on 17`1' street would be? Would the 35
percent jump up if we stopped it fi-orn going to 19"'?
Additional traffic is forecasted on 17th Street as a result of this Bluff Road Alternative. The
expected traffic on 17"' Street would increase by about 5 percent or 750 vehicles per day as a
result of this Bluff Road Alternative. The need for widening 17th Street to General Plan
standards may increase with this Alternative.
Mayor No Tern An Righeinrer
Would there be any kind of cut though traffic through the Eastside? Does anything get drawn
through Eastside?
Eastside Costa Mesa is not expected to be impacted with the development of Banning Ranch due
to the project location as well as its potential traffic distribution,
2. How is the open .space maintenance going to be funded? Iloiv is that going to work over -
foreveO 11ouv do you pick someone to do that? What's the process to go through to have
someone who's in charge of doing that?
The DEIR does not provide details on the future maintenance responsibilities, and funding of the
proposed open space. The details will need to be provided by the developer.
Regarding the large green space on the eastern .side, are there plans for ball fields, play
_ ield,s, os• some kind offacilities the kids in Costa Mesa would be able to use? If so, how will
the cost of those impr•ovenrents funded?
As mentioned in an earlier response, the project includes development of an active park between
15th and l6th Streets. The proposed facilities include 6 lighted tennis courts, I basketball court, 3
lighted soccer fields, 1 youth baseball field and I adult softball field overlaid on soccer fields, tot
lots, picnic areas and restrooms. The fields and courts are proposed to be lit till 10:00 p.m. The
DEIR does not provide specific details on the use of these facilities by Costa Mesa residents.
ATTACHMENT 4
November 8, 2011
CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 9 2628-1 200
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT -
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR NEWPORT
BANNING RANCH
Dear Mr. Alford:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) prepared for the Newport Banning Ranch Master Plan. Please consider the following
comments:
TRANSPORTATION
General comments:
• The report does not have graphics showing traffic volumes at intersections and Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) on roadway segments. The City requests that these be provided in
order to conduct a complete review of the results of various land use and circulation
scenarios.
• At several occasions, the intersections at Newport Boulevard Frontage Road at Victoria
and 22nd Street are referred to as State intersections. These intersections are in City of
Costa Mesa jurisdiction and control.
Page 4.9-3: In the discussion of Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), the report incorrectly
states that the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) MPAH defines "Orange
County freeway, toll road and arterial circulation system." The MPAH map is limited to arterial
highways only and the freeways and toll roads are included for information purposes only and
reflect existing conditions. This is based on discussions with OCTA staff and also per the OCTA
MPAH map itself, which mentions that the information on freeways, toll roads are provided for
reference only.
Page 4.9-20: Standard condition SC 4.9-3 requires review and approval of the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Engineer for issuance of a Haul Route permit. The report should include a
condition requiring the approval of City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Manager for use
of any routes within the City of Costa Mesa jurisdiction for construction access.
Page 4.9-75: There are several incorrect statements in the discussion of SR -55 Freeway
Extension. The report mentions that "The Cit of Costa Mesa Circulation Element depicts the
extension of SR -55 as a freeway between 19t Street and Industrial Way. The Orange County
Building Division (714) 754-5273 - Code Enforcement (714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245
FAX (714) 754-4956 • TDD (714) 754-5244 - ti•.aNi-ci-costa-mesa.ca,us
MPAH depicts the freeway portion of SR -55 ending at its current terminus at 19th Street in Costa
Mesa." As mentioned in comment earlier, the OCTA MPAH is limited to arterials only. The SR -
55 Freeway is under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). Caltrans has an adopted Route Concept Report (RCR) for SR -55 Freeway that
shows the extension of SR -55 Freeway south to Industrial Way. There is no mention of
Caltrans RCR in the discussion. As part of the proposed MPAH amendment study for the
Banning Ranch project, the City requested that model run and analysis of project with SR -55
Freeway as currently proposed also be included.
Pages 4.9-81 and 4.9-82: The buildout analysis seems to yield significantly lower Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) values compared to 2016 conditions. The City requests that the
future traffic volume projections at all intersections be provided for review.
Page 4.9-93: MM 4.9-2, Costa Mesa Mitigations — The City of Newport Beach should condition
that the applicant mitigate the project impacts in Costa Mesa based on terms and conditions as
agreed to by the applicant and the City of Costa Mesa.
