HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - OB-2 - Newport Beach Banning Ranch Traffic - 8/7/2012Applicant
CITY OF COSTA MESA t - )'V G
P. 0. Box 1200 t�
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, APPEAL d ':RMARlr"N& 47
i
�1� Fibr '`Dr.
Address
Phone 01149 LP145 " g 3 (q Representinq*
REQUEST FOR: ❑ REVIEW**
❑ APPEAL REHEARING
Decision of which review, appeal or rehearing is requested: (give number of rezone, zone exception, ordinance, etc., if applicable, and
the date of the decision, if known.) July 17 2012 City Council Consent Calendar Item No CC -5 Newport Banning Ranch Traffic Mitigation
Decision by: City Council
Reasons for requesting review, appeal or rehearing: See Attached
Date; `/IZ Signature:
For office use only— do not write below this line
SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF:
If review, appeal or rehearing is for person or body other than City Council/Planning
Commission, date of hearing of review, appeal or rehearing:
* If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of agency.
** Review may be requested only by City Council or City Council Member
Costa Mesa/Forms I/Application for Review -Appeal -Rehearing
seasons � {�ec��e5�inq a �ehearinq
¢ii"itachrnenT 1
CI'T'Y CLERK
Council Member Wendy Leece: Request for Rehearing July 17, 2012 City Council Consent
Calendar Item No. CC -5, Newport Banning Ranch Traffic Mitigation NYe3WT3 PM 4: 4 7
1. Newport Beach is already requiring Newport Banning Ranch to take responsibility. ,,for
street improvements in Costa Mesa.
At the July 17, 2002 City Council meeting, it was repeatedly asserted that the City of Costa Mesa
must enter into an agreement before other approvals were granted, or Costa Mesa could lose the
opportunity for any mitigation. However, Page 4.9-93 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
circulated by Newport Beach in September of 2011 (attached) includes the following Mitigation
Measure requiring the applicant to either construct the needed improvements or pay fees to the
City of Costa Mesa:
MM 4.9-2 Table C identifies the City of Costa Mesa transportation improvement
mitigation program proposed for the Project. The resulting levels of service are identified
in Table D. The Applicant shall be responsible for using its best efforts to negotiate
in good faith to arrive at fair and responsible arrangements to either pay fees and/or
construct the required improvements in lieu of the payment of fees to be negotiated with
the City of Costa Mesa. The payment of fees and/or the completion of the improvements
shall be completed during the 60 months immediately after approval. Approval refers to
the receipt of all permits from the City of Newport Beach and applicable regulatory
agencies. Concept plans depicting these recommended improvements are provided in
Appendix F to the Newport Banning Ranch EIR.
Thus, the applicant would be required to work with the City of Costa as a condition of approval
of the project.
This measure has also been included in the June 2012 Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
project (pp. 49-51, attached).
This information was neither discussed nor presented to the City Council on July 17, 2012.
Newport Beach is requiring Newport Banning Ranch to complete the street improvements
or provide all funding to Costa Mesa within five years of project approval whereas the
agreement allows more time.
As stated in the above mitigation measure:
"The payment of fees and/or the completion of the improvements shall be completed
during the 60 months immediately after approval. Approval refers to the receipt of all
permits from the City of Newport Beach and applicable regulatory agencies."
Thus, the City of Costa Mesa would receive all fees within five years of project approval
consistent with the DEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. By contrast, Section 4.0 of the
agreement approved by the Costa Mesa City Council on July 17, 2012, provides that payments
will be made over time, as each residential increment of the project is developed.
Section 2.5 of the agreement requires Costa Mesa to commence construction of the
improvements early in the development process, when the developer pulls permits for the three
hundredth dwelling unit. The City would then be paid back for the improvements as each
increment is developed.
According to the DEIR (p. 3-37, attached), development of the project will be phased over nine
years, depending on market conditions. Therefore, Costa Mesa would not receive final
reimbursement for street improvements for as long as nine years after project approval, possibly
longer depending on market conditions. Under the agreement, Costa Mesa would have to wait
four or more years longer for full reimbursement than specific in the DEIR.
This information was neither discussed nor presented to the City Council on July 17, 2012.
The street improvements listed in the agreement do not fully reflect the improvements
identified in the DFIR.
Section 2.3 of the agreement lists seven locations where street improvements will be needed.
These reflect the locations listed in Table C of the DEIR (pp. 4.9-95 and 96). Improvements for
several intersections, such as Pomona and 17th Street and Monrovia and 19th Street, are identical
in the DEIR and in Section 2.3. However, the Section 2.3 lacks the full detail described in the
DEIR:
Location
Agreement Section 2.3
DEIR Table C
Newport
Addition of a southbound left
Provide a second southbound left -turn on Newport
Blvd/19th
turn lane
Boulevard.
Addition of a fourth southbound through lane on
Newport Boulevard. Improve the southbound
approach of Newport Boulevard to provide three
Newport
through lanes and one shared through/right-turn
Blvd/
Addition of a southbound
lane and to improve the south leg to
Harbor Blvd
through lane
accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
Newport
Convert the southbound right -turn lane
Blvd/18th
(sputhbound approach) of Newport Boulevard to
St
provide a through/right-turn lane and to improve
(Rochester
Addition of a southbound
the south leg to accommodate a fourth receiving
St)
through lane
lane.
Add a fourth through lane on the southbound
Newport
Addition of a southbound
approach and a dedicated right -turn lane on the
Blvd/ 17th St
through lane
northbound approach.
Modify the westbound approach to provide one
left, one shared through/left, one through, and one
Superior
Addition of a westbound right-
right -turn lane. This will require split phasing
Ave/ 17th St
turn lane
signal operation.
Pomona Ave/
17th St
Install a traffic signal.
Install a traffic signal.
Monrovia
T
T�
Ave/19th St
Install a traffic signal.
Install a traffic signal.
The lack of full information regarding improvements could possibly allow less than the full
improvements needed. For example, at Newport Blvd. and 17th Street, the DEIR (p. 4.9-96)
calls for a fourth through lane on the southbound approach and a dedicated right -turn lane on the
northbound approach, whereas Section 2.3 of the agreement specifies only the additional through
lane, as shown in the table above.
This information was neither discussed nor presented to the City Council on July 17, 2012.
Under the Coastal Act, projects must have adequate public services, including streets.
In accordance with Section 30520 (a) of the Coastal Act, new development is to be located in
areas within or near exsting development "able to accommodate it" or where adequate public
services exist. Coastal Act Section 30524 provides that where the capacity of public services is
limited, coastal -dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the
economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and
visitor -serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. Thus, should Costa Mesa
choose not to implement the road improvements listed above, coastal -dependent land use,
essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or
nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor -serving land uses would have
priority for use of remaining capacity on the existing street system. This would include the
proposed hotel at Banning Ranch, which is a visitor -serving use. Houses would not be included.
This information was neither discussed nor presented to the City Council on July 17, 2Q12.
The Agreement makes a false assertion.
Section 5.1 of the agreement states that the DEIR does not identify any other adverse impacts on
the City, environmental or otherwise. However, the DEIR (p. 4.12-23) states
Impact Summary: Thresholds 4.12-1 and 4.12-4: Significant and Unavoidable. With the
implementation of MM 4.12-5, which provides funds to resurface 17th Street west of
Monrovia Avenue and 15th Street west of Placentia Avenue with rubberized asphalt if
required by an updated noise study. If mitigation is required, noise level increases to
sensitive receptors adjacent to off-site roadways would be reduced to less than the
significance criteria prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Feasible mitigation has
been identified to mitigate the noise impact to residences in the City of Costa Mesa to a
less than significant level. However, because the City of Newport Beach does not have
the authority to mandate the implementation of mitigation in the City of Costa Mesa, the
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
The agreement does not include the suggested mitigation measure for noise impacts in the City
of Costa Mesa. Thus, as stated in the DEIR, significant and unavoidable impacts will occur in
Costa Mesa, contrary to the statement in Section 5.1 of the agreement.
