HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Newport Banning Ranch_PA2008-114CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
April 19, 2012 Meeting
Agenda Item 3
SUBJECT: Newport Banning Ranch - (PA2008 -114)
5200 West Coast Highway
• Environmental Impact Report No. ER2009 -002
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -008
• Code Amendment No. CA2008 -004
• Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2008 -002
• Master Development Plan No. MP2008 -001
• Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003
• Development Agreement No. DA2008 -003
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001
• Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
APPLICANT: Newport Banning Ranch, LLC
PLANNER: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
palfordanewportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
A proposed planned community on a 401.'
residential dwelling units, a 75 -room resort
feet of commercial uses, approximately 51.4
acres of permanent open space.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
I acre project site for development of 1,375
inn and ancillary resort uses, 75,000 square
acres of parklands, and approximately 252.3
2) Adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment PC 1) recommending to the City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -008, Code Amendment No.
CA2008 -004, Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2008 -002, Master
Development Plan No. MP2008 -001, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003,
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001, and Traffic Study No.
TS2008 -002 and recommending to the City Council the adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations; and
3) Continue the public hearing to May 3, 2012 to consider the Development
Agreement (DA2008 -003).
VICINITY MAP
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 2
W,/$m StIml
v1dona SAM
...... ......
city of
j 7 Costa Mew
AYanIaAivme
19th st,001
Counry of
7NEWPORTa,,vNi,vG!
W Spot
Orange
a
HamImAwnw
Cilyof
Imsueet
I r
kunhngton Beach
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 2
W,/$m StIml
v1dona SAM
...... ......
city of
j 7 Costa Mew
C,y of
Newport
Beach
11 1 In Sihow:
Qv of
Newport
Beach
y
19th st,001
Counry of
7NEWPORTa,,vNi,vG!
W Spot
Orange
a
4' N
Imsueet
RANCH
C,y of
Newport
Beach
11 1 In Sihow:
Qv of
Newport
Beach
y
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 3
ON -SITE
Planned Community (PC-
25); County Zoning
Suburban Multi- family
Residential (R -4), Local
Open Space /Residential Business Commercial (C-
Village (OS (RV)) 1), Light Industrial (M -1)
with Oil Production (0),
Sign Restriction (SR),
and Floodplain Zone (FP-
Open space, oil production
(RM), Parks and u
Planned Community (PC-
NORTH
Recreation (PR); Costa
16), Costa Mesa Zoning
Open space, multi -unit
Mesa General Plan
Institutional and
residential
Public /Institutional
Recreational
SOUTH
Single -Unit Residential
Single -Unit Residential
Single -unit residential detached
Detached RS -D
R -1
Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation
(PR), Multi -Unit
(PR), Planned
Residential (RM),
Community (PC-14
General Industrial (IG),
Multi -Unit Residential Industrial (IG)
(RM),
Single -unit detached residential,
EAST
Private Institutions (PI),
,
Private Institutions (PI),
light industrial, educational
and Public Facilities (PF);
Public Facilities
facilities, multi -unit residential
Costa Mesa General Plan
Zoning
Costa Mesa Zoning
and vacant
Light Industry and
General Industrial and
Medium Density
Multiple Family
Residential
Residential
Open Space (OS) and
Open Space (OS) and
Open space and single -unit
WEST
Single -Unit Residential
Single -Unit Residential
residential detached
Detached RS-D)
R -1
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 4
Proiect Settin
The project site consists of approximately 401.1 acres. Approximately 40 acres are
located within the incorporated boundary of the City and the remainder is located within
unincorporated Orange County, in the City's adopted Sphere of Influence, as approved
by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County (LAFCO).
The site's topography is characterized by two primary topographic areas: the lowland
area in the northwestern portion and the upland area, located on the southwest edge of
Newport Mesa, in the southern and eastern portions. The upland area has been incised
to form three arroyos, with the largest being the Southern Arroyo and the second largest
being the Northern Arroyo. A very small arroyo feature (Minor Arroyo) is located in the
northeastern -most portion of the project site.
Although the project site has experienced disturbance associated with oil production
operations, the site contains 45 vegetation types, including 20 types of coastal sage
scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub; vernal and ephemeral pools, marshes and
mudflats; 8 types of undisturbed and disturbed riparian resources; and non - native
grassland and ruderal, and disturbed /developed areas.
The project site is currently a producing oilfield with approximately 489 oil well sites and
buildings and oil facility infrastructure, including oil processing facilities, pipelines,
storage tanks, utility poles, and machinery. Related facilities include graded roads and
equipment areas surfaced with gravel, asphalt, crude oil, or crude oil tank sediments, as
well as old sumps which held produced oil and fluids in in- ground surface
impoundments.
The project site is generally bound on the north by Talbert Nature Preserve /Regional
Park in the City of Costa Mesa and Newport Terrace residential community; on the
south by West Coast Highway and Lido Sands residential community south of the
highway; on the east by a mix of land uses, including the California Seabreeze
residential community and light industrial uses in the City of Costa Mesa, a vacant
Newport-Mesa Unified School District -owned parcel, the City of Newport Beach Utilities
Yard, Carden Hall day school, Coast Community College Newport Beach Learning
Center (under construction), office and light industrial uses, the Newport Crest
residential community, and the Sunset Ridge Park site; and on the west by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers- restored salt marsh basin and the Santa Ana River.
Project Description
The project is a proposed 401.1 -acre planned community for development of up to
1,375 residential dwelling units, a 75 -room resort inn and ancillary resort uses, 75,000
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 5
square feet of commercial uses, approximately 51.4 acres of parklands, and
approximately 252.3 acres of permanent open space.
The application consists of the following components:
General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -008. An amendment to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan to delete the planned segment of 15th Street west
of Bluff Road.
Code Amendment No. CA2008 -004. A code amendment to rezone the portion of
the project site currently within the incorporated boundary of the City from
Planned Community (PC -25) to Planned Community (PC -57) and prezone those
portions of the project site located within the City's Sphere of Influence from
County zoning to PC -57.
• Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2008 -002. A planned community
development plan that would establish the allowable land uses, general
development regulations, and implementation and administrative procedures,
which would serve as zoning for the project site.
• Master Development Plan No. MP2008 -001. A plan to establish detailed design
criteria for each land use component to guide the review of subsequent
development approvals.
• Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003. A tentative tract map to establish lots for
public dedication or conveyance, lots for residential development and
conveyance to homebuyers, and lots for financing and conveyance.
• Development Agreement No. DA2008 -003. A Development Agreement between
the applicant and the City of Newport Beach describing development rights and
public benefits.
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001. A program specifying
how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements.
• Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002. A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic
Phasing Ordinance).
• Environmental Impact Report No. ER2009 -002. An Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) SCH No. 2009031061 to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from
the proposed project.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 6
Background:
The Planning Commission held study sessions on the proposed project on September
13, 2011, January 19, 2012, February 9, 2012, February 23, 2012, and March 8, 2012.
The purpose of the study sessions was to provide the Planning Commission and the
public the opportunity to review and discuss details of the proposed project prior to
public hearings.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 22, 2012, which
focused on Environmental Impact Report No. ER2009 -002 (SCH No. 2009031061).
Following the public hearing, the Commission recommended that the City Council certify
the EIR.
DISCUSSION
This item was continued from March 22, 2012. The Commission determined that a
minimum of two public hearings on the proposed project was warranted. The March
22 "d hearing was devoted to the EIR, including the Response to Comments. This report
will focus on the proposed project application.
Analysis
General Plan
Future development decisions must be consistent with the goals and policies of the
City's General Plan. Goals and polices are fundamental components of the General
Plan. Goals are very general and broad descriptions of ideal future conditions for a
particular topic and policies provide guidance to assist the City as it makes decisions
relating to each goal.
The EIR provides a consistency analysis in Section 4.1 (Land Use and Related
Programs) and in the respective technical sections of the EIR. The EIR concluded that
when evaluating the proposed project as a whole, it would be considered generally
compatible with the existing and proposed future off -site land uses as well as
compatible with land uses within the project site. While an analysis of the individual
goals and policies is important in determining consistency with the General Plan, an
examination of the project in its entirety is warranted to determine if it is consistent with
the General Plan's vision for Banning Ranch.
Land Use Element Policies
Land Use Element Goal LU 6.4 states that if acquisition for open space is not
successful, Banning Ranch should be developed as "a high - quality residential
community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands
and important habitats." The vision for this community can be summarized by a few key
elements:
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 7
• A concentrated mixed -use residential village with a mix of housing types
clustered around a "village center" of local- serving commercial uses, small
boutique hotel, active park, and possibly a school. The residential village should
provide a cohesive form with identifiable neighborhoods.
• Relocated and consolidated oil operations.
• The majority of the property preserved as open space with restored and
enhanced wetlands and wildlife habitats, interpretative facilities, a bluff top linear
park, and an active community park.
• A street and trail system linking uses and neighborhoods and providing access to
adjoining neighborhoods.
• The use of sustainable and environment - protective development practices.
The proposed project would provide a mixed -use residential village and a variety of
housing types are permitted. All of the specified land uses are provided for within the
density and intensity limits of the General Plan. The proposed subdivision design and
the architectural design guidelines and landscaping plans provide the community
cohesion and neighborhood identity called for by the General Plan. However, the
"village center" envisioned by the General Plan is less identifiable, as the local- serving
commercial uses are proposed for the Urban Colony on the periphery of the project.
Likewise, the community park is located at the edges of the project and spread out over
three areas. This appears to be the consequence of the topographic /habitat constraints
and land use compatibility concerns. Nevertheless, the proposed project does meet the
objective of providing a concentrated mixed -use residential village.
The proposed project provides for the consolidation of the existing oil operations into
two areas totaling approximately 16.5 acres; thus, meeting the General Plan
requirement of consolidated oil operations.
The proposed 252.3 -acre Open Space Preserve would comprise a majority of the
project site and would include approximately 220.9 gross acres for habitat conservation,
restoration, and mitigation. Interpretative facilities would be provided at the 3 -acre
Vernal Pool Area and 2.2 -acre Nature Center and approximately 9.5 acres are
proposed for interpretive trails. These areas and facilities meet the General Plan
requirements for open space preservation and interpretative facilities.
Approximately 21 acres of bluff top parks are proposed for the North Residential Village
and the South Residential Village. The proposed North Community Park and Central
Community Park would provide approximately 17 acres of community parkland.
Although the total acreage is short of the 20 to 30 -acre community park called for by the
General Plan, these proposed parklands would be in excess of the project's
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 8
approximately 15 -acre obligation under the Quimby Act and Parkland Dedication and
Fee Ordinance. Furthermore, while these parks would be separated by a primary
arterial (15th Street), their size, configuration, and topography are sufficient to
accommodate the program recommended by the Recreation and Senior Services
Department. Overall, the proposed bluff parks and community parks meet the General
Plan parkland requirements.
The proposed project's Master Roadway Plan would provide a system of local
residential streets with the villages and colonies connected by arterials. More
importantly, the proposed project's Master Trails and Coastal Access Plan would
provide over seven miles of trails linking residential, mixed -use, resort, parkland, and
open space areas. The trail and access plan also provides for a pedestrian /bicycle
bridge across West Coast Highway that would connect the project with the West
Newport community. Together, these plans provide the connectivity called for by the
General Plan.
With consideration to all of the project components, staff concludes that the proposed
project would fulfill the General Plan's vision for Banning Ranch.
