HomeMy WebLinkAbout1873 - RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF DEIR _NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECTRESOLUTION NO. 1873
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Newport Banning Ranch, LLC with respect to
a 401 -acre planned community for development of 1,375 residential dwelling units, a 75 room
resort inn and ancillary resort uses, 75,000 square feet of commercial uses, and
approximately 51.4 acres of parklands generally located north of West Coast Highway, south
of 19th Street, and east of the Santa Ana River. The Project site is adjacent to the City of
Costa Mesa on the east, unincorporated County on the north and west, and the existing
developed areas of the City of Newport Beach on the south and southeast. The Santa Ana
River and the City of Huntington Beach are located west of the Project site; and
WHEREAS, The application consists of the following components: a Pre - annexation
and Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport Beach
describing development rights and public benefits; General Plan Amendment to the
Circulation Element of the General Plan to delete the planned segment of 15th Street west of
Bluff Road; Code Amendment to rezone the Project site from Planned Community (PC -25) to
Planned Community (PC -57); a pre- annexation zone change is proposed for those portions
of the Project siie located within the City's Sphere of Influence from County zoning to PC -57;
Planned Community Development Plan to establish the allowable land uses, general
development regulations, and implementation and administrative procedures; Master
Development Plan to establish detailed design criteria for each land use component to guide
the review of subsequent development approvals; Tentative Tract Map to establish lots for
public dedication or conveyance, lots for residential development and conveyance to
homebuyers, and lots for financing and conveyance; Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
specifying how the project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements; and Traffic
Study Approval pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance); and
WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code
of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K -3, that the Project could have
a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report ( "EIR "); and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2009, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under
CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to public
agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2009, the City held two public scoping meetings, on for
government agencies and one for the general public, to present the proposed project and to
solicit input from interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed
in the EIR; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Pace 2 of 23
WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact
Report ( "DEIR "), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the
Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and on September 9,
2011, circulated the Draft EIR for public and agency comments; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2011 and October 17, 2011, the Environmental Quality
Affairs Committee of the City of Newport Beach held a meetings on to review and comment on
the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2011, the Planning Commission held a study session on
the Draft EIR process;
WHEREAS, a 60 -day public review and comment period closed on November 8, 2011;
and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2012, February 9, 2012, and February 23, 2012, the
Planning Commission held Study sessions on the Newport Banning Ranch project; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2012, the Planning Commission held a study session on the
Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach reviewed the comments received on the
Draft EIR during the public comment and review period, and prepared full and complete
responses thereto, and on March 16, 2012 distributed the responses in accordance with Public
Resources Code Section 21092.5; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing were held on March 22, 2012, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place,
and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. The Draft EIR, draft Responses to
Comments, and draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, staff report, and
evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition,
project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project
applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such
applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and
bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to
a successful challenger.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach certification of the Newport Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact
Report (SCH# SCH No. 2009031061) attached as Exhibit A based upon the draft Findings of
Fact attached as Exhibit B.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 3 of 23
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF MARCH, 2012.
AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Toerge, and Tucker
NOES: Myers
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Ameri and Kramer
go
1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Paqe 4 of 23
Exhibit "A"
Newport Banning Ranch
Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2009031061)
Consists of:
1. Volume 1: Draft Environmental Impact Report dated September 9, 2011
2. Volume II: Exhibits dated September 9, 2011
3. Volume III: Appendices A Through F dated September 9, 2011
4. Volume IV: Appendices G Through Z dated September 9, 2011
5. Responses to Comments and Errata dated March 2012
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated March 2012
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Pace 5 of 23
Exhibit "B"
BACKGROUND
The environmental impact report (EIR) process, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), requires the preparation of an objective, full - disclosure document in order to (1) inform agency
decision makers and the general public of the direct and indirect potentially significant environmental effects
of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible or potentially feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate
potential significant adverse impacts; and (3) identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project. In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations [CCR]), this is a Project EIR that addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with
the proposed Project, known as "Newport Banning Ranch ".
II. PROJECT LOCATION
The Newport Banning Ranch Project site (Project site) encompasses approximately 401 acres.
Approximately 40 acres of the Project site are located in the incorporated boundary of the City of Newport
Beach (City), and approximately 361 acres are in unincorporated Orange County (County) within the City's
Sphere of Influence, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Corn mission (LAFCO) of Orange
County. The entire Project site is within the boundary of the Coastal Zone, as established by the California
Coastal Act.
The Project site is generally bound on the north by the County of Orange Talbert Nature Preserve /Regional
Park in the City of Costa Mesa and residential development in the City of Newport Beach; on the south by
West Coast Highway and residential development in the City of Newport Beach; on the east by residential,
light industrial, institutional, and office development in the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach; and on
the west by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) restored salt marsh basin and the Santa Ana River.
The City of Huntington Beach is west of the Santa Ana River. At its nearest point, the Project site is less
than 0.25 mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. Because the property is an active oilfield, there is no public
access to the Project site.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The proposed Project would allow for the development of the site with residential, commercial, resort inn,
and park and recreational uses, and would provide open space uses that would permit the designation of oil
use retention and consolidation on a portion of the open space area of the Project site. The proposed
Project includes infrastructure to support the proposed land uses, including public parks and open space to
serve future Project residents and the community at large.