I✓q��I moi{�9A--16Y) AN�c�merl+a
Section 4.9
itis saaspditdtiart.and Circulation
4.9.15 MITIGATION PROGRAM CITY C'L r'"
The proposed Mitigation Program consists of several measures, "JJ ig V Z(39dt0.o1q'ments
that would be provided by contributions to the applicable jurisdiction's capital improvement
program and funded through fees and/or other methods of financing- The-AppligTt shall
contribute to the funding of these programs. This approach to mit�gtlon'is�"consis)en with the
direction set forth in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines. T'hat-proviSVnf-r(Yqu1res that
reasonable and feasible options be explored in order to mitigate a project's contribution to
significant cumulative impacts that may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather
than the imposition of conditions on a project -by -project basis.
Proiect Design Features
The following Project Design Features (PDFs) are applicable to transportation: PDF4.9-1, PDF
4.9-2, PDF 4.9-3, PDF 4.8-2, PDF 4.8-3, PDF 4.10-1, PDF 4.10-2, and PDF 4.11-3.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
The following Standard Conditions are applicable: SC 4.9-1, SC 4.9-2, and SC 4.9-3.
Mitigation Measures
Where the Project causes a significant traffic -related impact, the Applicant would be responsible
for the required mitigation. Where the Project contributes to a significant impact to an
intersection, the Applicant would be required to participate in the funding of improvements at the
significantly impacted intersection on a fair -share basis.
The City of Newport Beach has adopted a Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance (Municipal
Code Chapter 15.38). This Ordinance requires all developers to pay a fee that is their fair share
of the cost to provide circulation system improvements needed to accommodate new
development in the City.
Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element Policy CE 8.1.7 requires the City to
"periodically review the Fair Share Fee Ordinance, reassess the unfunded cost of required
improvements, and adjust the required Fair Share Fees as appropriate'. General Plan
Implementation Program 16.3 states that "The City shall construct necessary improvements to
street intersections to attain acceptable Levels of Service, as defined in the Circulation Element.
These shall be implemented as needed based on the list of impacted intersections included in
the General Plan EIR, and also in accordance with development project traffic impact studies.
Intersections with improvements necessary for buildout conditions are delineated on
Figure CE -3 of the Circulation Element'.
To determine the Project's mitigation responsibility for improvements in the City of Newport
Beach, the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires the determination
of the "effective capacity increase" that would result from the proposed mitigation measure, and
the "effective capacity decrease't0 that would result from the addition of Project -related traffic.
0 In determining the "effective capacity decrease" attributable to Project trips, first the ICU of the Primary
Intersection shall be calculated with existing, committed, and regional trips, Project trips and the Improvement
(Improved With Project ICU). The "effective capacity decrease" shall be calculated by subtracting the Improved
Without Project ICU from the Improved With Project ICU.
RAPmjec!s New oa=M!Dmft EIRA.9 Trans-090211.doc 4.9-92 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
and Circulation
The Project's fair -share TPO responsibility for the mitigation measure is calculated by dividing
the "effective capacity decrease" by the "effective capacity increase"."
Funds generated by the fair share traffic impact fees are deposited into the City's Circulation
and Transportation Fund account and are used only to construct circulation system
improvements identified in the General Plan Circulation Element. These funds are programmed
to be spent on specific improvements over a period of five years as identified in the Capital
Improvement Program. The Capital Improvement Program guides the City's expenditure of fair
share traffic impact fees but is also submitted to the OCTA to ensure that the City receives
regional funding through the County's Measure M Program to construct improvements when
planned. It is also important to recognize that the Fair Share Fee Ordinance allows for the
dedication of right-of-way or the construction of appropriate arterial improvements in lieu of the
payment of the fees.
Proposed improvements located outside the City of Newport Beach's jurisdiction require
agreements with the affected jurisdictions regarding the timing, cost, and fair -share
responsibility of the improvements.
MM 4.9-1 Table A identifies the City of Newport Beach (City) transportation improvement
mitigation program for the Project as well as the Applicant's fair -share
responsibility for the improvements. The resulting levels of service are identified
in Table B. In accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance, the improvements shall be completed during the 60 months
immediately after approval. Approval refers to the receipt of all permits from the
City and applicable regulatory agencies. Concept plans depicting these
recommended improvements are provided in Appendix F to the Newport Banning
Ranch EIR.
MM 4.9-2 Table C identifies the City of Costa Mesa transportation improvement mitigation
program proposed for the Project. The resulting levels of service are identified in
Table D. The Applicant shall be responsible for using its best efforts to negotiate
in good faith to arrive at fair and responsible arrangements to either pay fees
and/or construct the required improvements in lieu of the payment of fees to be
negotiated with the City of Costa Mesa. The payment of fees and/or the
completion of the improvements shall be completed during the 60 months
immediately after approval. Approval refers to the receipt of all permits from the
City of Newport Beach and applicable regulatory agencies. Concept plans
depicting these recommended improvements are provided in Appendix F to the
Newport Banning Ranch EIR.
11 To determine the "effective capacity increase" that would be achieved by implementing a recommended
mitigation measure, the Improved without Project ICU is subtracted from the Future without Project ICU,
RVmJects\NewporN0 I UDmft HMO Tmns-090211.doc 4.9-93 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
and Circulation
TABLE A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Restripe the southbound approach on Newport Boulevard to
provide one exclusive right -turn lane, one exclusive left -tum
Newport lane, and one shared right-Reft-tum lane -
9 Blvd/West Note: The proposed improvement is limited to restriping of n/a X X nla n/a n1a
Coast Hwy the southbound approach. No physical changes to the (45.1%) (9.8%)
roadway section are anticipated to be necessary and no
changes to the right-of-way should be required.
n/a: Mitigation measure is not required under this traffic scenario.
Source: Kmley-Horn 2011.
TABLE B
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
R:w�o7e�wewporcuoisuoan EIRE 9 T.�s eo21ieo. 4.9-94 Newport Canning xancn
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Peak
Without M9Gg8t2on
W,7 If yl(tid�tton
Scenario
Periad
ICU,
LC3S
ICU
LtSSi
Intersection 9: Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway
Restripe the southbound approach on Newport Boulevard to provide
one exclusive right -turn lane,
one exclusive
left -turn lane, and one shared right -/left -turn lane
ane.Existing+Project
-
Existing + Projectn/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 TPO AM
0.93
E
0.88
D
2016 TPO, Phase 1 n/a
0.91
E
0.86
D
2016 Cumulative AM
0.96
E
0.91
E
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1 n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
General Plan Buildout n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a: not applicable for the traffic scenario.
Source: Kmley-Horn 2011.
11
R:w�o7e�wewporcuoisuoan EIRE 9 T.�s eo21ieo. 4.9-94 Newport Canning xancn
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
and Circulation
TABLE C
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Install a traffic signal.
28 Monrovia Ave/ Note: The improvement would be limited to the installation of the War X n/a X X n/a
19 St traffic signal. No physical changes to the roadway section are
anticipated; no right-of-way is anticipated to be required
Provide a second southbound left -turn on Newport Boulevard.
Note: The proposed improvement is anticipated to require
modifications to the medians and incremental widening of the street
34 Newport Blvd/ on one or both sides of the roadway depending on the final n!a X n/a X n/a X
19th St design. Additional right-of-way may be required on one or both
sides of Newport Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated
to be limited to roadway components including median hardscape
rz:wrol�lNe .ftv015vDaft EIRW.9 T.�90211 d.c 4.9-95 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Envimnmental Impact Report
'
Addition of a fourth southbound through lane on Newport
Boulevard. Improve the southbound approach of Newport
Boulevard to provide three through lanes and one shared
through/right-turn lane and to improve the south leg to
36 -
Newport Blvd/
accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to
Harbor Blvd -Note:
roadway components, including median hardscape and landscape
improvements, and sidewalk modifications both to the north and
south of the intersection. No existing structures or on -street parking
would be impacted.
Convert the southbound right -turn lane (southbound approach) of
Newport Boulevard to provide a through/right-turn lane and to
improve the south leg to accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
37
Newport Blvd/
18r' St
X
X
X
X
X
n/a
Note: This improvement has been conditioned on the Hoag Health
(Rochester St)
Center project. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited
to roadway components, including median hardscape and
landscape improvements, and sidewalk modifications both to the
north and south of the intersection.
Install a traffic signal.
