The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 - 06_RTC Part 6Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter O88a Alford, Patrick From: Dave Sutherland Idavesutherland4 @gmail.comj Sent: Sunday, November 06, 20119:44 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Banning Ranch dEIR Response Mr Patrick Alford, City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Regarding the dEIR on the Banning Ranch Development Dear Mr. Alford, I have several questions and concerns regarding this proposed development. These questions are as follows and all will be prefixed with a ? mark: ? If there is a way to reduce the harmful emmissions and the negative atmospheric effects that are expected during construction and afterwards, would it not be prudent to employ these methods in order to avoid the "significant and unavoidable" consequences? ref: page 4.10 -28 Table 4.10 -6 pg 4.10 -29 Threshold 4.10 -4 As resident and and tax payer in Newport Beach, would it not be prudent and more cost effective to improve construction techniques now, rather than face the impending myriad of health and legal issues that will surely arise in the future from failing to implement such known techniques? I speak of the Tier 3 vs Tier 4 Diesel machinery to be used. It is mentioned on page 4.10 -29 that the availability of Tier 4 can not be assured. ? Is it not a reasonable request to ask that these devices be "Assured "? ? Is it not the responsibility of the of the City to protect the people especially when it is within its power to do so? Sincerely, Dave Sutherland 12 Summerwind Ct Newport Beach, Ca 92663 R:TrojectsWewpn JO15�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -927 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O88a Dave Sutherland November 6, 2011 Response1 Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that the Project has been revised to include Tier 4 construction equipment and NOx emissions would be less than significant with the concurrent remediation and grading activities. With respect to Threshold 4.10 -4, the potential impacts to sensitive receptors were all found to be less than significant. Response 2 Please refer to the response to Comment 1 RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -928 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 088b Alford, Patrick From: Dave Sutherland fdavesutherland4@9mail . coml Sent: Sunday, November 06, 20119:59 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Comments on dEIR Banning Ranch Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Reference: page 4.10 -23 If as stated the long term operational emissions "In 2023, calculated regional emissions of VOC, NOx and CO resulting from Project operation would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significant thresholds." primarily due to vehicles operations, is this not an admission that the Project as currently proposed is too large? The long term effects of this Project are unacceptable for the residents of this area who will have to live with the adverse Dave Sutherland 12 Summerwind Ct Newport Beach, Ca 92663 R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -929 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O88b Dave Sutherland November 6, 2011 Response1 While the 2023 operational emissions are forecasted to exceed the SCAQMD CEQA thresholds, this is a regional impact. There would be no significant impact to local residents. The commenter's opinions regarding the size of the Project are noted. RiPro joct s\NO.port\IO15�RTC\RTC- 031512 no� 3 -930 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 088c Alford, Patrick From: Dave Sutherland Idavesutherland4 @gmail.comj Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:11 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Comments on dEIR Banning Ranch Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca 92663 In the years 2014 -2017 and 2019, emissions of NOx would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. This, as stated is due to concurrent operations of both remediation and grading on separate sites. ? Would these NOx values be under threashold if these operations took place in a sequential effort rather than simultaneous? ? If so, would it not be prudent tc maintain the safety and health of surrunding residents by operating under the established threasholds? ?If these operations are to be conducted concurrently because it is more economical to do so, then what price has been out on the health of residents? Dave Sutherland 12 Summerwind Ct Newport Beach, Ca 92663 R:TrojectsWewpn JO15�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -931 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O88c Dave Sutherland November 6, 2011 Response1 Please refer to Topical Response: Air Quality, with respect to nitrogen oxides emissions during construction, which explains that the Project has been revised to include Tier 4 construction equipment and NOx emissions would be less than significant with the concurrent remediation and grading activities. RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -932 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 088d Alford, Patrick From: Dave Sutherland Idavesutherland4 @gmail.comj Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:22 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Comments on dEIR Banning Ranch Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Reference: page 4.10 -23 The dEIR states that "Operational emissions would continue to increase as the proposed residences are occupied, which is anticipated to start in 2015 and the anticipated completion of the Project in 2023, the occupancy and use of residences, retail uses and other Project components would continue to increase. Over the same period, vehicle emissions factors for most gaseous pollutants are anticipated to diminish because of improved vehicle Fleet emissions." ? What empirical evidence is there to support the reduction of fleet emissions as implied in this assertion? Please provide the source of this assumption? Dave Sutherland 12 Summerind Ct Newport Beach, Ca 92663 R:TrojectsWewpn J0I5�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -933 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O88d Dave Sutherland November 6, 2011 Response1 Gaseous vehicle emissions are related to fuel economy and vehicle performance. Since the late 1970s, fleet fuel economy has improved, forced by the legislation of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Recent CAFE standards are described in Section 4.10, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Because newer cars have improved economy, the replacement of older cars with newer cars each year improves the overall fleet economy. In California, the CARB periodically publishes emission factors through the EMFAC model, which is based on vehicle testing and fleet composition compiled from DMV records, as well as other factors. EMFAC allows the selection of emissions for a given year. Modeling a given number of vehicle trips in different years demonstrates reduced emissions in later years. RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -934 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter O88e Alford, Patrick From: Dave Sutherland Idavesutherland4 @gmad coml Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10.31 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Commments on dEIR Banning Ranch Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA 92663 4.1 As stated in this section, VOC and NOx are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds in the year 2023. This is the anticipated completion date for the Project. Reference: 4.10 -26 Once completed, the Project leaves the residents with "significant and unavoidable" results of VOC and CO. ? Is this acceptable for the long term ramifications of our community? I find this a comolete disreaard for the residents and future residents of our beautiful citv. Dave Sutherland 12 Summerwind Ct Newport Beach, CA 92663 R]Proioct.\NO.portU0151RTC\RTC- 031512 doc 3 -935 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O88e Dave Sutherland November 6, 2011 Response1 While the 2023 operational emissions are forecasted to exceed the SCAQMD CEQA thresholds, this is a regional impact. There would be no significant impact to local residents. RA Projects \NewpoOM151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -936 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 088f Alford, Patrick From: Dave Sutherland Idavesutherland4 @gmad coml Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10.40 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Comments on dEIR Banning Ranch Mr Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA 92663 The Landowner /Developer shall appoint a contact for complaints regarding the Project. ? Is this not liken to the fox looking after the hen house? ? Would it not be prudent to have this post be an official Government Agency, one that is not directly associated with the Owner /Developer? ? Should not the oversight be an independent agency that has the power to ensure compliance of operations of the Dave Sutherland 12 Summerwind Ct Newport Beach, CA 92663 R]Proioct.\NOwportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512 doc 3 -937 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O88f Dave Sutherland November 6, 2011 Response1 Providing a means for reporting a complaint to a person directly responsible for on -site activities is the path to obtaining the quickest investigation and response. The existence of a contractor's representative does not preclude contacting the City, as described at http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =227, or, in the case of suspected air pollution violations, the South Coast Air Quality Management District. RT rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -938 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 089 4CEIVEO By COMMUNITY October 24, 2011 OCT Z g 2011 0. DEVELOPMENT .p E Patrick J. Alford, Project Manager OF NEWPOBt 9 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: Banning Ranch EIR Comments and Concerns From a Long Time Resident of Newport Shores Dear Mr. Alford, I am a long time resident of the 550 home (not 440 Residences 4.1 -3), Newport Shores neighborhood. I have reviewed the EIR for this proposed development and do not believe the environmental mitigation measures, as proposed, are sufficient to meet the impacts this project will impose on our community. Additional measures must be included. I have listed these on the attached "Specific Concerns" document. Also, some documentation in the draft EIR seems to be unclear, specifically, clarification on the following items must be conclusively resolved: 1. 'file document states that "The bridge over PCH will be implemented as a part "' the development; regulatory approvals must be pursued and received." If this bridge is not implemented many of the transportation and public access mitigation measures that specifically rely on its construction will not be met. How will the project be modified if this bridge is not implemented? The project, as currently configured, requires that the bridge be built. 2. Connectivity of wildlife corridors and visual considerations within the report somewhat address the removal of existing and construction of new fences. Please confirm that project fencing will be installed only where shoom in the exhibits provided. To be clear, 2 if a fence now exists but is not shown in the proposed project exhibits, it will be removed and construction ofnew fences . will only be in places identified on the project exhibits in report section number 4. 3. Utility lines will all be in- ground installations, including utilities currently running across the bluff and the lowland areas, i.e. the overhead electrical line that currently rums from the toe of the bluff trail to and across the Santa Ana River. R:TrgectsWe.,v, UO15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -939 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 4. Clean up and remediation of the lowlands will address: a) ongoing measures to stop sediment from entering the Seminole slew and b) the project will address the sedimentation from the project property that has contributed and will continue through 4 construction and after to the partial filling of the Seminole Slue and the ACOE wetlands. 5. Will ongoing open space maintenance and monitoring cost be the responsibility of the project developer? In addition to these clarifications I would like to have the attached specific items addressed. ou. 0 t olz 203 Canal Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -940 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Banning Ranch EIR Specific Concerns: A. Access to parks and open spaces and trails, connections to existing trails and parks, public facilities distribution, connection to existing regional trail systems and other parks (4.1 -61 section 30212) report sections do not adequately address the public's right to enter and have access to the proposed public spaces, parks and connections through the project. Specifically, the public and residences who would like to access the public project.areas as well as move through the project property from the south west boundaries, have not been adequately accommodated. From the Newport Shores neighborhood to the public interpretive trail the Toe of the Bluff "frail, and South Bluff Park, have not been accommodated. All public facilities should be easily accessible via direct trail connections across and around the Seminole Slue. Also, a direct connection from the south west for pedestrian and bike riders to access the t new nature center, Talbert Trail Head; 19'h Street; the community park facilities, and Sunset Ridge Park should be a part of the project`s environmental mitigation measures, as should direct access to the CCC Learning Center and public and commercial facilities north and east of the project. Access points from existing public properties should be included at the small pubic park nest to the Newport Shores Community Center Tennis Courts (bridge across the Seminole Slue). Another access to the toe of the bluff trail at the terminus of Cedar Street, and an access across the end of the Seminole Slue to connect the existing Newport Shores public park (not shown on Exhibit 4.1 -2j) directly to the toe of the bluff trail just north of the oil facilities along PCH. Requiring pedestrians and bikes to travel along PC1-1 to the Banning Ranch Road, then up [lie road, is not adequate access to these public facilities from the West Newport area. The public benefit of these public facilities cannot be realized if the project does not provide the connections as part of the project. Parkland L.U. Policy 4.1 -60, 6.5.2 Active Community Park. 20 to 30 acres required, is not adequately met, in the net 21.5 acres identified as north, central, and south community park properties. The community park should be contiguous with no bifurcation by project roads. The portion of the central community park parcel south of North Bluff Road is less than a ball field in width and should not be considered active community park land. The south community park parcel does not meet the community park land description. It is too narrow and is bifurcated by the Sunset Ridge Park Road, therefore, should not be counted as contribution acreage to the community park requirement. Likewise, the parking facilities required to replace lost parking at 15 °i Street should not be included in the community park acreage count, as this parking is not fully dedicated to the community park. The project must provide the 20 to 30 areas required in one parcel of adequate width to provide active community park amenities. David Volz 203 Canal Street, Newport Beach, . CA92663 October 24, 2011 R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -941 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments C. The fence shown on 4.2 -2a "Open space fence at top of bluff' is not aesthetically appropriate nor does it meet the environmental consideration for connectivity ofwild life corridors. Fences are not included on other sections /exhibits, and none should be included here. If absolutely required at this reach of the bluff top, it should be only a low rail type fence. D. Sports field lighting and alter dark lighting of all community park facilities must be included as part of the project according to the report text. Exhibits 4.1 -2f and 4.1 -2e should be updated to show field and park lighting. E. The oil facilities should all be visually screened from all points of public view. The identified perimeter screening should be much wider and continuous around each oil facility compound and at the entry points. In particular, Exhibit 4.1 -6 does not show any screening of the west side of this compound, an existing unsightly mess of machinery that will be made worse by the consolidation of oil facilities proposed to be added to the compound. F. All manmade constructions within the natural areas must be screened or aesthetically treated to match the proposed natural setting. Stand pipes, bollards, signs, markers, roads, fences, etc. must be screened or painted to blend into the setting. Specifically, yellow protective bollards around constructed facilities should not be allowed, or if absolutely needed, must be pointed to match the background colors of the natural areas. David Volz 203 Canal Street, Newport Beach, CA92663 October 24, 2011 10 11 R:TrojectsWewpn J015�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -942 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 089 David Volz October 24, 2011 Responsel The proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway would provide access to bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks on the south side of West Coast Highway and to the beach. The bridge would allow for pedestrians and bicyclists to move between the northern and southern sides of West Coast Highway without having to cross West Coast Highway at street level. However, the bridge is not proposed to mitigate any significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have to be changed. Response 2 Additional fencing would be required in addition to the fencing referenced by the commenter. Please refer to Section 5.6, Walls, Fences, and Monumentation, of Chapter 5, Master Landscape Plan, of the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, in particular the Exhibit 5 -14, Community Walls, Fences, and Monumentation Plan. In addition to the Community Walls and Fences shown on this exhibit, it can be expected that: 1. The eastern edge of the North Community Park adjacent to the Coast Community College District's Newport Beach Learning Center building would be fenced for public safety and security, and that fences may be used to enclose recreational facilities such as tennis courts and play fields. 2. The perimeter of the Consolidated Oil Sites (Site Planning Areas 5a, 5b, and 5c), including the entry to the Oil Access Road from West Coast, would be fenced for security and public safety. 3. The perimeters and /or interior portions of private development areas (e.g., swimming pools, patios, gardens, yards, etc.) within the Villages and Colonies (i.e., Site Planning Areas 10a -10d, 11a -11b, 12a -12b, and 13a -13b) would likely be fenced or walled to some degree for security, privacy, noise attenuation, and /or public safety. Additionally, sound walls or other forms of walls or fences may be required as environmental mitigation pursuant to the EIR or public agency requirements. 