The 401 -acre Project site is proposed for development with 1,375 residential dwelling units (du); 75,000
square feet (so of commercial uses, and a 75 -room resort inn. Approximately 51.4 gross acres are proposed
for active and passive park uses including a 26.8- gross -acre public Community Park. Approximately 252.3
gross acres (approximately 63 percent) of the 401 -acre site are proposed for natural resources protection in
the form of open space. Of the 252.3 gross acres, approximately 16.5 gross acres would be used for interim
oil operations. Upon the future cessation of oil operations, these oil consolidation sites Would be abandoned
and remediated, and the consolidation sites would be restored as open space. The proposed Project
includes the development of a vehicular and a non - vehicular circulation system for automobiles, bicycles,
and pedestrians, including a proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge from the Project site across West
Coast Highway.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 6 of 23
The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) was adopted by the City Council on July 25, 2006,
and approved by the voters on November 6, 2006. The General Plan (1) establishes criteria and standards
for land use development and (2) provides policy and land use guidance for the City and its Sphere of
Influence. A majority of the Project site is located in the unincorporated Orange County area within the City's
Sphere of Influence with a County General Plan designation of "Open Space'. As a part of the Project, the
unincorporated area within the City's Sphere of Influence is proposed to be annexed to the City.
The Project site has a Newport Beach General Plan land use designation of OS (RV), Open
Space /Residential Village. The OS(RV) land use designation establishes a Primary Use of Open Space and
an Alternative Use of Residential Village for the Project site, as described below:
Primary Use: Open Space, including significant active community parklands that serve adjoining
residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public funding.
Alternative Use: If not acquired for open space within a time period and pursuant to terms
agreed to by the City and property owner, the site may be developed as a residential village
containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and
active community parklands, with a majority of the property preserved as open space. The
property owner may pursue entitlement and permits for a residential village during the time
allowed for acquisition as open space.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Land Use Element prioritizes the retention of the Project site for
open space. As described in the General Plan, the open space acquisition option could include
consolidation of oilfield operations; restoration of wetlands; and the provision of nature education and
interpretative facilities and an active park containing playfields and other facilities to serve residents of
adjoining neighborhoods.
The General Plan also specifies that, if the property is not acquired for open space within a time period and
pursuant to terms agreed to by both the City and property owner, the Project site could be developed as a
Residential Village (RV) containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations,
a school, and active community parklands with a majority of the property preserved as open space.. The
General Plan identifies the maximum intensity of development allowed on the property to include up to
1,375 du, 75,000 sf of retail commercial uses oriented to serve the needs of local and nearby residents, and
75 hotel rooms in a small boutique hotel or other type of overnight visitor accommodation.
Under both the Primary Use and Alternative Use, roadways would be constructed through the Project site.
Both the Master Plan of Streets and Highways in the City of Newport Beach General Plan's Circulation
Element and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) depict roadways through the
Project site. Roadways to be constructed as part of the proposed Project include: (a) Bluff Road, a north -
south, four -lane divided road extending from West Coast Highway to 15th Street; (b) North Bluff Road,
which would transition from a four -lane divided road to a two -lane undivided road extending between 15th
Street and 19th Street; (c) an extension of 15th Street, a four -lane divided road, from its existing western
terminus at the boundary of the Project site and connecting with North Bluff Road; (d) the extension of 16th
Street, a two -lane collector roadway, from its existing terminus at the Project site's eastern boundary to
North Bluff Road; and (e) the extension of 17th Street, a four -lane divided primary roadway from its existing
terminus at the Project site's eastern boundary and connecting with North Bluff Road.
As proposed, the Project requires an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element to delete a
second road connection to West Coast Highway through the Project site from 15th Street. The traffic
analysis done for the Project demonstrates that this roadway is not needed to serve the traffic demand
associated with the proposed Project and subregional development. Therefore, construction of this second
road to West Coast Highway has not been identified as a component of the Project.
An amendment to the Orange County MPAH is also required to delete a second connection to West Coast
Highway and to redesignate North Bluff Road. The Orange County MPAH designates North Bluff Road as a
Primary (four -lane divided) to 17th Street and a Major (six -lane divided) between 17th Street and 19th
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 7 of 23
Street. An amendment to the Orange County MPAH is required to change the designation from a Major to a
Secondary (four -lane undivided) between 17th Street and 19th Street.
Half -width roadway improvements on North Bluff Road north of 16th Street for approximately 800 feet are
proposed on properly owned by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District (School District). The construction
of this segment of North Bluff Road would require acquisition by Newport Banning Ranch, LLC (Applicant)
or the authorization for use of right -of -way from the School District.
A Zone Change is being requested to pre -zone the portion of the Project site located within the City's
Sphere of Influence as Planned Community 57 (PC -57), and to amend the boundaries of PC -25 (located
within the City) to remove that portion of the Project site currently located within PC -25 and change the
zoning for this area to PC -57. The boundaries of PC -25 would be revised to include only the remaining
properties owned by the School District and the City. A Zoning Code Amendment is proposed to adopt the
"Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community" (NBR -PC).
The NBR -PC would serve as the zoning regulations for PC -57, including both the portion of the Project site
located within the City of Newport Beach and the portion of the Project site located within the County of
Orange, but within the City's Sphere of Influence. Following annexation of the areas located within the
Sphere of Influence, the NBR -PC would become effective. The NBR -PC establishes allowable land uses
within each land use district; development regulations for each land use district; general development
regulations applicable to all development within the Project site; and procedures for implementing and
administering the NBR -PC.
The proposed Project includes a request for approval of the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development
Plan (Master Development Plan). Approval of the Master Development Plan implements the NBR -PC
zoning requirements for the Project site by establishing design criteria for each proposed land use and
providing a sufficient level of detail, as determined by the City, to guide the review of subsequent
development approvals. The Master Development Plan contains Project development plans and preliminary
layouts for streets and lotting, pedestrian and vehicular accessways, open spaces, parks, and other site
features for the Project site area. City approval of the Master Development Plan is required for Project
implementation.
The Applicant is also requesting the approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 17308, which (1)
establishes lots for public dedication or conveyance; (2) easements for trails and public utilities; (3) lots for
residential development and conveyance to homebuyers; and (4) lots for financing and conveyance that
may be either developed on a residential condominium basis or win ich can be further subdivided for
purposes of development and conveyance to homebuyers. Approval of TTM No. 17308 would permit
grading, site remediation, habitat restoration, construction of drainage and water quality improvements,
backbone infrastructure, and dry and wet utilities throughout the Project site. Development of all other
proposed facilities and land uses would require recordation of a final tract map.
A Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City would also be
processed concurrent with other approvals associated with this Project.
Project implementation requires multiple approvals, permits, and /or actions as listed below
Federal
• USACE: Section 404 permit for impacts to areas determined to be "Waters of the U.S. ".
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Section 7 Consultation for potential impacts to federally listed
species.
State
G Regional Water Quality Control Board: Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the
Federal Clean Water Act; approval related to oil well /facility abandonment and site remediation.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 8 of 23
• California Department of Fish and Game: Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement.
• California Coastal Commission: Master Coastal Development Permit, including approval of the
Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan and Pre - Annexation and Development
Agreement.
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Encroachment Permit for activities in
Callrans' rights -of -way, including modification of the reinforced concrete box under West Coast
Highway and construction of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources: Site
remediation activities.
Regional and Special Districts
• Local Agency Formation Commission: Annexation approval.
• South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD): SCAQMD permits for the oilfield soil
remediation.
• County Orange County Transportation Authority: Amendment to the Orange County MPAH.
• Orange County Health Care Agency: Approval related to oil well /facility abandonment and site
remediation.
City of Newport Beach
C Certification of the Final EIR
• General Plan Circulation Amendment
• Zoning Code Amendment
• Zone Change
• Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan
• Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan
• Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP)
• Pre- Annexation and Development Agreement
• Traffic Phasing Ordinance Approval
In addition to the approvals identified above, the Project is subject to other discretionary and ministerial
actions by the City as part of Project implementation. Subsequent activities would be examined in light
of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) to determine whether additional CEQA documentation
would be required pursuant to the requirements of Section 21166 of CEQA (Public Resources Code
§21166) and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) for subsequent
approvals.
Subsequent City approvals include but are not limited to the following:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Paae 9 of 23
• Tentative and Final Tract Maps to further subdivide lots approved as part of the approval of
TTM No. 17308;
• Site Development Review Permits;
• Use Permits;
• Model Home Permits;
• Grading Permits;
• Street Improvement and Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Plans;
• Storm Drainage, Sewer, Water, and Dry Utility Plans;
• Landscaping and Park Plans;
• Building Permits;
• Encroachment Permits;
• Acquisition of rights of entry easements and rights -of -way for off -site Project improvements, as
necessary;
• Construction of Public Facilities.
IV. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Applicant has identified the following objectives for the proposed Project.
1. Provide a Project that implements the goals and policies that the Newport Beach General Plan has
established for the Banning Ranch area.
2. Preservation of a minimum of 50 percent of the Project site as open space without the use of public
funds to be used for habitat conservation, interpretive trails, and development of public parks to meet
the recreational needs of the community.
3. Development of a residential village of up to 1,375 residential units, offering a variety of housing types in
a range of housing prices, including the provision of affordable housing to help meet the City's Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
4. Development of up to 75 overnight accommodations in a small resort inn including ancillary facilities and
services such as a spa, meeting rooms, shops, bars, and restaurants that would be open to the public.
5. Development of up to 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses oriented to serve the needs of local
residents and visitors utilizing the resort inn and the coastal recreational opportunities provided as part
of the Project.
6. Development of a land use plan that (1) provides a comprehensive design for the community that
creates cohesive neighborhoods promoting a sense of identity with a simple and understandable pattern
of streets, a system of pedestrian walkways and bikeways that connect residential neighborhoods,
commercial uses, parks, open space and resort uses; (2) reduces overall vehicle miles travelled; (3)
integrates landscaping that is compatible with the surrounding open space /habitat areas and that
enhances the pedestrian experience within residential areas; and (4) applies architectural design criteria
to orient residential buildings to the streets and walkways in a manner that enhances the streetscape
scene.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 10 of 23
7. Provide for roadway improvements to improve and enhance regional circulation, minimize impacts of
Project development on the existing Circulation system, and enhance public access while not developing
more roadways than are needed for adequate regional circulation and coastal access.
8. Provide enhanced public access in the Coastal Zone through a system of pedestrian walkways, multi-
use trails, and on- street bikeways designed to encourage walking and biking as an alternative to the use
of automobiles by providing connectivity among residential, commercial, park, open space, and resort
uses within the Project site and to existing adjacent open space, hiking and biking trails, the beach, and
the Pacific Ocean.
9. Provide for the consolidation of oil resource extraction and related recovery operations in locations that
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas and promote compatibility with development of the
remainder of the properly for residential, resort, commercial, park, and open space uses.
10. Provide for the restoration and permanent preservation of habitat areas through implementation of a
Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) for the habitat conservation, restoration, and mitigation areas ( "Habitat
Areas') as depicted on the Master Development Plan.
11. Provide for long -term preservation and management of the Habitat Areas through the establishment of a
conservation easement or deed restriction and the creation of an endowment or other funding program.
12. 12. Expand public recreational opportunities within the Coastal Zone through development of a public
community park and associated parking, and through development of publicly accessible bluff parks,
interpretive parks, and trails as part of the Project.
13. Improve the existing arroyo drainage courses located within the Project site to provide for higher quality
habitat conditions than exist prior to the time of Project implementation.
14. 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.
15. Implement fire protection management solutions designed to protect development areas from fire
hazards, to preserve sensitive habitat areas, and to create fire- resistant habitat restoration areas within
currently denuded, invasive- species laden, and /or otherwise degraded areas.
16. Provide compatibility between the Project and existing adjacent land uses.
V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that "an EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,
and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives Six alternatives were evaluated. In addition, to the
six alternatives that were carried forward for evaluation in this EIR, three alternatives were considered but
not carried forward.
The alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize impacts associated with implementation of the
proposed Project. Given the nature and scale of the Project, complete avoidance of significant impacts was
not feasible for any alternative other than the No Project Alternative.
Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward
Various alternatives were evaluated as part of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update process.