Note: The improvement would be limited to the installation of the
F42Pomona
Ave/
n/a
X
n/a
X
X
n/a
17 St
traffic signal. No physical changes to the roadway section are
anticipated; no right-of-way is anticipated to be required.
rz:wrol�lNe .ftv015vDaft EIRW.9 T.�90211 d.c 4.9-95 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Envimnmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
and Circulation
TABLE C (Continued)
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
VNote:
e westbound approach to provide one left, one shared
ft, one through, and one right -tum lane. This will require
ing signal operation.
Su eriorAve/ X X n/a X X nla
43 171 e proposed improvement is limited to signal operation St ons. No physical changes to the roadway section are
d to be necessary and no changes to the right-of-way
should be required.
Add a fourth through lane on the southbound approach and a
dedicated right -turn lane on the northbound approach.
Note_ The proposed improvement in anticipated to require
modifications to the medians and incremental widening of the street
44 Newport Blvd/ on one or both sides of the roadway depending on the final design. n1a X n/a X X n/a
17'h St Improvements may also require modifications to the frontage road
along the easterly side of Newport Boulevard. Additional right-of-
way may be required on one or both sides of Newport
Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to
roadway components including median hardscape and landscape.
n/a: Mitigation measure is not required under this traffic scenario.
Source: Kimley-Horn 2011.
R:\Pmjed WawonV015VDr EIRWA Trams-090211.doc 4.9-96 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
and Circulation
TABLE D
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Peak
Period '1000''M log: ifto lith IVItI�a#Itst1 1.
: lqlj� 05
Scenario P h LOS,
Intersection 28: Monrovia Avenue/19`" Street
Install traffic signal
Existing + Project
n/a
n/a
nia
n/a n/a
2016 TPO
Am
36.4
E
0.60 A
2016 TPO, Phase I
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a We
2016 Cumulative
Am
39.2
E
0.61 B
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
General Plan Buildout
We
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
Intersection 34: Newport Boulevard/19" Street
Assumes the addition of a second southbound left -turn lane on Newport Boulevard.
Existing + Project
n/a
n/a n/a n/a We
2016 TPO
_2016
AM
0.91 E 0.85 D
TPO, Phase I
n/a
n/a n/a n/a We
2016 Cumulative
AM
0.91 E 0.85 D
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a
General Plan Buildout
AM
1.01 F 0.99 E
Intersection 36: Newport Boulevard/Harbor Boulevard
Addition of a fourth southbound through lane on Newport Boulevard, Improve the southbound approach of
Newport Boulevard to provide three through lanes and one shared through/right-turn lane and to improve the
south leg to accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
Existing + Project
PM 1.05
F
0.87
D
2016 TPO
PM 1.14
F
1.01
F
2016 TPO, Phase I
PM 1.07
F
0.91)
D
2016 Cumulative
PM 1.15
F
0.95
E
2016 Cumulative, Phase I
PM 1.07
F
0.90
D
General Plan Buildout
PM 1.12
F
0.92
E
Intersection 37: Newport Boulevard/18`" Street (Rochester Street)
Assumes the southbound right -turn lane is converted to a southbound shared through/right lane on Newport
Blvd,
Existing + Project
PM
1.05 F
0.88 D
2016 TPO
PM
1.15 F
0.97 E
2016 TPO, Phase 1
PM
1.69 F
0.91 E
2016 Cumulative
PM
1.16 F
0.98 E
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
PM
1.69 F
0.91 E
General Plan Buildout
n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
Intersection 42: Pomona Avenue/17" Street
Install traffic signal
Existing + Project
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
2016 TPO
PM
46.3
E
0.54 A
2016 TPO, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
2016 Cumulative
PM
53.3
E
0.56 A
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
General Plan Buildout
We
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
R:\Projects�NewportUl5VDmftEIR4.9Trans.090211.doc 4.9-97 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
Circulation
TABLE D (Continued)
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Intersection 43: Superior Avenue/17`n Street
Assumes the westbound approach is converted to provide one left, one shared/left, one through, and one
dedicated right -turn lane,
Existing + Project PM
0.91
F
0.81
D
2016 TPO PM
0.98
E
0.87
D
2016 TPO, Phase 1 his
hie
his
his
his
2016 Cumulative PM
0.98
E
0.88
D
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1 hie
hie
his
n/a
hie
General Plan Buildout n/a
his
rife
hie
his
Intersection 44: Newport Boulevard/17" Street
Assumes fourth southbound through lane and one dedicated northbound right -turn lane
Existing + Project his
n/a
n/a
his
hie
2016 TPO PM
0.91
E
0.88
D
2016 TPO, Phase 1 his
n/a
nfa
his
his
2016 Cumulative PM
0.92
E
0.89
D
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1 We
his
his
hie
hie
General Plan Buildout his
his
hie
n/a
his
n/a: not applicable to the traffic scenario
Source: Kimley-Horn 2011.
Construction Traffic and Site Access
MM 4.9-3 Prior to the introduction of combustible materials on the Project site, emergency
fire access to the site shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach's Public
Works and Fire Departments
MM 4.9-4 Prior to the start of grading, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of
Newport Beach Fire Department that all existing and new access roads
surrounding the Project site are designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be
permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the
Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be
permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width.
Parking
MM 4.9-5 Prior to the displacement of any private parking spaces associated with
improvements to 15`h Street, the Applicant shall be responsible for the
construction of replacement parking on the Project site within the Community
Park site or in a location immediately proximate to the existing parking lot.
RVrofec1s\Newport\J015\IDra4 EIRW9 Trens-090211.doc 4.9-98 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
Transportation and Circulation
4.9.16 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The following summarizes the level of significance after mitigation for each traffic scenario
addressed in this EIR section.
Existing Plus Project
Less Than Significant Impact — City of Newport Beach Intersections: No City of
Newport Beach intersections would be significantly impacted under the Existing Plus
Project scenario.
Significant and Unavoidable — City of Costa Mesa Intersections: Under this
scenario, the Project would significantly impact three intersections in Costa Mesa.
Implementation of MM 4.9-1 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered
less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on
or mandate the implementation of mitigation in another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the
Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would
ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with
or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by the
improvements would remain significant and unavoidable. As previously noted, the
Existing Plus Project traffic scenario does not accurately reflect the timing for
development of the proposed Project.
Less than Significant Impact — Congestion Management Plan Intersection: Under
this scenario, the CMP intersection at Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway is
forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of service.
Year 2016 With Project TPO Analysis
Less Than Significant With Mitigation — City of Newport Beach Intersections:
Under this scenario, the Project would significantly impact the intersection of Newport
Boulevard at West Coast Highway in Newport Beach. The impact can be mitigated to a
level considered less than significant with the implementation of SC 4.9-3 and MM 4.9-1.
Additionally, the PDFs 4.9-1 through 4.9-3 provide for circulation improvements to be
implemented that would minimize the potential for impacts.
Significant and Unavoidable: City of Costa Mesa Intersections. Under this scenario,
the Project would significantly impact seven intersections in Costa Mesa. Implementation
of MM 4.9-1 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered less than
significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another
jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of
Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be
mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts
to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project TPO Analysis
Less Than Significant With Mitigation — City of Newport Beach Intersections:
Under this scenario, the Project would significantly impact the intersection of Newport
Boulevard at West Coast Highway in Newport Beach. The impact can be mitigated to a
level considered less than significant with the implementation of SC 4.9-3 and MM 4.9-1.
Additionally, the PDFs 4.9-1 through 4.9-3 provide for circulation improvements to be
implemented that would minimize the potential for impacts.
RAPmJecte\Newport\J016\IDmft EIR\4, 9 Tmns-090211 doc 4,9.99 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
and Circulation
Significant and Unavoidable — City of Costa Mesa Intersections. Under this
scenario, the Project would significantly impact two intersections in Costa Mesa.
Implementation of MM 4.9-1 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered
less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on
another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the
City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa
would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the
impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
Year 2016 Cumulative With Project
• Less Than Significant With Mitigation — City of Newport Beach Intersections:
Under this scenario, the Project would significantly impact the intersection of Newport
Boulevard at West Coast Highway in Newport Beach. The impact can be mitigated to a
level considered less than significant with the implementation of SC 4.9-3 and MM 4.9-1.