Land Use Compatibility
The EIR identifies vehicular noise impacts from Bluff Road and the 15th Street Extension
and night illumination from the proposed Community Park as "significant and
unavoidable" impacts. The EIR further concluded that these impacts result in land use
incompatibility with those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the
project site.
In determining consistency with the General Plan, all aspects of a proposed project
need to be considered. A project can be found to be consistent if, in its entirety, furthers
the goals and policies of the General Plan. Furthermore, a deviation from a particular
General Plan policy may be acceptable if it allows the project to better fulfill the General
Plan's goals.
Bluff Road and the extension of 15th Street are required by the Circulation Element of
the General Plan. EIR analyzed an alternative alignment of Bluff Road that would have
reduced noise levels to Newport Crest to less than significant. However, this alignment
would result in greater impacts to open space and biological resources, and would
result in additional grading and alteration of natural landforms; specifically, those
resources located on the Southern Bluffs and in the Southern Arroyo. This alignment
would also bisect the North Community Park and effectively constrain its use as an
active park. As a result, this alignment of the roadway was deemed as not feasible.
A community park with night lighting at Banning Ranch is provided for in both the Land
Use Element and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The EIR analyzed an
alternative location for the Community Park. Alternative B (Open Space Option)
envisioned the majority of the project site preserved as open space. In addition, a 31.3-
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 9
acre community park with both active and passive park uses and nighttime lighting
would be located in the center of the site and away from residential areas. The EIR
concluded that under Alternative B, the night lighting impact would remain significant
and unavoidable. The EIR also concluded that Alternative B would also result in
increased light effects on upland open space areas.
It should also be noted that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with
development of Banning Ranch was recognized as a significant and unavoidable impact
at the time the 2006 General Plan Update was under consideration. In adopting the
General Plan and developing a park plan that anticipated night lighting for the athletic
fields, the City made a policy determination that the provision of a community park was
necessary, even if it results in impacts from night lighting.
In the case of the proposed project, staff concludes that the land use incompatibility
associated with vehicular noise from Bluff Road /15th Street can be found acceptable
because it would allow for the construction of Bluff Road pursuant to the Circulation
Element while furthering the landform and biological resource protection policies of the
General Plan. Similarly, the land use incompatibility associated with night lighting from
the North Community Park can be found acceptable because it would allow the
development of active community park pursuant to the Land Use Element and
Recreation Element while furthering biological resource protection policies of the
General Plan.
General Plan Amendment
An amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan is proposed as a part of
the proposed project to delete the segment of 15th Street west of Bluff Road, which
would provide a second arterial through the project site connecting to West Coast
Highway. This amendment would involve revising Figure CE1 (The Master Plan of
Streets and Highways) and Figure CE3 (Recommended Intersection Improvements) to
remove depictions of this roadway segment.
The EIR traffic analysis indicates that a second roadway connection through the project
site, as shown on the City's Circulation Element, is not needed to accommodate the
projected traffic demand accessing West Coast Highway.
Circulation Element CE Policy 3.1.3 requires that the City's Master Plan of Streets and
Highways to be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH). An amendment to the Orange County MPAH is proposed to ensure
consistency between the two plans.
Development of the second roadway connection to West Coast Highway would likely
result in significant impacts to the landform and biological resources, located on the
Southern Bluffs. Elimination of this roadway segment would be consistent with the
landform and biological resource protection policies of the General Plan.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 10
In conclusion, the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element does not present
any internal consistency issues with the other elements of the General Plan.
Local Coastal Program
The certified Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates the Banning Ranch as a
Deferred Certification Area due to unresolved issues relating to land use, public access,
and the protection of coastal resources. Because the Banning Ranch property is a
Deferred Certification Area, the policies in the CLUP are not applicable to the Banning
Ranch property.
Zoning (Planned Community Development Plan PC -57)
The proposed code amendment would rezone the portion of the project site currently
within the incorporated boundary of the City from Planned Community (PC -25) to
Planned Community (PC -57) and prezone those portions of the project site located
within the City's Sphere of Influence from County zoning to PC -57. PC -25 is the
Banning Newport Ranch Planned Community. This 75.5 -acre planned community
development plan was adopted in 1995 and provided for the development of 406
dwelling units and 400,000 square feet of office /industrial uses. The land uses and
development policies of PC -25 were made inconsistent with the adoption of the General
Plan in 2006. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Code Update approved by the City
in 2010, approximately 13.06 acres of PC -25 were rezoned to Public Facilities (PF)
leaving approximately 62.44 acres zoned PC -25.
The proposed Newport Banning Ranch Planned Development Plan (NBR -PC) will serve
as the zoning for PC -57. The NBR -PC (Exhibit G of Attachment PC 1) would establish
the allowable land uses, general development regulations, and implementation and
administrative procedures.
Staff has worked with the applicant to incorporate a number of revisions to NBR -PC that
are intended to address issues and concerns raised by the Commission during the
study sessions and at the previous public hearing. The revisions are provided in the
Exhibit G of Attachment PC 1 and the more substantive revisions summarized below:
• Bars. The land use regulations have been revised to prohibit free - standing bars,
nightclubs, and micro - breweries in the Visitor - Serving Resort/Residential
(VSR /R) District and the Mixed - Use /Residential (MU /R) District.
• Resort Ancillary Uses. The narrative for the resort inn has been revised to clarify
that ancillary uses have to customary and proportional to the resort.
• Oil Operations. Language has been added to clarity that all existing oil
operations must be consolidated into the Oil Facilities (OF) District within 10
years of annexation.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 11
• Community Parks. The community park will not be subject to site development
review; instead, the Recreation and Senior Services Director will have the
authority under new Section 4.6 to approve a community park improvement plan
in accordance with the park amenities and layout presented in the Master
Development Plan.
• Minor Modifications. The Minor Modifications (Section 4.17) has been deleted.
This section allowed for staff -level approval of land use district acreage
refinements, transfer of dwelling units between land use districts, and the transfer
of commercial floor area from the MU /R District to the VSR /R District. The
Commission indicated that, as written, this section allowed potentially significant
changes to the project to be approved by staff.
• Substantial Conformance. A new section (Section 4.17) has been added that will
allow limited changes in the land use district boundaries in conjunction with a site
development review permit or a subdivision map.
• Transfer of Residential Dwelling Units. A new section (Section 4.18) has been
added that will allow limited transfers of dwelling units between land use districts
in conjunction with a site development review permit or a subdivision map.
• Commercial Transfers from MU /R to VSR /R. A new section (Section 4.19) has
been added to provide establish a procedure to allow commercial floor area to be
transferred from the MU /R District to the VSR /R District.
• Commercial Transfers from MU /R to RUM or RM. A new section (Section 4.20)
has been added to provide establish a procedure to allow commercial floor area
to be transferred from the MU /R District to RUM or RM Districts in conjunction
with a site development review permit or a subdivision map.
• Retaining Walls. Language has been added that requires retaining walls with a
visible portion over eight (8) feet in height to be designed using methods to
soften their appearance.
The Commission also suggested that deliveries should be prohibited earlier than 10:00
p.m. The NBR -PC has the same restrictions as the Zoning Code, which prohibits
deliveries, loading, unloading, and similar activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 9:00
a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays. Staff recommends that the delivery hours
remain consistent with the City -wide standard. If further restrictions are warranted, they
may be addressed on a case -by -case basis through site development review and /or
through conditional use permits.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 12
The 5 -acre South Community Park is proposed to be a public park and part of the
Community Park (CP) District. This park would consist of native habitat and
interpretative areas and would have no improved play fields or courts. Due to its
location, sensitive habitat, topography, and lot configuration, it would be difficult to
include in the City's parks and recreation program. Therefore, staff is recommending
that the NBR -PC be revised to Upland Open Space /Public Trails and Facilities
(UOS /PTF) District. Corresponding revisions are also recommended to the Master
Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map.
Master Development Plan
The proposed Master Development Plan (NBR -MDP) provides plans and preliminary
layouts for streets and lots, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, open space, parks,
and other site features proposed for the project site. The NBR -MDP (Exhibit H of
Attachment PC 1) includes detailed design criteria for each land use component to
guide the review of subsequent development approvals, such as architectural guidelines
and plans for landscaping, landform alteration, trails, roadways and infrastructure, and
water management.
Staff has worked with the applicant to incorporate a number of revisions to the NBR -
MDP that are intended to address issues and concerns raised by the Commission
during the study sessions and at the previous public hearing. These revisions
correspond to those recommended for the NBR -PC and are provided in Exhibit H of
Attachment PC 1,
Tentative Tract Map
The proposed Tentative Tract Map TTM No. 17308 (Exhibit I of Attachment PC 1) is the
implementing subdivision map for the project. The Tentative Tract Map describes the
subdivision of the project site into lots for public dedication or conveyance, fee and
condominium lots for residential development and conveyance to home - buyers, and /or
for financing and conveyance to builders which may also be further subdivided for the
development of conventional fee lots, planned developments, and /or condominiums.
The Tentative Tract Map also describes the plan for grading and bluff restoration,
roadways, infrastructure, and other public improvements to serve the subdivision.
Approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map in conjunction with the NBR -MDP would
permit rough and precise grading, oilfield facilities consolidation, site remediation,
habitat restoration, construction of public roadways, drainage and water quality
improvements, backbone infrastructure, and dry utilities, including domestic water and
sewer facilities throughout the project site. Development of all other proposed facilities
and land uses would require recordation of a final tract map.
Staff has prepared an extensive list of recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit B
of Attachment PC 1) intended to ensure consistency with other components of the
proposed project and compliance with City policies and regulations. These include
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 13
conditions corresponding to the standard conditions and mitigation measures identified
in the EIR and conditions concerning the timing of improvements.
Section 19.12.070 of the Municipal Code establishes required findings that must be
made in order to approve a tentative map. These findings and facts in support of
findings are provided in Exhibit C of Attachment PC 1.
The Commission also requested information on the project's phasing and timing of
improvements. The timing of roadway improvements would be tied to the issuance of
certificates of occupancy for residential units in each village or colony. The timing of
these improvements is summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1- Roadway Improvements
To be completed Prior to 15t Certificate of Occupancy for South Family Village or Resort Colony
(See Condition # 88)
1. West Coast Highway
2. Bluff Road and North Bluff Road from West Coast Highway to 16th Street
3. 15th Street from Bluff Road to project boundary, partial improvements to Monrovia
4. 16th Street from North Bluff Road to project boundaries (partial)
5. Signal at 15th Street and Bluff Road
6. Restripe intersection of Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard
Prior to I" Certificate of Occupancy for North Family Village and /or Urban Colony (See
Condition # 89)
1. North Bluff Road to northern property line of Lot 1
2. 16th Street between North Bluff Road and project boundary (full)
3. 17th Street from North Bluff Road to project boundary
4. Signal at North Bluff Road and 17th Street
Prior to 2091h certificate of Occupancy for the North Family Village and /or Colony, whichever is
first (See Condition #90)
1. North Bluff Road from Lot 1 to 19'h Street
2. 19th Street from North Bluff Road to project boundary
The timing of park and trail improvements would also be tied to the issuance of
certificates of occupancies for residential uses. The timing of these improvements is
summarized in Table 2 below.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 14
Table 2 - Parks & Trails
Improvement
Completion Timeframe
Condition
Prior to 101 s Certificate of Occupancy for
South Bluff Park
South Family Village and Resort Colony
92
combined, or prior to 1 Certificate of
Occulpa nc for Resort Inn
North Bluff Park, Lot 189
Prior to 1 s Certificate of Occupancy for Lot
82
1, Urban Colon
North Bluff Park, adjacent to North
Prior to 209 Certificate of Occupancy for
93
Family Village
North Family Village
Nature Center Interpretative Park
Prior to Last Certificate of Occupancy for
North Famil Villa e
80
Vernal Pool Interpretative Park
Talbert Trailhead Staging Area
Prior to 15 Certificate of Occupancy for an
Interpretative Park
dwelling within North Village or Urban
81
Colon
Lowland, Upland and Bluff Toe
Prior to Last Certificate of Occupancy for
83
Interpretive Trails
North Family Village
Pedestrian Bride
None defined.