Since the City of Newport Beach City Council already took action on the General Plan and provided
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Paae 11 of 23
direction on the development concept for the site, these alternatives were not carried forward. In addition, as
part of this EIR process, three alternatives were considered but not carried forward.
Development of the Project site Consistent with the County of Orange General Plan and Zoning
Designalions
The zoning for the 361 acres of the Project site within the County jurisdiction would allow for development of
up to 2,510 multi - family dwelling units, 225 single - family dwelling units, 50,000 sf of general commercial
use, 235,600 sf of general office use, and 164,400 sf of industrial uses. Overlay zones, including Oil
Production, Sign Restriction, and Floodplain Zone 2 apply to portions of the property. Development of
property pursuant to the County zoning would generate approximately 22,075 average daily trips on the
circulation network (Newport Beach 2006a, 2006b). This alternative was not retained for detailed evaluation
in the EIR because it would not reduce identified impacts of the project and would not achieve several
important project objectives.
Alternative Site
Development of the Project on an alternative site has been reviewed and eliminated from detailed
consideration due to the lack of available alternate sites meeting the majority of the objectives established
for the proposed Project. Newport Beach is almost fully developed with no other unentitled property that is
suitable for supporting a mixed -use project such as Newport Banning Ranch.
Construction of General Plan Roads
Both the City of Newport Beach General Plan Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County
MPAH depict two connections to West Coast Highway through the Project site. One connection is depicted
as extending south from 19th Street to West Coast Highway and the second roadway would extend from
15th Street past Bluff Road and connect with West Coast Highway on the western edge of the Project site.
The need for these two primary roads was based on the environmental baseline that the 2006 General Plan
Update used, which assumed more intense development on the Project site. Based on the reduced density
being proposed, only one roadway is needed to serve the travel demand. This alternative would have had
more impacts due to the need for the construction of an additional roadway.
VI. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
Alternatives analyzed in this EIR are listed and summarized below.
• Alternative A: No Action /No Development Alternative (Continuation of Existing Land Uses).
• Alternative B: Newport Beach General Plan /Open Space Designation.
• Alternative C: Proposed Project with Bluff Road Extending to 17th Street.
• Alternative D: Reduced Development and Development Area.
• Alternative E: Reduced Development Area.
• Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Area.
Alternative A: No Action /No Development Alternative (Continuation of Existing Land Uses)
Alternative A is the "no project" alternative required by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) which
allows the decisionmakers to compare the potential impacts of the proposed Project with the potential
impacts of not approving the proposed Project. Alternative A assumes existing conditions on the Project site
and the continuation and possible expansion of oil exploration and oil production operations within the
constraints of the Project site's existing California Coastal Act regulatory exemption for petroleum
production. No uses other than oil operations would occur on the Project site. Oil consolidation, clean -up,
and remediation would not occur for the foreseeable future, and public access would not be provided. At the
eventual cessation of oil production operations, well abandonment and removal of certain surface
equipment and pipelines would occur in accordance with applicable State and local regulations. This
alternative would not require an amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan or Orange County
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 12 of 23
MPAH, a zone change, a Coastal Development Permit, or any of the other actions associated with the
Newport Banning Ranch Project. The approximate 361 acres of the 401 -acre site within the City's Sphere of
Influence would not be annexed into the City of Newport Beach.
Alternative A would have greater impacts than the proposed Project when evaluating consistency with
applicable plans and policies. However, since with this alternative the site would not be annexed into the
City of Newport Beach, the City planning programs would not be applicable to the majority of the site. This
alternative would not have any impacts that are significant and unavoidable, whereas the proposed project
would have significant unavoidable impacts associated with land use compatibility (due to noise, and night
lighting), aesthetics, transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise.
Alternative B: Newport Beach General Plan /Open Space DeshpInation
The Project site is designated as OS(RV) in the City of Newport Beach General Plan's Land Use Element.
The OS(RV) land use designation allows for both a Primary Use (Open Space) and an Alternative Use
(Residential Village) on the Project site. The Land Use Element prioritizes the retention of the Project site for
open space. The Project site would have to be acquired through public or private funding by an entity
capable of restoring and maintaining the Project site and with the approval of the properly owner(s),
including the surface rights owners. As described in the General Plan, the open space acquisition option
includes consolidation of oil operations; wetlands restoration; construction of roadways; and provision of
nature education, interpretative facilities, and an active park that contains lighted playfields and other
facilities.
Alternative B would include park and open space uses, including an approximately 31.3 -gross acre
community park in the central portion of the site. Alternative B also assumes consolidation of the oilfields,
remediation of the property, and restoration of habitat including wetlands. Additionally, the following
roadways would be constructed consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan's Circulation
Element: (1) a north -south road with a southern terminus at West Coast Highway and extending to a
northern terminus at 19th Street (Bluff Road and North Bluff Road); (2) the extension of 15th Street from its
existing terminus to Bluff Road within the Project site; (3) the extension of 16th Street from its existing
terminus to Bluff Road within the Project site; and (4) the extension of 17th Street from its existing terminus
to Bluff Road within the Project site. As with the proposed Project, Alternative B also assumes the deletion
of the future extension of a second road through the Project site and its connection to West Coast Highway;
this action would require the approval of a General Plan Amendment to the City's Circulation Element and
an amendment to the Orange County MPAH. Consistent with the roadway assumptions for the proposed
Project, North Bluff Road (extending from 17th Street to 19th Street) would transition from a four -lane
divided to a two -lane undivided road to 19th Street.
In addition to, or included in, the costs associated with site acquisition, funds would be required to initiate
the consolidation of oil operations and to address oilfield abandonment and clean -up of the Project site.
Additional funding would be required to implement restoration and long -term management of sensitive
habitats and to construct public infrastniClure; park and open space uses; and roadways. As with the
proposed Project, a Coastal Development Permit would be required to initiate restoration activities and to
allow for the future construction of permitted land uses and roadways through the Project site.