• Significant and Unavoidable — City of Costa Mesa Intersections. Under this
scenario, the Project would significantly impact seven intersections in Costa Mesa.
Implementation of MM 4.9-1 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered
less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on
another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the
City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa
would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the
impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Less than Significant Impact— Congestion Management Plan Intersection: Under
this scenario, the proposed Project would not cause the intersection of Newport
Boulevard at West Coast Highway to fall below the CMP level of service standards.
Therefore, no significant impact would occur.
• Significant and Unavoidable — State Highway Intersections: Under this scenario, the
Project would cause a significant impact to the intersection of Newport Boulevard at
17`h Street. This is one of the seven impacted intersections located in the City of Costa
Mesa. Implementation of MM 4,9-2 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level
considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose
mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an
agreement with the City of Costa Mesa and Caltrans that would ensure that Project
impacts occurring at this intersection would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding
the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by the improvements
would remain significant and unavoidable. Please refer to Section 4.9.16 for further
discussion regarding proposed mitigation in Costa Mesa.
• Less than Significant Impact— Freeway Mainline Segments: Under this scenario, the
Project would not significantly impact any freeway segments.
Year 2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project
• Less Than Significant — City of Newport Beach Intersections: Under this scenario,
the Project would not significantly impact any intersections in Newport Beach.
• Significant and Unavoidable — City of Costa Mesa Intersection. Under this scenario,
the Project would significantly impact two intersections in Costa Mesa: Newport
Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard at 181h Street/Rochester Street.
Implementation of MM 4.9-1 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered
R9ProJecW NewporhJ015MQmft EIM4.9 Trens-090211.doc 4.9-100 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.9
Transportation and Circulation
less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on
another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the
City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa
would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the
impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
Less than Significant Impact — Congestion Management Plan Intersection: The
CMP intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway would not be
significantly impacted with the addition of Project -related traffic.
• Less than Significant Impact — State Highway Intersections: Because the proposed
Project would not cause any State Highway intersection to operate at a deficient level of
service, no significant Project impact would occur per Caltrans Guidelines.
General Plan Buildout
Less than Significant Impact — City of Newport Beach Intersections. Under this
scenario, no Newport Beach intersections would be significantly impacted.
Significant and Unavoidable — City of Costa Mesa Intersections. Under this
scenario, the Project would significantly impact two intersections in Costa Mesa:
Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard at
181h Street/Rochester Street. Implementation of MM 4.9-1 would mitigate the Project's
impact to a level considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach
cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to
reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts
occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for
purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Less than Significant Impact — Congestion Management Plan Intersection: Under
this scenario, the CMP intersection at Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway is
forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of service based on the CMP significance
criteria.
Less than Significant Impact— State Highway Intersections: Under this scenario, the
Project would not significantly impact any Caltrans intersections per Caltrans Guidelines.
The Project's impact on intersections under the control of the City of Newport Beach can be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant. The Project would not significantly impact
intersections in the City of Huntington Beach.
To address those proposed improvements located outside the City of Newport Beach's
jurisdiction, the Applicant will endeavor to enter into agreements with the affected jurisdiction
regarding the timing, cost, and fair -share responsibility of the improvements. All measures in the
City of Costa Mesa would be subject to the approval of Costa Mesa; all improvements to State
facilities would require the approval of Caltrans. However, if the Applicant is unable to reach
agreement with one or more of the jurisdictions, for purposes of this EIR, these impacts would
be significant and unavoidable.
RVmJoclaWoworNQ1 V Draft EIR\4.0 Trans -09021 tdoc 4.9-101 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Mi ji3Q4ioh Mon;4orinq
A44achwlen+3
ctrry C✓LEPW
2012 JUL 2 3 PER 4� 4 7
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009031061
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
BonTerra Consulting
2 Executive Circle, Suite 175
Irvine, California 92614
T: (714) 444-9199 F: (714) 444-9599
June 2012
Newport Banning Ranch
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT (Continued)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Conditions of approval of Tentative MM 4.9-1 Table A identifies the City of Newport Beach (City) City Traffic Engineer;
Tract Map No. 17308 and transportation improvement mitigation program for the Project as Community Development
subsequent subdivision maps for wall as the Applicant's fair -share responsibility for the Director
development purposes improvements. The resulting levels of service are identified in Table
B. In accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance, the improvements shall be completed during the 60
months immediately after approval. Approval refers to the receipt of
1 all permits from the City and applicable regulatory agencies.
{Concept plans depicting these recommended improvements are
provided in Appendix F to the Newport Banning Ranch E1R.
TABLE A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Restripe the southbound approach on Newport
Boulevard to provide one exclusive right -tum lane,
one exclusive left -turn lane, and one shared right -
Newport /left -tum lane.
9 Blvd/ West Note: The proposed improvement is limited to
Coast Hwy restriping of the southbound approach. No physical
changes to the roadway section are anticipated to I
j necessary and no changes to the right-of-way
ishould be required.
Conditions of approval of Tentative MM 4.9-2 Table C identifies the City of Costa Mesa transportation City of Costa Mesa, City
Tract Map No_ 17308 and improvement mitigation program proposed for the Project. The Traffic Engineer
subsequent subdivision maps for 'resulting levels of service are identified in Table D. The Applicant
development purposes - shall be responsible for using its best efforts to negotiate in good
faith to arrive at fair and responsible arrangements to either pay
fees and/or construct the required improvements in lieu of the
payment of fees to be negotiated with the City of Costa Mesa. The
payment of fees and/or the completion of the improvements shall be
completed during the 60 months immediately after approval.
Approval refers to the receipt of all permits from the City of Newport
Beach and applicable regulatory agencies. Concept plans depicting
these recommended improvements are provided in Appendix F to
the Newport Banning Ranch EIR_
49 Planning Commission -Draft
Newport Banning Ranch
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT (Continued)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE C
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
50 Planning Commission Draft
Install a traffic signal.
Note: The improvement would be limited to the installation
Monrovia
28
Ave/
of the traffic signal. No physical changes to the roadway
19th St
section are anticipated; no nghtof-way is anticipated to be
required
1
Provide a second southbound left -turn on Newport
Boulevard.
Note: The proposed improvement is anticipated to require
Newport
modifications to the medians and incremental widening of
34
Blvd/
the street on one or both sides of the roadway depending
19th St
on the final design. Additional right-of-way may be
required on one or both sides of Newport
Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be
limited to roadway components including median
hardscape and landscape.
Addition of a fourth southbound through lane on Newport
Boulevard. Improve the southbound approach of Newport
Boulevard to provide three through lanes and one shared
throughlright-tum lane and to improve the south leg to
Newport
accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
36
Blvd/
Note: Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited
Harbor Blvd
to roadway components, including median hardscape and
landscape improvements, and sidewalk modifications both
to the north and south of the intersection. No existing
structures or on -street panting would be impacted.
Convert the southbound right -turn lane (southbound
approach) of Newport Boulevard to provide a
throughiright-tum lane and to improve the south leg to
Newport
accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
Blvd
Note: This improvement has been conditioned on the
37
18"' St
(Rochester
Hoag Health Center project. Direct physical impacts are
St) -
anticipated to be limited to roadway components, includinc
median hardscape and landscape improvements, and
,sidewalk
modifications both to the north and south of the
50 Planning Commission Draft
Prior to issuance of first grading or
demolition permit
Prior to the issuance of first grading
permit
As part of subdivision improvement
plans
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT (Continued)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MM 4.9-3 Prior to the introduction of combustible materials on the
Project site, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by
the City of Newport Beach's Public Works and Fire Departments.
MM 4.9-4 Prior to the start of grading, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Fire Department that all
existing and new access reads surrounding the Project site are
designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless
the access way meets minimum width requirements of the Public
Works and fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be
permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width.
Newport Banning Ranch
Mifigafon Monitoring and Reporting Program
City Traffic Engineer; Fire
Chief
City Traffic Engineer, Fire
Chief
51 Planning Commission Draft
Install a traffic signal.
Pomona
Note: The improvement would be limited to the installation
42
Ave/ 17'" St
of the traffic signal. No physical changes to the roadway
section are anticipated; no right-of-way is anticipated to be
required.