North Community Park
Determined by Development Agreement
17
Central Community Park
South Community Park
No completion date defined.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) of the Municipal Code requires that
a traffic study be prepared and findings be made prior to issuance of building permits if
a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). The TPO
traffic study differs from other traffic analyses in the EIR in that, typically, the TPO's
focus is on conditions one year after project occupancy, or five years after project
approval for larger projects that are not expected to be completed within five years.
Because the proposed project is a large project, the TPO requirements direct the TPO
traffic analysis to account for full project completion in five years, which in this case is
2016, as a "worst -case' scenario. The TPO traffic study also includes an analysis for the
Project phasing of construction.
The traffic study found that one intersection in the City and eight intersections in the City
of Costa Mesa would exceed the Level of Service (LOS) "D" standard. The traffic study
also identified improvements that would mitigate the impacts to these intersections.
The TPO requires findings that that, based on the weight of the evidence in the
administrative record, including the traffic study, that the proposed project complies with
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. These findings and facts in support of findings are
provided in Exhibit D of Attachment PC 1.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 15
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
Chapter 19.54 (Inclusionary Housing) of the Municipal Code requires residential
subdivision projects with 51 or more units to prepare an Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan (AHIP) that specifies how the development would meet the City's
affordable housing goal. As a part of the City's Inclusionary Housing Program, it is the
City's goal that an average of 15 percent of all new housing units developed over the
five -year Housing Element planning period be affordable to very low, low, or moderate
income households.
The Newport Banning Ranch AHIP (Exhibit J of Attachment PC 1) proposes the
construction of a minimum of 50 percent of the required affordable housing on the
project site. The remaining affordable housing obligation would be met through the
payment of in -lieu fees; the construction of off -site affordable housing including the
rehabilitation of existing off -site housing that would contribute to meeting the City's
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements; land dedication; or a
combination thereof.
Should the proposed project be approved with 1,375 units, the maximum number of
affordable units for each of the following income categories is identified below. The
proposed project can satisfy its unit requirements through one income category
exclusively or through a combination of the income categories subject to the provisions
of the approved AHIP.
• Very Low Income: 5 percent of the total units (69 units); or
• Low Income: 10 percent of the total units (138 units); or
• Moderate Income: 15 percent of the total units (206 units); or
• Some combination of the three income categories.
Very Low Income is defined as households with income from 31 to 50 percent of the
County median income adjusted for family size. Low Income is defined as households
with income from 51 to 80 percent and Moderate Income is defined as households
within incomes equal to or less than 120 percent.
Since the proposed AHIP includes alternatives to on -site construction, Section
19.54.070.D of the Municipal Code establishes required findings that must be made in
order to approve the AHIP. These findings and the facts in support of findings are
provided in Exhibit E of Attachment PC 1.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement is proposed between the applicant and the City in order to
describe the development rights of and public benefits to be provided by the applicant
and to outline the terms for annexation of the property to the City.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 16
As of this writing, the terms of the agreement are still being negotiated by the applicant
and the Office of the City Attorney. Therefore, staff is recommending that the public
hearing on the Agreement be continued to May 3, 2012.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Pursuant to City Council Policy D -2, a fiscal impact analysis (Attachment PC 2) of the
proposed annexation on City finances and related City services and facilities. The fiscal
analysis uses the Newport Beach Fiscal Impact Model to help calculate revenue and
cost impacts of the proposed project. The fiscal impact model calculates public service
impacts for specific land uses that support the residential population, the employment
base and the visitor population in the City. It also calculates the public revenues that
each type of land use typically generates for the City, including property taxes, sales
taxes and other taxes as well as a variety of user charges and fees.
The fiscal impact analysis concludes that based on the revenue and cost projections,
the proposed project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2.0 million per year at full
build -out. Although, the City would have a somewhat lower benefit overall due to
increased maintenance costs for the community park and for Bluff Road. Thus, the
regular tax and fee income generated by the project for the City would be sufficient to
cover the operations and maintenance costs associated with providing the full range of
City services to the project.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The EIR identified significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less
than significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures or project alternatives.
Therefore, the City Council will need to decide whether the benefits of the proposed
project outweigh any identified significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated
to below a threshold of significance. If the City decides that the overriding
considerations, including project benefits, outweigh the unavoidable impacts, then the
City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states the
reasons that support its actions. The City Council would also consider adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of their review of the Final EIR and the
proposed project. The Commission may consider the following when making a
recommendation to the City Council on whether the benefits of the project outweigh its
impacts.
1. Open Space Preservation
Land Use Element Goal 6.4 provides that if acquisition for open space is not successful,
Banning Ranch should be developed as "a high - quality residential community with
supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important
habitats." State bonds, environmental mitigation fees, or other financing mechanisms
for the acquisition of Banning Ranch as open space have not been identified to date.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 17
The General Plan recognizes that a residential community may be necessary in order to
provide sufficient revenue to preserve the majority of the property as open space.
The proposed project would preserve over 50 percent of the site as open space. The
proposed project's Habitat Restoration encompasses approximately 235 gross acres of
the project site and will provide for the restoration of wetlands and other habitat areas,
and the preservation and long -term maintenance of existing open space, sensitive
habitats and additional restored and created habitats at no cost to the public.
2. New public and coastal access
The project site is privately -owned oil field and inaccessible to the public. The proposed
project will provide new public and coastal access through construction of a road
connection to West Coast Highway and the beach, access to open space and trails, and
a pedestrian bridge to the beach. The proposed project will also provide approximately
475 new public parking spaces in the coastal zone.
3. Excess parkland dedication and improvement.
In addition to the restoration and long -term preservation of natural open space and
habitat areas, the General Plan also contemplates the provision of parkland amenities
to serve nearby neighborhoods and City residents in general. Under the General Plan's
primary use as open space, in addition to the costs of property acquisition, the City and
its residents would be responsible for funding the cost of park improvements. The
proposed project provides approximately 51 gross acres of public parkland and
improvements. As described below, the proposed project's parkland dedication and
improvements exceed the parkland dedication requirements under State law and
provide significant open space and recreational benefits to the City and its residents.
Government Code Section 66477 (commonly known as the "Quimby Act ") allows a city
to require the dedication of land or require the payment of fees for park and recreational
purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map. The Quimby Act establishes
limits on the amount of land that is required to be dedicated. The proposed project
would be required to dedicate approximately 15 acres of parkland only. The proposed
project will both dedicate land and provide improvements to the following parks and
recreational trails. The land that will be dedicated exceeds the amount of land that the
City could legally require be dedicated, and the funding of the improvements provides a
public benefit that could not be required under the law.
The public parks, recreational and open space provided by the project are as follows:
• The improvement of the North Community Park and the Central Community
Park, totaling 20.8 gross acres (16.9 acres net), up to a maximum of $8,000,000;
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 18
• The improvement of the South Community Park in accordance with the Newport
Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, totaling 5.0 gross acres;
• The improvement of the Bluff Park and Interpretive Parks in accordance with the
Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, totaling 24.6 gross acres;
• The improvement of a trail system through open space areas in accordance with
the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, totaling approximately 7
miles of trails throughout the project site; and
• The improvement of coastal public access via a Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge
from the project site across West Coast Highway to the beach.
4. Comprehensive Oil Field Abandonment
The project site is an active, operating oil field. In addition, as an active, operating oil
field, and as detailed under the General Plan, if acquisition of the property were pursued
through public funds, additional funds would have to be identified by the City to pay for
the costs of habitat restoration and parkland improvements. Further, the City and public
would be required to either allow the oil operator to continue its operations until oil
operations cease, or pay for the consolidation, clean up and remediation of the oil field
to implement the habitat and parkland goals of the City's General Plan. The proposed
project provides for the consolidation of the existing oil operations into two areas
thereby permitting oil field abandonment and clean up to commence on the remainder
of the project site in advance of when they would have occurred. The costs of the
comprehensive oil field abandonment and remediation is estimated at approximately
$30 million — none of which will now have to be funded by the City or the public. In
addition, the oil operation consolidation will allow for habitat restoration activities to
occur in advance of when it would have absent the proposed project's ability to require
consolidation.
5. Area -wide Water Quality Benefits.
The proposed project is designed to include water quality basins that are proposed to
be sized to treat off -site urban run -on from areas of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach
developed with commercial, industrial and residential uses, that currently drains through
the project site and flows untreated into the project lowland areas and to the Semeniuk
Slough, in addition to capturing and treating on -site urban runoff from within the project.
The 103 -acre Semeniuk Slough is identified in the Coastal Land Use Plan as an
Environmental Study Area which is characterized by open estuarine, southern coastal
salt marsh, and ornamental plant communities. Potential impacts to the Slough include
water quality degradation and sediment build -up. By capturing and treating this urban
runoff, the Project will provide significant water quality benefits to the Semeniuk Slough.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 19
6. Circulation Improvements.
The proposed project, through an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa, will fund
intersection improvements for intersections in that city. Although not in the City, these
traffic improvements will provide benefits to City of Newport Beach residents who use
these streets. At build out, the proposed project will provide approximately $4.3 million
in contributions to intersection improvements which is more than double the project's
fair share requirements based upon the traffic analysis in the DEIR.
7. Public Benefit Fee.
In addition to standard fees and charges the applicant would be required to pay, a
public benefit fee for each residential unit constructed on the property will be paid to the
City.
8. Net Fiscal Benefits to the City.
The fiscal impact report prepared for the City concluded that, "Based on the revenue
and cost projections ... the proposed project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2
million per year at full build out." (Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Newport
Banning Ranch Annexation to the City of Newport Beach, prepared by Applied
Development Economics, dated December 29, 2011 at page 16.)\
9. Housing Opportunities,
The Housing Element establishes as a goal: A balanced residential community,
comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and
economic segments. (Housing Element Goal H2.) The proposed project will provide a
wide range of housing types from single family detached to higher density attached and
multi - family units that will provide a variety of housing opportunities within a single
project site — a feature not available in many other areas of the City or new
developments elsewhere in the City due to the limited number of sites and the sizes of
parcels available for new residential development. In addition, the proposed project will
provide at least 50 percent of its affordable housing requirements on site which could
provide greater opportunities for all segments of the City's population to enjoy living on
the project site.