Alternative B would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts associated with traffic, air quality,
greenhouse gases, and certain noise impacts when compared to the proposed Project; however, there
would still be impacts that could not be reduced to a level considered less than significant. The following
areas would have significant, unavoidable impacts:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with the Community
Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the
Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street
west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise, tho ugh mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain
significant if the residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the
increased interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended
measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt (Threshold 4.1 -1).
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 13 of 23
Alternative B would introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. The Community Park is
anticipated to have night lighting of active sports fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent
properties. The night lighting impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport
Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with
development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan
Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City approved a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, which notes that there are specific economic, social, and other public benefits that
outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project (Threshold
4.2 -3).
o Construction of the roadways and park would cause a substantial temporary increase in noise levels at
residences and schools within 500 feet of the roadway and park construction because of existing
relatively low ambient noise levels. Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the
noise- sensitive receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would
be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
This alternative is deemed to be potentially feasible. The financial feasibility of this alternative is dependent
upon the ability of a responsible party to obtain sufficient funds to acquire the site and fund clean -up,
restoration, and long -term maintenance of the site. Therefore, the ultimate determination of feasibility is a
consideration for decision makers.
Alternative C: Proposed Project with Bluff Road Extending to 17th Street
Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same development plan as the proposed Newport Banning
Ranch Project and would require the same approvals from local and regional agencies. The City of Newport
Beach General Plan's Circulation Element and the Orange County MPAH depict a north -south roadway
connection from West Coast Highway to 19th Street through the Project site. Alternative C would provide the
development of a north -south connection (North Bluff Road /Bluff Road) from West Coast Highway only to 17th
Street. As with the proposed Project, Alternative C assumes an amendment to the Circulation Element to delete
a second road through the Project site and its connection to West Coast Highway. An amendment to the Orange
County MPAH is required for this deletion as well as to downgrade North Bluff Road from a Major to a Primary.
Alternative C is proposed to minimize significant impacts to sensitive habitat areas and landform alteration
associated with the extension of North Bluff Road from just north of 17th Street to 19th Street.
The following is a summary of the significant, unavoidable impacts associated with Alternative C:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with the Community
Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the Project
site. In addition, there would be a potential long -range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of
Monrovia Avenue. For noise, though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the
residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior
noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended measure of resurfacing the
street with rubberized asphalt (Threshold 4.1 -1).
Alternative C would include a "dark sky" lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would apply to businesses
(e.g.. resort inn and neighborhood commercial uses) and Homeowners Association -owned and operated
land uses within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve. However, Alternative C would introduce nighttime
lighting into acurrently unlit area. The Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active sports
fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night lighting impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction
of new sources of lighting associated with development of the site would be considered significant and
unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City
approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific economic, social,
and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the General
Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 14 of 23
a Alternative C would have impacts on intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. Implementation of MM 4.9 -2
would mitigate the impacts to a level considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach
cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement
with the City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be
mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by
the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Threshold 4.9 -2, the following
impacts were identified with the various traffic scenarios evaluated:
Existing Plus Alternative C. Alternative C would significantly impact four intersections in Costa Mesa,
whereas the proposed Project would significantly impact three intersections in Costa Mesa.
Year 2016 With Alternative C Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Alternative C would significantly
impact five intersections, compared to seven for the proposed Project.
Year 2016 Cumulative With Alternative C. Alternative C would significantly irnpact six intersections; the
proposed Project would significantly impact seven intersections.
General Plan Build -out with Alternative C. Alternative C would significantly impact four intersections
compared to the proposed Project would significantly impact two intersections.
• Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are forecasted to exceed applicable
thresholds in some construction years. Though MM 4.10 -1 would reduce the emissions to a less than
significant level, the availability of sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine construction equipment cannot be assured.
Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable impact
(Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD mass emissions
thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as Alternative C development continues beyond
2020, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and carbon monoxide (CO) would exceed the
significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations. Therefore, the impacts remain significant and
unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Alternative C would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant concentrations of
ozone (03) (Threshold 4.10 -3).
• Alternative C would emit quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that would exceed the City's 6,000 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e /yr) significance threshold. Development associated
with Alternative C would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory
affecting global climate change (Threshold 4.11 -1).
• For the Existing Plus Project, 2016 with Project, and General Plan Build -out scenarios, the increased traffic
volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose sensitive receptors to noise level increases
in excess of the City of Newport Beach's standards for changes to the ambient noise levels. At build -out,
noise levels would also exceed significance thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa. MM 4.12 -5 requires the
Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface the street with rubberized asphalt,
however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability to ensuring that the mitigation would be implemented.
Therefore, the forecasted impact to residents of 17th Street west of Monrovia is considered significant and
unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in the ambient noise
level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition of Alternative C. MM 4.12 -6 would reduce
impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible' or "Normally Compatible" classifications but would remain
above the 5 dBA significance criterion in the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise
attenuation but because the City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the
implementation of mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable (Thresholds 4.12 -4).
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 15 of 23
Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels to
nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project. Due to the low existing ambient noise levels,
the proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise
increases would be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Alternative D: Reduced Development and Development Area
Alternative D assumes both a reduction in the amount of development that would occur on the Project site and a
reduction in the acreage associated with that development. The roadway system would be the same as that
included in the proposed Project. When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative D would allow for up to
1,200 du (compared to 1,375 du), 60,000 sf of neighborhood commercial uses (compared to 75,000 so; 15,000
sf of visitor - serving commercial uses (compared to a 75 -room resort inn); approximately 39.1 acres of parks
including a 24.8- gross -acre Community Park (compared to approximately 51.4 total acres of parklands
associated with the proposed Project). Alternative D does not include a Nature Center or interpretive trails.