4. Fencing may be required anywhere within the Project where a public agency of jurisdiction determines that such fencing is required to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. For example, fencing may be required in association with water management areas (where there is fear of drowning) or the proposed bridge over West Coast Highway (where there is fear of falling). Although sensitive to connectivity of wildlife corridors, fencing may also be required by State and /or federal resource agencies, and /or the Coastal Commission for the protection of habitat areas or species on either an interim, seasonal, or permanent bases. This is often done, for example, to protect vernal pools and is proposed as a part of the Project. Construction -level plans for fences and walls would be reviewed and approved by the City as part of Site Development Review. RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -943 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 3 The Draft EIR assumes that all new public utilities would be placed underground within the development area and to the extent economically and environmentally feasible within the Open Space area except for the oil consolidation sites, where utilities may be above ground. It is unclear to the City what must be resolved. Response 4 It is unclear to the City what must be resolved. Response 5 Open space monitoring and the associated costs would be a Conditions of Approval and would detail the structure and funding of the ownership and maintenance of the open space. It is anticipated that either a conservancy would be formed or a qualified existing organization would be named as the land steward, and funding for long -term maintenance would be provided by a number of sources including endowments, Homeowners Association fees, property transfer taxes, and other to be determined funding sources, or some combination of all. Response 6 The opinions of the commenter and the requests of the commenter for additional recreational (trail) connections from Newport Shores to the Project site are noted. Response 7 As a point of clarification, the City's Park Dedication and Fees Ordinance requires 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents; the park requirement for the Project would be 15.06 acres. In addition to compliance with the City's Park Dedication Ordinance, the General Plan specifically addresses the need for a Community Park to be located on the Project site. Land Use Policy 6.5.2 of the City's General Plan states that the Newport Banning Ranch property must: Accommodate a community park of 20 to 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and residents of Banning Ranch, if developed. Therefore, the City's Park Dedication Ordinance would require 15.06 acres of park or the payment of in -lieu fees; the City's General Plan requires a 20- to 30 -acre community park on the Newport Banning Ranch property. However, the General Plan does not obligate the Applicant to develop a park exceeding Park Dedication Ordinance requirements (15.06). However, the General Plan requires that sufficient acreage be available on the property to comply with the General Plan. The Project proposes to meet its parkland obligations (of 15.06 acres) through the provision of approximately 51.4 gross (42.1 net) acres of public parks, including an approximately 26.8 - gross -acre (21.7- net -acre) Community Park; an approximately 20.9 - gross -acre (17.5- net -acre) Bluff Park; approximately 3.7 gross (2.9 net) acres of Interpretive Parks; and bicycle, multi -use, and pedestrian trails. With respect to replacement parking, the park acreage figures do not include the parking area. The opinions of the commenter on the configuration of the Community Park are noted. R TroledsNewPerftMl& TMRTC- 31512.dee 3 -944 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 8 The fence between the Bluff Park and the Resort Colony depicted on Exhibit 4.1 -2a (not Exhibit 4.2.2a as noted in the comment) was not intended indicate that fencing was mandated in this location but rather an illustration of what might be required. A fence may not be required between the South Bluff Park and the Open Space Preserve in this general area based upon a variety of considerations, ranging from habitat and wildlife protection to public safety. If required, whether by the City, Homeowners Association, a resource agency or the Coastal Commission, the fence would be designed to take into consideration the habitat, wildlife movement and other requirements as detailed by the appropriate approving agency. Response 9 The referenced land use exhibits show the relationship between on -site and off -site land uses in terms of general uses and distance between uses rather than all potential features on a parcel. Light standards are not depicted on any of the exhibits and are not deemed necessary for the analytical purpose of the exhibits. Response10 Exhibit 4.1 -6 depicts vegetative buffering on the west side of the oil consolidation site. As addressed in Section 4.1 and 4.2, the Project proposes to visually screen the consolidated oil facilities sites. The consolidated oil sites would be landscaped with native plant materials, including trees and shrubs in accordance with the Habitat Restoration Plan. The Oil Site Buffers (Site Planning Areas 6a and 6b) do not extend into areas of the Open Space Preserve that were identified as having significant existing habitat value. Exhibit 4.1 -6 shows screening (the 2.7- acre Oil Site Buffer Site Planning Area 6b) on the west side of the Northerly Oil Operations Site (SPA 5c), but does not show much screening on a portion of the southern side for the reason (existing habitat) mentioned above. Response 11 Very little manmade construction is proposed or would be permitted within the Open Space Preserve outside of the two oil consolidation sites. Construction could include, for example, handrails, boardwalks, or interpretive exhibits along the interpretive trials, or functional or safety improvements within the two drainage management areas. Exhibit 5 -15 of the Master Development Plan shows that materials for open space fencing may include round or square tubular steel or aluminum posts and stainless or other similar cable; finishes may be galvanized, anodized, or other durable metal finishes. The Talbert Trailhead and public trails in the Open Space Preserve would not be lighted. Subsequent approvals would be required for fencing, signs, etc. in the Open Space areas and the compatibility of these features would be considered by the City as a part of Site Development Review. RT rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -945 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 090a Alford, Patrick From: Terry Welsh [lerrymwelsh @hotmail,com) Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 1:58 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: FW: Banning Ranch vernal pools Patrick, can you make this email part of the dEIR comments for Banning Ranch? Thank yon. Terry Welsh From: terrymwelsh @hotmail.com To: terrymwelsh @hotmail.conl Subject: FW: Banning Ranch vernal pools Date: Fri, 21 Oct 201106:36:39 -0700 From: terrymwelsh @hotmaii.com To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us; tbonikanlp @wetlandpermitting.com CC: christine medak @hvs.gov; jonathan snapp- cook @fws.gov; erin_mccarthy @fws.gov; jengel @coastal.ca.gov; jdelarroz @coastal.ca,gov; kschwing @coastal.ca.gov; jdixon @coastal.ca.gov; dlenry@coastal.ca.gov, ssarb @coastal.ca.gov; awillis @coastal.ca.gov Subject: Banning Ranch vernal pools Date: Tue, 30 Aug 201121:27:13 -0700 Patrick, can you forward this to the appropriate people working on the Banning Ranch HR? To Tony Bomkamp and City of Newport Beach: On the recommendation of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, I am sending a review of the recent 20102011 Banning Ranch wet - season branchiopod study by David Moscovitz. The referrenced DVD Complete Banning Ranch Mesa Vernal Pools /Wet /ands has been previously provided to the regulatory agencies as well as the lead agency for the proposed Banning Ranch development project (Newport Beach). While the recent study by David Moscovitz does provide important data on many of the vernal pools /wetlands of the Banning Ranch mesa, it is clear that a complete study of all of the vernal pools /wetlands has not been completed. In order for the Newport Beach City Council to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of this proposed development project, a thorough study of ALL vernal pools /wetlands of the Banning Ranch mesa must be part of the anticipated EIR. Lacking such a thorough study, the EIR must be considered incomplete. To complete an adequate study of all vernal pools /wetlands of the Banning Ranch mesa, and to provide the necessary information to the Newport Beach City Council to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed development project, additional dry season and /or wet season studies to evaluate for the listed San Diego fairy shrimp, as required by US Fish and Wildlife Service guildelines, must be performed per protocols. The following is from a USFWS memo titled: R:TrgectsWewp MJD15�RTMRTC- o3isizaoc 3 -946 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments "Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Perin its under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool flrancldopmis" c. A complete survey consists of sampling for either:. 1. two full wet season surveys done within a 5 -year period; or 2. too consecutive seasons of one full wet season survey and one dn'season survey (or one dry season survey and one full wet season survey). Thank you, Terry Welsh Review of 2010 /2011. Banning Ranch wet- season branchiopod study by David N4oscovitz. 1. It is good to see protocol studies being done on many of the venial pools/wetlands of the Banning Ranch mesa. 2. San Diego fairy shrimp have been identified in vernal poolshvetlands VPl. VP2. AD3. E, G, I and J (VPI, V P2. E. I and J are referred to as 1, 2, 1.7, 8,. and 9 in the DVD Complete Bonnine Ranch Mesa Vernal Pools/4VetlandsJ. Some of the vernal pools /wetlands in the GLA 2010/2011 wet- season study; such as A B. D. and V (referred to as 30a. 5. 3. and 28a in die DVD Con+rolele Banning RanchiWesa Vernal Pools/4hetlands) now have two wel- season protocol studies . without detection of the San Diego fairy shrinip. 3. Other vernal poolshvetlands in the GLA 2010/2011 wet- season study, such as C; F. H. K, L, A4. \n. O; P. R. T. W (referred to as 47 7; 14, 107 15, 11; 16, 18, 12, 13; 20 and 29 in the DVD Complete Bannine Ranch A,leea Vernal Pools/1Netlandsl have had only one wet - season study. Fui'lhemnore, venial poolshvetlands described in the GLA 1999/2000 wet - season report, but not mentioned in the current study, such as Depression 1. Depression 2, and Depression 3 (referred to as 27, 24a, and 24b in the DVD ConpleicBannine Ranch Ardeso Vernal Pool.04%etlandel also only have had one wet - season study, lay tJSFWS guidelines, these vernal pools/wetlands will have to have one more wet - season study taken during a year of at least average rain fall, or one dry - season study performed by a qualified biologist, before the presence of the $an Diego fairy shrimp can be excluded. 4. Other venial pools/wetlands on the Banning Ranch mesa were not studied, nor even described, in the 2010 /2011 wet- season report. It. is not clear wily vernal pools/wetlands 23, 25, 26, 27, 28b, 30b, 31. 33: 34, 35, 36. 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. 45. 47. 49, 49a, or 49b were not included in this current study. Photo dnelllilelllatl011 in file DVD Complete Banning Ranch Mesa Vernal Poolsfi etlands shows most, if not all, of these vernal pools /welhmdis were present during the 2010/2011 wet- season. Two wet- season studies taken during yens of at least average rain fall, or one wet- season study and one dry- season study, will have to be perfonned on all of these venial pools /wetlands before the presence of the San Diego fitiiy shrimp can be excluded. 5. In conclusion, of the 54 documented /potential venial poolshvetlands ml the Banning Ranch mesa; seven have evidence of the $all Diego fairy shrinip, foul' have been satisfactorily excluded by protocol studies for the Presence (if the $all Diego fairy shrimp, and 43 require additional wet - season of dri- season studies to exclude tile presence of the $all Diego fair shrilllp. cunt. R:TrojectslNewporN015 \RTC \RTC- 031512tloc 3 -947 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O90a Terry Welsh October 21. 2011 Response1 The comment is noted. Response 2 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 3 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 4 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 5 The comment is noted. Response 6 The comment is noted. Response 7 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 8 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 9 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools R: 1Projects\Newport\IO151RTC\RTC- 031512 eoc 3 -948 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter O90b Alford, Patrick From: Terry Welsh [terrymwelsh @hotmail. coml Sent: Sunday, November 06, 20119:42 PM To: Alford, Patrick; steve.banningranch @hotmail.com Subject: cIEIR comments Attachments: Burrowing Owl information.pdf Patrick, can you incorporate the attached report Into the dEIR comments? Thank you, Terry Welsh R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -949 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments On 2- 16 -11, a Burrowing Owl was identified at a sitejust south of the corner of the City Yard at the end of 16'" Street, in an area corresponding to the path of the proposed Bluff Rd. Enclosed is an aerial photo of the approximate location, as well as some photographs. This information needs to be incorporated into the body of data on Burrowing Owls. R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -950 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -951 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments J F I V R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC \RTC- 031512.doc 3 -952 Responses to Environmental Comments Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments Th a 2008 PI an n ed Co m mu nityTe clinical A pp e n dix cc rn ai n ed a 2008 W i nt eri B Burrowing Owl m ap. Again, there was a Burrowing Owl located in the path ofthe planned Bluff Road (as well as a Burrowing Owl located on the South Mesa, and another located in the Mesa -U niFied Scho al District prope rty). ffi J r fI 2 I i r 4 'i U9c•,d I_ ._- . m � f1M �1lG'.V 9r.M�iMlLwdd�lalN�.a R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC \RTC- 031512.d.c 3 -953 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O90b Terry Welsh November 6, 2011 Response1 The information regarding the burrowing owl identified on site on February 16, 2011 will be added to the administrative record. However, this observation does not change any findings of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR identifies the presence of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) on site. The Draft EIR documented that suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present on site and this species has been observed wintering on site in 2008, 2009, and 2010. However, this species is absent for breeding based on breeding season surveys conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010. As addressed on page 4.6 -62 of the Draft EIR, impacts on occupied and potential habitat for this species were found to be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -12 would reduce the impact on this species to a less than significant level (see page 4.6 -89 of the Draft EIR). RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -954 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Alford, Patrick Comment Letter 090c From: Terry Welsh (terrymwelsh@hotmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 6:10 AM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Banning Ranch dEIR comments "The comments below and all references contained therein are hereby incorporated into the official record of proceed ngs of this project and its successors. " Patrick, here are three more comments. They are likely going to be submitted by Barry Nerhaus, but I am going to repeat them. 1. Southwestern Pond Turtle. - Data exists that shows southwestern pond turtles do not need permanent water nor high quality freshwater marsh to survive. Additionally from personal observation, southwestern pond turtles can utilize tidal marshes, estuaries, and salt marshes for foraging. So my question is what was the methodology for survey for southwestern pond turtles? Visual surveys are inadequate for surveying for this species. 2. Light - footed Clapper Rail - Since the freshwater marsh habitat was described to have cattails and rushes, there is a potential to have nesting Clapper Rails. It was stated that a fence was dividing the cordgrass habitat that is known to have at least one nesting pair. Well this bird has wings and can easily fly over a fence. Additionally, I located and documented a clapper rail nest in freshwater marsh this past year with 9 eggs. They hatched and were observed foraging throughout the freshwater marsh. Light- footed clapper rails are known to neat in freshwater marshes. 3. Since there are alkali grasslands, there is potential for the rare Wandering Skipper. The dEIR needs to study for the presence of the rare Wandering Skipper. Finally, I had earlier referenced the November 2, 2011 Coastal Commission hearing as an excellent resource on ESHA determination on Banning Ranch and as a specific document describing the likedhood that Bluff Road would not be able to get approval for a connection to Coast Highway. Though no written transcript exists, there is an official State of California video archive containing the hearing. Here is the link: htUr / /www.cal -snem. ore /cei- biu /arclhive.nhU ?owner= CCCBsdate =20] 1 -11 -02 16. COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS. See AGENDA CATEGORIES. Attention: Items appearing in this section of the agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar for this area by the Executive Director when, prior to taking up the Consent Calendar, slaffand the applicant are in agreement on the stair recommendation. If an item is moved to the Consent Calendar it will he processed in the same manner as other Consent Calendar items (See AGENDA CATEGORIES) except that if that item is subsequently removed from the Consent Calendar by a vote of three or more commissioners, the item will be acted upon at the meeting in the order in which it originally appears on this Meeting Notice and in the manner Coastal Permit Applications are processed. The purpose of this procedural change is to expedite the Commission's coastal development permit process. a. Anolication No. 5 -10 -168 (City of Newport Beach Sunset Ridge) Application of City of Newport Beach to construct, on vacant land, active recreational park (Sunset Ridge Park) of approximately 18 acres at northwest comer of intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Ave, including access road. R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -955 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments parking lot, public restroom, playground, sports fields, paths, viewpoint, retaining wall, landscaping, and coastal sage scrub habitat enhancement. Grading consists of approximately 110,000 ou.yds. of cut, and 102,000 cu.yds. of fill, at 4850 West Coast Highway and on portion of Banning Ranch, Newport Beach, Orange County. (JDA -LB) Public Comment on Item Return to Staff Return to Commission Motion and Vote Amending Motion and Vole Motion and Vote Withdraw] of Application 4 cant R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -956 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 090c Terry Welsh November 8, 2011 Response1 As discussed in detail in the Biological Technical report (page 52) of the Draft EIR, the southwestern pond turtle occurs primarily in freshwater rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, vernal pools, and seasonal wetlands and requires basking sites such as logs, banks, or other suitable areas above water level. On behalf of the City, BonTerra Consulting conducted a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to identify any known occurrences of the southwestern pond turtle within Orange County. The species was reported to have 33 occurrences within Orange County; however, there are no known occurrences for this species within the coastal portion of the Santa Ana River watershed where the Project site is located. The closest occurrence within the watershed is approximately 25 miles upstream in the Silverado Canyon area. No perennial streams or ponds suitable for this subspecies are present on the Project site. Therefore, due to the lack of preferred habitat and absence of the species from the area, the southwestern pond turtle is not expected to occur on the Project site. In addition, the species has not been observed professional biologists on the Project site over the past 20 or more years. Response 2 Light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) is discussed in detail on page 60 of the Draft EIR Biological Technical Report. The scientific literature states that this rail is a secretive resident of coastal salt marshes of pickleweed and Pacific cordgrass (Spartinia foliosa) (Edelman and Conway 1998). Although this subspecies has occurred at other localities in Orange County, the tidal salt marshes of Upper Newport Bay and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge support the only substantial populations52. In addition to these localities, the species has been observed at the Bolsa Chica and San Joaquin Marshes and in the restored cordgrass habitat at the mouth of the Santa Ana River" 54, Clapper rails nested in the relatively extensive lowland freshwater marsh habitats of San Joaquin Marsh in the 1980s (Gallagher 1997). This rail also nests in freshwater marsh habitats on the periphery of its preferred salt marsh habitat at Upper Newport Bay (Gallagher 1997). This species could be heard by BonTerra Consulting ornithologists calling from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) salt marsh restoration site adjacent to the Project site. Tidal marsh areas on the Project site are very limited in extent, with a chain -link fence separating the USACE salt marsh restoration site from the Project site. Freshwater marsh habitats on the Project site are not contiguous with these off- site tidal salt marsh habitats and are considered too small and isolated to be suitable habitat for clapper rails. The Project site provides potentially suitable foraging and high -tide refuge habitat but not suitable nesting habitat for this subspecies. Therefore, the light- footed clapper rail may occur for foraging or temporary refuge during high tides but is not expected to nest on the Project Site. 52 Hamilton, R.A. and D.R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Irvine, CA: Sea and Sage Audubon Society. 