Modify the westbound approach to provide one left, one
shared through/left, one through, and one right -tum lane.
This will require split phasing signal operation.
43
Superior Ave11 T" St
Note: The proposed improvement is limited to signal
operation modifications. No physical changes to the
roadway section are anticipated to be necessary and no
changes to the right-of-way should be required.
Add a fourth through lane on the southbound approach
and a dedicated right -tum lane on the northbound
approach.
Note: The proposed improvement in anticipated to require
;modifications
to the medians and incremental widening of
Newport
the street on one or both sides of the roadway depending
44
Blvd/ 17' Ston
the final design. Improvements may also require
modifications to the frontage road along the easterly side
of Newport Boulevard. Additional right-of-way may be
required on one or both sides of Newport
Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be
iLLj
limited to roadway components including median
hardscape and landscape.
MM 4.9-3 Prior to the introduction of combustible materials on the
Project site, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by
the City of Newport Beach's Public Works and Fire Departments.
MM 4.9-4 Prior to the start of grading, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Fire Department that all
existing and new access reads surrounding the Project site are
designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless
the access way meets minimum width requirements of the Public
Works and fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be
permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width.
Newport Banning Ranch
Mifigafon Monitoring and Reporting Program
City Traffic Engineer; Fire
Chief
City Traffic Engineer, Fire
Chief
51 Planning Commission Draft
pry JQcf Phas;hq /A+fac4, ween -E y
C r ( FQJLC br%pA3 0
n
Habitat Mitigation and Restoration Areas: In areas where habitat mi��2)tig�or��stgtin1ls�
proposed, minor grading to repair localized erosion features or compact`lloo'1Se it antti ip to
It is expected that this work effort would be done by hand or with small egwpment.
Water Quality Basins: Grading would be required to establish a wat Duality basins) in the
Lowland. Grading is expected to require cuts of up to eight feet and fill of up to six feet in height.
The constructed basin(s) would use native wetland habitat for treatment function within the limits
of the basin. This basin would also require long-term "Safe Harbor" maintenance agreements
with the Resource Agencies within the physical limits of the basin to ensure maintenance
activities are performed on a routine basis to maximize water quality treatment and energy
dissipation functions.
Utility Infrastructure: Soil disturbance would occur associated with the installation of utilities
within the open space.
Planting Buffers for Oil Consolidation Sites: Limited soil disturbance would occur with
allowed fencing and the planting of landscape to visually screen consolidated oil operations.
3.7 PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Project is proposed to be developed over a period of approximately nine years. The actual
timing of development would be based on (1) attainment of required permits and approvals;
(2) market demand for uses on the Project site; and (3) sequencing of environmental and public
benefit activities. These activities include, but are not limited to, oil facility consolidation,
clean-up and remediation; habitat protection; restoration and mitigation; roadway and
infrastructure construction; development of residential, resort, and commercial uses; phased
dedication and improvement of public parks, trails, interpretive areas; and other public rights-of-
way consistent with the Pre -Annexation and Development Agreement (Development
Agreement).
Although the Project is not a phased development (one component of the Project is not
contingent to be completed before another component is started), it would be constructed over a
period of years. Therefore, the Applicant's anticipated sequencing of Project implementation
actions is identified in the Project Description and used for analysis of construction and
operational impacts including air quality and noise. As shown in Exhibit 3-18, Proposed
Implementation Plan, and as described in Table 3-3, development of the Project site is
conceptually proposed to start in the southerly portion of the Project site and generally continue
in a northerly direction and include site remediation; grading and construction of infrastructure;
construction of homes and other facilities; and occupancy.
Development in one area may overlap with development in another area. Geographic areas
could also be developed in a different sequence than described, provided that requirements and
conditions related to oilfield abandonment and remediation, public infrastructure and facilities,
open space dedications, Development Agreement obligations, and environmental mitigation
continue to be satisfied.
Development implementation is designed to ensure efficient use of soil movement to balance
landform grading and bluff/slope restoration and to make efficient use of existing infrastructure
locations and connection points within and adjacent to the Project site. Development would be
tied to corresponding requirements for public parks and Upland and Lowland habitat dedication
and restoration, and would have functioning infrastructure.
R:\Projects\Newpo 015\IDmft EIRW PM90411. oc 3-37 Newport Benning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Area
y
��•.^�.� Plan Boundary
sewoneme Ame t- Ammlpmeaoeveloymem
senuenane Ame a. nmmlpmoeowmopmom
.S'G,y', ae qu eneNg Ame 8-1l1ulpeletl0—,Pmonl
g
' .....
PACIFIC
OCEAN H
South Family Village
'mposetl P®maneet
.onnetllon to Sunset Rltlge Park
Resort Colony
Ridge
Source; FORMA 2011
Proposed Implementation Plan Exhibit 3-18
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
AN .�on7e/Y-al
W q yE
VN CONSULTING
(072711 JCD) R: Project\Newpou\J01 tAG m phlcs\EIR\E 318 Prapl MpPlatr. pdi
I Bth street
tem rem
Urban Colony
11a
e
s
IIS
street
Newhall Street
h Family Village;
South Family Village
'mposetl P®maneet
.onnetllon to Sunset Rltlge Park
Resort Colony
Ridge
Source; FORMA 2011
Proposed Implementation Plan Exhibit 3-18
Newport Banning Ranch EIR
AN .�on7e/Y-al
W q yE
VN CONSULTING
(072711 JCD) R: Project\Newpou\J01 tAG m phlcs\EIR\E 318 Prapl MpPlatr. pdi
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Visitor -Serving Resort/
Residential
Bluff Park
Community Park
Subtotal
Schedule
Site Remediation
Grading and Improvements
Construct Models and
Homes
Occupancy
Low Density Residential
Low -Medium Density
Residential
Medium Density Residential
Mixed-Use/Residential
Visitor -Serving
Resort/Residential
Bluff Park
Community Park
Interpretive Parks
Subtotal
Schedule
Site Remediation
Grading and Improvements
Construct Models and
Homes
Occupancy
Low Density Residential
Low -Medium
Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Mixed-Use/Residential
Bluff Park
Interpretive Parks
uplanu v
Subtotal
Section 3.0
Project Description
TABLE 3-3
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2.9a
10.2'
5.68
7.38
5.08
1.5°
Start`
38.88
Start`
2/2015
Finish`
2/2015
8/2017
Priorto
Occupanc
8/2015
2/2018
5/2016
2/2016
10/2018
9/2016
10/2016
10.68
10/2018
2.9a
60 — —
81 — —
87 — —
228 — —
36
21
113
71
64
112
365
37.500 sf
37,500 at
37,500 sf
75 rooms
75 rooms
R'.\ProJectMewpertW015\Draft EIR\3.0 PD-090411,doc 3-36 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
5.78
8.98
21.88
1.48
66.58
Start`
Finish`
2/2015
Prior to
Occupant
8/2017
5/2018
2/2018
9/2018
10/2018
1/2021
10.68
0-8
8.98
0-16
7.68
0-24
11.18
—
4.7
—
2.3
—
4.0°
—
49.2
—
60 — —
81 — —
87 — —
228 — —
36
21
113
71
64
112
365
37.500 sf
37,500 at
37,500 sf
75 rooms
75 rooms
R'.\ProJectMewpertW015\Draft EIR\3.0 PD-090411,doc 3-36 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 3,0
TABLE 3-3 (Continued)
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
3.8 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
Project Design Features (PDFs) are specific design elements proposed by the Applicant that
have been incorporated into the proposed Project to prevent the occurrence of or minimize the
significance of potential environmental effects. Because PDFs have been incorporated into the
Project, they do not constitute mitigation measures, as defined by Section 15126.4 of the State
CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR). PDFs are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) to ensure their implementation as a part of the proposed Project. As with
mitigation measures, if the Project is modified through the public hearing process in a manner
that would require modifications to the PDFs, the Applicant may be permitted to modify the
PDFs before they are included in the MMRP proposed for adoption.
The PDFs reflect specific components of the Project that have been identified and described in
this section.
Land Use and Related Planning Proarams
PDF 4.1-1a Through the implementation of the Master Development Plan, the Project permits
a maximum of 1,375 residential dwelling units and a variety of residential housing
types to provide opportunities for a range of lifestyles. Housing types include
single-family detached, single-family attached, multi -family, and/or residential
uses in a mixed-use configuration.