10. Fire Station Improvements.
The proposed project will contribute up to $700,000 towards the redevelopment of
Newport Beach Fire Station No. 2, and in the event the redevelopment of the station is
not completed prior to development of certain areas of the project site. The proposed
project will also make available an onsite location for a temporary fire station.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 20
11. Sustainable Design
In addition to its emphasis on a mix of uses and housing opportunities, the proposed
project is designed as a sustainable and green community that provides the benefits of
promoting energy efficiency and resource conservation that will combine to reduce the
project's greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the State's goals set forth under AB
32. The following project components implement sustainability:
• The proposed project will provide a network of public pedestrian and bicycle
trails to reduce auto - dependency by connecting proposed residential
neighborhoods to parks and open space within the project site and to off -site
recreational amenities, such as the beach and regional parks and trails, and
will coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority to allow for a
transit routing through the project site.
• The proposed project is registered under the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design- Neighborhood Development (LEED -ND) Program, and
will be consistent with the program's green building requirements.
• The proposed project provides compact development patterns by
concentrating development in two main clusters which minimize habitat
fragmentation and provides larger, more contiguous areas for open space
protection, habitat restoration and parkland.
• The proposed project will implement a "dark sky" lighting program to minimize
light spillage into adjacent native habitat areas.
• The proposed project will exceed adopted 2008 Title 24 energy conservation
requirements by a minimum of 5 percent.
• The proposed project will require that all residential development incorporate:
low water use appliances; Smart Controller irrigation systems; Freon -free air
conditioning units; multi- metering "dashboards" in each dwelling unit to
visualize real -time energy use; and solar orientation of structures to promote
compatibility with the installation of photovoltaic panels or other current solar
power technology.
• The proposed project has provisions for parking spaces for electric or hybrid
vehicles and installation of facilities for Level 2 electric vehicle recharging.
• The proposed project will implement remediation and cleanup of the oil field,
which includes the ability to recycle and properly dispose on -site oil field
materials. Additionally, the treatment and cleaning of impacted soils will be
done on -site which significantly reduces the potential export of oil field
materials and impacted soils.
Newport Banning Ranch
April 19, 2012
Page 21
• The proposed project will also increase construction waste diversion by 50
percent from 2010 requirements; and recycle and reuse construction
materials onsite to minimize off -site hauling and disposal of materials.
Environmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2009031061 to evaluate the
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The EIR has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
Public Notice
Notice of the March 22, 2012 hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to
approximately 6,500 property owners within 1000 feet of the property (300 feet is
required by the Zoning Code) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance
of the hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon
the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by:
—0� -
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings
Exh. A.
Legal Description
Exh. B.
TTM No. 17308 Conditions of Approval
Exh. C.
Required Findings for TTM No. 17308
Exh. D.
Required Findings for Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
Exh. E.
Required Findings for AHIP No. AH2008 -001
Exh. F.
Recommended Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exh. G.
NBR -PC with Recommended Revisions & Errata (under separate cover)
Exh. H.
NBR -MDP with Recommended Revisions & Errata (under separate cover)
Exh. I.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
Exh. J.
NBR Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
Exh. K.
Project Boundary
PC 2 Fiscal Impact Analysis
PC 3 Correspondence
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings
RESOLUTION NO. ####
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2008 -008, CODE
AMENDMENT NO. CA2008 -004, PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. PC2008 -002, MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. MP2008 -001, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. NT2008 -003, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2008 -001, AND TRAFFIC
STUDY NO. TS2008 -002 FOR A 401 -ACRE PLANNED
COMMUNITY LOCATED AT BANNING RANCH (PA2008 -114)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
An application was filed by Newport Banning Ranch, LLC, with respect to a 401 -acre
property generally located north of West Coast Highway, south of 19th Street, and east
of the Santa Ana River and legally described Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit K
requesting approval of a Development Agreement; General Plan Amendment to the
Circulation Element; Code Amendment; a Pre - annexation Zone Change; Planned
Community Development Plan; Master Development Plan; Tentative Tract Map;
Affordable Housing Implementation plan; and Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study
approval.
The applicant proposes a planned community for development of 1,375 residential
dwelling units, a 75 -room resort inn and ancillary resort uses, 75,000 square feet of
commercial uses, approximately 51.4 acres of parklands, and the preservation of
approximately 252.3 acres of permanent open space.
The subject property is located within the Planned Community (PC -25) Zoning District
County Zoning Suburban Multi- family Residential (R -4), Local Business Commercial (C-
1), Light Industrial (M -1) with Oil Production (0), Sign Restriction (SR), and Floodplain
Zone (FP -2) Overlays and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Open
Space /Residential Village (OS (RV).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
(CLUP) designates this property as a Deferred Certification Area,
5. Public hearings were held on March 22, 2012, and April 19, 2012, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place
and purpose of these meetings was given in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by,
the Planning Commission at this meeting.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 2 of 6
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. A draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009031061) (DEIR) has been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3.
2. The DEIR was circulated for a 60 -day comment period beginning on September 9,
2011, and ending on November 8, 2011. The DEIR, comments, and responses to the
comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed
project.
3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have
a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation
measures, with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
A. Lan d Use and Related 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. Though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant
if the residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement mitigation measures to
reduce the increased interior noise levels.
B. Aesth etics and Visual Resources. The proposed project would introduce nighttime
lighting into a currently unlit area.
C. Transportation and Traffic. The proposed project would have impacts on
intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 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 the project impacts occurring in Costa
Mesa would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, the impacts to
be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
D. Air Quality. Without mitigation, regional (mass) emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) are forecasted to exceed applicable thresholds in some construction years.
Though Mitigation Measure 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, the impacts are found to be significant
and unavoidable.
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) mass emissions thresholds from
initial occupancy through 2020. However, as project 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.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3 of 6
The proposed project would have cumulatively considerable contributions to
regional pollutant concentrations of ozone (03).
E. Greenhouse Gases. The proposed project would emit quantities of greenhouse
gases that would exceed the City's 6,000 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
(CO2e) per year significance threshold. The proposed project would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the global greenhouse gases inventory
affecting global climate change.
F. 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. Mitigation Measure 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 the
residences on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue is considered significant and
unavoidable.
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 build -
out condition. Mitigation Measure MM 4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within
the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible" classifications but would remain
above the 5 decibels (d BA) significance criterion in the General Plan. Mitigation
Measure 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.
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
proposed 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.
4. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental
impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those impacts identified
above. The mitigation measures would be applied to the project through the Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Report Program.
5. The record supports a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act in that the project includes benefits that outweigh
the land use, night lighting, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts of the
proposed project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 4 of 6
6. On March 22, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1873
recommending to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certification of the
Newport Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009031061).
7. 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.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The
Planning Commission concurs with the conclusions of the consistency analysis of the
proposed project with these goals and policies provided in the environmental impact
report.
2. The land use incompatibility identified in the DEIR associated with the impacts of
vehicular noise from Bluff Road on those Newport Crest residences immediately
contiguous to the project site is acceptable because the proposed alignment is
consistent with the Circulation Element and the landform and biological resource
protection policies of the General Plan.
3. The land use incompatibility identified in the DEIR associated with the impacts on night
lighting from the North Community Park on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the project site is acceptable because it would allow the
development of active community park pursuant to the Land Use Element and
Recreation Element while furthering biological resource protection policies of the
General Plan.
4. Extension of 15th Street west of Bluff Road to West Coast Highway is not needed to
accommodate the projected traffic accessing West Coast Highway. Deleting this
roadway segment from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways would not result in
any inconsistencies between the Circulation Element and other elements of General
Plan and would avoid alteration of bluffs and disturbance of Southern Coastal Bluff
Scrub vegetation adjacent to West Coast Highway.
5. The certified CLUP designates the Banning Ranch as a Deferred Certification Area
due to unresolved issues relating to land use, public access, and the protection of
coastal resources. Therefore, no other CLOP policies are directly applicable to the
Banning Ranch property.
6. Pursuant to City Council Policy D -2, a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed
annexation on City finances and related City services and facilities was prepared. The
fiscal impact analysis concludes that based on the revenue and cost projections, the
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 5 of 6
proposed project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2.0 million per year at full
build -out.
7. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. NT2008 -003 in accordance with Section 19.12.070 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code are provided in Exhibit C.
8. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of Traffic Study No.
TS2008 -002 in accordance with Section 15.40.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code are provided in Exhibit D.
9. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001 in accordance with Section 19.54.070.D of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code are provided in Exhibit E.
10. A recommended Statement of Public Benefits is provided in Exhibit F.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of:
1. General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -008;
2. Code Amendment No. CA2008 -004;
3. Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2008 -002, attached hereto as Exhibit G
and incorporated herein by reference;
4. Master Development Plan No. MP2008 -001, attached hereto as Exhibit H and
incorporated herein by reference;
5. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003, attached hereto as Exhibit I and incorporated
herein by reference, and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached
hereto and incorporated by reference;
6. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001, attached hereto as Exhibit
J and incorporated herein by reference; and
7. Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002.
Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations specifically identifying the project benefits identified in
Exhibit F that outweigh the land use, night lighting, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and
noise impacts of the proposed project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 6 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Michael Toerge, Chairman
1w
Fred Ameri, Secretary
Exhibit A
Legal Description
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Real properly in the unincorporated area of the County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:
PARCELI:
A PORTION OF LOTS "B ", "C" AND "D ", ALL IN THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF
SAID TRACT FILED IN THE CASE OF HANCOCK BANNING AND OTHERS VS. MARY H. BANNING,
FOR PARTITION, BEING CASE NO. 6385 UPON THE REGISTER OF ACTIONS OF THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF RANCHO SANTIAGO DE
SANTA ANA, DESCRIBED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 387 OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS "A" AND "B" OF SAID
BANNING TRACT, WHICH POINT IS THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF
NINETEENTH STREET AND THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE FIRST ADDmON TO THE
NEWPORT MESA TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 61 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 89
DEGREES 26'55" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B ", 3315.29 FEET TO THE
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT "B" OF SAID BANNING TRACT; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG
THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT "B" OF SAID BANNING TRACT, THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 1 DEGREE 45' WEST 462.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34
DEGREES IS' WEST 462.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6 DEGREES IS' EAST 1058.46 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 19 DEGREES 45' WEST 529.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREES 30' WEST 463.08
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 45' WEST 397.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4 DEGREES 45'
WEST 462.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES IS' WEST 198.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT "B ", AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF THE BANNING TRACT, WHICH CORNER IS
ALSO STATION NO. 149 OF THE BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO SANTIAGO DE SANTA ANA, AS
DESCRIBED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 387 OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 72 DEGREES 51'36" EAST 807,47 FEET TO A POINT WHICH
BEARS NORTH 20 DEGREES 32'44" EAST 606.79 FEET FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF
THE CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN AND
ANNEXED TO THE COMPLAINT IN THE CASE OF J. B. BANNING JR. VS. SMITH AND OTHERS,
BEING CASE NO. 22797 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR
ORANGE COUNTY, A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF SAID CASE NO. 22797 HAVING BEEN
RECORDED JULY 19, 1929 IN BOOK 297, PAGE 76 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, WITH THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SUMMIT STREET, 30 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF EL
MORO TRACT RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 75 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY, NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY,
PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND 600.00 FEET DISTANT
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES: SOUTH 78 DEGREES 02' EAST 486.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 42,20"
EAST 517.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20 DEGREES 06' IS" EAST 539.49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51
DEGREES 46' EAST 405.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 07' EAST 722.86 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 45 DEGREES 20'28" EAST 740.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 46' EAST 498.37
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 35'40" EAST 820.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREE 3B'
25" WEST 871.22 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE 600.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL
WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE 100 -FOOT RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
HIGHWAY, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED APRIL 20, 1936 IN BOOK 822, PAGE 48 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY AND
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY, THE FOLLOWING COURSES
AND DISTANCES: THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 18' EAST 328.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1650.00 FEET AND TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED
COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 500.12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65 DEGREES 56' EAST, TANGENT TO
SAID CURVE, 667.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
1650.00 FEET AND TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 48.34 FEET
TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WHINER
AVENUE (60 FEET IN WIDTH), AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF THE NEWPORT MESA TRACT
RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 1 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, A RADIAL LINE FROM SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 25 DEGREES 44' 43" WEST;
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 36'01" WEST ALONG THE SAID PROLONGATION OF WHIMER
AVENUE, 3061.05 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID FIRST ADDITION
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT; THENCE NORTH 29 DEGREES 24' 45" WEST ALONG THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID FIRST ADDITION TO THE NEWPORT MESA TRACT, 2706.70
FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID FIRST ADDITION TO THE NEWPORT MESA
TRACT; THENCE NORTH 19 DEGREES 01'55" EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE
LAST MENTIONED TRACT, 1065.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF LOT "B" OF SAID BANNING TRACT DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE 300 -FOOT STRIP OF LAND
FOR SANTA ANA RIVER CHANNEL, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE NEWBERT
PROTECTION DISTRICT, RECORDED JUNE 22, 1911 IN BOOK 197, PAGE 300 OF DEEDS,
ORANGE COUNTY, WHICH POINT IS NORTH 71 DEGREES 20' EAST 510.47 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT "B ", WHICH LAST MENTIONED CORNER IS ALSO STATION
149 OF THE RANCHO SANTIAGO DE SANTA ANA; THENCE NORTH 13 DEGREES 25' EAST ALONG
THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 300 -FOOT STRIP OF LAND, 660 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 76
DEGREES 35' EAST 660 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 25' WEST 660 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 76 DEGREES 35' WEST 660 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AS CONDEMNED BY
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IN THE ACTION ENTITLED "CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF VS. TOWNSEND LAND COMPANY AND OTHERS,
DEFENDANTS ", BEING CASE NO. 34747 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, A CERTIFIED Copy OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT
HAVING BEEN RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1937 IN BOOK 910, PAGE 19 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF LOT "B" IN SAID BANNING TRACT
CONVEYED BY THE TOWNSEND LAND COMPANY TO THE NEWBERT PROTECTION DISTRICT
FOR A RIVER CHANNEL, 300 FEET WIDE, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 22, 1911 IN BOOK 197,
PAGE 300 OF DEEDS, ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B" OF THE BANNING
TRACT, SOUTH 84 DEGREES 45' EAST 135.84 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY
CORNER OF SAID LOT "B ", WHICH CORNER IS ALSO STATION 149 OF THE RANCHO SANTIAGO
DE SANTA ANA; THENCE NORTH 13 DEGREES 25' EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDE OF SAID
300 -FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, 946.75 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B';
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B ", NORTH 42 DEGREES 45' EAST 38.70
FEET TO AN ANGLE IN SAID WESTERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 34 DEGREES 30' EAST 462.00
FEET TO AN ANGLE IN SAID WESTERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 19 DEGREES 45' EAST 528.00
FEET TO AN ANGLE IN SAID WESTERLY LINE; THENCE STILL ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE,
NORTH 6 DEGREES 15' WEST 723.17 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 300 -
FOOT RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE NORTH 13 DEGREES 25' EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT
OF WAY, 607.27 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B ";
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B ", NORTH 34 DEGREES 15' EAST 148.48
FEET TO AN ANGLE IN SAID LINE; THENCE NORTH 1 DEGREE 45 EAST 436.44 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT "B "; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
"B ", NORTH 89 DEGREES 28' EAST 346.14 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
300 -FOOT RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 25' WEST 3831.55 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B "; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B ",
NORTH 84 DEGREES 45' WEST 303.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE PORTIONS THEREOF INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND
30 FEET IN WIDTH, THE CENTER LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT
THE POINT WHERE THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS BETWEEN
STATIONS 78 AND 79 OF THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE LINE WHICH
BEARS NORTH 13 DEGREES 26'313" EAST FROM THE POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION
18, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, 2294.92
FEET NORTH 89 DEGREES 38' EAST FROM THE SOUTH QUARTER SECTION CORNER OF SAID
SECTION, SAID BEGINNING POINT BEING ON THE SURVEYED CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA
ANA - ANAHEIM JOINT OUTFALL SEWER; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTH 13
DEGREES 26'31)" WEST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO STATION 187 +74.49, BEING THE POINT
ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 18, 2294.92 FEET NORTH 89 DEGREES 38' EAST FROM
THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 13 DEGREES
26'3D" WEST ALONG SAID SURVEYED CENTER LINE, 2795.66 FEET TO STATION 215 +70.15;
THENCE SOUTH 16 DEGREES 27'3D" WEST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, 1050.35 FEET TO A
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
POINT 15.30 FEET SOUTH 84 DEGREES 45' EAST FROM STATION 68 OF THE RANCHO LAS
BOLSAS, TOGETHER WITH THE STRIP OF LAND OF VARYING WIDTHS LYING BETWEEN THE
EASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 3D -FOOT STRIP AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE
RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER THROUGH THE NEWBERT PROTECTION DISTRICT,
AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SANTA ANA BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 14, 1934 IN BOOK 670,
PAGE 147 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OF
LAND 180 FEET WIDE, DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 133 -121.1 AND 133 -122.1 IN THE FINAL ORDER
OF CONDEMNATION RENDERED JANUARY 26, 1962 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, IN THE ACTION ENTITLED "ORANGE
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT VS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AND OTHERS" (CASE NO.
77399), A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH DECREE WAS RECORDED JANUARY 3D, 1962 IN BOOK
5993, PAGE 441 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND:
THAT PORTION OF BLOCK C OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP ATTACHED TO
REPORT OF THE REFEREES FILED APRIL 14, 1890 IN CASE NO. 6385 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THAT
PORTION OF LOTS 1111 AND 1112 AND PORTION OF SIXTEENTH STREET AND WHITTIER
AVENUE ADJOINING, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF NEWPORT MESA TRACT RECORDED IN BOOK
5, PAGE 1 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF SAID SIXTEENTH STREET WITH
THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT, AS
SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 21'50" WEST 16.50 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
500.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 28 DEGREES
48' 33 ", A DISTANCE OF 251.41 FEET TO A LINE TANGENT; THENCE SOUTH 60 DEGREES 33'
17" WEST ALONG SAID LINE TANGENT, A DISTANCE OF 404.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29
DEGREES 26'43" WEST 804.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60 DEGREES 33'17" EAST 300.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 48'26" EAST 316.57 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE FROM SAID POINT
BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 21'50" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH
AN ANGLE OF 44 DEGREES 24' 55 ", A DISTANCE OF 38.76 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 44 DEGREES 24'55", A DISTANCE
OF 69.77 FEET TO A LINE TANGENT; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 38' 10" WEST ALONG SAID
LINE TANGENT, A DISTANCE OF 11.11 FEET TO THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 29 DEGREES 26'43" EAST
ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 789.32 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
AS DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RENDERED AUGUST 4, 1965 IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,
ENTITLED "COSTA MESA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA VS.
SECURITY FIRST NATIONAL BANK, ETC., AND OTHERS" (CASE NO. 123141), A CERTIFIED COPY
OF WHICH ORDER WAS RECORDED AUGUST 5, 1965 IN BOOK 7620, PAGE 215 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF LOT B OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN THE CASE
OF HANCOCK BANNING AND OTHERS VS. MARY H. BANNING, FOR PARTITION, BEING CASE
NO. 6385 UPON THE REGISTER OF ACTIONS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT B; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT B, SOUTH 01 DEGREE 4600" WEST 462.00 FEET TO
RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, STATION 75, AND SOUTH 34 DEGREES 15'00" WEST 462.95 FEET TO
RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, STATION 74, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, SOUTH O6 DEGREES 15'0011 EAST TO THE
WESTERLY LINE OF THE STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
RECORDED APRIL 14, 1934 IN BOOK 670, PAGE 147 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE
INTERSECTION WITH THAT CERTAIN COURSE HEREINABOVE CITED AS "SOUTH 34 DEGREES
1500" WEST 462.95 FEET "; THENCE ALONG SAID CERTAIN COURSE, SOUTH 34 DEGREES 15'
00" WEST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 100, 103,106 AND
108 IN THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CV 91- 3991 -IH, A CERTIFIED OF WHICH WAS RECORDED
AUGUST 23, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91- 455338 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE
COUNTY, WHICH INCLUDES A DECLARATION OF TAKING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE TITLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO ALL OF THE MINERALS,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL PETROLEUM, OIL, NATURAL GAS, AND OTHER
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED THEREFROM, TOGETHER WITH THE
RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, UPON, OVER AND BENEATH THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, ATALL
TIMES TO EXPLORE FOR, EXTRACT AND REMOVE ANY OF SAID MINERALS LOCATED
BELOW A DEPTH OF 6200 FEET, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO USE THE SURFACE OF SAID
LAND DOWN TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED EXECUTED BY HANCOCK
BANNING JR. AND OTHERS, DATED AUGUST 1, 1958, RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1958 IN BOOK
4400, PAGE 532, AND RE- RECORDED OCTOBER 6, 1958 IN BOOK 4437, PAGE 228, AS
AMENDED BY THE DEED AND AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY HANCOCK BANNING JR. AND OTHERS,
RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1961 IN BOOK 5957, PAGE 665, ALL IN OFFICIAL RECORDS,
ORANGE COUNTY.
PARCEL 2:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN LAND AS DESCRIBED IN PARCEL
I IN DEED FROM HANCOCK BANNING JR. AND OTHERS, DATED AUGUST 1, 1958, RECORDED
AUGUST 29, 1958 IN BOOK 4400, PAGE 532 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, AND
RE- RECORDED OCTOBER 6, 1958 IN BOOK 4437, PAGE 228 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE
COUNTY, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT "B" OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS
SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED TO THE REPORT OF THE REFEREES FILED APRIL 14, 18901N
CASE NO. 6385 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, WHICH CORNER IS ALSO STATION 149 OF THE
BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO SANTIAGO DE SANTA ANA, AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 387
OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SOUTH 72 DEGREES 51' 36" EAST 807.47 FEET TO A
POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 20 DEGREES 32'44" EAST 606.79 FEET FROM THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP
FILED IN AND ANNEXED TO THE COMPLAINT IN THE CASE OF J. B. BANNING JR. VS. SMITH
AND OTHERS, BEING CASE NO. 22797 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF SAID CASE NO.