53 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011. California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for USGS Seal Beach, Newport Beach, Tustin, and Laguna 7.5- minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division. 51 Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA). 2009 (April 21). Biological Technical Report for the Newport Banning Ranch Property Newport Beach, California (prepared for Newport Banning Ranch LLC). Lake Forest, CA: GLA. RT rojedMewpaTJ0151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -957 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 3 According to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)55, the wandering saltmarsh skipper (Panoquina errans) does not have State or federal listing status. It does have a G4G5 S1 designation according to NatureServe, which is a non - profit conservation organization who provides data and information to State and federal resource agencies regarding the listing of species. A G4 status is for species that are "Apparently Secure" and G5 status is for species determined to be "Secure'. It also has a NatureServe Subnational rank of S1, which states that the species is "Critically Imperiled" and a World Conservation Union (IUCN) Near Threatened listing. As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) A species not included in any listing identified in subdivision (c) shall nevertheless be considered to be endangered, rare or threatened, if the species can be shown to meet the criteria in subdivision (b) ". Subdivision (b) includes the following standards: A species of animal or plant is: (1) "Endangered" when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors; or (2) `Rare' when either: (A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered "threatened" as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act. Based on a range map for this species, this species is believed to occur in coastal salt marshes from north of Santa Barbara to the southern portion of Baja, Mexico56. Existing literature for this species states that "Upper Newport Bay may very well support the largest existing colony of this butterfly. It ... may literally swarm during August along the road and the bluffs near Big Canyon on the west side of Upper Newport Bay "57. It is also believed that continued preservation of the Upper Newport Bay is desirable for the continued survival of the butterfly at healthy population levels. This species is known to occur within Southern California in coastal and inland salt marsh areas. Given this species distribution and listing status, this species does not meet the criteria of Endangered, Rare, or Threatened as described above; however, it is noted that this species is limited in its distribution and occurrence. The wandering skipper may occur on site, primarily within the Lowland area supporting higher concentrations of salt grass and pickleweed. Permanent Project impacts on habitat for this species would be limited, and most of the habitat for this species would remain as open space following oilfield remediation activities. However, these activities could temporarily impact marsh habitats used by this species. Much of the marsh habitat on the Project site is currently fragmented by roads and is invaded to varying degrees by non - native species which are known to have significant detrimental impacts on skipper habitat. Revegetation following oilfield " California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG ). 2011 (January). Special Animals. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division. http://www.butterH!esandmoths.org/species/Panoquina-errans 57 hfp: // mamba. bio. uci. edu /- pjbryanV biodiv /lepidopt/hesper /wanderin.htm RT rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -958 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments remediation activities has the potential to result in a higher long -term habitat quality due to invasive species removal, removal of human activity and disturbance related to oilfield operations, and availability of larger blocks of contiguous native habitat for this species in the open space area. Project impacts on this species would be considered less than significant in consideration of other habitat available for these species in the region; no mitigation would be required. Response 4 The comment is noted. The November 2, 2011 Coastal Commission hearing was a hearing on a separate project, the Sunset Ridge Park. Written comments on the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR were provided to the City by the California Coastal Commission and are addressed in this Responses to Comments document. RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -959 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 090d Comments on dEIR for Banning Ranch. Attachments: 1. Planned Community Development Plan for Banning Ranch and Technical Appendices (August 2008) 2. Coastal Commission Consent Cease and Desist Order CCC- 11 -CD -03 and Coastal Commission Consent Restoration Order CCC- 11 -RO-02 and attachments 3. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Measure M Environmental Oversight Committee (EOC) reports including map and acquisition properties evaluation 4. Letter, dated 4/15/09, from NB City Council in support of application for Measure M funds to be used towards the purchase of the entire Banning Ranch. 5. Coastal Commission staff reports, and attachments, for Coastal Development Permit for Sunset Ridge Park project (application number 5 -10 -168) from both 9 -23 -11 and 10 -20 -11 6. The "Vandersloot File' 7. Final Sunset Ridge Park EIR approved by NB council April 23, 2010 Note: Per City Planner Patrick Alford, the attachments are being uploaded to a designated "Dropbox" file upload site, as well as being provided in the form of DVDs to City Hall. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. ESHA The single most important factor affecting this development in the area of Biological Resources is the presence of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). The general concept of ESHAs and their relationship to the Coastal Act are briefly discussed, but there is no attempt to delineate ESHAs on the Banning Ranch property. ESHAs undoubtedly exist on Banning Ranch and it is likely that their presence will drastically limit the size of the development, if not outright prevent the development from being built. The dEIR says ESHA determinations will be made by the Coastal Commission, but this will happen months after the clEIR might be voted on by the City Council. Before this City Council vote, an honest attempt should be made to delineate ESHAs as best as possible; using the Coastal Act as the standard of review, but also using the Newport Beach CLUP as guidance. It is not in the public's interest to have the City Council vote on this project without reasonable expectation of where the ESHAs exist. on Banning Ranch, and how they might be affected. To be a responsible lead agency, the City of Newport Beach must understand the extent of the ESHAs before voting on this project. The results of the NB R: Troject sWewpnMJ015�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -960 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments council approving a project that impacts ESHA can mean much money and time spent on a project that violates the Coastal Act and has no chance of being approved. Such is the case at Sunset Ridge Park, where the City of NB approved a park design that was not consistent with the Coastal Act. Had the NB council known from the beginning where the ESHA is located, a different park design would have been considered earlier. In or around early 2009, a Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan, with extensive appendices (dated 8/08), was posted on the City of Newport Beach's website. It was removed a few months later. I his entire plan, with appendices, is being submitted for the record as it included extensive invaluable material that is not present in the current dEIR. For one thing, a map of probable ESHA was included in the 2008 appendices (this map is not present in the dEIR). While this map will undoubtedly be expanded as the knowledge of the biological resources on Banning Ranch increases, this 2008 map is significant for the extensive ESHA in the northeastcorner of Banning Ranch where the extension of Bluff Road to 19 "' St. is proposed (see page 351 or 540 on the Technical Appendices, vol. II dated 8/08). The dEIR does not explain why a road is planned for this area despite this area being previously mapped as ESHA by the applicant. Additional ESHA on Banning Ranch is described in the NW and SE polygons in the Coastal Commission Consent Cease and Desist Order CCC- 11 -CD -03 and Coastal Commission Consent Restoration Order CCC- 11 -RO-02 (described on page 9 of 22 as well as on other pages). Maps of these areas can be seen in the attachments for the same documents (page 8 of 100 as well as on other pages). Additional ESHA is described in the Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit (application number 5- 10.168) staff report dated 10/20/11. This document describes two areas of ESHA known as "ESHA East" and "ESHA West" (described on pages 17 -19 of 46, as well as described elsewhere). Maps of "ESHA East" and "ESHA West" can also be seen in the attachments for the same document (page 177 of 204 as well on other pages). In 2009, the Banning Ranch Conservancy applied to the Measure M Environmental Oversight Committee (EOC), which is part of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for funds to be used for the purchase of the entire Banning Ranch. This request was supported by a unanimous vote by the NB City Council resulting in a letter of support. Following this application, the EOC evaluated the many open space project applicants, ranking them all. The EOC placed Banning Ranch in the highest category (Group 1) based on "high quality habitat, heterogeneous habitat, larger sized properties, aligns with impacted habitats, and contains covered species." Furthermore, the EOC identified four "priority conservation areas" on the Banning Ranch mesa. Please review the Final Conservation Biology Report as well as the Acquisition Properties Evaluation Listand Map. )ont. R:TrojectsWewpod J015�RTMRTC- o3isizdoe 3 -961 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 2. Vernal Pool /wetland data is incomplete. There is no mention of the roughly 15 acres of USFWS- declared critical habitat for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp in the middle mesa. The dEIR does mention seven vernal pools /wetlands that have been demonstrated to contain San Diego Fairy Shrimp, but it does not show the locations of the other vernal pools /wetlands detected during surveys conducted by the owner's consultants, many of which contain Versatile Fairy Shrimp. Additionally, there is no mention of the roughly 24 other documented or potential vernal pools /wetlands described in the document Complete Banning Ranch Mesa Vernal PoolslWetlonds. Under US Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines, a vernal pool has to be subjected to two separate studies before the vernal pool can be determined to be free of listed branchiopods (in this case, the San Diego Fairy Shrimp). "Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods" c. A complete survey consists of sampling for either: 1, two full wet season surveys done within a 5 -year period; or 2. two consecutive seasons of one full wet season survey and dry season survey (or one dry season survey and one full wet season survey). his important to note that the City of Newport Beach has acknowledged the necessity of conducting two rounds of vernal pool /wetland surveys and has offered to conduct a second round of surveys on four of the potential vernal pools /wetlands on Banning Ranch that lie in a proposed dump site for the Sunset Ridge Park project (VP34, VP35, VP 36, and VP39) in a letter to Coastal Commission staff dated 1419 -11 (Exhibit 13 for the attachmenLS of the Coastal Commission Staff repurt for the Sunset Ridge Park staff report dated 10- 20 -11). In this letter the City says, "Coastal staff in a recent follow -up meeting now further requested that a wet season study be undertaken to further check and confirm that vernal pools or wetlands conditions do not exist in this area The City will agree to undertake this study, and work with Coastal Staff to modify our proposed grading disposal area accordingly if BRC's allegation can be substantiated, and if the subject park project application is approved." (page 10 of 74)Here is a list of potential /documented vernal pools /wetlands on the Banning Ranch mesa: R: Troject sWewpnMJC15�RTMRTC- 031512,doe 3 -962 Responses to Environmental Comments Vernal pool /wetland presence on aerial flyovers (Note: Significant winter rainstorms started 1/19/10 and 12/18/10) Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments n/a = not applicable. This means the flyover did notadequately evaluate the vernal pool /wetland. Unk = unknown (has not been excluded by protocol studies) Vernal Pool/ Wetland (Letters) refer to 2011 Glenn Lukos study Latitude All are 33' North Longitude All are 117' West 1/28/10 9days after rain started 12/24/10 6 days after rain started 1 /11 /1 1 25 days after rain started 217111 52 days after rain started noouinantee P ° "d' " °"' ° "` f °rev days Two wet season surveys or one wet season and one dry season survey by certified biologist Versatile Fairy Shrimp San Diego Fairy Shrimp (exclusion based on Two wet season surveysgt one wet - season and one dry season survey by certified 1 VPJ) 38'04.16" 5637.23" yes yes Yes Likely Yes Yes Yes 2 VP2 38'02.38" 56'38.31" Yes yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 3 D 38'00.10" 56'37.56" Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 4 (C) 37'57.70" 56'39.50" Yes Yes n/a n/a Yes No Yes qNo 5 B 37'55.45" 56'36.21" Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 6 37'59.67" 56'33.97" Yes Yes Yes n/a Yes Yes Unk 7 (f) 37'58.35" 56'32.70" Yes Yes Yes n/a Yes No Unk 8 M 38'02.06" 56'32.30" Yes Yes Yes n/a Yes No Unk Yes 9 (J) 38'03.04" 5631.88" Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Unk Yes 10 K) 38'03.14" 56'30.31" Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Unk Unk 11 M 38'04.82" 56'29.27" Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Unk 12 P 38'0618" 56'32.10" Yes Yes n/a n/a Unk No Yes Unk 13 (R) 38'06.26" 56'33.92" Yes Yes n/a n/a Unk No Yes Unk 14 H 38'02.19" 5633.72" No Yes No n/a Unk No Unk Unk 15 L 38'02.93" 56'30.16" Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Unk Unk 16 (N) 38'04.22" 5630.75" Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Unk 17 E 37'59.20" 56'35.82" Likely Yes Yes Likely Yes No Unk Yes 18 (0) 38'04.94" 56'30.73" Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Unk Unk 19 38'05.26" 56'30.76" Yes Yes n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 20 38'09.03" 56'32.63" Yes Yes n/a n/a Unk No Yes Unk 21(S) 38'08.53" 56'33.66" Yes Yes ri n/a Unk No Unk Unk 22 U 38'09.76" 56'33.44" Yes Yes n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 23 37'53.56" 56'41.70" Likely n/a n/a No Unk No Unk Unk 24a 37'36.86" 56'41.12" n/a ri n/a n/a Unk No Yes Unk 24b 37'35.09" 5641.40" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Yes Unk 25 38'11.59" 56'38.45" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 26 37.58.76" 56'52.07" ri n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 27 37'3537" 37'35.37" n/a ri n/a n/a Unk No Yes Unk 28a 38'24.29" 56'41.49" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk Yes Yes No 286 n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 29 (W) 37'41.79" 56'22.33" No n/a n/a n/a Yes No Unk Unk 30a(A) 37'47.36" 56'46.77" n/a Yes n/a n/a Unk Yes Yes No R:\ Projects \NewpoftU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -963 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments R]FroioctslNOwportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512 doc 3 -964 Responses to Environmental Comments 30b 37'47.36" 56'46.77" n/a Yes n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 31 n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 32 (see 30a) 33 37'50.38" 56'47.20" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 34 37'40.02" 56'27.15" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 35 37'39.51" 56'27.73" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 36 37'41.99" 56'26.12" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 37 37'38.97" 56'40.80" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 38 37'15.87" 56'39.78" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 39 37'43.46" 56'27.30" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 40 38'05.27" 56'42.29" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 41 38'01.44" 56'39.62" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 42 56'48.49" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 3 con 43 56'39.89" Yes n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 44 56 "37.30" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 45 137'37.41" 56'37.30" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 46 (see 2 37'35.37" n/a n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 47 56'39.64" yes Yes n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 48 37'56.99" 56'37.96" Yes Yes n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 49a 37'52.57" 5621.52" Yes n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk 49b 37'52.57" 56'21.52" Yes n/a n/a n/a Unk No Unk Unk (AD3) Unk No Unk Yes (G) Unk No Unk Yes Comments: The vernal pools /wetlands are listed by their number designations from the DVD The Complete Banning Ronc Mesa Vernal PoolslWetlands. The letters in parenthesis re er to t e letter designations in the 2010/2011 Glenn Lukas Study. Vernal pools 1- 22, along with 51, 40, 41, 43, 48, AD3 and G are located in the "middle mesa" area and constitute the largestvernal pool complex on Banning Ranch. Vernal pools 1 and 2 are described as "Vernal Pool and small adjacent depression" respectively, in the 5/19/00 GLA report (which documented San Diego Fairy Shrimp in both). Vernal pools 23, 25, 26 are located in vicinity to the "middle mesa" vernal pool complex, but are not well seen in the aerial photos. Vernal pools 27, 24a, 24b, 3, 2, and 1 are described as "Depressions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Vernal Pool" respectively, in the 10/18/00 GLA report Vernal pool 30a was described in the 4/21/08 and 5/28/09 GLA reports. R]FroioctslNOwportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512 doc 3 -964 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 3. The "Vandersloot File" In 2008, the late Dr. Jan Vandersloot took several walking tours of Banning Ranch, carefully documenting by photo numerous plants and other biological features of Banning Ranch. Dr. Vandersloot carefully noted the type of plant, and its location, by hand -held GPS device. The information collected by Dr. Vandersloot is important because it documents native vegetation where the dEIR describes non - native, ruderal, or ornamental vegetation. The "Vandersloot File' (Dr. Vandersloot's photo collection, Excel File describing what is in the photos, and their GPS locations, hand drawn maps showing where he walked and stopped to take photos, and a link to "GoogleEarth" showing "push- pins" at each location he stopped to take photos) is submitted as part of the record. Two examples of discrepancies between the "Vandersloot File" and the vegetation map of the dElR are: a. Dr. Vandersloot documented mulefat at "1375 ", where the dEIR vegetation map says "non- native grassloand." b. Dr. Vandersloot documented encelia at "6152" where the dEIR vegetation map says "non- native grassland ". Many other discrepencies exist. A thorough comparison between the "Vandersloot File" and the vegetation should be undertaken. Any discrepencies warrant a review and site visit by a third party biologist. Instructions on how to use the "Vandersloot File" Jan Vandersloot collected this data in late 2008. Jan walked portions of Banning Ranch on 10/12/08, 10/19/08,10/26/08,11 /1/08, 11/8/08. 