PDF 4.1-2 The Master Development Plan designates areas for a diverse public park system
to include active, passive, and interpretive recreation opportunities.
s PDF numbers correspond to the EIR's technical sections (e.g., Section 4.11 Land Use and Related Planning
Programs),
R,WrofectsMewportWolnlDraR EIR\3.0 Pa09041 t.doc 3-39 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
pWelltlg
Uniks
Gorljmel'alal
VisKor•Servi}g'
WndWse
Acres
(du:)
(sf)
! (Rooms)::
Schedule
Start`
Finish`
Site Remediation
Complete
Complete
Improvements
8/2019
5/2020
Construct Models and
2/2020
9/2020
Homes
Occupancy
10/2020
12/2024
Sub Total
154,3
1,375
75,000 sf
75 rooms
Upland and Lowland Open
245.8
Space Restoration/ Oil
Operations Consolidation
2/2015
12/2024
Total
401.1
Note; The information represented in the table is a conceptual estimate based upon historical absorption rates and projects with
similar conditions and characteristics as the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project.
Acres are gross land use acres, and include arterial and collector roads, and local In -tract streets.
Acreage shown for Open Space is only for arterial and collector roads through open space areas.
Start and Finish dates are estimates, and may vary depending upon market and other conditions.
3.8 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
Project Design Features (PDFs) are specific design elements proposed by the Applicant that
have been incorporated into the proposed Project to prevent the occurrence of or minimize the
significance of potential environmental effects. Because PDFs have been incorporated into the
Project, they do not constitute mitigation measures, as defined by Section 15126.4 of the State
CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR). PDFs are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) to ensure their implementation as a part of the proposed Project. As with
mitigation measures, if the Project is modified through the public hearing process in a manner
that would require modifications to the PDFs, the Applicant may be permitted to modify the
PDFs before they are included in the MMRP proposed for adoption.
The PDFs reflect specific components of the Project that have been identified and described in
this section.
Land Use and Related Planning Proarams
PDF 4.1-1a Through the implementation of the Master Development Plan, the Project permits
a maximum of 1,375 residential dwelling units and a variety of residential housing
types to provide opportunities for a range of lifestyles. Housing types include
single-family detached, single-family attached, multi -family, and/or residential
uses in a mixed-use configuration.
PDF 4.1-2 The Master Development Plan designates areas for a diverse public park system
to include active, passive, and interpretive recreation opportunities.
s PDF numbers correspond to the EIR's technical sections (e.g., Section 4.11 Land Use and Related Planning
Programs),
R,WrofectsMewportWolnlDraR EIR\3.0 Pa09041 t.doc 3-39 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
No 1 5 e 1 vn Fac_4 s
A - fackmetTf- 5-
! I gV ---
t_ L$�fiQiP.4.42
r I t ' Neis`e
TABLE 4.12-11
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH AND WITHOUT PROJE13KA�F
NOISE LEVELS: OFF-SITE CONTRIBUTIONS
PM 4: 4 7
Mitigation of Impacts. The analysis above indicates potential significant noise impacts on
15 l Street west of Placentia Avenue for the Existing Plus Project and the 2016 with Project
scenarios, but not for the General Buildout Plus Project scenario. The analysis indicates
potential significant noise impacts on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue for these scenarios.
Mitigation applicable for all the scenarios is incorporated as MM 4.12-5 and is described below.
17'h Street west of Monrovia Avenue. Noise sensitive uses adjacent to the 17th Street road
segment west of Monrovia Avenue include a mobile home park and six single-family residences
that have front yards and side yards facing 17th Street. The remaining uses are commercial and
light industrial. Because the single-family residences front onto 17th Street and driveway access
R:Wmjeck\Newp 015\IDratt EIR\4.12 Naise-090211.doc 4.12-21 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
CN EL at 50 ft (dHA)__„_.
GP GP
Buildout 8uildvut-
Wlthout With
Allowable
Project
-: Roadway
Segment
Project. Project
increase
Contribution Impact?..
18th St
West of Placentia Ave
70.9 70.8
1.0
-0.1 No
19th St
Placentia Ave to Harbor Blvd
72.9 73.0
1.0
0.1 No
Hamilton Ave
West of Magnolia St
71.5 71.5
1.0
0.0 No
Hamilton Ave
Magnolia St to Bushard Ave
72.3 72.2
1.0
-0.1 No
Hamilton Ave
Bushard Ave to Brookhurst St
73.0 73.1
1.0
0.1 No
17th St
West of Monrovia Ave: single-
62.3 66.4
2.0
4.1 Yes
family residences
17th St
West of Monrovia Ave: mobile
57.3 61.4
3.0
4.1 Yes
homes
15th St
West of Placentia Ave
65.0 65.3
2.0
0.3 No
West Coast Hwy
Brookhurst St to Prospect St
72.4 72.4
1.0
0.0 No
West Coast Hwy
Prospect St to Superior Ave
72.6 72.5
1.0
-0.1 No
West Coast Hwy
Superior Ave to Newport Blvd
72.1 72.2
1.0
0.1 No
West Coast Hwy
East of Dover Dr
74.5 74.5
1.0
0.0 No
Brookhurst St
North of Hamilton Ave
73.8 74.0
1.0
0.2 No
Brookhurst St
PPaccific Coast Hwy to Hamilton
74.5 74.1
1.0
-0.4 No
Ave
Placentia Ave
North of Victoria St
70.5 70.4
1.0
-0.1 No
Placentia Ave
19th St to 17th St
70.9 70.3
1.0
-0.6 No
Placentia Ave
17th St to Superior Ave
69.3 68.9
1.0
-0.4 No
Superior Ave
16" St to Placentia Ave
71.3 71.8
1.0
0.5 No
Superior Ave
Hwy ntia Ave to West Coast
71.4 70.8
1.0
-0.6 No
Superior Ave
South of West Coast Hwy
70.5 70.6
1.0
0.1 No
Magnolia St
North of Victoria St
70.3 70.5
1.0
0.2 No
Magnolia St
Hamilton Ave to Banning Ave
70.5 70.7
1.0
0.2 No
Magnolia St
Bawling Ave to Pacific Coast
71.9 72.0
1.0
0.1 No
CNEL: community noise equivalent level; ft: feet; dBA: A -weighted decibels.
Significant Project impacts are shown in bold.
a. Noise levels are reduced at the mobile homes because of existing wall.
Mitigation of Impacts. The analysis above indicates potential significant noise impacts on
15 l Street west of Placentia Avenue for the Existing Plus Project and the 2016 with Project
scenarios, but not for the General Buildout Plus Project scenario. The analysis indicates
potential significant noise impacts on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue for these scenarios.
Mitigation applicable for all the scenarios is incorporated as MM 4.12-5 and is described below.
17'h Street west of Monrovia Avenue. Noise sensitive uses adjacent to the 17th Street road
segment west of Monrovia Avenue include a mobile home park and six single-family residences
that have front yards and side yards facing 17th Street. The remaining uses are commercial and
light industrial. Because the single-family residences front onto 17th Street and driveway access
R:Wmjeck\Newp 015\IDratt EIR\4.12 Naise-090211.doc 4.12-21 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.12
from the streets to these homes is needed, the construction of sound walls would not be
effective because a continuous wall is necessary for noise abatement. The Project would
significantly impact the six residences along the segment of 17th Street west of Monrovia
Avenue. With respect to the mobile homes, they are located behind an existing six -foot -high
sound wall. A six -foot -high soundwall at street elevation provides a minimum of 5 dBA
reduction. Although the proposed Project would create perceptible noise increases to these
mobile homes, residents of the mobile home park would be exposed to future noise levels less
than 65 CNEL, which is acceptable according to the City of Costa Mesa Noise Element.
However, based on Newport Beach Policy N1.8, mitigation of the noise increase would be
required.