22797 HAVING BEEN RECORDED JULY 19, 1929 IN BOOK 297, PAGE 76 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,
WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SUMMIT STREET, 30 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON A
MAP OF EL MORO TRACT RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 75 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY, NORTHEASTERLY AND
SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND
600.00 FEET DISTANT THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 78 DEGREES 02' EAST 486.60 FEET; SOUTH 66 DEGREES
42'20" EAST 517.33 FEET; NORTH 20 DEGREES 06' 15" EAST 539.49 FEET; NORTH 51
DEGREES 48' EAST 405.76 FEET; NORTH 74 DEGREES 07' EAST 722.86 FEET; SOUTH 45
DEGREES 20 28" EAST 740.97 FEET; SOUTH 27 DEGREES 46 EAST 498.37 FEET; SOUTH 13
DEGREES 35'40" EAST 820.19 FEET; SOUTH 1 DEGREE 38'25" WEST 871.22 FEET TO A POINT
IN A LINE 600.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE
100 -FOOT RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED
RECORDED APRIL 20, 1936 IN BOOK 822, PAGE 48 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY. PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
SAID CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 83
DEGREES 18' EAST 328.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF
1650.00 FEET AND TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 500.12 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 65 DEGREES 56' EAST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, 667.16 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1650.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO THE LAST
MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 48.34 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WHITIIER AVENUE (60 FEET IN WIDTH), AS
SHOWN ON A MAP OF THE FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT RECORDED IN BOOK
8, PAGE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A RADIAL LINE
FROM SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 25 DEGREES 44'43" WEST, WHICH POINT IS THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 36'01" EAST ALONG THE
SAID PROLONGATION OF WHITTIER AVENUE, 404.46 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND 250 FEET IN WIDTH, AS DESCRIBED
IN PARCEL 1, ARTICLE II OF SAID DEED RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1958 IN BOOK 4400, PAGE
532 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, AND RE- RECORDED OCTOBER 6, 1958 IN BOOK
4437, PAGE 228 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, A RADIAL LINE FROM SAID
INTERSECTION BEARS SOUTH 33 DEGREES 40'54" WEST; THENCE ALONG THE
NORTHEASTERLY, NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1,
ARTICLE II, THROUGH THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1300.00 FEET, THROUGH AN
ANGLE OF 9 DEGREES 36' 54 ", A DISTANCE OF 218.16 FEET TO A LINE TANGENT THERETO;
THENCE NORTH 65 DEGREES 56' WEST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, 667.15 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1300.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO THE LAST
MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 394.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83 DEGREES 18' WEST,
TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, 646.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
700.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 2.34 FEET TO
A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AND
250.00 FEET DISTANT EAST THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, A RADIAL
LINE FROM SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 6 DEGREES 53'29" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY,
NORTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE
SANTA ANA RIVER, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES
THERETO, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 1 DEGREE 38,25" EAST
1144.77 FEET; NORTH 13 DEGREES 35'40" WEST 729.87 FEET; NORTH 27 DEGREES 46' WEST
400.76 FEET; NORTH 45 DEGREES 20'28" WEST 482.58 FEET; SOUTH 74 DEGREES 07' WEST
449.53 FEET; SOUTH 51 DEGREES 48' WEST 237.37 FEET; SOUTH 20 DEGREES 06,15" WEST
319.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT
NO. 772, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 23, PAGES 5 AND 6 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND 250 FEET DISTANT WEST
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY AND
WESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO.
772, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT WESTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED
AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 29
DEGREES 06' WEST 258.16 FEET; SOUTH 42 DEGREES 06' WEST 131.37 FEET; SOUTH 72
DEGREES 45' WEST 158.65 FEET; NORTH 88 DEGREES 25' WEST 16.51 FEET TO A POINT IN A
LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND 250.00 FEET
DISTANT NORTHERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE
WESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND 250.00
FEET DISTANT NORTHERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 66 DEGREES 42'20" WEST 620.94 FEET;
NORTH 78 DEGREES 02' WEST 504.69 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK C, EL MORO TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8,
PAGE 75 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND 250.00
FEET DISTANT NORTHERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE
WESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK C, EL MORO TRACT, AND
250.00 FEET DISTANT NORTHERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 60 DEGREES 52'34" WEST 120.39 FEET;
NORTH 64 DEGREES 06'50" WEST 216.59 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE
EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A RIVER CHANNEL OVER A STRIP OF LAND
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
300 FEET WIDE, IN FAVOR OF NEWBERT PROTECTION DISTRICT, AS DESCRIBED IN THE
INTERLOCUTORY DECREE OF PARTITION DATED JULY 19, 1929, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS
RECORDED JULY 19,1929 IN BOOK 297, PAGE 76 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE
COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1,
ARTICLE 11; THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 25' WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIVER
CHANNEL, 256.04 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1, ARTICLE
II; THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 06'50" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK C
OF EL MORO TRACT, 16.02 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF
THE 100 -FOOT RIGHT OF WAY OF CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTH 54 DEGREES
02' WEST ALONG SAID HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 145.48 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF
SAID 300 -FOOT RIVER CHANNEL EASEMENT; THENCE NORTH 13 DEGREES 25' EAST ALONG
SAID CENTER LINE, 390.57 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED
DATED DECEMBER 30, 1929 FROM JOSEPH BANNING JR. AND OTHERS, TO JAMES H. MACKLIN,
RECORDED JANUARY 29, 1930 IN BOOK 356, PAGE 31 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE
COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 17' WEST 289.47 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY
EXTENSION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID RANCHO SANTIAGO DE SANTA ANA,
WHICH POINT IS ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED
RECORDED IN BOOK 356, PAGE 31 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH
15 DEGREES 43' EAST ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WESTERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO SANTIAGO DE SANTA ANA, 119.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPT ANY PORTION OR PORTIONS OF SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND WHICH IS OR ARE
NOT INCLUDED EITHER WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE RANCHO SANTIAGO DE
SANTA ANA, OR WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY LINES OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION
19; GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 20; AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 29, ALL IN
TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OF
LAND 180 FEET WIDE, DESCRIBED AS PARCEL D3 -122.1 IN THE FINAL ORDER OF
CONDEMNATION RENDERED JANUARY 26, 1962 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, IN THE ACTION ENTITLED "ORANGE
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT VS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND OTHERS" (CASE NO.
77399), A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH DECREE RECORDED JANUARY 20, 1962, BOOK 5993,
PAGE 441, OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 100, 103,106 AND
108 IN THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CV 91- 3991 -IH, A CERTIFIED OF WHICH WAS RECORDED
AUGUST 23, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91- 455338 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE
COUNTY, WHICH INCLUDES A DECLARATION OF TAKING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE TITLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO ALL OF THE MINERALS,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL PETROLEUM, OIL, NATURAL GAS AND OTHER
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED THEREFROM, IN OR UNDER, OR
PRODUCIBLE FROM SAID LAND AT ANY DEPTH OR DEPTHS 6200 FEET OR MORE BELOW THE
SURFACE OF SAID LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE FREE AND UNLIMITED RIGHT TO MINE, DRILL,
BORE, OPERATE AND REMOVE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, AT ANY LEVEL OR
LEVELS 500 FEET OR MORE BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEVELOPMENT OR REMOVAL OF SAID RESERVED SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED
AND AGREEMENT FROM HANCOCK BANNING JR. AND OTHERS, RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1961
IN BOOK 5957, PAGE 665 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
LIMITATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES CONTAINED IN SAID DEED.
PARCEL3:
A STRIP OF LAND 250 FEET WIDE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK C OF EL
MORO TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 75 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE
EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A RIVER CHANNEL OVER A STRIP OF LAND
300 FEET WIDE, IN FAVOR OF NEWBERT PROTECTION DISTRICT, AS DESCRIBED IN THE
INTERLOCUTORY DECREE OF PARTITION DATED JULY 19, 1929, A CERTIFIED Copy OF WHICH
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
WAS RECORDED JULY 19, 1929 IN BOOK 297, PAGE 76 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH
64 DEGREES 06'50" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID EL MORO TRACT, 154.24
FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 60
DEGREES 52'34" EAST 151.04 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SUMMIT
STREET, 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID EL MORO TRACT, SAID
POINT BEING IN THE CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN
AND ANNEXED TO THE COMPLAINT IN CASE OF J. B. BANNING JR. VS. SMITH AND OTHERS,
CASE NO. 22797 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR
ORANGE COUNTY, A Copy OF THE JUDGMENT OF SAID CASE NO. 22797 HAVING BEEN
RECORDED JULY 19, 1929 IN BOOK 297, PAGE 76 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE SOUTH 78 DEGREES 02' EAST ALONG THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA
RIVER, 517.61 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA
RIVER, SOUTH 66 DEGREES 42'20" EAST 644.09 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE
OF TRACT NO. 772, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 23, PAGES 5 AND 6 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT
NO.772, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 88 DEGREES 25' EAST 105.91
FEET; NORTH 72 DEGREES 45' EAST 268.62 FEET; NORTH 42 DEGREES 06' EAST 228.36 FEET;
NORTH 29 DEGREES 06' EAST 306.31 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE
SANTA ANA RIVER; THENCE ALONG THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 20 DEGREES 06'16" EAST 267.71 FEET;
NORTH 51 DEGREES 48' EAST 117.09 FEET; NORTH 74 DEGREES 07' EAST 254.30 FEET; SOUTH
45 DEGREES 20'28" EAST 298.02 FEET; SOUTH 27 DEGREES 46' EAST 331.04 FEET; SOUTH 13
DEGREES 35'40" EAST 665.36 FEET; SOUTH 1 DEGREE 38'25" WEST 1205.19 FEET; SOUTH 10
DEGREES 47'30" EAST 116.85 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE 100 -FOOT
RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED
APRIL 20,1936 IN BOOK 822, PAGE 48 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, A RADIAL
LINE FROM SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 19 DEGREES 20'43" EAST; THENCE ALONG THE
NORTHERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY, THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: EASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 950.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.67 FEET; SOUTH 83
DEGREES 18' EAST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, 646.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE
TO THE RIGHT, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A
DISTANCE OF 318.26 FEET; SOUTH 65 DEGREES 56' EAST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, 667.15
FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO
THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 216.09 FEET; SOUTH 54 DEGREES 08'30"
EAST 367.05 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 950.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO
THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 264.46 FEET; SOUTH 70 DEGREES OS' 30"
EAST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, 527.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF
LOT D OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATIACHED TO THE REPORT OF THE
REFEREES FILED APRIL 14, 1980 IN CASE NO. 6385 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THENCE LEAVING
SAID CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY, NORTH 39 DEGREES 43' 45" EAST, ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT D OF BANNING TRACT, 265.74 FEET TO A
POINT, BEING 250.00 FEET NORTH, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID 100 -FOOT RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTH 70 DEGREES OS' 3D" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY
LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY, 49.03 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF
THAT CERTAIN 2.7827 -ACRE PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM FARMERS AND
MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF LOS ANGELES, TRUSTEE FOR ANNE 0. BANNING AND
OTHERS, TO A.E.S. CHAFFEY AND OTHERS, RECORDED MARCH 14, 1958 IN BOOK 4228, PAGE
191 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, A RADIAL LINE FROM SAID POINT BEARS
NORTH 26 DEGREES 10'42" WEST; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE LAST
MENTIONED PARCEL OF LAND, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 373.48 FEET, A
DISTANCE OF 176.40 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND,
NORTH 5 DEGREES 44'28" WEST 104.32 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT THEREFROM,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY, AND 250 FEET
DISTANT THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE FOLLOWING COURSES
AND DISTANCES: NORTH 70 DEGREES OS' 3 -" WEST 376.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A
DISTANCE OF 194.87 FEET; NORTH 54 DEGREES 08'3D" WEST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE,
387.05 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1300.00 FEET, AND
TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 267.55 FEET; NORTH 65
DEGREES 56' WEST, TANGENT TO THE SAID CURVE, 667.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE TO THE LEFT, WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING
A RADIUS OF 1300.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE
OF 394.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83 DEGREES 18' WEST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, 646.66
FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO THE LAST
MENTIONED COURSE, A DISTANCE OF 2.34 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE
SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT THEREFROM,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, A RADIAL LINE FROM SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 6
DEGREES 53'29" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY, NORTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY,
PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AND 250.00 FEET
DISTANT THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE FOLLOWING COURSES
AND DISTANCES: NORTH 1 DEGREE 38'25" EAST 1144.77 FEET; NORTH 13 DEGREES 35'40"
WEST 729.87 FEET; NORTH 27 DEGREES 46' WEST 400.76 FEET; NORTH 45 DEGREES 20,28"
WEST 482.58 FEET; SOUTH 74 DEGREES 07' WEST 449.53 FEET; SOUTH 51 DEGREES 48' WEST
237.37 FEET; SOUTH 20 DEGREES 06'15" WEST 319.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL
WITH THE SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 772, AND 250 FEET DISTANT
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY AND
WESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO.
772, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 29 DEGREES 06 WEST 258.16 FEET; SOUTH 42
DEGREES 06' WEST 131.37 FEET; SOUTH 72 DEGREES 45' WEST 158.65 FEET; NORTH 88
DEGREES 25' WEST 16.51 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE
OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT
ANGLES THERETO; THENCE WESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF THE
SANTA ANA RIVER, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO,
THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 66 DEGREES 42'20" WEST
620.94 FEET; NORTH 78 DEGREES 02' WEST 504.69 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL
WITH THE SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK C, EL MORO TRACT, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE WESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH
THE SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK C, EL MORa TRACT, AND 250.00 FEET DISTANT
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES: NORTH 60 DEGREES 52'34" WEST 120.39 FEET, AND NORTH 64 DEGREES 06' 50"
WEST 216.59 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT 300.00 FEET
WIDE, FOR PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING THE SANTA ANA RIVER CHANNEL; THENCE SOUTH 13
DEGREES 25' WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIVER CHANNEL, 256.04 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING GENERALLY SOUTHERLY OF THE
AGREED BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "E" ATTACHED TO THAT CERTAIN
SETTLEMENT AND BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT, STATE AND CITY DEEDS AND CORPORATION
DEED REGARDING CERTAIN LANDS IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, BLA. NO. 260
RECORDED AUGUST 30, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89- 466419 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE PORTION OR PORTIONS OF SAID LAND WHICH IS OR ARE
NOT INCLUDED EITHER WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE RANCHO SANTIAGO DE
SANTA ANA, THE PATENT FOR WHICH WAS RECORDED JUNE 28, 1884 IN BOOK 3, PAGE 387
OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND AS ESTABLISHED BY
SAID HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED SETTLEMENT AND BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT, OR WITHIN
THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF LOT 1 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10
WEST; LOT 1 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST; AND LOT 1 OF SECTION
29, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, THE
PATENT FOR WHICH LOTS WAS RECORDED APRIL 19, 1893 IN BOOK 1, PAGE 66 OF PATENTS,
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, OR WITHIN ACCRETIONS OF SAID RANCHO OR
SAID LOTS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN THE PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED AS PARCEL D3 -122.1 IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RENDERED
JANUARY 26, 1962 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE, IN THE ACTION ENTITLED "ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT VS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND OTHERS' (CASE NO. 77399), A CERTIFIED COPY
OF WHICH FINAL ORDER WAS RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1962 IN BOOK 5993, PAGE 441 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN THE LAND DESCRIBED IN
DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1966 IN BOOK 7839, PAGE 739
OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 73170 -1 IN THAT
CERTAIN FINAL DECREE OF CONDEMNATION, SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 667539, A
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED JANUARY 14, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94-
0032786 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 100, 103,106 AND
108 IN THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CV 91- 3991 -I14, A CERTIFIED OF WHICH WAS RECORDED
AUGUST 23, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91- 455338 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE
COUNTY, WHICH INCLUDES A DECLARATION OF TAKING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, AN UNDIVIDED 30% INTEREST IN AND TO THE IDLE AND
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO ALL OF THE MINERALS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL
PETROLEUM, OIL, NATURAL GAS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES AND PRODUCTS
DERIVED FROM SAID LAND LOCATED BELOW A DEPTH OF 6200 FEET, BUT WITHOUT THE
RIGHT TO USE THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND DOWN TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, AS RESERVED
IN THE DEED FROM HANCOCK BANNING JR. AND OTHERS, DATED AUGUST 1, 1958, RECORDED
AUGUST 29, 1958 IN BOOK 4400, PAGE 532 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, AND
RE- RECORDED OCTOBER 6, 1958 IN BOOK 4437, PAGE 228 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE
COUNTY, AS AMENDED BY THE DEED DATED NOVEMBER 29, 1961 FROM HANCOCK BANNING
JR. AND OTHERS, RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1961 IN BOOK 5957, PAGE 665 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY,
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, AN UNDIVIDED 70% INTEREST IN AND TO THE TITLE AND
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO ALL OF THE MINERALS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL
PETROLEUM, OIL, NATURAL GAS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES AND PRODUCTS
DERIVED THEREFROM, IN OR UNDER, OR PRODUCIBLE FROM SAID LAND AT ANY DEPTH OR
DEPTHS 6200 FEET OR MORE BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE
FREE AND UNLIMITED RIGHT TO MINE, DRILL, BORE, OPERATE AND REMOVE FROM BENEATH
THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, AT ANY LEVEL OR LEVELS 500 FEET OR MORE BELOW THE
SURFACE OF SAID LAND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OR REMOVAL OF SAID
RESERVED SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED AND AGREEMENT FROM HANCOCK
BANNING JR. AND OTHERS, RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1961 IN BOOK 5957, PAGE 665 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND
CONTINGENCIES CONTAINED IN SAID DEED,
PARCEL4:
THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS C AND D OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP
ATTACHED TO THE REPORT OF THE REFEREES FILED APRIL 14, 1890 IN CASE NO. 6385 IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
BEING ALSO A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 463, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 32, PAGES 2 AND 3 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF TRACT NO. 2250, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
104, PAGES 6 AND 7 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS:
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. is, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 9, PAGE 19 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, WHICH CORNER IS IN THE CENTER LINE OF SUPERIOR AVENUE, FORMERLY
NEWPORT AVENUE, AS SAID NEWPORT AVENUE IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT NO. 15,
AND ALSO IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT D IN THE BANNING TRACT; THENCE
NORTH 29 DEGREES 24'45" WEST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. is,
AND ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT, AS
SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 3691.50 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF
WHITTIER AVENUE, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF FIRST ADDITION TO
NEWPORT MESA TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 36'01" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE SAID EASTERLY LINE OF WHITTIER AVENUE, SAID PROLONGATION
BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS DESCRIBED IN DEED EXECUTED BY HANCOCK
BANNING JR. AND OTHERS, DATED AUGUST 1, 1958, RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1958 IN BOOK
4400, PAGE 532 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, AND RE- RECORDED OCTOBER 6,
1958 IN BOOK 4437, PAGE 228 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, 3465.51 FEET, MORE
OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, 250.00 FEET
NORTHEASTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE
100 -FOOT RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED
RECORDED APRIL 20,1936 IN BOOK 822, PAGE 48 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY,
A RADIAL LINE FROM SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEARS SOUTH 33 DEGREES 40,54"
WEST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID STATE
HIGHWAY, AND 250,00 FEET DISTANT THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO,
THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1300.00 FEET, 49.39 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 54 DEGREES 08'30" EAST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, 387.05 FEET TO BEGINNING OF
CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, AND TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED
COURSE, 194.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 70 DEGREES OS' 30" EAST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE,
376.41 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 2.7827 -ACRE PARCEL OF
LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM THE FARMERS AND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF LOS
ANGELES, TRUSTEE FOR ANNE O. BANNING AND OTHERS, TO A. E. S. CHAFFEY AND OTHERS,
RECORDED MARCH 14, 1958 IN BOOK 4228, PAGE 191 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE
COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY, NORTHERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF SAID 2.7827 -ACRE PARCEL, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 5
DEGREES 44'28" WEST 160.43 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 2.7827 -ACRE
PARCEL, FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 20 DEGREES 20'15" WEST; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF
450.00 FEET, 235.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39 DEGREES 43'45" EAST, TANGENT TO THE LAST
MENTIONED CURVE, 75.42 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID 2.7827 -ACRE
PARCEL, FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 29 DEGREES 3D'33" WEST; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
730.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 130.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGREES 16'15" EAST,
TANGENT TO THE LAST MENTIONED CURVE, 122.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SUPERIOR AVENUE, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, FORMERLY NEWPORT
AVENUE, AS SAID NEWPORT AVENUE IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT NO. 15, WHICH
POINT BEARS NORTH 39 DEGREES 43'45" EAST 35.24 FEET FROM THE MOST EASTERLY
CORNER OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 15; THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGREES 16,15"
EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF SAID SUPERIOR AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE
CENTER LINE OF SAID SUPERIOR AVENUE, NORTH 39 DEGREES 43'45" EAST 705.55 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
LAND: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK C OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP ATTACHED
TO THE REPORT OF THE REFEREES FILED APRIL 14, 1890 IN CASE NO. 6385 IN THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THAT
PORTION OF LOTS 1111 AND 1112 AND PORTION OF SIXTEENTH STREET AND WHITTIER
AVENUE ADJOINING, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF NEWPORT MESA TRACT RECORDED IN BOOK
5, PAGE 1 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF SAID SIXTEENTH STREET WITH
10
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT, AS
SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 21' 50" WEST 16.50 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
500.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 28 DEGREES
48' 33 ", A DISTANCE OF 251.41 FEET TO A LINE TANGENT; THENCE SOUTH 60 DEGREES 33'
17" WEST ALONG SAID LINE TANGENT, A DISTANCE OF 404.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29
DEGREES 26'43" WEST 804.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60 DEGREES 33' 17" EAST 300.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 88 DEGREES 48'26" EAST 316.57 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE FROM SAID POINT
BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 2115011 EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH
AN ANGLE OF 44 DEGREES 24'55", A DISTANCE OF 38.76 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 44 DEGREES 24' 55 ", A DISTANCE
OF 69.77 FEET TO A LINE TANGENT; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 38'10" WEST ALONG SAID
LINE TANGENT, A DISTANCE OF 11.11 FEET TO THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 29 DEGREES 26,43" EAST
ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 789.32 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING: THAT
PORTION OF LOT I AND ALL OF LOT 2 OF TRACT NO. 463 AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 32, PAGES 2 AND 3 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF FIFTEENTH STREET WITH THE
CENTER LINE OF MONROVIA AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGES
31 THROUGH 36 INCLUSIVE OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 37'24" EAST,
ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID MONROVIA AVENUE, 440.93 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY
LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 463; THENCE NORTH 29 DEGREES 26'43" WEST ALONG SAID
NORTHEASTERLY LINE, 272.61 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS
DESCRIPTION; THENCE SOUTH 29 DEGREES 26'43" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE,
1288.43 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF SUPERIOR AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 39 DEGREES 41'
15" WEST, ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF SUPERIOR AVENUE, 705.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 50
DEGREES 18'45" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN A
DEED TO A. E. S. CHAFFEY AND OTHERS, RECORDED IN BOOK 4228, PAGE 191 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF,
152.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 730.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 130.21 FEET ALONG SAID
CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 DEGREES 13'12" TO A POINT IN THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 7839,
PAGE 739 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID
NORTHEASTERLY LINE, NORTH 63 DEGREES 11'16" WEST 1160.70 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE
PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 100.00 FEET EASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES
FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN ANNEXATION NO. 54 TO THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, DECEMBER 30,1963; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 0
DEGREES 38'10" WEST 734.93 FEET TO A LINE THAT BEARS SOUTH 77 DEGREES 45' 00" WEST
FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 77
DEGREES 45'00" EAST 1110.58 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS
DESCRIPTION.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN THE LAND DESCRIBED IN
THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1966 IN BOOK 7839,
PAGE 739 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ANY PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN WHITTIER AVENUE AND
SIXTEENTH STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF NEWPORT MESA TRACT RECORDED IN BOOK
5, PAGE 1 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED IN THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, RECORDED JUNE 6, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-
0237652 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
11
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE TITLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO ALL OF THE MINERALS,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL PETROLEUM, OIL, NATURAL GAS AND OTHER
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED THEREFROM, IN OR UNDER, OR
PRODUCIBLE FROM SAID LAND, AT ANY DEPTH OR DEPTHS 6200 FEET OR MORE BELOW THE
SURFACE OF SAID LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE FREE AND UNLIMITED RIGHT TO MINE, DRILL,
BORE, OPERATE AND REMOVE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND AT ANY LEVEL OR
LEVELS 500 FEET OR MORE BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEVELOPMENT OR REMOVAL OF SAID RESERVED SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED
AND AGREEMENT FROM HANCOCK BANNING JR. AND OTHERS, RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1961
IN BOOK 5957, PAGE 665 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
LIMITATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES CONTAINED IN SAID DEED.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THE MINERALS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL
OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN, ON OR UNDER THE HEREINAFTER
DESCRIBED LAND LYING 500 VERTICAL FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND WAS
QUITCLAIM TO ARMSTRONG PETROLEUM CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BY AN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 5, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970206789 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
APN: 114 - 170 -24, 114 - 170 -43, 114 - 170 -49, 114 - 170 -50, 114 - 170 -52, 114 - 170 -56, 114 - 170 -72,
114- 170 -73, 114 - 170 -75, 114.170- 77,114- 170 - 79,114- 170 -83 and 424 - 041 -04
12
Exhibit B
TTM No. 17308 Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
General Conditions
1. City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 is in conjunction with its
approval of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -003 for the same project (the "DA ").