11/22/08, 11/30/08, and 12/7/08. 10/12/08 was just a"warm up" day where Jam tested his GPS device. Pictures are not currently available for 10/12/08. Pictures taken on 11/30/08 are currently not available. It is not clear why they are not available. Perhaps they will turn up some day. R:TrgectsWewp MJO15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -965 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Hand -drawn maps show where the photos were taken each day. An Excel file gives coordinates of each photo, an approximate size of the studied area, as well as description of what is depicted in each photo (doesn't include 12/7/08). Finally, the location of most of the photos are depicted on Google Earth with "push- pins." Below is Jan's description of his method: 11 -29 -08 Notes on the files on this disk: 1. The first folder, dated 10 -12 -08, was the first visitto get oriented. No GPS readings were taken on this date. 4 cant. 2. The folders dated 10/19/08, 11/01/08, 11/08/08, 11/22/08, were taken with GPS readings by a Garmin GPS II model, with stated accuracy of S-10 meters (16 -33 feet). This was confirmed in my backyard. 3. Since I am new to using the GPS device, the protocol for displaying the waypoint results went through an evolution. The first few waypoints are not numbered on the photos, but were saved on the GPS unit. Finally, the following protocol was followed: First the GPS waypoint was determined based an roughly the center of the vegetation patch. Then a closeup of the GPS reading was photographed to show the reading in degrees, minutes, seconds. Then I zoomed out to show where the GPS unit was located in relationship to the vegetation and photographed that point. Then a further backup photo was taken to show the general area of the vegetative patch. Thus there is usually a sequence of first closeup of the GPS reading, with receding views after that. 4. Subsequent to trying to display the GPS waypoints on Google Earth with degrees, minutes, seconds, which was way off, I used the NAV function of the GPS unit to convert the waypoints to decimal degrees. This was much more successful in placing the waypoints on Google Earth. You an see these waypoints on the Banning Ranch Decimal GPS Table on the disk. I also included the GPS Table with the original degrees, minutes, seconds recorded on the GPS unit R: Troject sWewporNO15�RTMRTC- o3istzdoe 3 -966 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments S. The work sheets were performed by walking the areas of vegetation to determine the size in yards of each patch. Thus, you can locate the GPS waypoints on the maps, 6. The photographs were taken with a Nikon Coolpix 8800 with dates of the photos imprinted on the photos. 4 cunt. Jan Vandersloot Gnatcatcher data and Cactus Wren data The dEIR shows one year of Gnatcatcher data (2009), and this uses "condensation points" rather than actual field data. Single "condensation points" are insufficient for establishing ESHA delineations (please review excellent discussion of this topic by biologist Robb Hamilton at the Coastal Commission hearing on Sunset Ridge Park, 11/2/11). In addition, the dEIR doesn't mention the multiple previous Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren surveys from 1992 -2008, as well as additional documentation of Gnatcatchers that was produced during the effort to build a park at Sunset Ridge. A summary of Gnatcatcher surveys is provided in the attachment for the Coastal Commission staff report for the Coastal Development Permit for Sunset Ridge Park project (application number 5 -10 -168) from 9 -23 -11 (seepages 119-139). Maps for 1995, 2006 and 2007 (which are not included in the above - mentioned attachment for the staff report) are presenting in the following three pages. Again, where possible, field data should be produced for Gnatcatcher (and other species) surveys that present data as a single "condensation point" R:TrgectsWewp MJO15�RTMRTC- o3isizaoc 3 -967 Responses to Environmental Comments � all - /� . � ..... � « ��»2\ � \ \\ L \ƒ :222 », 6 a�\ N �Gnatcatcher data frorn ig; + m Newport Banning ma m Responses ,Comments A P. a &< - �,� zm, iI ; _ , _ , Responses to Envi w_mCom _: Gnatcatcher data from 2006 Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 5 cont R: mroject6 wewportUO1&RTORTC- 031512.aoc 3 -969 Responses to Environmental Comments aT 1�f � 7 / f f/% i •\ Legend .. ---1 Aq d BOW., 2006 Grw.=a L.4b. w+ s . SIgiB R vvrn,- c rxr�r Y 2006 Callfemia Gnsmmthsr Lecntions v[v.aewr.wsrs sent Gnatcatcher data from 2006 Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 5 cont R: mroject6 wewportUO1&RTORTC- 031512.aoc 3 -969 Responses to Environmental Comments 1 oD ° ° \ 0 n o 00 no! cr�o ue..rn. iwor. Gnatcatcher data from 2007 Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments 5 cont R: mrojeets wewportUO1&RTORTC- 031512.aoc 3 -970 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments The clEIR contains Cactus Wren data from 2009, but does not include data beginning in 1992.This is presented as follows 1 19I 1 r, t y _- N LSAs.. nxw Cactus Wren Territories - Spring 1992 5 cant R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC \RTC- 031512.doc 3 -971 Responses to Environmental Comments Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments II77 f+' fddd r ( JJ ! F r r nt i Atr A1d � //I A "._ ��7f` d� 7i r mirk 51 �f �I d K� IL 8 ti a x - �o urn :n•.x Pv�bn ^.Cwin j: ryt. !'nNN�� •e']hon. 4i.-i „�ir•n'J1C.ii � . - Cactus Wren 1994 5 cont. R: rProject sWewporN015tRTCtRTC- 031512,aoe 3 -972 Responses to Environmental Comments LilR I W.Y.iIO N - F.Z= •1 ,R, "` "° Spring 194.9 E'.k. a M mro Cpl.* Nrca TcaiM,dl Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments 5 cunt. R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTORTC- 031512.d.c 3 -973 Responses to Environmental Comments Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments + + r + „�tJr IS +jraifr,r+r� I �' 7q [1 „Irr F d 1�r l�lJff A, 5•`�+ '� � � [TL �� C.� jam}' � �r�' �v d �: �s Y � Iy §... IY�•r�1 �c�l �s�l _ �4??•L`S�yti h5 i� �4�eJp1 {i�� -�+ !�[ 5�r �j�s ' Y • �:��y,,�� iv,� F h . L [ _ � ' �A�JY -r TIC• 1 J.r 4'M1p Sn�svvamem, G':IFm:.. ❑ad :r -'— - i Cactus Wren 1996 5 cont. R:TrojectsWewpn JO155RTMRTC- o3isizaoe 3 -974 Responses to Environmental Comments Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments Ffy'LYC i` i Cactus Wre,7 Nesting L ocations - 1999 I ]a'.. Fippuidd 1 -2 ° -PP 2 M 2 m z 0 A 5F] C+ 70 z 2 C] 2 I l,gra:ed Re3mr ..'rAr5P variDn Plim F Brink_ R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -975 Responses to Environmental Comments g� • 1 f) Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments 5 cons • c..r c.r.w.. c o..wr ♦ 4�r W • 1r. ♦ �Wrrr.r • •.Wrr • MY•r[4 s • . o i n. [ i I f� 1'•j 4IO[• W� r: 1Mt � � � Md L� R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -976 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Burrowing Owl The clEIR shows data from a 2009 Burrowing Owl survey, but does not include data from a 2008 Burrowing Owl survey that was part of the 2008 Development Plan (see page 343 of 540 in Technical Appendix vol. It of 2008PIanned Community) "Orstad File" The late Jim Orstad compiled a lengthy and referenced written argument on why a residential 7 development should not be built at Banning Ranch. The "Orstad File" had been previously submitted as part of the EIR comments for the Sunset Ridge Park project, but is again especially relevant to the proposed Banning Ranch development. The "Orstad File" is being resubmitted to be included in the record for the draft EIR for Banning Ranch (please see attached Sunset Ridge EIR comments, pages 398- 414 of 602) R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -977 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter 090d Terry Welsh November 8, 2011 Response1 Please refer to Topical Response: EHSA, Topical Response: Sunset Ridge Park, Topical Response: Mowing and Fuel Modification, and Topical Response: Coastal Commission Consent Orders. Response 2 In July 2005, the City of Newport Beach contracted with a consultant to provide services in connection with the potential acquisition of the Project site as permanent open space. The Newport Beach City Council set the following as a priority for 2008 and 2009 "Conduct an appraisal of the Banning Ranch property and assess funding available for the purchase of the property for open space ". In February 2008, the City Council appointed the Banning Ranch Appraisal and Acquisition Ad Hoc Committee to oversee the appraisal process for the Project site and the assessment of funding availability for its purchase as open space. In January 2009, the City Council authorized the City to request Measure "M" environmental mitigation funding to acquire the Project site and that request was submitted to Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). In August 2009, the City Council received the report on the feasibility of funding acquisition of the Project site for open space, which estimated the cost of property acquisition at $138,000,000.00 to $158,000,000.00. The City Council directed staff to continue exploring open space acquisition possibilities as the City moves forward with review of the property owner's development application and to continue to monitor funding opportunities and explore potential new alternatives for open space acquisition. Response 3 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 4 Responses to the late Dr. Vandersloot's examples are provided below. Dr. Vandersloot and the commenter are incorrect in stating that Location B75 was incorrectly mapped as non - native grassland. The location identified by Dr. Vandersloot in 2008 was located at the northern portion of the area mapped as willow riparian forest, which contains mule fat as described on page 4.6- 18 of the Draft EIR. At Vandersloot location B152, this area was mapped accurately as non - native grassland. The presence of small areas of Encelia is not uncommon or unexpected in this area. Page 4.6 -14 of the Draft EIR states that there are pockets of native species that were not mapped because they were mowed to a height of less than six inches and could not be delineated. They may also have been considered a significantly smaller portion of the larger habitat in the vicinity and therefore, the larger vegetation type would have dominated over a small area of Encelia. Given the lack of evidence presented in these samples, no significant discrepancies are present. Vegetation mapping was conducted on numerous days in 2009 and 2010 by Senior Botanist Sandy Leatherman of BonTerra Consulting who has over 20 years of experience in plant biology and has mapped thousands of acres of habitat throughout Southern California. All biological data in the EIR would be subject to review by applicable regulatory agencies as a part of the permitting process for the proposed Project. RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -978 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 5 The Draft EIR summarized the report findings for the surveys conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher. These surveys are consistent with and follow the survey protocol established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) for this species. The USFWS is the resource agency responsible for this species listing, tracking on population statistics, and ultimate recovery. Response 6 The information regarding the burrowing owl identified on site on February 16, 2011 will be added to the administrative record. However, this observation does not change any findings of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR identifies the presence of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) on site. The Draft EIR documented that suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present on site and this species has been observed wintering on site in 2008, 2009, and 2010. However, this species is absent for breeding based on breeding season surveys conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010. As addressed on page 4.6 -62 of the Draft EIR, impacts on occupied and potential habitat for this species were found to be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -12 would reduce the impact on this species to a less than significant level (see page 4.6 -89 of the Draft EIR). Response 7 The late James Orstad prepared a paper dated June 2, 2004, identifying his concerns regarding development of the Newport Banning Ranch property and noted that he was a proponent of the property becoming "a park and wild game nature preserve ". Issues of concern to Mr. Orstad included oilfield contamination (soil and airborne); unstable bluffs; geotechnical instability; presence of significant historical resources; seismic faulting; and dust pollution. All of the issues identified by Mr. Orstad are addressed in the Draft EIR. • Oilfield contamination: Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 4.10, Air Quality • Unstable bluffs, geotechnical instability, faulting: Section 4.3, Geology and Soils • Historical resources: Section 4.13, Cultural and Paleontological Resources • Dust pollution: Section 4.10, Air Quality. Response 8 The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) states, "An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published ". The Notice of Preparation was published on March 18, 2009. The Notice of Preparation was published on March 18, 2009. Using data that is over 20 years old is not relying on the most current and accurate information required by CEQA. The most current information serves as the baseline conditions by which the lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. CEQA also states that the description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to form an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. If historical data is not substantially different that the recent data available for conditions on site, it is not necessary to reference old data sources whether this older data provides no new /valuable information that would have a effect on the Project findings. RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -979 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments There are reasons where the incorporation of species data from past data would not be needed or appropriate for the proposed Project: • Environmental site conditions have changed over that past 20 years which could result in a slightly different flora and fauna component of the Project site. This data would therefore not be current. • Nomenclature has changed for many plant and wildlife species in the area and there would be confusion as to which species previous reports may have been referenced. • Many of the previous survey reports do not have species compendia. It is unclear whether the survey compendia data is accessible. RT rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -980 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Comment Letter 090e Alford, Patrick From: Terry Welsh [terrymwelsh @hotmailcoml Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8.19 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: dEIR comments for Banning Ranch Attachments: Jim Orstad File. pdf The late Jim Orstad compiled a lengthy and referenced written argument on why a residential development should not be built at Banning Ranch. The " Orstad File" had been previously submitted as part of the EIR comments for the Sunset Ridge Park project, but is again especially relevant to the proposed Banning Ranch development. The " Orstad File" is being resubmitted to be included in the record for the draft ER for Banning Ranch (please see attached Sunset Ridge EIR comments, pages 398 -414 of 602) R]Froioct.\NO.portU0151RTC\RTC- 031512 doc 3 -981 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Letter O90e Terry Welsh November 6. 2011 Response1 The late James Orstad prepared a paper dated June 2, 2004, identifying his concerns regarding development of the Newport Banning Ranch property and noted that he was a proponent of the property becoming "a park and wild game nature preserve ". Issues of concern to Mr. Orstad included oilfield contamination (soil and airborne); unstable bluffs; geotechnical instability; presence of significant historical resources; seismic faulting; and dust pollution. All of the issues identified by Mr. Orstad are addressed in the Draft EIR. • Oilfield contamination: Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 4.10, Air Quality • Unstable bluffs, geotechnical instability, faulting: Section 4.3, Geology and Soils • Historical resources: Section 4.13, Cultural and Paleontological Resources • Dust pollution: Section 4.10, Air Quality. RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -982 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments PUBLIC MEETINGS RA Projects \NewportW151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -983 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments RA Projects \NewpoOM151RTORTC- 031512.doc 3 -984 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session November 3, 2011 Response1 The Planning Commission's summary of the purpose of the study session is noted. Response 2 Patrick Alford of the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department provided an overview of the proposed Project. Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Response 3 Representatives of the Project provided an overview of the proposed Project Response 4 The Project proposes that the Lowland Open Space /Public Trails and Facilities areas include habitat conservation, restoration, and mitigation; public interpretive trails; a water quality basin; and a planting buffer around a portion of the northern oil consolidation site. Approximately 118.4 gross acres of the Project site are proposed for restoration as native habitat either by the Applicant as a part of the Project's biological resources mitigation obligations or as a means of satisfying off -site mitigation requirements. The compensatory mitigation requirements for the Project would be ultimately determined by the regulatory agencies as permit conditions. The exact amount of acreage within the Lowland Open Space area that would be required to be restored as native habitat to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the proposed Project has not been established because it would be subject to the approval of respective regulatory agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission). If the Project's mitigation requirements do not require the restoration of the approximately 118.4 - gross -acre Lowland area, any remaining acreage requiring restoration would be placed in a reserve area (mitigation bank) or similar mechanism and may be made available to third parties seeking off -site areas in which to fulfill their respective mitigation obligations. The area would be remediated in accordance with the Remedial Action Plan discussed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. Response 5 The Applicant provided an overview of the regulatory process associated with oilfield remediation. Please refer to Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. Response 6 The assessment of existing conditions in the Project's Traffic Impact Analysis is based on traffic counts done primarily in 2007 while the General Plan traffic study based its assessment of existing conditions on traffic counts done in 2002. While traffic counts typically would be expected to increase over time, the opposite pattern was evident during the mid- 2000s. Traffic volumes have dropped since the early 2000s due to the combined effects of increased gas prices and the economic downtown. Review of the peak hour ICU calculations from these two RT rojedMewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -985 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments traffic studies showed reductions in the peak hour traffic volumes that typically ranged from 10 percent to 20 percent, with several critical movements reflecting reductions up to 25 percent. Such significant reductions in peak hour traffic, therefore, resulted in significant reductions in the ICU calculations. Table 4.9 -4 identifies that the existing level of service (LOS) at the two intersections is LOS B and LOS C, respectively and the General Plan buildout LOS at the two intersections is LOS D and LOS E, respectively. Table 4.9 -28 identifies LOS D. The exhibit the commenter is referring to is from Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR which is only intended to illustrate turning movements. A more detailed representation of the Bluff Road/West Coast Highway intersection is provided on Sheet 7 of the Tentative Tract Map (Exhibit 3 -14). Response 7 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response 8 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response 9 The commenter inappropriately uses the term "ecological staircase ". The term "ecological staircase' is typically discussed in association with geological formations that have a significant effect on the biological resource present within each terrace, or step. This is most evidently seen in the coastal Pygmy forests of northern California and Oregon. In this typical staircase scenario, the marine terraces are uplifted by changes in ocean level which results in multiple (typically 5) terraces at differing elevations, or "stairs ". Terrace can be over 100,000 years older than the one below it and supporting a distinct association of soils, microbes, plants, and animals. Although marine deposits occur on the Project site, they are not subject to the typical terracing and associated biological differentiation described above for documented "ecological staircase" scenarios. Response 11 The commenter is incorrect that the Newport Banning Ranch property is the only coastal site with gnatcatchers. Gnatcatchers are known to occur at several locations along the coast in Orange County from Upper Newport Bay, Crystal Cove State Park, Pelican Hill, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, and San Clemente. As discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, on August 30, 1991, the California Fish and Game Commission considered a petition in support of listing the coastal California gnatcatcher as a State Endangered species. The Commission decided not to list the coastal California gnatcatcher in favor of pursuing preparation of a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) program. The purpose of the NCCP program is to provide regional or areawide protection and to promote perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible and appropriate development and growth. On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Department of the Interior listed the coastal California gnatcatcher as a Threatened species and adopted a special rule in accordance with Section 4(d) of the FESA that authorizes landowners and local jurisdictions to voluntarily participate in the State of California NCCP Act of 1992. Since that time, the County of Orange —in conjunction with State and federal resource agencies, local jurisdictions, utility companies, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, and major private RT rojedsWewparWl&RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -986 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments landowners — prepared the NCCP /HCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion (approved on July 10, 1996). These plans are intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status, coastal sage scrub - dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with State - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The Project site occurs within the Central /Coastal Subregion. Response 12 The Biological Technical Report identifies the presence of Critical Habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp on the Project site. The following text can be found on page 50 of the Biological Technical Report: On December 12, 2007, the USFWS published a final rule designating 3,082 acres of land as critical habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp in San Diego and Orange Counties USFWS 2007b). The Project site is located in final critical habitat Unit 1, Subunit C for San Diego fairy shrimp. Response 13 Special status habitats, including, but not limited to coastal sage scrub, is discussed in detail on pages 4.6 -42 and -43 of the Draft EIR. For the Draft EIR, the sensitivity level is based on the Nature Conservancy Heritage Program Status Ranks, which ranks vegetation types on a global and statewide basis according to the number and size of remaining occurrences and recognized threats. The commenter is incorrect in the statement that the coastal sage scrub on the Project site "is one of the few remaining patches we have anywhere along the coast'. Just within the Coastal Subregion of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan, there are approximately 34,500 acres of sage scrub within the 104,000 acres of undeveloped land. Response 14 As stated on page 4.6 -37 of Section 4.6, Biological Resources, two cactus wren territories were observed during focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher in spring 2009 including one breeding pair and one solitary male. However, two territories do not represent `one of the largest populations of cactus wrens in Orange County" as stated by the commenter 58. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed Project would impact southern cactus scrub, southern cactus scrub /Encelia scrub, disturbed southern cactus scrub, and disturbed southern cactus scrub /Encelia scrub which provides potential habitat for this species. The Draft EIR also states that because of this species declined in Orange County (following the loss of habitat by wildfires), impacts on this species would be considered potentially significant. Page 4.6 -60 summarizes the mitigation for these impacts which includes implementation of MMs 4.6 -1 and 4.6 -10. These measures require the restoration of coastal sage scrub dominated by native cactus species habitat at a ratio of no less that 1:1 and construction avoidance measures to minimize the impacts to the greatest extent practicable. In addition, approximately 35.16 acres of coastal sage scrub, which includes approximately 10 acres of coastal sage scrub dominated by cactus, would be preserved on site as part of MM 4.6 -1. In addition, PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the designation and methodology of habitat restoration /preservation and indirect effect minimization measures, which would provide conservation and avoidance value to se hftp:// www. naturereserveoc .org /projects.htm R TroledswewparftMl& TMRTC- 31512.doc 3 -987 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments the cacti - dominated coastal sage scrub and associated wildlife species, including, but not limited to the cactus wren. Response 15 As addressed in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, the least Bell's vireo has been observed on the Project site during focused surveys. Impacts to this species are considered significant; mitigation is proposed to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. However, any impact on this species would be considered significant. Implementation of MMs 4.6 -5 and 4.6 -11 would reduce impacts on this species to less than significant levels. These measures require the on- site or off -site restoration of riparian habitat at a ratio from 3:1 to 1:1 depending on the habitat value impacted. A total of 15.77 acres of riparian habitat would be restored as a part of the proposed Project. The Project also requires approval from the USFWS to impact the species and its habitat. In addition, the Project would preserve approximately 23.03 acres of riparian habitats. MM 4.6 -1 includes construction avoidance measures to minimize the impact to the greatest extent practicable to the vireo and the riparian habitat. In addition, PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the designation and methodology of habitat restoration /preservation and indirect effect minimization measures, which would provide conservation and avoidance value to the riparian habitat and associated wildlife species including, but not limited to, the least Bell's vireo. The California least tern is not expected to forage on the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat. However, they may forage in the adjacent USACE salt marsh restoration site and the Santa Ana River. Additionally, they are not expected to occur on the Project site for nesting due to limited suitable nesting habitat and the high levels of disturbance on the Project site. Response 16 The comments are noted Response 17 The comments are noted. Response 18 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Approximately 252 acres of the 401 -acre property would be retained in open space. Response19 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 20 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools and Topical Response: ESHA. Response 21 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response 22 Please refer to the response to Comment 9. RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -988 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 23 All habitat types currently represent on the Project site would remain on the site after Project implementation. There would be no elimination of habitat, only impacts to portions of habitats present as discussed in detail in Section 4.6, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Response 24 Please refer to Topical Response: Vernal Pools. Response 25 The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not establish a time period or terms for public acquisition of the site. However, on August 11, 2009, the City Council directed that the exploration of acquisition of open space continue as the review of a development proposal proceeds. There are no terms established for public acquisition except those terms and conditions set forth by Applicant in the January 8, 2010 "Willing Buyer" letter to this specific suitor (see attached). The Applicant is proceeding with entitlement in accordance with the conditions of the Newport Beach General Plan. Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR addresses several alternatives to the Applicant's proposal including Alternative B: General Plan Open Space Designation. The acquisition process for purchase of the property for open space is addressed as a part of the analysis of Alternative B. In July 2005, the City of Newport Beach contracted with a consultant to provide services in connection with the potential acquisition of the Project site as permanent open space. The Newport Beach City Council set the following as a priority for 2008 and 2009 "Conduct an appraisal of the Banning Ranch property and assess funding available for the purchase of the property for open space ". In February 2008, the City Council appointed the Banning Ranch Appraisal and Acquisition Ad Hoc Committee to oversee the appraisal process for the Project site and the assessment of funding availability for its purchase as open space. In January 2009, the City Council authorized the City to request Measure "M" environmental mitigation funding to acquire the Project site and that request was submitted to Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). In August 2009, the City Council received the report on the feasibility of funding acquisition of the Project site for open space, which estimated the cost of property acquisition at $138,000,000.00 to $158,000,000.00. The City Council directed staff to continue exploring open space acquisition possibilities as the City moves forward with review of the property owner's development application and to continue to monitor funding opportunities and explore potential new alternatives for open space acquisition. Response 26 The Newport Banning Ranch EIR has been prepared in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15002 which states that the "The basic purposes of CEQA are to: (1) Inform governmental decision- makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. (2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. (4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved ". RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -989 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments The State CEQA Guidelines sections referenced by the commenter identify suggested page limits and clearly note that they are not mandates. The length of the Draft EIR reflects the outcome of legislation and court decisions that have required CEQA documents to examine more issues at greater levels of detail. For example, Assembly Bill 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) resulted in EIRs evaluating greenhouse gas emissions which previously was not typically done. As such, arbitrarily limiting the length of a Draft EIR to less than 150 pages (or 300 pages) would be at odds with the CEQA objectives of disclosure. As such, the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR's length would not violate CEQA or render it inaccessible to decision - makers or the public. Response 27 The Draft EIR addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Project referenced by the commenter as well as Mitigation Programs for these environmental effects. The Traffic Mitigation Program in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR includes the provision of a second southbound left -turn on Newport Boulevard at 19th Street and notes that the proposed improvement is anticipated to require modifications to the medians and incremental widening of the street on one or both sides of the roadway depending on the final design. Additional right -of- way may be required on one or both sides of Newport Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to roadway components including median hardscape and landscape. With respect to 17th Street, the Mitigation Program proposes improvements to the intersection of Newport Boulevard at 17`h Street. The Draft EIR proposes a fourth through lane on the southbound approach and a dedicated right -turn lane on the northbound approach. The proposed improvement in anticipated to require modifications to the medians and incremental widening of the street on one or both sides of the roadway depending on the final design. Improvements may also require modifications to the frontage road along the easterly side of Newport Boulevard. Additional right -of -way may be required on one or both sides of Newport Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to roadway components including median hardscape and landscape. Response 28 The site cleanup would be funded by the property owners. Response 29 The potential threat from a tsumani is addressed in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIT. The Draft EIR states .... Due to the Project's proximity to the coast, inundation by tsunami is possible, and the Lowland is located within the tsunami warning area designated in the City's General Plan. West Coast Highway and existing development lie between the Project site and the Pacific Ocean and. The proposed Project was also evaluated against a tsunami inundation map used for emergency preparedness (Newport Beach Quadrangle, CA Department of Conservation; March 15, 2009). The proposed development footprint remains out of the tsunami inundation area and the impacts from potential tsunami effects under a condition of future sea level rise are considered less than significant. It is also noted that the City has an Emergency Management Plan, which includes procedures and evacuation plans in the event of tsunamis. Therefore, risks to development areas on the Project site are considered less than significant. RT rojedsWewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -990 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Response 30 The Applicant's comments are noted Response 31 The Applicant's comments are noted Response 32 Please refer to the response to Comment 25. The opinions of Commissioner Hillgren are noted Response 33 The opinions of the Applicant are noted. Response 34 With respect to habitat restoration, please refer to the response to Comment 4. The proposed Project includes approximately 118.4 acres of proposed restoration area as native habitat either by the Applicant as a part of the Project's biological resources mitigation obligations. The exact amount of acreage within the Lowland Open Space area that would be required to be restored as native habitat to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the proposed Project has not been established because it would be subject to the approval of regulatory agencies including the USACE, CDFG, USFWS, RWQCB, and the Coastal Commission. If the Project's mitigation requirements do not require 118.4 acres, any remaining acreage requiring restoration would be placed in a reserve area (mitigation bank) or similar mechanism and may be made available to third parties seeking off -site areas to fulfill their respective mitigation obligations. The area would be restored in accordance with the Project's Habitat Restoration Plan. Response 35 The exhibit the commenter is referring to is from Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR and is only intended to illustrate turning movements. A more detailed representation of the Bluff Road/West Coast Highway intersection is provided on Sheet 7 of the Tentative Tract Map provided as Exhibit 3 -14 in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR). RT rojedsWewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc 3 -991 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments NEWPORT BANNING RANCH January 6, 2011 Steve Ray Banning Ranch Conservancy P.O. Box 16071 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -6071 Re: Newport Banning Ranch "Willing Buyer" Letter Dear Mr. Ray: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your request for a "willing seller" letter from the owners of the Newport Banning Ranch property ("NBR ") to assist you in your efforts to locate and secure funding for acquisition of NBR as open space. You will recall, before your request for such a letter can be presented to the owners for their consideration, we have asked you to produce a "willing buyer" letter that would outline the various terms that would be pre- requisites to any discussion regarding an acquisition of the property. Although you previously committed to do so in September 2010, we have not received anything from you. You have instead amended your commitment to ask us for an outline of terms that would need to be addressed in any "willing buyer" letter. This letter responds to that request. Once we receive your "willing buyer" letter, we will present that to the owners for their consideration. As you know, NBR site is a very complex piece of property. ]'he land is heavily impacted by more than 60 years of intensive oil production activity encumbering most of the surface. These operations are governed by an entity separate and apart from the NBR surface ownership group. Any re -use or acquisition discussion will need to deal with the issues related to this diverse reality of surface and mineral ownership and rights thereto. Nevertheless we understand that, despite the passage of nearly five years since City Council and voter approval of the General Plan Update without any apparent progress thus far in securing public or private funds, you desire to continue to pursue the "open space" alternative. On the other hand, we continue to believe that the second option in the General Plan, a limited, mixed -use residential village to be developed pursuant to a comprehensive development plan, is the only achievable alternative — and one that will clean, restore, and protect more than 60% of the property as permanent open space at no cost to the public. In order to respond to your request, the following is intended to outline a number of important areas of concern and terms that would have to be definitively addressed in any Newport Banning Ranch LLC "C ","I I f.1 ,i_. . 