Open space uses would increase from 251.7 gross acres to 269.1 gross acres. The development area
(residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses) would decrease from 98 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres. This
alternative does not assume a pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning West Coast Highway. Alternative D
would require the same discretionary actions as noted for the proposed Project. Alternative D is proposed to
reduce impacts associated with the intensity of development (e.g., vehicle trips, vehicle miles travelled, noise
and air quality impacts) and the footprint of development (e.g., biological resources).
This Alternative does not eliminate any of the significant impacts of the proposed project, but would substantially
lessen the impacts because Alternative D would have a smaller footprint (approximately 11 percent less acres of
developed with urban uses and parkland), involve less grading, and have less development (no resort inn and a
reduction of approximately 13 percent in the number of units). Construction air emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable, but would be lessened. The following is a summary of the significant, unavoidable
impacts associated with Alternative D:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with the Community
Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the Project
site. In addition, there would be a potential long -range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of
Monrovia Avenue. For noise, though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the
residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior
noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended measure of resurfacing the
street with rubberized asphalt (Threshold 4.1 -1).
Alternative D would include a "dark sky" lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would apply to businesses
(e.g., visitor - serving commercial and neighborhood commercial uses) and Homeowners Association -owned
and operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve. However, Alternative D would
introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. The Community Park is anticipated to have night
lighting of active sports fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night lighting
impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR
found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development of the site would be
considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General
Plan project, the City Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there
are specific economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable
impacts associated with the General Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative D would have a reduction of average daily trips (ADT)
and PM peak hour trips, but an increase in AM peak hour trips. Based on the lower volume of ADT and PM
peak hour volumes, Alternative D would not create additional roadway or intersection deficiencies. Both
Alternative D and the proposed Project would be expected to result in a significant impact at one
intersection in the City of Newport Beach and seven intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. Impacts to the
intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach can be mitigated to
a level considered less than significant. Alternative D would impact the following Costa Mesa intersections:
Newport Boulevard at 19th Street, Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard at 18th
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Paoe 16 of 23
Street /Rochester, Newport Boulevard at 17th Street, Monrovia at 19th Street, Pomona Avenue at 17'h
Street, and Superior Avenue at 17th Street. Implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the impact to a level
considered less than significant.. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another
jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that
would ensure that Alternative D impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with or
preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be would remain significant and unavoidable
(Threshold 4.9 -2).
• Alternative D would have construction - related air quality impacts. During grading, large and fine particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively) concentrations may exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance
thresholds at the property lines, but would not be likely to exceed ambient air quality standards (Threshold
4.10 -2).
• Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD mass emissions
thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as development continues beyond 2020,
emissions of VOCs, CO, and PM10 would exceed the significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle
operations (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Alternative D would have a significant cumulative air quality impact because its contribution to regional
pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable (Threshold 4.10 -3).
• Alternative D would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000 MTCO2e /yr significance
threshold. Similar to the Project, Alternative D would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
global GHG inventory affecting global climate change (Threshold 4.11 -1).
• The increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose sensitive receptors to
noise levels in excess of the City of Newport Beach's standards for changes to the ambient noise levels. At
build -out, noise levels would also exceed significance thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa (Threshold 4.12-
2).
• For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in the ambient noise
level due to the projected traffic volumes in the butdout condition. MM 4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to
levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5
dBA significance criterion in the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but
because the City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of mitigation
on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be significant and unavoidable
(Threshold 4.12 -4).
Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels to
nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project. Due to the low existing ambient noise levels,
the proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise
increases would be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Alternative E: Reduced Development Area
Alternative E assumes the same number of residential units (1,375 du) as proposed by the Project
within a reduced footprint. The development area (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses)
would decrease from 98 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres. Residential units would be provided at a
higher density and on smaller lots than assumed for the proposed Project. The same roadway system
is proposed. As with Alternative D, this alternative does not include a Nature Center or interpretive
trails; it provides 60,000 sf of neighborhood commercial uses (compared to 75,000 so; provides
15,000 sf of visitor - serving commercial uses instead of the resort inn; and provides approximately
39.1 acres of parks, including a 24.8- gross -acre Community Park (compared to approximately 51.4
total acres of parklands with the Project). This alternative does not assume a pedestrian and bicycle
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Paqe 17 of 23
bridge spanning West Coast Highway. Alternative E would require the same discretionary actions as
noted for the proposed Project.
Although with Alternative E there would be incremental reduction in impacts due to the reduction in
development and the area being developed, this alternative would not eliminate any of the
unavoidable significant impacts identified with the proposed Project. This Alternative would increase
the overall VMT; therefore, there would be slightly greater long -term air emissions, noise, and traffic.
The following significant unavoidable impacts would occur with Alternative E:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with the
Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences immediately
contiguous to the Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -range noise impacts for
residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise, though mitigation is proposed, noise
impacts would remain significant if the residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the
mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa
does not implement the recommended measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt
(Threshold 4.1 -1).
Alternative E would include a "dark sky" lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would apply to
businesses (e.g., visitor - serving commercial and neighborhood commercial uses) and
Homeowners Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open Space
Preserve. However, Alternative E would introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. The
Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active sports fields, which could result in
light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night lighting impacts are considered significant and
unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new
sources of lighting associated with development of the site would be considered significant and
unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the
City approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific
economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the General Plan project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
Alternative E is expected to have an increase in ADT and peak hour traffic volumes when
compared to the proposed Project. However, this increase in peak hour volumes is not anticipated
to cause any of the intersections operating at an acceptable level of service with the Project to
operate at an unacceptable level of service this alternative. Both Alternative E and the proposed
Project would be expected to result in deficiencies at the intersection of Newport Boulevard at
West Coast Highway in the City Newport Beach which can be mitigated to a level considered less
than significant. Both Alternative E and the proposed Project would be expected to significantly
impact seven intersections in Costa Mesa: Newport Boulevard at 19th Street, Newport Boulevard
at Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester, Newport Boulevard at 17th
Street, Monrovia at 19th Street, Pomona Avenue at 17th Street, and Superior Avenue at 17th
Street. Implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the impacts to a level considered less than
significant. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction.
Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would
ensure that Alternative E impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with or
preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by the improvements
would remain significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.9 -2).
Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed applicable
thresholds in some construction years. Though MM 4.10 -1 would reduce the emissions to less
than significant levels, the availability of sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine construction equipment
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 18 of 23
cannot be assured. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts are found to be significant and
unavoidable impact (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD mass
emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as Project development
continues beyond 2020, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide
(CO) would exceed the significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations. Therefore,
the impacts remain significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
• Alternative E would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant
concentrations of 03 (Threshold 4.10 -3).
• Alternative E would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000 MTCO2e /yr
significance threshold. Similar to the Project, Alternative E would make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global climate change (Threshold
4.11 -1).
• For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in the
ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition. MM 4.12 -6 would
reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible" classifications
but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would
provide interior noise attenuation but because the City of Newport Beach does not have the
authority to mandate the implementation of mitigation on private property that is not on the Project
site, the impact would be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
C The increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose sensitive
receptors to noise levels in excess of the City of Costa Mesa's standards. MM 4.12 -5 requires the
Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface the street with rubberized
asphalt; however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability to assure that the mitigation would be
implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to residents of 17th Street west of Monrovia is
considered significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -4).
G Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. The temporary noise increases
would be significant and unavoidable due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of
the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration of construction activities (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Area
Alternative F assumes the same number of residential units (1,375 du) as proposed by the Project
within a reduced footprint. The development area (residential and commercial) would decrease from
97.4 gross acres to 84.0 gross acres. This alterative does not include a resort inn or visitor - serving
commercial uses. Residential units would be provided at a higher density and on smaller lots than
assumed for the proposed Project. The same roadway system is proposed. Open space uses would
increase from 252.3 gross acres to 282.4 gross acres. This alternative does not include a Nature
Center or interpretive trails; it provides 60,000 sf of neighborhood commercial uses (compared to
75,000 sf); and includes approximately 34.7 acres of parks, including a 21.8- gross -acre Community
Park (compared to approximately 51.4 total acres of parklands).2 This alternative does not assume a
pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning West Coast Highway. Alternative F would require the same
discretionary actions as noted for the proposed Project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Paae 19 of 23
The following is a summary of the significant, unavoidable impacts associated with Alternative F:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with the
Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences immediately
contiguous to the Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -range noise impacts for
residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise, though mitigation is proposed, noise
impacts would remain significant if the residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the
mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa
does not implement the recommended measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt
(Threshold 4.1 -1).
Alternative F would include a "dark sky' lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would apply to
businesses (e.g., neighborhood commercial uses) and Homeowners Association -owned and
operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve. However, Alternative F would
introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. The Community Park is anticipated to have
night lighting of active sports fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties.
The night lighting impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach
General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with
development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General
Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City approved a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific economic, social, and other public
benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan
project (Threshold 4.2 -3).
Alternative F would be projected to result in a decrease in ADT and peak hour traffic volumes
when compared to the proposed Project. This decrease in peak hour volumes would not cause
any of the intersections operating at an acceptable level of service with the Project to operate at
an unacceptable level of service. Both Alternative F and the proposed Project would be expected
to result in deficiencies at the intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway in the
City of Newport Beach which can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.
Alternative F and the proposed Project would significantly impact seven intersections in Costa
Mesa: Newport Boulevard at 19th Street, Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard, Newport
Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester, Newport Boulevard at 17th Street, Monrovia at 19th Street,
Pomona Avenue at 17th Street, and Superior Avenue at 17th Street. Implementation of MM 4.9 -2
would mitigate the impact to a level considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport
Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to
reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Alternative F impacts
occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes
of this EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and
unavoidable (Threshold 4.9 -2).
Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed applicable
thresholds in some construction years. Though MM 4.10 -1 would reduce the emissions to less
than significant levels, the availability of sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine construction equipment
cannot be assured. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, the impacts are found to be significant and
unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD mass
emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as development continues
beyond 2020, emissions of VOCs and CO would exceed the significance thresholds, principally
due to vehicle operations (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Pape 20 of 23
o Alternative F would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional pollutant
concentrations of 03 (Threshold 4.10 -3).
o Alternative F would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000 MTCO2e /yr
significance threshold. Similar to the Project, Alternative F would make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global climate change (Threshold
4.11 -1).
The increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose sensitive
receptors to noise levels in excess of the City of Newport Beach's standards for changes to the
ambient noise levels. At buildout, noise levels would also exceed significance thresholds in the
City of Costa Mesa. MM 4.12 -5 requires the Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa
to resurface the street with rubberized asphalt; however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability
to ensuring that the mitigation would be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to
residents of 17th Street west of Monrovia is considered significant and unavoidable (Threshold
4.12 -2).
For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in the
ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition. MM 4.12 -6 would
reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible" classifications
but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would
provide interior noise attenuation but because the City of Newport Beach does not have the
authority to mandate the implementation of mitigation on private property that is not on the Project
site, the impact would be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -4).
Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project. Due to the low existing
ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration of construction
activities, the temporary noise increases would be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.12 -2).
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State
CEQA Guidelines states that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the
EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Based on the
evaluation contained in this EIR, Alternative B— General Plan Open Space Designation —would be the
environmentally superior alternative because it provides for restoration of the Project site and maintains the
greatest amount of open space. While this alternative would have greater impacts than the No Project
Alternative in the near -term, the long -term benefits associated with site restoration would be environmentally
superior to maintaining the site as an oilfield.