The installation of rubberized asphalt pavement would reduce the anticipated noise increase to
the sensitive receptors on this segment of 17th Street. MM 4.12-5 would require the City to have
the Applicant to again evaluate the potential noise impact of the Project at the time of the
issuance of the first occupancy permit based on the best available information at that time
relative anticipated future factors for roadway surface and average traffic speed. If the noise
study shows that Project traffic would increase noise above the limits stated in the Newport
Beach General Plan Noise Element, the Applicant would provide funds to the City of Costa
Mesa for the installation of rubberized asphalt pavement, which the City of Costa Mesa has
indicated is used in Costa Mesa where feasible (Sethuraman 2010). The estimated 4 dBA noise
reduction provided by the pavement would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
However, it should be noted that the City of Newport Beach can require the Applicant to provide
funding for the mitigation but does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of
mitigation in the City of Costa Mesa.
15th Street west of Placentia Avenue. Uses adjacent to 15th Street west of Placentia Avenue
include the Seacliff Homes and the Newport Terrance mobile home parks, and the One Nautical
Mile, the Seashore Apartments and the Brookview Newport multi -family residences. Project
traffic noise could significantly impact several residential patios and balconies and apartment
units along this road segment and would cause noise increases at exterior living areas of
approximately 20 mobile homes facing 15th Street, The Seacliff Homes are located behind an
existing four to five -foot -high sound wall that does not provide a substantial noise reduction.
MM 4.12-5 would require the City to have the Applicant to again evaluate the potential noise
impact, as described above. If confirmed, the Applicant would provide funds to the City of
Newport Beach for the installation of rubberized asphalt pavement. The estimated 4 dBA noise
reduction provided by the pavement would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Alternatively, a 7 -foot -high noise barrier along 15th Street would provide an approximately 5 dBA
noise reduction, reducing the noise levels at first floor patios and homes facades. However, a
noise barrier would not be effective at the second floor patios and balconies at the apartments
along 15th Street; these impacts would remain significant.
Impact Summary: Thresholds 4.12-1 and 4.12-4: Significant and Unavoidable. With the
implementation of MM 4.12-5, which provides funds to resurface
17 Street west of Monrovia Avenue and 15th Street west of Placentia
Avenue with rubberized asphalt if required by an updated noise study.
If mitigation is required, noise level increases to sensitive receptors
adjacent to off-site roadways would be reduced to less than the
significance criteria prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Feasible
mitigation has been identified to mitigate the noise impact to residences in
the City of Costa Mesa to a less than significant level. However, because
the City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the
R, wro)ectskNewponWol 6vDreft EIR14.12 Noise-090211.doc 4.12-22 Newport Banning Ranch
Oran Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.12
Noise
implementation of mitigation in the City of Costa Mesa, the impact is
considered significant and unavoidable.
Land Uses Adjacent to Project Roads
This section evaluates the expected impacts due to traffic noise from the Project's proposed
internal roads to off-site noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Project site. The nearest
off-site noise -sensitive receptors are (1) the Newport Crest Condominiums, (2) the California
Seabreeze and Parkview Circle residential developments, and (3) the Carden Hall School. Due
to topography, intervening structures, and distance, traffic noise on the Project's roads would
not result in significant noise impacts to the Newport Shores, Lido Sands, Seawind Newport,
Newport Terrace, or the Newport Knolls residential areas. No off-site noise sensitive receptors
are located adjacent to the Project's proposed extensions of 16th Street and 17th Street onto the
Project site.
Future forecasted noise levels for the Without Project and With Project scenarios were modeled
at each of the sensitive receptor areas for General Plan Buildout conditions using the
SOUND2000 model, as described in Section 4.12.4. The Without Project scenario assumes
the construction of the on-site roadways identified on the General Plan and the use of the
Project Site as Open Space, including significant active community parklands, as designated in
the General Plan. Traffic speeds on Bluff Road, North Bluff Road, 15th Street, and 17th Street
within the Project site were assumed to be 50 mph, The roadways were assumed to be paved
with rubberized asphalt in accordance with SC 4.12-4. Pursuant to Policy N1.8 of the City of
Newport Beach Noise Element, the direct Project noise impacts are evaluated in terms of
increases over Without Project conditions, and the cumulative noise impacts are evaluated
compared to existing conditions. Future noise levels are also compared to the noise -land use
compatibility criteria to characterize the future noise environment.
Newport Crest: Future exterior noise levels from Bluff Road and 151h Street to the Newport
Crest residences, without development of the proposed project would range from 57.3 to
64.5 dBA CNEL; see Table 4.12-12 for data and Exhibit 4.12-4 for noise model receptor
locations. The threshold for significant impact is 2 or 3 dBA, depending on the Without Project
noise level at each receptor. As shown in Table 4.12-12, noise levels with development of the
proposed Project would range from 57.6 to 65.1 dBA CNEL. The noise increase attributable to
Project traffic at all Newport Crest receptors would be up to 1.1 dBA and the direct impact would
be less than significant.
Existing noise levels, based on measurements at locations 1 and 2 (Table 4.12-6
and Exhibit 4.12-1), range from 47.6 to 50.4 dBA CNEL. The future noise levels would
exceed existing noise levels by 8.6 to 16.1 dBA at Newport Crest receptor locations
(see Table 4.12-12). Because future cumulative noise levels would be 5 or more dBA greater
than the existing noise levels, the cumulative impact would be significant, and mitigation would
be required. A noise barrier, such as a wall or earth berm, would reduce noise from the roadway
to the residences. The most effective barriers are located adjacent to the noise source or
adjacent to the receptors. When the receptors are at a higher elevation than the roadway, then
a barrier adjacent to the receptors is considerably more effective than a barrier adjacent to the
roadway. Mitigated noise levels were modeled for a 12 -foot -high noise wall adjacent to
Bluff Road and for 6 -foot -high and 8 -foot -high noise walls at the rear of the Newport Crest
property. Table 4.12-13 identifies the forecasted noise levels without and with the mitigation
discussed above.
R,NrojectelNewporN016loreft EIRA 12 Nolse-090211 doc 4.12-23 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 2012 ITEM NUMBER:
CC -5
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 19th
Street and Pacific Coast Highway through the Banning Ranch propert�. Access points to the
Banning Ranch property include Pacific Coast Highway, 15`h Street, 16, 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" Street, 17" Street, and 19`h Street, with 17`h Streei 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
I•
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 ERNESTei 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
M
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO
City Attorney
Finance/IT Director
City Clerk Division
9
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, ("NW). 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 Banning 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 — 19th Street: Addition of a southbound left -turn lane;
(b) Newport Boulevard — harbor Boulevard: Addition of a southbound
through lane;
(c) Newport Boulevard — 18th Street: Additional of a southbound through
lane;
(d) Newport Boulevard —17th Street: Additional of a southbound through
lane;
r1
301434756]
_._-. _ ....._.—. gage 1
(e) Superior Avenue —17th Street: Addition of a westbound right -turn lane;
(f) Pomona Avenue — 17`h Street: Signalize intersection; and
(g) Monrovia Avenue — 19"h 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 300th 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 300`' 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 60151 residential building permit -- $500,000
(c) Prior to Issuance of 901st residential building permit -- $750,000
(d) Prior to Issuance of 1,2015` residential building permit -- $875,000
301434756.1
- ---...------ - Page 2
I
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 Changes 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.
301434756]
— Page 3
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 Assignment.
10.1 Right To Assign. 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.
301434956.1
—..__ 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 Captions — 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 Agreement 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 the 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
It
301434756.1
Page 5
agreement which will be binding on all the Parties hereto notwithstanding that all of the Parties
are not signatory to the same 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 malting 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 entering 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 in 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 Naghavi, 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
1.300 Quail Street, Suite 100
E
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 Parties.
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. seq. and Government Code Section 66000 et. sea. 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 Cleric
Approved as to Form:
By:
City Attorney
301434756.1
- — -- - -- Page 8
ATTACHMENT 2
n,.
loth Street
a
an s
w
AS
Q a
2
Q (J
Q
ti
$ 1R111 Steel
Q Z -
y o
n
o- Urban Colony
o G
e
to
Q
a'
v \ om
So t 4
\ Rth street
® ° m
ACOS
Wetlands J 8 m Id Ne,hall Street
Restoration - Area North Family Village
CJ
® O NMUSD
tsn skeet
la,� city
�l ® Uttlltles
s m ® Yard
Gf
a
LEGEND
N
Pmjetl Sae Boundary �
4
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 'S /—
Orlplmtl l4Elel Corcenarun Re¢renfimn dna MNperlm ` co
151 6lreet
OLOWantl WMal Come mlery Realwalbn antl Mlfipatinn
Publ'cnneryre reTrarla
OCenaaaaa4.e Rl Sia r rvorna.dnin Rcsu Eaaem em 0e -
ou
PARKIANDR J
� PnMl. rwmm�NrvPaw O �, = South Family Village
® P...EnPmk P .,..d Permanent
V n - Connector to Sunset Piano Park
FGNputrc lMeRretrre Parl¢
r. -
NLLAGES AND COLONIES we,, C.