1949.N33.0222 1 1, 1, !01IFr:., '.o.." T]14.57].9154 j r I]' ',I•i III . R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512.doc 3 -992 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Banning Ranch Conservancy "Willing Buyer" Letter January 6, 2011 potential "willing buyer" letter to acquire the property pursuant to the open space alternative: Nothing herein implies the NBR owners are willing sellers and that decision can only be made by the owners and their respective boards who retain the sole and unfettered discretion to accept or reject such a notion. Identification and Qualification of Proposed Buyer ('Buyer ") • Evidence that Buyer is anon -profit corporation or similar entity formed for the primary or exclusive purpose of acquiring, preserving and maintaining open space and that has the ability to pay the Purchase Price (see definition below). • Description of Buyer's management team and related experience documenting Buyer's strategy and providing evidence as to Buyer's capabilities related to oil field clean -up, habitat restoration, and long -term management of the property. Oil Remedialion and Clean -up • Under the General Plan open space alternative there would be no regulatory requirement or financial incentive for the mineral rights owner to consolidate surface operations. 1-low does the Buyer propose to handle this matter? • How do you propose to handle the fundamental issue of seller indemnification and release of liability? Restoration Without the economic incentive for consolidation of oil operations or funding necessary for remediation that is directly associated with the limited development alternative in the General Plan (being pursued by the owners of NBR), public access and habitat restoration is likely to be delayed significantly, or could only occur in small areas around and intermixed with the complex network of existing oil roads, un- remediated areas, wells, and other facilities. How does the Buyer propose to handle this matter? Valuation Issues Commitment to methodology for valuation. The Purchase Price shall mean the fair market value of Newport Banning Ranch as determined by an appraisal prepared by an MAI appraiser selected by NBR from a list of MAl appraisers mutually agreed to by the City of Newport Beach and NBR, and shall assume that all costs have been expended by NBR. to fully remediate the Newport Banning Ranch for the development alternative purposes. Costs and fees to acquire entitlements shall not be included in the Purchase Price. The appraisal would use the General Plan's Development Alternative (including 1,375 market rate residential units) as the highest and best use, and shall assume (i) receipt of all requisite governmental entitlements, subdivision maps, approval of engineering plans and other permits (other than building permits) for development on not less than 40% of the NBR, and (ii) that the .Development Agreement is in effect. R:TrgectsWewp MJO15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -993 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Banning Ranch Conservancy "Willing Buyer" Letter January 6, 2011 While not endorsing City efforts, it should be noted that a Consultative Pricing Study independently performed by the City in 2009 derived a value for the property in excess of $200,000,000. No Partial Acouisitions Acknowledgement that Buyer intends to purchase entire property at close of escrow and that there are no proposed partial acquisitions. Funding Issues Detailed identification of Buyer's non - contingent funding sources and evidence of commitments. Other • Acknowledgement that NBR will continue to process the applications necessary to develop the limited mixed -use residential village, as authorized by the General Plan. • Acknowledgement that Buyer would work with the City of Newport to resolve public roadway and parks needs. • Acknowledgement that NBR, if acquired, be deed restricted in perpetuity for open space In closing, we would like to reiterate our many prior solicitations to you and the Banning Ranch Conservancy, that you consider working with us to create a consensus plan for Newport Banning Ranch.— a plan that: • Includes an appropriate development component that can help accomplish all of the challenges outlined in this letter— at no cost to the public; • Includes a major natural open space element that can serve as a centerpiece for the future Orange Coast River Park; • Includes a. role for Banning Ranch Conservancy in planning, restoring and managing the natural open space clement. We look forward to your written response to the issues raised in this letter. Thank you. Sin rely, ichacl A. Mohler N wport Banning Ran It LLC R:TrgectsWewp MJO15�RTMRTC- o31512.&c 3 -994 Responses to Environmental Comments Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments SECTION 4.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the EIR. Deleted text is shown as striktanut and new text is underlined. TABLE OF CONTENTS The Table of Contents has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: 4.14 -23 NMUSD School Capacity and Enrollment for 2010 - 2011 ..............4.14 -20 SECTION 1.0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Objective 14 on page 1 -7 has been corrected and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Implement a Water Quality Management Program within the Project site that will utilize existing proposed natural treatment systems and that will improve the quality of urban runoff from off -site and on -site sources prior to discharging into the Santa Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough. To further articulate, the following Project Objective is provided and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: 17. Provide for annexation to the Citv of Newport Beach those oortions of the Project site within the City's Sphere of Influence following approval by the City and the California Coastal Commission of the Project throuah the submittal of an application for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County fLAFCO). SECTION 3.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Objective 14 on page 3 -9 has been corrected and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Implement a Water Quality Management Program within the Project site that will utilize existing natural treatment systems and that will improve the quality of urban runoff from off -site and on -site sources prior to discharging into the Santa Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough. To further articulate, the following Project Objective is provided and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: 17. Provide for annexation to the City of Newport Beach those portions of the Project site within the City's Sphere of Influence following approval by the City and the California Coastal Commission of the Project throuah the submittal of an application for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County fLAFCO). RTrojedsW ewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Page 3 -19 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Resort Colony Road and Local Road Adjacent to the South Family Village Resort Colony Road is proposed as a public Local Road that would be accessed from Bluff Road and North Bluff Road. The loop road would provide access to the proposed Resort and Residential land use areas in the southern portion of the Project site. This roadway adjacent to the Resort Colony is proposed with one travel lane in each direction, a pe des+.,^^ ,oIL..,ay eR the iRIaR l side (aEd aGeRt to foot -wide walkways on each side of the street (Exhibit 3 -10e; Cross - Section G -G). Resort Colony Road joins the Local Road adjacent to the Reside ^F, ^I (RL ^ ^a one) I^ ^a use areas South Family Village located north of the VESWR I^ ^a use area Resort Colonv- This roadway would be constructed as a public Local Street with one travel land and one parking lane in each direction and four - foot -wide walkways on each side of the street (Exhibit 3 -10f; Cross - Section 1 -1). Page 3 -22 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The Project proposes a Master Plan for Trails and Coastal Access comprised of public pedestrian paths, on- street bicycle trails, and off - street multi -use trails to provide coastal access and public mobility within the Project site. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle trails would provide connectivity among open space, parks, residential, resort, commercial, and mixed -use on -site land uses as well as public access and connections to existing off -site public trails, including the Santa Ana River and trails located in the Talbert Nature Preserve, Fairview Regieaat Park located further to the north, and existing walks and trails extending along West Coast Highway and the beach located to the south. A Multi -use Trail, Open Space Interpretive Trails, the Bluff Park Trail, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, On- Street Bicycle Trails, and Pedestrian Walkways are proposed as a part of the Project. Section 3.7 of the Project Description has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as fol lows: 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. Following the final approval of the Project by the City and the Coastal Commission, and following consolidation of oil production wells into the OF land use district as describe in the Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan, either the Applicant or the City would file a ore - application with Orange County LAFCO requesting approval of the annexation of the 361 re portion of the Project site located in the City's Sphere of Influence to the Citv of Newport Beach. The annexation pre - application would be consistent with the terms of the Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement between the Citv and the Applicant approved by the City, with the approved pre - zoning approved by the City for the Proiect site and with the City's General Plan. Following approval or conditional approval of the annexation application, the entire 361 acres within RTrojedsW ewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence would be annexed to the City in one phase. Following completion of annexation proceedings. Project implementation may commence according to the following plan (Table 3-31. The following narrative is incorporated into the Final EIR, Section 3.0, Project Description, as Section 3.14, Annexation, to provide additional explanation regarding the annexation process. 56000 et sea. (Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2 00) for annexation of approximately 361 acres of the Project site to the City. The pre - application would be submitted pursuant to the terms of the Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement agreed to by the City and the Applicant and as approved by the City and would be consistent with the approved pre - z ning approved by the City for the Project site and the City's General Plan. As part of the annexation pre - application. the City would submit a plan for providing public services to include the type, level, range, timing, and financing of services to be extended to the Project site including requirements for infrastructure or other public facilities. the City of Newport Beach retail water agency boundary will be proposed to expand this boundary to incorporate the Project site to provide water service to sewer service boundaries would be proposed to expand this boundary to incorporate the Project site to provide sewer service for the proposed Project. No other changes of organization affecting any public agencies in the Project area would result from the development of the proposed Project or annexation of the 361 acres of the Proiect site within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence to the City of Newport Beach RTrojedsW ewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Table 3 -2 on page 3 -35 has been revised to incorporate footnote f and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows (see following page): TABLE 3 -2 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY SECTION 4.2: AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Page 4.2 -11 has been corrected and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: BP District and IP District Regulations • Maximum IP District Building Height- 36 feet59 • Maximum BP District Building Height - 18 feet • Maximum Building Coverage - 4-0 5 percent of total rg <?s site area Page 4.2 -17 of Section 4.2 has been modified and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: 59 Elevators, mechanical space, chimneys, towers and architectural treatments, intended to add interest and variation to roof design, and that do not exceed 10 percent of the roof area, or exceed the height restriction by more than 12 feet, are permitted. RTrojedsW ewpanUp151RTORTCA31512.doc Density Gross Net (dul Retail Resort Land Use Site Planning Area Acrese Acres' gross ac) Units (sf)d Inn Designation No. IDescription OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 1. Upland Habitat Conservation, Restoration, and Mitigation Areas UOS /PTF 1a I West Coast Highway Bluff Area 15.3 14.3 - 0 0 0 UOS /PTF 1b Southern Arroyo CSS /Grassland 28.3 28.0 - 0 0 0 Area UOS /PTF 1c Scenic Bluff CSS /Grassland Area 13.0 13.0 - 0 0 0 UOS /PTF 1d Vernal Pool Preservation Area 3.2? 3.2` - 0 0 0 UOS /PTF 1e South Upland CSS /Grassland 19.4 18.1 - 0 0 0 Area UOS /PTF 1f Northern Arroyo Grassland Area 5.8 5.5 - 0 0 0 UOS /PTF 1g North Upland CSS /Grassland b 16.3 13.5 - 0 0 0 Area UOS /PTF 1h Minor Arroyo Grassland Area 1.2 1.1 - 0 0 0 Subtotal 102.5 96.7 - 0 - 0 Gross acres of site planning areas are measured to the centerline of all public roads where such roads are shown on the Master Development Plan. Net acres of site planning areas are measured to the edge of the rights -of -way for all public roads where such roads are shown on the Master Development Plan (i.e., net acres exclude public road rights -of -way). " The Right -of -Way Reservation for the 19t' Street extension, from the Project site's easterly boundary to the Santa Ana River, encompasses approximately 3.1 acres, including approximately 0.6 acre of SPA 1g, 2.3 acres of SPA 2a, and 0.2 acre of SPA 3b. The Bluff Toe Trail is located within the non - exclusive access easement identified as Site Plan Area (SPA) 51b, Oil Access Road. d Up to 2,500 sf of commercial may be transferred to a Residential Land Use District in accordance with the provisions of the NBR -PC provided the total area of commercial uses for the Master Development Plan does not exceed 75,000 sf. Includes a water quality basin. f The drainage area tributary to the vernal pool contains approximately 3 acres and is composed not only of the 3.2 net acres SPA 1d, Vernal Pool Preservation Area but 0.4 net acre of the 0.6 net acre in SPA 91b Vernal Pool Interpretive Area Any and all iataqpraiiarming within SPA 9h shall respect the 3.6 -acre Vernal Pool trihutary drainage area, and meet with the aPI2 of th State and federal resource agencies and the California Coastal Commission. Source: FORMA 2011. SECTION 4.2: AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Page 4.2 -11 has been corrected and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: BP District and IP District Regulations • Maximum IP District Building Height- 36 feet59 • Maximum BP District Building Height - 18 feet • Maximum Building Coverage - 4-0 5 percent of total rg <?s site area Page 4.2 -17 of Section 4.2 has been modified and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: 59 Elevators, mechanical space, chimneys, towers and architectural treatments, intended to add interest and variation to roof design, and that do not exceed 10 percent of the roof area, or exceed the height restriction by more than 12 feet, are permitted. RTrojedsW ewpanUp151RTORTCA31512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Grading and Construction The Project is proposed to be implemented over a period of approximately mine years. SECTION 4.3: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Paragraph 2 of page 4.3 -6 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The Lowland area encompasses approximately 147 acres in the northwest portion of the Project site at an average elevation of 1 to 10 feet-abeve -msl. This area consists of remnants of the Santa Ana River floodplain and contains channels conveying drainage from surrounding areas at higher elevations to the Santa Ana River through the Semeniuk Slough (also known as Oxbow Loop) (see Exhibit 3 -3, Existing Topographic Site Conditions, Section 3.0, Project Description). SECTION 4.4: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 4.4 -6 has been updated and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Municipal Storm Water Permitting (MS4 Permit) The State's Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from MS4s. MS4 Permits were issued in two phases. Phase I was initiated in 1990, under which the RWQCBs adopted NPDES storm water permits for medium (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (serving more than 250,000 people) municipalities. As part of Phase II, the SWRCB adopted a General Permit for small MS4s (serving less than 100,000 people) and non - traditional small MS4s including governmental facilities such as military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes (WQ Order No. 2003- 0005 -DWQ). R8-2010-0062). Re- issuance of this permit would result in future changes to the new developments and redevelopment projects. As part of the Permit requirements, the County of Orange as the Principal Permittee and the co- WQMP and accompanying Technical Guidance Document was approved by the Santa Ana RWQCB on May 19. 2011 with an effective implementation date of 90 days following the approval (August 17. 2011). so Hydromodifcation is generally defined as the alteration of natural flow characteristics. RTrojedswewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Page 4.4 -7 Orange County Storm Water Program 2003- Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires that municipal NPDES Permits include requirements (1) to essentially prohibit non -storm water discharges into municipal storm sewers and (2) to control the discharge of pollutants from municipal storm drains to the maximum extent practicable. In response to this requirement, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) was developed in 1993, which has been updated several times in response to requirements associated with NPDES permit renewals (County of Orange et al. 2003). The City is a permittee covered by the requirements of this permit. The next major update of the OC DAMP is expected in 2012 and would include the incorporation of the 2011 Model WQMP and accompanying Technical Guidance Document. Pages 4.4 -9 and 4.4 -10: /tv of Newport Beach Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Water Qua /itv anaaement P /an /WQMPI The City's Local Implementation Plan (LIP) was prepared as part of a compliance program pursuant to the Third Term NPDES Permit. The LIP presents the actions, activities and programs undertaken by the City, as well as current activities and programs, to meet the requirements of the NPDES Permit and to improve urban water quality. The City updates its LIP annually and the last updated included the Fourth Term NPDES Permit, New Model WQMP and Technical Guidance Document. Although the LIP I ietee,de,d to a the bas's fe.