Page 4.9-95: Newport Boulevard — 19th Street Intersection: The recent widening of Newport
Boulevard at this location constructed a retaining wall along the west side. The primary access
road to parking garage serving the large office building at 1901 Newport Boulevard is located
immediately adjacent to this retaining wall. This access roadway will be impacted with any
widening.
Newport Boulevard — 17th Street Intersection: The proposed mitigation at this location will
require undergrounding the existing open channel along southbound Newport Boulevard south
of 17`h Street to accommodate the fourth through lane. This requires construction of a concrete
box structure in the widened area south of 17°i Street.
Page 4.9-96: Superior Avenue -- 17"' Street: The note incorrectly states that the improvement is
limited to signal operation modifications. The project also includes a westbound right -turn lane,
which will require right-of-way from the adjacent parcel. The improvement will also affect drive
thru operations of fast food restaurant, which will need to be addressed.
Page 4.9-116: Table 4.9-34 shows projected increase in traffic due to project traffic. The project
trip distribution exhibit stated that approximately 35% of project traffic uses 17th Street.
Considering the project trip generation of approximately 15,000 vehicles per day, this translates
to over 5,200 vehicles per day. However, the Table 4.9-34 shows only an increase of 3,912
vehicles. There should be an exhibit that shows clearly the level of redistribution of background
traffic with the construction of Bluff Road. Even with the forecast as provided, the volume -to -
capacity ratio is over 0.90 for 17th Street as well as 19th Street, resulting in a need for increased
capacity on segments west of Placentia Avenue. The need for this widening and timing should
be addressed in the DEIR.
Page 7-81: The traffic analysis should include graphics showing traffic volumes at intersections
for all scenarios. In addition, graphics showing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for all
scenarios should be included.
LAND USE
Section 4.1.7- Environmental Impacts, Page 4.1-31
The first paragraph refers that no development
between North Bluff Road and existing California
Mesa.
or grading is proposed for the open space
Seabreeze residential community in Costa
no
This area is within the project perimeter where abandoned oil wells exist. Given the significance
of the Banning Ranch development and proximity of North Bluff Road to these residences, the
City recommends that new grading and landscaping is installed in the area where the existing
dirt berm is located. It is important that landscape restoration take into consideration any
comments from the Seabreeze community and City of Costa Mesa staff. It is also suggested
that any improvements be included with the initial phases of the project development so that
these Costa Mesa residents could potentially benefit directly from the revitalized open space
area to the fullest extent possible
Exhibit 3-9
The street cross section is only depicting the street and not the adjacent slope. It would be
helpful to have additional information on the view impacts for the northern segment of Bluff
Road adjacent to the Seabreeze community.
AESTHETICS
The City recommends that this section address interim aesthetic impacts to Costa Mesa
communities. To minimize construction impacts to the Seabreeze community, stock piles,
construction staging and material storage shall be located away from the residential properties
of Seabreeze and Parkview Circle. It would be important to offer a 24-hour hotline for residents
to call with any concerns during construction.
NOISE
Section 4.12.1 (Page 4.12-8)
The City recommends that the construction hours for the development be consistent with the
City's regulations: Permitted Hours of Construction for City of Costa Mesa are from 7:00 a.m, to
7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; no construction is
permitted on Sunday or federal holidays.
RECREATION AND TRAILS
Section 4.8.5 Community Parks (Page 4.8-10)
The DEIR refers to North and South Community Parks with various amenities. The California
Coastal Act notes that "lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected,
encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational
opportunities are preferred." If there are any visitor fees or parking costs associated with
proposed public recreational facilities and community parks, the City recommends that Costa
Mesa residents be offered a discounted rate.
Since y,
KHANH NGUYE
Interim Develop Services Director
cc: Chief Executive Officer
Interim Assistant CEO
City Attorney
Interim Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Manager
0a
November 8, 2011
CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
SUBJECT: PUBLIC COMMENTS - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(DEIR) FOR NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Dear Mr. Alford:
As you are aware, the City of Costa Mesa held a study session related to the Newport
Banning Ranch DEIR on October 20th, 2011. Public comments received during the
study session are attached for your information.