N.nn dna s.un ramny urea« _ °aResort Colony
a'r t
waam
Sunset Ridge
man High
r Proposed Park
Recon Wonr Q PMastf an End, �aY
® Pe.rian Pau.
PUBLIC ROADISAB 9
C
wlaaal R.atla PACIFIC
y
OCEAN
///J� moeam Ruda
%LC([I EMenv.n fiem NRR'a EaLWr'IbuMaryl. saNa Are River
Exhibit 1-4 I'�
NEWPORTBANNINO RANCH Site Planning Areas Map
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Newport 9eecb - Cali(o rn la a. aoo I� ....�E se�vamt
ATTACHMENT 3
JOINT CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION ANIS PARIS & RECREATION
COMMISION MEETING ON BANNING RANCH
OCTOBER 20, 2011
Councilmember ,Eric Bever:
1. Does the Banning Ranch project consider all impacts on the City'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 Bluff Road be jogged so that it is not a through street from Coast highway to 19"
Street?
The Bluff Road, according to Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Master 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 aligmnent. Between 19th Street and 15th Street, Bluff Road is proposed to be
constructed in a north -south alignment. At 15th 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 more rejlective 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 17th 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. 19th Streets in the City's corporate limits, there are single-family homes
(4
(RI 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.
Couneilmember Stephen Mensinger
What is the total 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 would the traffic mitigations occur and at what point in the life cycle
of the project
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. Of this, 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 15`h and 16`h Streets, is proposed to include 6 lighted tennis courts, 1 basketball
court, 3 lighted soccer fields, 1 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 will the project interact with Talbert and the county island issue? How will that be
resolved?
The DEIR does not address the Talbert Nature Preserve and County island issue.
5. What are the impacts from the project to the 55 corridor? Is this going to have a huge impact
on Newport Blvd and the improvements the City just made?
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. How does the project mitigate the additional trips coming 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 17th and 19th Streets.
7. How 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. How will this impact the flow to Newport Beach?
The project impacts to Newport Boulevard are discussed in earlier paragraph.
Mayor Gary Monahan
Taking into consideration the 55 freeway extension study that OCTA and the City is looking
at, would the impacts increase or decrease if the Banning Ranch project were to go through?
The SR -55 Access Study is analyzing long-term 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.
\N
3. Can we get a picture of what the increase in pressure on 17`h street would be? Would the 35
percent jump up if we stopped it from going to 19`h?
Additional traffic is forecasted on 17th Street as a result of this Bluff Road Alternative. The
expected traffic on 17th 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 Pro Tem Jim Righeimer
1. 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? How is that going to work over -
forever? How 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.
3. Regarding the large green space on the eastern side, are there plans for ball fields, play
fields, or some kind of facilities the kids in Costa Mesa would be able to use? If so, how will
the cost of'those improvements funded?
As mentioned in an earlier response, the project includes development of an active park between
15th and 16th Streets. The proposed facilities include 6 lighted tennis courts, 1 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.
M
ATTACHMENT 4
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: 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 (MPRH), 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 City of Costa Mesa Circulation Element depicts the
extension of SR -55 as a freeway between 19th Street and Industrial Way. The Orange County +�
Building Division (714) 754-5273 • Code Enforcement (714) 754-5623 Planning Division (714) 754-5245
FAX (714) 754-4656 • TDD (714) 754-5244 vaww,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 17th Street to accommodate the fourth through lane. This requires construction of a concrete 1
box structure in the widened area south of 17th Street.
Page 4.9-96: Superior Avenue — 17th 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.
IAE11G1114�
Section 4.1.7- Environmental Impacts, Page 4.1-31
The first paragraph refers that no development or grading is proposed for the open space
between North Bluff Road and existing California Seabreeze residential community in Costa
Mesa. 0
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
November 8, 2011
CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92828-1200
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
SUBJECT: 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:
hf#p://Www.costamesaca.gov/docs/planning/2011-10-20-Special-Joint-Meeting-public-
a uestions-and-answers. Ddf
Sincer ,
011,
KHANH NGUYEN
Acting Developme enrices Director
cc: Chief Executive Officer
Interim Assistant CEO
City Attorney
Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Manager
C
Building Division (714) 754-5273 • Code Enforcement(714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245
FAX (714) 754-4856 • TDD (714) 754-5244 - w ci.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
I bought my home less than 3 years ago. Why was I not told
michelle simpson(jr 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 19th
Street/Bluff Road to 19th Street? Will it be decided upon
soon?
Bonnie Copeland, Costa Mesa
What is the Final Cost to taxpayers in 2011 $$'s of ALL Ta ndd
Bonmail@pacbell 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 15th, 16`h, 17th 19" 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.frankiewicz mail.com
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.
M
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 like it. We, the residents, are revitalizing
the area the way we want to.
There is a small gated community at the end of 18`h 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 1375 home/condos proposed: How much will they cost
Tkokeng,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.
Casey Evans -Lang, Costa Mesa
How much of Banning Ranch is comprised of water? Would
Evans cQauhsd.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
schamberskea.rr.com
Newport/Costa Mesa school system? Example — could
(illegible word) school improve?
I live on the corner 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
dkokenghmausa.com
3/4 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
troberta uci.edu
development?
Terry Powell, Costa Mesa
I have heard that there are plans for Westside Costa Mesa to
terrydavittp,,amail.com
"improve", "revitalize the area", "boost the economy." I hear
that increased traffic on our roads (19tH 17tH 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(a,michaelsg. com
Traffic impact to 17th and 19th Street Costa Mesa?
How will Costa Mesa acquire the property on 17th Street and
19th Street to provide roads for Banning Ranch?
05
District A4ission. November 2, 2011
Dedicated to Satio,ing
our communiiy's
[,Vater 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 President
(State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) for the proposed Newport Banning
SHAWN DEWANE Ranch Project
Vice President
Division V Dear Mr. Alford:
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Division II Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa Water) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
TRUDY OHLIG-HALL Impact Report for the proposed Newport Banning Ranch project (SCH# 2009031061).
ViPresident
DivisionIIIWe 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:
I,..jL 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 in Orange
District Treasurer
acres are unincorporated
County within the City's Sphere of Influence. The entire site is within the Coastal Zone, as
BOWIE,
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
service 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.
■
�, Mesa Cor�Gdai-ed
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
October 31, 2011
Page 2 of 3
District A4issioa:
7edieated to Satisfying
0111- cornrnuvedj7 's
General Comments: -
[Vuter Needs
The following comments are provided based on our review of the information provided in
the Draft EIR 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 project 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. ATK idem
First Vice TKINSO
under the project, would reduce significant environmental impacts associated with the
P I g P
Division IV
proposed project. Substantial revisions and recirculation of the Draft EIR 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
Vice President
of energy (see CEQA Guidelines Appendix F), which exacerbates the state and region's air
Division II
quality emissions and production of greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn exacerbates
TRUDY OHLIG-HALL
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 EIR is deficient in that it does not include in its analysis, the
District 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 & 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 EIR 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 EPR 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 *Costa Mesa, California 92627
Telephone (949) 631-1200 * FAX (949) 574-1036
www.mesawater.org
DisTriet Mission:
dedicated to Satisfying
our Community's
Water Needs
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 II
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 J. Alford, Planning Manager
October 31, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15088.5(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 EIR (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 EIR 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 EIR addressing these issues.
Sincerely,
N C
Paul E. Shoenberger, P.E
General Manager
1965 Placentia Avenue !Costa Mesa, California 92627
Telephone (949) 631-1200 ♦ FAX (949) 574-1036
www.mesawater.org
01