- City a plianee .duFing the five yeaF peFie_d of the I ID is „hieet to e,tif Atonns ;;Rd updates ee the City .deter...ieee .. or as .tireete.d by The LIP, 1R ee..i.ie.Niee ..,7th the Geu Rty DAMP ie the erieei eel polio., eerl ui.dar.ee ,deeUr..eet for the Git y a AIDIICQ Storm 1Alater Dre..ro... SeetinRs A 7 0 and A 4 0 of the LIP address new .deyelepMe..t e...d ..ifleer.t re.de„elee...e..t e..trels fer i retiee DAADe Rte a eetel G9MpIdaRGe Aete !le May 22 2009 , .. the Cede Ae o1 QG13 r issued the A.4534 Permit fer the .. SaRte Ae Deeler. ef QFaRge (`eY..ty tflrrder RO 2009 _0030\ Re_issuaRAP. of the fourth term of this permit resulted i eheeees to the 2003 -DAMP e...d Git., of Newpert QeaGh LIP peal ster.... ,..ter a This updated CeuFth Ter... a ...it elu dee new FeqUiFeFnents erteieiee to hydFeme.difioatien and le.., impaet deyelepmeRt (1=19) featu Fes aRRARiated yilth new develepmeRts aRQ re,deyeelle....,er. to Bete UPthie 42 .RARthe a#pr the a ...it e.deetiee , th ....Model e re....t., of nree a the Drieei He el Dermie .et fiRalize a \A QMP that inGGFPGFates feasibility eriterie for LID and by dremerl'.fieetien reqUireMentS. CellewiRg the SaRte A..e D1 QGB's a .el of the Mendel \A QMP the Git., will he r real to Update their LIP peal et..rm ,`.ter a e.d i rote the Model \A/(IAAD their .di ,el ae,., lnie�a.ssrcite ^ ^r., ^ ^sse for -:,ew R \ProjeclsWewporAJ0151RTC \RTC -031512.doc 4 -6 Ciarifieations and Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments LID features associated with new developments and redevelopment oroiects. The 2011 Model WQMP and accompanying Technical Guidance Document was developed to incorporate the LID hierarchy criteria and hvdromodification requirements. The prescribed hierarchy of treatment for site design and LID features in ranking order includes infiltration. evapotranspiration. harvest/use biotreatment, and treatment control BMPs. In addition to the LID hierarchy hvdromodification controls for the 2 -year storm event have been added for all priority projects- As required by the City's municipal ordinances on storm water quality management, a project's WQMP must be submitted to the City for approval prior to the City issuing any building or grading permits. Since the proposed Project includes the development in multiple categories listed above (e.g., residential and commercial uses, parking), the Project is subject to the requirements of the City's WQMP. This includes meeting as all of the new requirements of the updated Fourth Term MS4 Permit and associated revised LIP. These updated requirements may will include LID features, hvdromodification controls, and erosion /sediment controls. SECTION 4.5: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: There are two existing schools and one Community College campus (under construction) located within approximately' /4 mile of the Project site: • Whittier Elementary School, 1800 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa; located approximately 1/4 mile to the east. • Carden Hall, 1541 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach; located }F44 a adiacent to the Proiect site's eastern boundary. • oast Community College District's Newport Beach Learning Center, an educational facility for college students, adult education, and high school - aged students, located adiacent to the Proiect site's eastern boundary. ....On -site oilfield and other remedial activities would result in potentially greater release of contaminants, predominantly hydrocarbons, into the air during soil disturbance due to aeration during handling (i.e., earth moving) of the contaminated soils than occurs in the existing condition. Section 4.10, Air Quality, of this EIR addresses the construction and operational air quality emissions anticipated from the proposed Project. The air quality analysis determines that there would be less than significant impacts related to emissions during remedial activities on the Project site. Also, the majority of the Project site is located further than' /4 mile from existing kindergarten through 12`h grade schools and the under - construction Coast Community College District's Learning Center. Based RTrojedsW ewpartll015,RTORTC- 031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments on these factors, there would be a less than significant impact to existing and r cj schools from temporary handling of contaminated soils on the Project site during oilfield consolidation and remediation. Off -site transport of impacted materials is planned to be minimized as part of the overall remedial approach.... Therefore, with implementation of SC 4.5 -1, there would be a less than significant impact related to transport of soils within '/ mile of existing and under - construction schools. With proposed Project implementation, the extent of oilfield operations would be consolidated onto 2 areas totaling 16.5 acres, which would be located along the southwestern margin of the Project site and more than '/4 mile from existing schools and the under - construction Learning Center, and the proposed residential, commercial, recreational, visitor - serving, and open space land uses would not emit or otherwise handle hazardous materials, substances, or wastes (see PDF 4.5 -1). The nature of anticipated future oilfield operations in the consolidated area would not be different than the existing operations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to schools in the Project vicinity. Impact Summary: Less than Significant. There would be a less than significant impact to the existing schools and the under - construction Learning Center within '/4 mile of the Project site and /or from off -site haul routes during on- site remedial activities and proposed Project construction with implementation of SC 4.5 -2. There would be no impact to existing and under - construction schools within '/4 mile of the Project site from proposed Project operations as continued oil operations are proposed pursuant to PDF 4.5 -1 to be limited to two consolidated oil facilities located along the southwestern portion of the Project site. SECTION 4.6: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MM 4.6 -6 has been revised to address potential bird strike issues as follows: MM 4.6 -6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .... T rotect bird species on site. any front glass railings, screen walls. fences and gates that occur adjacent to Project natural open space areas shall be required to use materials designed to minimize bird strikes. Such materials may consist. all or in part. of wood: metal: frosted or partially- frosted glass. Plexiglas or other visually permeable barriers that are designed to prevent creation of a bird shall be installed to provide coverage consistent with manufacturer specifications. All materials and coatings shall be maintained throughout the life of the development to ensure continued effectiveness at addressing bird strikes and shall be maintained at a minimum in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Prior to issuance of a grading permit. the Applicant shall submit plans showing the location design. height and materials of glass railings, fences_ screen walls and gates for the review and approval to the City and a qualified Biologist. RTrojedsW ewpaTJ0151RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments SECTION 4.8: RECREATION AND TRAILS Pages 4.8 -4 through 4.8 -5 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The City of Huntington Beach is located immediately west of and across the Santa Ana River from the Project site. City recreational facilities within two miles of the Project site include Gisler Park, Bauer Park, Burke Park, Sowers Park, Edison Park, Seeley Park, Eader Park, Le Bard Park, and Hawes Park. These park facilities offer a variety of recreational amenities including picnic areas, athletic fields, and tot lots. While these parks are located near the Project site, their main function is to serve the residents of the City of Huntington Beach, and they are not intended to serve the recreational demand of residents outside of the City. SECTION 4.9: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Page 4.9 -27 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Mitler Improvements on 19th Street would be required to connect... Table 4.9 -38 has been changed and incorporated into the Final EIR to reflect the following corrections: TABLE 4.9 -38 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AND 19TH STREET BRIDGE: MPAH NETWORK ALTERNATIVE Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 1 Monrovia Ave /16th St S 0.31 A .35 A 2 Placentia Ave /15th St S 0.50 A 0.56 A 3 Superior Ave /15th St S 0.51 A 0.51 A 4 Superior Ave /Placentia Ave S 0.63 B 0.50 A 5 Newport Blvd /Hospital Rd S 0.63 B 0.75 C m 6 Orange St/W. Coast Hwy S 0.74 C 0.77 C 0 7 Prospect St/W. Coast Hwy S 0.88 D 0.81 D °- 3 8 Superior Ave /W. Coast Hwy S 0.90 D 0.85 D Z 9 Newport Blvd /W. Coast Hwye S 0.89 D 0.69 B 10 Riverside Ave /W. Coast Hwy S 0.74 C 0.90 D 11 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy S 0.61 B 0.84 D 12 Dover Dr /W. Coast Hwy S 0.79 C 0.90 D 13 Magnolia St/Hamilton Ave S 0.73 C 0.74 C 14 Bushard St/Hamilton Ave S 0.51 A 0.63 B 0 15 Brookhurst St/Hamilton Ave (Victoria St) S 0.77 C 1.00 E ED 16 Magnolia SUBanning Ave S 0.61 B 0.51 A a 17 Bushard St/Banning Ave S 0.69 B 0.76 C m 18 Brookhurst St/Banning Ave S 0.45 A 0.51 A 19 Magnolia St/Pac ific Coast Hwy S 0.82 D 1.18 F = 20 Brookhurst St/Bushard St S 0.30 A 0.32 A 21 Brookhurst St/Pacific Coast Hwy S 0.73 C 0.91 B E RTrojedswewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 22 Placentia Ave /Victoria St S 0.71 C 0.81 D 23 Pomona Ave /Victoria St S 0.70 B 0.82 D 24 Harbor Blvd /Victoria St S 0.66 B 0.77 C 25 Newport Blvd/Victoria St S 0.48 A 0.44 A 26 Newport Blvd /Victoria St (22nd St) S 0.86 D 0.53 A 27 Whittier Avail 9th St S 0.84 D 0.78 C 28 Monrovia Ave /19th St S 0.79 C 0.75 C 29 Placentia Ave /19th St S 0.54 A 0.57 A y 30 Pomona Ave /19th St S 0.57 A 0.73 C a 31 Anaheim Ave /19th St S 0.57 A 0.68 B N 32 Park Ave /19th St S 0.53 A 0.60 A ° U 33 Harbor Blvd /19th St S 0.49 A 0.63 B 34 Newport Blvd /19th St S 1.08 F 1.03 F 35 Newport Blvd /Broadway S 0.69 B 0.87 D 36 Newport Blvd /Harbor Blvd S 0.78 C 1.12 F 37 Newport Blvd /18th St (Rochester St) S 0.82 D 1.09 F 38 Placentia Ave /18th St S 0.46 A 0.48 A 39 Whittier Ave /17th St S 0.41 A 0.52 A 40 Monrovia Ave /17th St S 0.34 A 0.44 A 41 Placentia Ave /17th St S 0.39 A 0.49 A 42 Pomona Ave /17th St S 0.51 A 0.54 A 43 Superior Avail 7th St S 0.80 C 0.80 C 44 Newport Blvd /17th St S 0.83 D 0.93 E 45 Orange Ave /17th St S 0.42 A 0.61 B m 46 Santa Ana Ave /17th St S 0.43 A 0.51 A 47 Tustin Ave /17th St S 0.44 A 0.57 A 0 0 48 Irvine Ave /17th St S 0.64 B 0.91 E U 49 Placentia Ave /16th St S 0.25 A 0.30 A 50 Superior Ave /16th St S 0.57 A 0.50 A 51 Newport Blvd /16th St S 0.68 B 0.75 C 52 N. Bluff Rd/Victoria St S 0.93 E 0.87 D 53 N. Bluff Rd /19th St S 0.64 B 0.72 C 54 N. Bluff Rd /17th St S 0.58 A 0.59 A ° 55 Bluff Rd /16th St U 0.25 A 0.33 A y 56 Bluff Rd /15th St S 0.29 A 0.35 A O 57 Bluff Rd/West Coast Hwy S 0.79 C 0.82NA D 57a 17th St/West Coast Hwy S 0.71 C 0-.82 C 57b 171" SU1510 St S 0.31 A 0.43 A Notes: S = Signalized, U= Unsignalized Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F. Intersection operation is expressed in volume -to- capacity (v /c) for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology. CMP intersection Source: Kimley -Horn 2011. R:\ProjedsW ewpaTJW &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments The names of two of the SR -55 alternatives have been changed on pages 4.9 -133 and -134 and are incorporated into the Final EIR as follows. The " ^4*'^^' T- AFmo^^' F^h^^ ^^^ s ;Rt Elevated Turn Lanes Alternative proposes improvements in increments, by first addressing 17th and 19th Streets and Superior Avenue to improve congestion within the corridor. This alternative would study whether improvements at the two ends of the corridor are adequate to address congestion along the entire corridor, and determine the effects of such a strategy. The Vei4in^' T^'^'i^^' F^h^^^^meR Elevated Turn Lanes Alternative represents a constrained network with improved mobility to 19th Street on the west side of Newport Boulevard by adding: • A ramp braid at the southbound Newport Boulevard tie -in at the SR -55; • A free -right turn lane from Newport Boulevard to 19th Street (existing bus turn -out to the west would be relocated); and, • An eastbound 19th Street to northbound SR -55 flyover structure. The Cut4cbver Freei.A.Fay Along Newport BouleyaFd Cut and Cover Alternative would involve the construction of an entirely new structure below Newport Boulevard. The alternative would provide a four -lane controlled access freeway under Newport Boulevard from 19th Street to Industrial Way and an interchange at 19th Street. Newport Boulevard would be maintained as an eight -lane arterial with side street access. SECTION 4.10: AIR QUALITY The references to URBMEIS has been changed to CalEEMod in the Final EIR as follows: Page 4.10 -7 Fugitive dust emissions (PM10) were calculated using the IRREMIS .., ^a^ CaIEEMod, USEPA's AP -42, and SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Emissions from operation of the residential, commercial, and other Project development after completion were calculated using URBMMIS CaIEEMod. TAC emissions were determined from the generated PM 10 and VOC emissions. Page 4.10 -20 The results of the URBMMIS CaIEEMod calculations for Project construction are shown in Table 4.10 -7, which shows the estimated maximum daily emissions for each construction year. Appendix G of the EIR includes the CalEEMod model output details, including unmitigated and mitigated emissions on site and off site for each construction activity for each year; Table 4.10 -7 summarizes the findings. The data are compared with the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds. RTrojedsW ewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Revised Tables 4.10 -7 and 4.10 -8 have been revised and are incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: TABLE 4.10 -7 (REVISED MARCH 2012) ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS: UNMITIGATED' Year voc NOx CO sox PM10 PM2.5 2014 2813 467 -10Z 93134 <0.5 44 449 2015 2922 423122 423130 <0.5 485Z 3311 2016 2519 445 -1D4 408 -116 <0.5 2929 489 2017 3425 46-5-125 454-M <0.5 3715 U1D 2018 2712 8251 87 <0.5 4520 5 2019 3219 4&3-U 4- 28-142 <0.5 2296. 6 2020 4714 I 53A15 8711 <0.5 4-�a2- 3 2021 425 2-522 4693 <0.5 916 1 2022 445 2320 44-El <0.5 915 1 2023 441_. 2219 42A9 <0.5 916 1 SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 4.10 -6) 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No No No VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; Sox: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Notes: Detailed data in Appendix G. ` In pounds per day TABLE 4.10 -8 (REVISED MARCH 2012) ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS: MITIGATED - TIER 3 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT' Year voc NOx co sox PM10 PM2.5 2014 89 4299 9357 <0.5 4041 79 2015 17 60-822 328 -136 <0.5 4357 8-14 2016 16 `57-73 4.9 -124 <0.5 26-39 7-9 2017 2414 83100 463` 185 <0.5 34-49 811 2018 2312 44M 9593 <0.5 4321 45 2019 28-20 6879 439 -150 <0.5 233$ 6 8 2020 47-15 48-51 93114 <0.5 48-33 3-4 2021 441 2425 4755 <0.5 4812 2 2022 44-2 2425. 4693 <0.5 401Z 2 2023 442 2324 4351 <0.5 481Z 2 SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 4.10 -6) 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; Sox: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Notes: Detailed data in Appendix G. In pounds per day RTrojedsW ewpaTJn151RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments The following mitigation measure is proposed and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM 4.10 -13 Odor Complaints. The future homeowners associations for Newport Banning Ranch shall be required to advise residents that complaints shall be provided to prospective buyers /tenants of residential development regarding the potential of odors from the Project. The impact summary is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed applicable thresholds in some construction years. MM 4.10 -1 would reduce the emissions to less than significant. u,...,, yeF the availability of suff '.'nn4 T'n. 4 ' nn4nnHa „ o n'f pan4 And W Aida 1 " SECTION 4.11: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS To further encourage the use of electric vehicles, MM 4.11 -5 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM 4.11 -5 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for multi - family buildings with subterranean parking and the resort inn, the Applicant shall submit for approval to the Community Development Director that the plans include the (1) the designation of a minimum of three percent of the parking spaces for electric or hybrid vehicles and (2) installation of facilities for Level 2 electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible. Prior to the issuance of each building permit for residential buildings with attached garages, the Applicant shall submit for approval to the Community Development Director that the plans (1) identify a specific place or area for a Level 2 charging station could be safely installed in the future: (2) includes the necessary conduit to a potential future Level 2 charging station: and (3) the electrical load of the building can accommodate a Level 2 charging station. SECTION 4.12: NOISE Page 4.12 -10 has been revised and is incorporated of the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.12 -1, which is included in the Project to reduce construction noise to sensitive noise receptors, would also be applicable to the Learning Center. Exhibit 4.12 -3 has also been updated. Activities usually associated with sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, talking, reading, and sleeping. Land uses often associated with sensitive receptors include residential dwellings, hotels, hospitals, day care centers, and educational facilities. The surrounding noise - sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site are described below and shown in Exhibit 4.12 -3. ..East. Residential developments, including single - family residences on the southwestern corner of 17th Street and Monrovia Avenue; multi - family RTrojedsW ewparfiMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments residences and mobile homes on 15'h Street west of Placentia; the California Seabreeze and Parkview Circle communities, located generally between 191h Street and 18`h Street in the City of Costa Mesa contiguous to the Project site; and several mobile home parks, including a development at 17`h and Whittier.... an educational facility for high school -aged students, college students and adult education).... MM 4.12 -10 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM 4.12 -10 Loading docks shall be sited to minimize noise impacts to adjacent residential areas. If loading docks or truck driveways are proposed as part of the Project's commercial areas within 200 feet of an existing home, an 8- foot -high screening wall shall be constructed to reduce potential noise impacts. SECTION 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES On pages 4.14 -2 to 4.14 -12 of Section 4.14, the term "mutual aid" has been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR with the term "automatic aid ". Page 4.14 -3, the second sentence under Methodology been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: To assist the Fire Department, the City retained the firm, Fire Force One, to evaluate the City's ability to provide adequate response to the Project site a of the evaluation of existing fire station sites and three potential locations for future fire station sites RG I.A.Q-11 W the West n1,.,.,port area and the Gity wtaele. Page 4.14 -3, under Existing Conditions has been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The Costa Mesa Fire Department provides fire protection services through a44 auiemaiis aid a cooperative agreement to the Newport Terrace residential community located north of 