The questions and answers are also posted on the City of Costa Mesa's website and
can be accessed by the following link:
http://www.costamesaca.gov/docs/pianninq/2011-10-20-Special-Joint-Meeting-public-
questions-and-answers.pdf
KHANH NGUYENV
Acting Developme
rvices Director
cc: Chief Executive Officer
Interim Assistant CEO
City Attorney
Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Manager
0�
Building Division (714) 754-5273 • Cade Enforcement (714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245
FAX (714) 754-4856 - TDD (714) 754-5244 - vivAv.d.costa-mesa-ca.us
Special Joint Meeting regarding Banning Ranch
Thursday. October 20, 2011
Question from the Members of the Public who did not speak:
Michelle Simpson, Costa Mesa
1 bought my home less than 3 years ago. Wby was I not told
michelle sirnpson cz,TJX,com
of the plan to widen the street and take my home at worst or
put a traffic signal on my corner?
When will we know what the verdict will be on the 19'h
Street/Bluff Road to 19th Street? Will it be decided upon
soon?
Bonnie Copeland, Costa Mesa
What is the Final Cost to tax aha, ers in 2011 $$'s of ALL land
Bomnail@yacbell.net
acquisition, demolishing, road -building, resurfacing that will
be the result of the Banning Ranch development AND the
subsequent implementation of the O.C. Master Plan including
resurfacing with sound -deadening asphalt, 19th Street to PCH,
widening of 15`h, 160h, 17th, 19'h and other streets regardless
of whether paid through federal, county, city, state or other
funding sources fueled by taxes?
How many of the following: Homes, Businesses, Apartments,
will be the FINAL Plan, including implementation of the
county master roadway plan, require taking through eminent
domain or other means?
Will Costa Mesa make the relocation of ALL displaced Costa
Mesa residents into the Banning Ranch Development at
Newport Beach's expense a part of the deal?
Sandie Frankiewicz, Costa
What will happen to our home and us when we are out of a
Mesa
home, (which) will be demolished in order to widen 19th Street
Sandie.frankicx;,icz cz gniail.cotn
to a four lane raceway?
Have you factored in the road maintenance once all this traffic
of thousands of cars gain access to Costa Mesa? Answer: Our
broke city will pay! We can't afford not to pay attention, let
alone take on the cost of road work/maintenance.
01a
Gerry Grotenhuis, Costa Mesa
They speak of oil clean-ups if it is a favor to us. Why can't we
require the companies that create the problem to clean it up
without trading away our streets?
What is going to be done to handle sewage? Huntington Beach
allowed huge developments while their sewage plants were
thousands of gallons a day short of capacity (illegible word). I
see a lot of toilets planned here.
Comment: Not only does this dump a huge bunch of traffic
onto Costa Mesa streets, while giving us nothing, but it
coincidently goes through the poorest neighborhood in the
city. This raises some clear questions of social equality.
They allude to "Revitalizing" the West -side. I live on the
west -side because I Iike it. We, the residents, are revitalizing
the area the way we want to.
There is a small gated community at the end of 181h Street. Go
there some morning to get Banning Ranch in microcosm. A
stream of BMW's and Mercedes accelerating to the maximum
speed (unreadable word) able to still stop at each stop sign.
Do it and report back to me.
Terry Koken, Costa Mesa
The I375 home/condos proposed: How much will they cost
Tkokeii@att.net
the prospective owners to buy?
What is the "green edge" exactly?
Steve Lang, Costa Mesa
Please address cut through traffic volumes.
In regards to the percentage of open land: How much is water?
In acres please. If you've been there it is a large amount! I am
worried the open land is minimal.
We have a great neighborhood coming about in the freedom
homes. Many young families and kids. Please help your
residents preserve it. We're not all bums and illegals!!
P.S. Who cares about soccer fields.
P
Casey Evans-Lang, Costa Mesa
How much of Banning Ranch is comprised of water? Would
Evans c@auhsd.us
that water stay? Is that water considered as part of the Open
Space?
Who pays for all the mitigation costs for the traffic,
infrastructure, signals, and up keep of?
Why are we helping Newport Beach with all their traffic needs
to support their development?
All those homes (1375) and residents of would be the users of
the proposed parks and ball fields — how would Costa Mesa
residents be guaranteed use of such fields? Sounds like bait
and switch!