Although Alternative B is the environmentally superior alternative, there are significant challenges affecting its
feasibility. Additionally, Alternative B does not meet a number of the project objectives. Therefore, an
environmentally superior development alternative is also being identified. Alternative F would provide
development that is generally consistent with the General Plan Residential Village designation and would be
able to meet almost of the project objectives. Although this Alternative does not eliminate any of the significant
impacts of the Project, it does substantially lessen the impacts by reducing the amount of land that would be
subject to development, and increasing the amount of undeveloped open space by almost 30 acres, it provides
greater protection of the environment. This alternative provides greater protection of the environment by
reducing the area of non -open spaces uses by approximately 20 percent.
VII. SUMMARY OF PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Paqe 21 of 23
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS WITH NO IMPACT
Throughout preparation of the EIR, the City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist was used to determine
the impact categories to evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project. The
following includes a discussion of the impact categories where the proposed Project would have "no impact' and
a summary discussion of why this determination was reached. There is no further evaluation of these
Environmental Checklist questions in the EIR.
Agriculture and Forest Resources
The Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No
portion of the Project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Project site does not include
forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. For these reasons, no significant
impacts would occur and these topics are not addressed in the EIR.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following: "World the Project substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
Scenic Highway ?" The Project area is not adjacent to, nor can it be viewed from a designated State scenic
highway. For this reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not addressed in the EIR.
Geology and Soils
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following: "Would the project have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water ?"
The proposed Project would not use septic systems or alternative waste water disposal systems. For this
reason, no impact would occur and this topic is not addressed in the EIR.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following: "For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area ?" The Newport
Banning Ranch Project site is not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan. The nearest airporUairstrip
is the John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately four miles northeast of the Project site.
The State CEQA Guidelines ask for an evaluation of the following: "For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area ?" A
discussion of this topic is not necessary because there is no private airstrip in proximity to the Project site.
For these reasons, no impacts would occur and these topics are not addressed in the EIR.
Population, Housing, and Employment
The State CEQA Guidelines asks for an evaluation of the following two issues: (1) "Would the project displace
substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere." and
(2) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?"
There are no existing residential units on the Project site. The Project proposes the development of up to 1,375
du on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not displace existing residential units or residents and the
Project would not necessitate the need for replacement housing. For these reasons, this topic is not addressed
in the EIR.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Page 22 of 23
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
An impact that remains significant after including all feasible mitigation measures is considered a significant and
unavoidable impact. The impacts discussed below have been identified as significant and unavoidable for the
Project.
Land Use and Related Planning Programs
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to long -term noise and night illumination
predominately from the Community Park on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to
the Project site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new
sources of lighting associated with development of the site would be considered significant and
unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City
approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations which notes that there are specific economic,
social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts associate ed with the
General Plan project. Though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the
residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased
interior noise levels (Threshold 4.1 -1).
Aesthetic and Visual Resources
The proposed Project would include "dark sky" lighting concept for development areas adjacent to the
Open Space Preserve. However, the Project would introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit
area. The Project would result in night lighting impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting
associated with development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying
the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City approved a Statement of
Overriding Considerations which notes that there are specific economic, social, and other public
benefits which outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project
(Threshold 4.2 -3).
Transportation and Traffic
The Project would have impacts on intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. Implementation of MM 4.9 -2
would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered less than significant. However, the City of
Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to
reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in
Costa Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this EIR, the
impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.9-
2). The following impacts were identified with the various traffic scenarios evaluated:
o Existing Plus Project Scenario — Intersections identified as deficient are (1) Newport Boulevard
at Harbor Boulevard; (2) Newport Boulevard at 18th StreeVRochester Street; and (3) Superior
Ave /17th Street. (This scenario assumes all development occurs at once, which is not an
accurate reflection the timing for development of the proposed Project.)
c Year 2016 With Project Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis — Intersections
identified as deficient are (1) Monrovia Avenue and 19th Street; (2) Newport Boulevard and 19th
Street; (3) Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard; (4) Newport Boulevard at 18th
Street/Rochester Street; (5) Pomona Avenue and 17th Street; (6) Newport Boulevard at 17th
Street; and (7) Superior Avenue and 17th Street.
o Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project TPO Analysis — Intersections identified as deficient are (1)
Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard and (2) Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester
Street.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873
Pape 23 of 23
o Year 2016 Cumulative. With Project — Intersections identified as deficient are (1) Monrovia
Avenue and 19th Street; (2) Newport Boulevard and 19th Street; (3) Newport Boulevard and
Harbor Boulevard; (4) Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street; (5) Pomona Avenue
and 17th Street: (6) Newport Boulevard at 17th Street3, and (7) Superior Avenue and 17th
Street.
Year 2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project — Intersections identified as deficient are (1)
Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard and (2) Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester
Street.
General Plan BUIIdoUt with Project — Intersections identified as deficient are (1) Newport
Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard and (2) Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street.
Air Quality
Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of NOx are forecasted to exceed applicable thresholds in some
construction years. Though MM 4.10 -1 would reduce the emissions to less than significant levels, the availability
of sufficient Tier 4 diesel engine construction equipment cannot be assured. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR,
the impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD mass emissions
thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as Project development continues beyond
2020, emissions of VOC and CO would exceed the significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle
operations. Therefore, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable (Threshold 4.10 -2).
The Project would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant concentrations of
03 (Threshold 4.10 -3).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o The Project would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000 MTCO2e /yr significance
threshold. The Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory
affecting global climate change (Threshold 4.11 -1).
Noise
The increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue in Costa Mesa would expose
sensitive receptors to noise levels that would exceed City of Costa Mesa significance thresholds. MM
4.12 -5 requires the Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface the street with
rubberized asphalt; however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability to assure that the mitigation
would be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to residents of 17th Street west of Monrovia
Avenue is considered significant and unavoidable (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -2).
For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in the ambient
noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition. MM 4.12 -6 would reduce
impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible" classifications but would
remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior
noise attenuation but because the City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the
implementation of mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable (Thresholds 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -4).
U Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels to nearby noise- sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project. The temporary noise
increases would be significant and unavoidable due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the
proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration of construction activities (Threshold 4.12 -2).