19th Street in the City of Newport Beach. Page 4.14 -4, the first paragraph under Fire Department Response Times and Number of Calls for Service has been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The City of Newport Beach Fire Department's Policy Manual, agpKeved uuu by the Fire Department in January 2010, identifies policies of the Fire Department related to operating procedures including but not limited to response time objectives. Policy 3.A.100, Department Goals, of the Fire Department's Policy Manual identifies the standard operating procedures for the Fire Department and states "Provide a safe, effective and expeditious response to requests for assistance' (NBFD 2010). Page 4.14 -6, the first paragraph under to Fire Department Response Times and Number of Calls for Service has been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: RTrojedsW ewporW0151RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments The City's "turnout time' and "travel time" values are based upon national standards published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) in its Standard 1710, "Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments ", 2010 edition. The City has adopted the response time goals identified in NFPA Standard 1710 which states "the fire department's fire suppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within a 240 - second travel time to 90 percent of the incidents as established in Chapter 4" (Fire Force One 2010). The maximum response times are intended to be met 90 percent of the time. Acceptable delays that can be attributed to the remaining 10 percent include units out of service for training and maintenance, the closest unit is already assigned to another call, fire inspections in which the crew is a distance away from their apparatus and similar instances. Table 4.14 -3 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: TABLE 4.14 -3 NEWPORT -MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR 2010 -2011 School (Grade Level) Net School Capacity' Enrollment° Available Capacity Elementary (K -6) 2 7' 11,528 950 Secondary (7 -12) 11,361 10,275 1,086 District Total 23,47-3 21,803 LM a Zareczny 2919 2011_ Zareczny 2949 2011_ Note: Ungraded elementary and secondary students are included into calculations. Table 4.14 -4 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: TABLE 4.14 -4 AVAILABLE CAPACITY AT EXISTING NEWPORT -MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS NEAREST TO THE PROJECT SITE RTrojedswewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Net School Available Distance to the School Name Capacity' Enrollment° Capacity Project Site (mi) Elementary Schools Newport Elementary 4� 429 2.2 if Newport Heights Elementary 584 637 () 2.8 Pomona Elementary (351) �) 2.6 48.5 Rea Elementary 530 445 2.8 577 LIL2 Victoria Elementary � 384 3.2 ) RTrojedswewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Page 4.14 -8 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: In accordance with SB 50, the construction of new schools requires a school district to match State funds. The local match is typically provided by such funds as developer fees, local General Obligation bonds, and /or Mello -Roos CFD ( "Special Taxes" that can be levied on property owners of newly constructed homes within a CFD). obtained funding f8F expansion Of 88ROFa ElementaFy an Gesta Mesa in 0002 62 The second paragraph under the heading "Local Funding" on page 4.14 -8 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: In November 2005, residents within the boundaries of the NMUSD passed a local Measure F authorizing the sale of $282 million in General Obligation bonds. In a resolution adopted by the School Board on June 13, 2006, the School District approved the tax rate of $18.87 for every $100,000 of assessed values for the repayment of the bonds. Measure F is the second successful General Obligation bond in the School District. Measure A was passed by the NMUSD voters in June 2000 and authorized the sale of $110 million in General Obligation bonds. Measure A funds Gampus thFe ,,.hAut the a,S+.,Pt and to o Rd SGhe9l GapaGity di6tFiGt woe were used by the School District to modernize everyK -12 school campus throughout the District for ADA compliance. Fire Life Safety, Utility, Technology Upgrades and Interior /Exterior improvements. Measure A projects were completed in 2007. u ... ... .. III - .. .. .--. .. .. - R \ProjedswewpoTJm 51RTC1RTC -031512.doc Net School Available Distance to the School Name Capacityo Enrollment° Capacity Project Site (mi) Whittier Elementary 99 799 7 2.4 Middle Schools Ensign Middle 1,228 1,079 149 2.0 High School Newport Harbor High 2,844 2,511 333 2.3 Subtotal Elementary Schools Q 49A 3,212 ( N/A Subtotal Middle Schools 1,228 1,079 149 N/A Subtotal High School 2,844 2,511 333 N/A Total Capacity 6,802 424 N/A Note: The distances were taken from the crossing of West Coast Highway at Industrial Park Way in Newport Beach. ` Zareczny29192411. ° Zareczny 29442011(Ungraded elementary and secondary students are included into calculations). Page 4.14 -8 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: In accordance with SB 50, the construction of new schools requires a school district to match State funds. The local match is typically provided by such funds as developer fees, local General Obligation bonds, and /or Mello -Roos CFD ( "Special Taxes" that can be levied on property owners of newly constructed homes within a CFD). obtained funding f8F expansion Of 88ROFa ElementaFy an Gesta Mesa in 0002 62 The second paragraph under the heading "Local Funding" on page 4.14 -8 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: In November 2005, residents within the boundaries of the NMUSD passed a local Measure F authorizing the sale of $282 million in General Obligation bonds. In a resolution adopted by the School Board on June 13, 2006, the School District approved the tax rate of $18.87 for every $100,000 of assessed values for the repayment of the bonds. Measure F is the second successful General Obligation bond in the School District. Measure A was passed by the NMUSD voters in June 2000 and authorized the sale of $110 million in General Obligation bonds. Measure A funds Gampus thFe ,,.hAut the a,S+.,Pt and to o Rd SGhe9l GapaGity di6tFiGt woe were used by the School District to modernize everyK -12 school campus throughout the District for ADA compliance. Fire Life Safety, Utility, Technology Upgrades and Interior /Exterior improvements. Measure A projects were completed in 2007. u ... ... .. III - .. .. .--. .. .. - R \ProjedswewpoTJm 51RTC1RTC -031512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Page 4.14 -12 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Therefore, followina annexation of 361 acres of the Project site located in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence to the City, the entire Proiec can be adequately served through the use of existing City of Newport Beach fire and emergency medical services as well use of fire and emergency medical services provided through the City's mutual aid agreement with adjacent jurisdictions, the latter as needed. The plan for provision of fire protection and emeraencv medical services to the Proiect site meets the criteria for approval of the annexation Page 4.14 -16 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The Police Department's operating budget is generated through tax revenues, penalties and service fees, and allowed government assistance. Facilities, personnel, and equipment expansion and acquisition are tied to the City budget process and tax -base expansion. Tax -base expansion from development of the proposed Project would generate funding for the police protection services. Implementation of SCs 4.14 -4 and 4.14 -5 related to site security and building and site safety design recommendations would ensure adequate police protection services can be provided to the Project site following annexation of 361 acres of City of Newport Beach can provide continuous and reliable police protection services to the Proiect. Therefore, the Project's impact on police protection services would be less than significant. Page 4.14 -19 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The State is also involved in deciding the structure of local schools. For example, in August 1996, the State Senate passed SB 1777 (1996 -1997 Class Size Reduction Program) and SB 1789 (Class Size Reduction Facilities Funding Program). These programs together (1) provide incentive monies to local school districts to lower class sizes for kindergarten through the third grades (K -3) to a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher and (2) provide funds for additional teaching stations. However, the loading factor that the State uses to calculate school building capacity is 25 students per elementary classroom (K -6) and 27 students per middle and high school classroom (grades 7 -12) (OPSC 2008). The NMUSD implements Class Size Reduction policies in grades K -3. For the purposes of analyzing school impacts herein, NMUSD's Net Capacity is used. It is defined as the total number of classrooms with 25 stud°°'° OR °°^h ^'a°°•° fti ° °° 63 Protected program classroom uses include special education, science labs, resource support programs, music, libraries, and computer labs. RTrojedsW ewparftMl &RTMRTGA31512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Page 4.14 -26 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The Library has also indicated that the Project would not create a need for new or expanded library facilities. As a result, there would be no significant physical impacts to library facilities resulting from the proposed Project following annexation of 361 acres of the Project site located in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence to the City. As identified in SC 4.14 -1, the Applicant shall pay the required Property Excise Tax to the City for public improvements and facilities associated with the City of Newport Beach Public Library. The plan for provision of police services to the Project Site meets the criteria for approval of the annexation pursuant to Government Code Section 56668 as the City of Newport Beach can provide continuous and reliable library services to the Project. SECTION 4.15: UTILITIES The first sentence in the second paragraph on page 4.15 -16 has been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: As part of the regulat'OR management of groundwater supplies, the OCWD +s RiYBF BasiR), recharges the Orange County Groundwater Basin which generally involves recharge with Santa Ana River flows, recycled water, and imported water to maintain groundwater levels. The last sentence in the first full paragraph on page 4.15 -16 has been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The OCWD regulates manages the use of groundwater supplies through a Groundwater Basin Management Plan. A Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update was considered and adopted by the OCWD Board of Directors on July 15, 2009 (Mille F OCWD 2009). The third sentence in the third paragraph on page 4.15 -16 has been changed and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: OCWD's 2009 9Ka# Groundwater Management Plan Update estimates groundwater replenishment supplies of 61,000 afy (OCWD 2009). Page 4.15 -26 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Capacity Assurance, Management, Operation, and Maintenance Program In January 2001, the USEPA published a proposed rule intended to clarify and expand permit requirements under the Clean Water Act to further protect public health and the environment from impacts associated with sanitary sewer overflows. The proposed rule is generally referred to as the "Capacity Assurance, Management, Operation, and Maintenance Program Regulation ". The proposed Program's regulation requires development and implementation of programs intended to meet the performance standard of eliminating sanitary sewer overflows; to provide overflow emergency response plans, system evaluations, and capacity assurance plans; to conduct program audits; and to implement public communication efforts. The proposed rule was not adopted. In 2002. the RTrojedsW ewparftMl &RTMRTCA31512.doc Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Reoion, adopted Waste Discharge Requirements for sewer system owners followed by the State of California's adoption of statewide Waste Discharge Requirements. Page 4.15 -27 has been updated and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: In the vicinity of the Project site, the OCSD operates facilities in West Coast Highway as well as the Bitter Point Pump Station and three force mains located within the Project site, all of which flow to Wastewater Treatment Plant 2.... The OCSD also provides up to 494G 104 mgd of treated wastewater to the OCWD for further processing for landscape irrigation and injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. Page 4.15 -27 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: In addition to these on -site facilities, sanitary sewer facilities exist in the Project vicinity... The City of Newport Beach operates wastewater facilities adjacent to the Project site on West Coast Highway, along 19th Street, and on Ticonderoga Street.... The City of Costa Mesa Costa Mesa Sanitary District also has facilities near the Project site. Page 4.15 -29 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Effluent from the development areas would be collected and directed to the OCSD trunk sewer upstream of the Bitter Point Pump Station via 8 -, 10- and 12- inch pipes. The majority of the proposed wastewater pipelines would be constructed within the Project site and would occur within the identified development footprint evaluated throughout this EIR. An off -site sonneetien would be required an ewer stub is proposed near 16`h Street to provide future service to the adjacent to —the Newport-Mesa Unified School District property. However, the sennestien proposed sewer stub would occur within the proposed off -site road and grading footprint evaluated throughout this EIR. ..2d 2Rd V. 'Jld ROt FPS-611t OR RifiGa lit 8RViFQRMPRtAI offpGts b eyelid these Acle-IFessed as paFt of this C1° Therefore, no additional direct impacts related to construction and operation of the on -site wastewater system would occur. SECTION 5.0: CUMULTIVE IMPACTS Table 5 -2 on page 5 -18, the first two rows are modified and incorporated into the Final EIR. Table 5 -3 has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR. Exhibit 5 -4 has been updated and incorporated into the Final EIR to reflect changes to the location of several City of Huntington Beach cumulative projects. RTrojedsW ewparftMl &RTMRTC -031512.doc i 9 us.v.,r Hranos r — . � F oer ecac�rmmrRenor -I 1 I .!1- Tilt- A /neiala .. • � «H611 I � 1 .m r , T r- c.,l I- I I oSPr 9Hii�'y D r ti Santa ��' rAdn WlNr Nu,tinglon Be c .: Cos9a esa ° Iry v xmr. &acn u _ = Hew{wrt Banning HanC-n PMK1C1 •.❑Prcfmt Lo do11a M1 twaarlam.arswrmr Plalod m x wlwna �Y VaYnrp PpW Ms. PYie (aY f+mMf! HBa6 Yd Eahyn LbYito.spW Pin Bolid Ms carymnb��M.nmlienPm}r rasT PrkkWYnP R*d inierahaopdtaPepYYPen.ZOry Swft L " a9MH0 emmlEipr oJw Pacific Ocean I III I H3a' Newport Banning Ranch EIR Responses to Comments 1 I r II L 1 ,. 11'' I a e LL z •: TYL�orl Aw `` I ILL `1 ry 1Y - _ 1- •NeC i , 7 _ , �r _ rT. IT I- II T-Ck .I I . .7777-1-r-- M R. • HB? HanMI A>- 11-1,9t HBrt2 He 1a Pwto mk _Ya laym M tt: PrRWp Err..e Prep M12 Bncdu Oxaiweu F.6- LFTCJW Hnt9 Orwn Pun am,wan �tj ftb"C M" M a Hrmont caw as uxw +n Pn11Nt H31S M RcVi Projee H31H BY! irdVYTit Alkie.th4 Pyr•1 Huntington Reach Cumulative Projects Exhibit 5 -4 Mewpod Banrnrg Ranch EIR + 1 n.5 0 1 r n r�iri ieq lalf �nmi R:\ Projects \NewportU0151RTC\RTC- 031512tloc 4 -20 Clarifications and Revisions Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments TABLE 5 -2 Newland Street The project would develop and 21471 Newland St; south of Final EIR was certified in August . GP Amendment Residential subdivide a former industrial site into a residential development with 204 Lomond Dr; west of Newland St, north of the terminus of 2006. The project hAg been tea. is under construction. . Zoning Map Amendment . TTM multi - family residential units and an Hamilton Ave; 4 miles to the Please note that this project is now . CUP commonly referred to as Pacific approximate 2 -acre public park. northwest. . Final Tract Map Shores. Newland Street The project would widen Newland St Newland St from Pacific Coast IS /MND approved in April 2007. The . IS /MND approval Widening from Pacific Coast Hwy to Hamilton Hwy to Hamilton Hwy; 2 miles project ^ ' undp.,��- Annst^ • ^ "^ ^.has . No other discretionary Ave, widen the reinforced concrete to the west. been completed. actions were identified bridge at Huntington Channel, install storm drain improvements in Newland St, and raise the profile of Newland St to improve traffic visibility. The proposed widening would also address stopping sight distance deficiency by raising the road grade at the Huntington Channel and providing a left -turn lane at the intersection of Newland St and Edison Way. R:Tmje SWewpoOQOI5 \RT0RTC -031512.d= Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments TABLE 5 -3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Projects Where Construction Has Been Initiated or Completed Brightwater Specific Plan and LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS N/A LS LS LS LS Yes Annexation Huntington Beach Downtown LS S S S S S LS LS U U U U U U S Yes Specific Plan Update NIA S NYA Newland Street Residential S U S U LS S U S SU U N/A S S U S Yes Newland Street Widening LS LS LS LS LS S LS LS � LS LS LS LS LS LS Yes Ocean View High School Expansion LS Nth LS LS LS LS LS � NI LS N/A LS LS t� N/A Yes Ls Pacific City LS S S S S S S S U N/A S S S S Yes Projects With Approved CEQA Documentation Beach and Edinger Corridors LS S S S S S LS U U U us U U U U Yes Specific Plan UI — Edison Park Master Plan LS S LS LS LS S LS S AS LS N/A LS LS LS LS Yes L Goodell Property Pre - Zoning and LS LS LS LS LS S LS LS LS LS LS LS S LS LS Yes Annexation Pacific View Mixed -Use LS LS LAS S S LS LS LS LS LS N/A LS LS LS LS Yes Parkside Estates LS S S S S S N/A N/A S S N/A S LS S S Yes Poseidon Desalination Plant LS S S S LS S N/A N/A S U N/A S S S S Yes The Ridge LS LS LS LS LS _a LS LS LS LS N/A LS S LS LS Yes Projects Without Approved CEQA Documentation General Plan Circulation Element U LS LS LS LS U U LS U U U U S U LS Yes Update Harmony Cove Residential S LS S S LS S LS LS LS LS LS S LS LS LS Yes Development Beach and Warner Mixed -Use LS LS LS LS LS S LS LS S U LS S LS LS LS Yes Project R:Tmje SWewpo0Q015 \RT0RTC -031512.d= Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments Page 5 -74, the first paragraph under Cumulative Impact Analysis Fire Protection has been changed and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The City of Newport Beach Fire Department serves existing development (inclusive of past and present projects) through the facilities and staff identified in Section 4.14. The proposed Project assumes the provision of fire protection services is based on a combination of existing and planned City of Newport Beach fire services and the use of +dal automatic aid. The City participates in Central Net, an automatic mutual aid system with the Cities of Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach, and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Together, these cities and the County provide personnel to any emergency. As part of this m-Wal automatic aid agreement, the Biases a_n emergency response unit is dispatched to the emergency, regardless of jurisdictional boundary. As such, all projects in the Cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach would be assumed in the cumulative analysis for fire protection services. SECTION 9.0: REFERENCES Newport Banning Ranch LLC. 2011a (August). Newport Bannina Ranch Master Development Plan. Newport Beach. CA. Personal communication. Telephone conversation between C6. Miller (OCWD) and J. Marks (BonTerra Consulting) regarding the Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update. RT rojedsWewpaRU0151RTMRTC -031512.doc 4 -23 Clarifications and Revisions Banning Ranch EIR onses to Comments RAProjectsWewpoOM151RTORTC- 031512tloc 4 -24 Clarifications and Revisions