Only supporters of seem to be business owners? Statistics?
Sue Chambers, Costa Mesa
What schools would Banning Ranch residents to go in the
schambers@ca.rr.com
Newport/Costa Mesa school system? Example — could
(illegible word) school improve?
I live on the confer of 191h and Parkcrest (house backs onto
19th). How will noise from traffic be controlled?
Also will the project and additional traffic affect my property
value?
What will the New housing project price points be? What's the
range?
P.S. I think the project sounds great!
Deborah Koken, Costa Mesa
Is it legitimate for the developer to claim credit for preserving
dkoken@hmausa.com
—
% of Banning Ranch as open space, when in fact most of this
is the wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas
which they are legally required to maintain as open space?
These areas will remain undeveloped no matter what happens
to the rest of the property, so the developer can't claim it as a
gift to the public.
Richard Robertson, Costa Mesa
What is the value to Costa Mesa of the Banning Ranch
trobertc,uei.edu
development?
0
Terry Powell, Costa Mesa
I have heard that there are plans for Westside Costa Mesa to
terrydavitt a gmail.com
"improve", "revitalize the area", "boost the economy." I hear
that increased traffic on our roads (19th, 17"f', etc) will help
achieve this goal.
What exactly is going to happen?
What do these terms mean? Building? Bulldozing? Be specific
please.
Michael Grofick, Costa Mesa
What is Eminent Domain?
Michael@tnichaelsg.com
Traffic impact to 17th and 191h Street Costa Mesa?
How will Costa Mesa acquire the property on 17'11 Street and
19`11 Street to provide roads for Banning Ranch?
I'm
\ales D-UNd
Disli-id tlfissiat: November 2, 2011
Dedicated to Strtisf}-irrg
oil/. Coll? miln ty'S
fYrlter Needs
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
BOARD OF DIRECTORS P.O. Box 1768
FRED R. BOCKMILLER Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
President
Division I
JAMES F. ATKINSON Subject: Summarized Response Letter for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
First Vice President
Division IV (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) for the proposed Newport Banning
SHAWN DEWANE Ranch Project
Vice President
Division Dear Mr. Alford:
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Division II Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa Water) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
TRUDYOHLIG-HALL impact Report for the proposed Newport Banning Ranch project (SCI -I# 2009031061).
Vice President
Division III We thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and appreciate your
consideration of our comments as they relate to the proposed water supply for the
project. We offer the following comments at this time and look forward to your response:
PAUL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E.
General Manager
-
Project Description:
COLEEN L. MONTELEONE
We understand that the proposed project site consists of approximately 401 acres of land.
District Secretary
Approximately 40 acres of the project site are located within the incorporated boundary
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY
of the City of Newport Beach, and approximately 361 acres are in unincorporated Orange
District Treasurer
County within the City's Sphere of Influence. The entire site is within the Coastal Zone, as
BOWIE, ARNESON,
WILES & GIANNONE
established by the California Coastal Act.
Legal Counsel
As proposed, the project would involve the development of the approximately 401 -acre
site with 1,375 residential dwelling units (du); 75,000 square feet (so of commercial uses,
a 75 -room resort inn with ancillary resort uses, and approximately 51.4 gross acres for
active and passive park uses including a 26.8 -gross -acre public Community Park.
Approximately 252.3 gross acres (approximately 63 percent) would be retained in
permanent open space. The project site's existing surface oil production activities located
throughout the site would be consolidated into approximately 16.5 acres. The remaining
surface oil production facilities would be abandoned/re-abandoned, - remediated for
development, and/or remediated and restored as natural open space.
As stated in the Draft EIR (see page 4.15-9), water service in the City of Newport Beach
(City) is provided by three purveyors: the City, the Irvine Ranch Water District, and Mesa
Water. The project site historically received water service from Mesa Water. The project
site is located near the water service areas of the City and Mesa Water. Water supply and
set -vice for the Newport Banning Ranch project is proposed to be provided by the City (i.e.,
a LAFCO service reorganization will be required), which relies greatly on imported water.
Mr. Patrick j. Alford, Planning Manager
October 31, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Disll'rcr il'f ssiol1:
)edicaled to SallSf)�in
ow- Co1J17111f171ty's
General Comments:
tf1'aler Needs
The following comments are provided based on our review Of the information provided in
the Draft FIR regarding the proposed water supply for the project and the associated
environmental impacts with the use of imported water as currently proposed. The Draft
EIR's analysis is currently inadequate as it does not consider a feasible alternative or
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
mitigation measure (in fact completely ignores) in the form of the provision of water to
the protect through Mesa Water, which can provide the water supply to the project
FRED R. BOCKMILLER
President
through 100% local water sources. The provision of local water to the proposed project
Division I
via Mesa Water, as opposed to through imported water sources via the City as is proposed
JAMES F. ATKINSON
FirstVlcePresident
ro under the project, would reduce significant environmental impacts associated with the
p 1 g p
Division IV
proposed project. Substantial revisions and recirculation of the Draft FIR is required to
SHAWN DEWANE
correct these deficiencies.
Vice President
Division V
JAMES FISLER
Use of imported water by the proposed project would create an unnecessary consumption
VicPresident
Pr siidl nt
of energy (see CEQA Guidelines Appendix F), which exacerbates the state and region's air
quality emissions and production of greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn exacerbates
7R Vice President
global warming and associated environmental impacts. Additionally, provision of
Division III
imported water would also continue to contribute to the general degradation of the Bay
Delta area, in which southern California relies on imported water through the State Water
Project.
AUL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E.
General Manager Conclusion:
;OLEEN L. MONTELEONE In conclusion, the Draft FIR is deficient in that it does not include in its analysis, the
Dislricl Secretary
potential reduction of energy and other corresponding impact reductions associated with
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY
District Treasurer annexation into the Mesa Water for water service, which can serve the project with 100%
BOWIE, ARNESON, groundwater resources. Use of local water supplies would: 1) reduce energy
WILES R GIANNONE demand/consumption of the project (reference CEQA Guidelines Appendix F); 2) the
Legal Counsel
reduced energy consumption would reduce state and region -wide air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions; 3) reduction in GHG would reduce potential impacts
associated with global warming; and, 4) local water supplies would reduce impacts to the
Bay Delta associated with the use of imported water through the State Water Project.
Recirculation of the Draft FIR is required in order to provide a thorough analysis of these
issues as it relates to the provision of water to the project. This is clearly stated in CEQA
Guideline 15088.5(a) which states:
"A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new
information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the
availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but
before certification."
1965 Placentia Avenue 4Cosla Mesa, California 92627
Telephone (949) 631-1200 ♦ FAX (949) 574-1036
www.mesawater.org
:N,i i viii• �•
Dl stf"l ct H ssl on:
�)edicaled to Satisfying
om- cortrri unit}: 's
! rater , f=eeds
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FRED R. BOCKMILLER
President
Division I
JAMES F. ATKINSON
First Vice President
Division IV
SHAWN DEWANE
Vice President
Division V
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Division It
TRUDY OHLIG-HALL
Vice President
Division III
AUL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E.
General Manager
:OLEEN L. MONTELEONE
District Secretary
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY
District Treasurer
BOWIE, ARNESON,
WILES & GIANNONE
Legal Counsel
Mr. Patrick 1. Alford, Planning Manager
October 31, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 150885(a)(3), significant new information
includes:
'A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably
different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project
proponents decline to adopt it.."
In order to reduce the Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG
inventory, and its significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact, the following
feasible mitigation should be included in the FIR (Section 4.11.8 Mitigation Program):
MM 4.11,6 To reduce energy consumption and related greenhouse emissions, the City
shall assure that domestic water service to the Project is provided to the
greatest extent feasible from locally -produced groundwater sources rather
than imported water supplies.
Mesa Water encourages you to consider inclusion in the FIR analysis Costa Mesa Sanitary
District's annexation to the project area. Costa Mesa Sanitary District promotes zero
waste strategies to comply with SB 1016 and innovative wastewater technologies and
solutions to protect the environment.
We thank you for the consideration of our comments and look forward to review of the
Recirculated Draft FIR addressing these issues.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Shoenberger, PX
General Manager
1965 Placentia Avenue •Costa Mesa, California 92627
Telephone (949) 631-1200 M FAX (949) 574-1036
vNm. mes awaler.org