Pursuant to Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the DA and the terms used therein that are defined
in Section 1 of the DA, the "Term" of the DA becomes effective on the "Effective Date"
of the DA. Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 and the DA comprise parts of a single
integrated action and are not severable from one another. Accordingly,
notwithstanding any other provision set forth in Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 to the
contrary, in no event shall the owner, lessee, or other occupant or any person or entity
holding any interest in the subject property acquire any right to develop or use the
subject property as authorized or provided herein unless and until the Effective Date in
the DA occurs and the Term of the DA commences. In the event the DA is terminated
for any reason before the Effective Date of the DA occurs, including without limitation
as a result of the mutual termination of the DA by the Parties thereto, the occurrence
of an uncured material default under the DA by either Party and a termination of the
DA by the non - defaulting Party, or the failure of the Effective Date of the DA to occur
prior to the deadline set forth in the DA, as said deadline may be extended by mutual
agreement of the Parties to the DA, then in such event Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
automatically shall become null and void and of no further force or effect, without any
need or requirement for the City to schedule any public hearings or take any
affirmative action or actions to revoke or rescind the same.
2. Notwithstanding any provision expressly or impliedly to the contrary, in the event of
any conflict or inconsistency between any of the terms or conditions of Tentative Tract
Map No. 17308 and the DA, the terms and conditions of the DA shall control.
3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 19.40,
General Dedication Requirements.
4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair
Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, pursuant to the requirements of the
Development Agreement.
5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.40,
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), but not limited to the following conditions:
a. Pursuant to Section 15.40.030(8)(2) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
construction of the T PO required traffic mitigation improvements shall be completed
no more than 60 months from the date of final approval of the Project (as defined in
General Condition 8, below). (PDF 4.9 -2)
b. The traffic study as a part of FEIR SCH No. 2009031061 shall be valid for the
duration of the term of the Development Agreement. This approval shall be deemed
exercised by the issuance of a grading permit to construct the proposed project.
1
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
6. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.42,
Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program.
7. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 19.44,
General Reservation Requirements, but not limited to the following conditions:
a. Subdividers are required to reserve sites, appropriate in area and location, for
open space, parks, recreation facilities, trails, drainage devices for bluff
restoration and protection, water quality management facilities, storm drains,
water and sewer facilities, roadways, and other public facilities consistent with
Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan, Newport
Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, and the Newport Banning Ranch
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The requirement is
based on the adopted policies and standards for the above listed uses and
facilities and the required reservations are in accordance with those policies
and standards. (PDF 4.1 -1, 4.1 -2, 4.1 -3, 4.1.4, 4.6 -1, 4.8 -1)
8. Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 shall expire 24 months from the date of approval
pursuant to NBMC Chapter 19.16.010, which date of approval shall be the date of
completion and approval of annexation of the project site to the City of Newport Beach by
the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (OCLAFCO), as set forth in
Government Code Section 56658 and summarized in OCLAFCO's Project Processing
Policies and Procedures Manual, unless:
a. A Final Map is recorded; or
b. An extension is otherwise granted by the City for the period of time provided for in
the Development Agreement pursuant to the provisions of California Government
Code 66452.6 (a).
9. The development of the project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals
approved by the City and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
subject to modifications by these Conditions of Approval.
10. Development of the project shall comply with the requirements of the NBR Planned
Community Development Plan and be in substantial conformance with the approved
NBR Master Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map 17308 dated June 30, 2011.
(Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval and the DA.) (PDF 4.1 -5, 4.7 -1,
4.8 -1, PDF 4.9 -1, PDF 4.9 -3)
11. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations,
damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties,
liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise
2
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the City's approval of the
Newport Banning Ranch project including, but not limited to, the approval of the
Tentative Tract Map No.17308, NBR Master Development Plan No.MP 2008 -001,
NBR Planned Community Development Plan No. PC 2008 -002, General Plan
Amendment No. GP2008 -008, and /or the City's related California Environmental
Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No.2009031061, the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
and /or statement of overriding considerations adopted for the project. This
indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City,
if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with
such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant,
City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall
indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City
incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The
applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to
the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. The provisions herein
shall not apply to the extent such damage, liability or claim is caused by the willful
misconduct or sole active negligence of the City, or the City's officers, officials, agents,
employees, or representatives.
12.The applicant shall comply with all project design features, mitigation measures, and
standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program of the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2009031061 for the
project.
13. The applicant shall have the sole obligation to fund or arrange funding for the planning,
design, engineering, construction, supervision, inspection and all other costs
associated with site remediation, oil field consolidation, open space and habitat
restoration, construction of the Community Park, Bluff Park, Interpretive Parks, and
Open Space Interpretive Trails and all public infrastructure, including but not limited to
roads, water and sewer facilities, storm drain, and water quality management facilities,
to serve residential, resort and commercial development as defined within the NBR
Master Development Plan.
14. Within 10 years following the completion of annexation of the project site into the City,
all continuing surface oil operations shall be consolidated into Lots 190, 6,7, and 226
comprising the OF land use district as designated in the NBR Planned Community
Development Plan. (PDF4.5 -1)
15. New development within the project site shall be subject to the same General
Obligation bond tax rate as already applied to other properties within the Newport-
Mesa Unified School District for Measure F (approved in 2005) and Measure A
(approved in 2000) based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial
uses. (SC 4.14 -7)
3
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
16. The applicant shall submit a deposit in an amount acceptable to the Community
Development Director for the preparation of documentation necessary to reconcile the
NBR General Plan Amendment, NBR - Planned Community Development Plan, the NBR
Master Development Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 with the Newport
Banning Ranch Coastal Development Permit. Documentation shall be in a form
acceptable to the Community Development Director and City Attorney, and said
document shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of the first grading permit for
the project.
17.All improvements to Lots 194 -196 (North Community Park) and Lots 231 and 232 shall
be constructed by the applicant and approved by the City. Completion of these
improvements shall be in accordance with the terms and schedule stated in the
Development Agreement.
Prior to Final Map
Note: Multiple final Tract maps may be prepared by the applicant and submitted for
approval by the City. Unless otherwise noted, conditions 18 through 25 apply to the project
area included on the applicable map.
18. Prior to Final Map approval the applicant shall obtain written verification of the
availability of sufficient water supply from the City Municipal Operations Department
consistent with the requirements of Section 66473.7 (b) of the Subdivision Map Act.
The applicant shall provide a deposit of funds as identified by the Director of the
Municipal Operations Department in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of any
studies required by the Municipal Operations Department as part of the preparation of
the written verification of water availability.
19. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit for review by the Director of
Community Development, and shall obtain the approval of the City Attorney for,
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) prepared by an authorized
professional and which generally provide for the following:
a. Creation of a Master Association, and /or Sub - associations, and /or a
conservancy for the purpose of providing for control over and maintenance of
common area improvements not otherwise offered for dedication to the City,
which include but are not limited to the following unless otherwise approved by
the Director of Public Works: Community walls and fencing, slopes, open
space and open space trails, fuel modification zones, bluff parks including all
park facilities, maintenance buildings and offices, trails and pedestrian paths
within the bluff parks, interpretive parks, median and parkway landscaping and
irrigation, pedestrian paseos and greenbelts, bioswales, common area
landscaping, irrigation and sidewalks, exterior lighting, walls and fencing within
the interior of the tract, off - street parking areas, trash areas and structures,
private alleys, slope drains, sewer laterals, water laterals, private residential
12
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
park and recreational facilities within the interior of the project, and reciprocal
access areas within the cluster courtyard single family detached homes,
multifamily attached homes, the resort inn and commercial uses.
b. A statement that all homeowners and residents will be provided, upon purchase
closing or signing of rental agreement, the information and requirements for
water conservation pursuant to NBMC Chapter 14.16, Water Conservation and
Supply Level Regulations.
c. A statement that the Master Association and /or responsible Sub - Association will
be responsible for funding the City's maintenance of the pedestrian bridge
spanning West Coast Highway, if constructed.
d. A statement that all homeowners be provided educational information upon
purchase closing and annually after the close of escrow on mobile source
emission reduction techniques, including but not limited to, alternative modes of
transportation and use of zero or low emission vehicles. As part of this
statement provisions shall be made that the Association provide to the Director
of Community Development an annual report of conservation educational
materials distributed to homeowners. (refer to MM 4.10 -11)
e. A statement that all homeowners shall be provided educational information
upon purchase closing on the positive benefits of using consumer products with
low or no- volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as paint thinners and
solvents.
f. A statement that all homeowners be provided educational information upon
purchase closing and annually thereafter regarding the energy saving benefits
of using of solar heating, automatic pool and spa covers, and efficient pumps
and motors for pools and spas.
g. A statement that all common area yards, pedestrian paseos, bluff parks,
interpretive parks, median and parkway landscaping, greenbelts, bioswales,
walls and fencing within the interior of the tract, off - street parking areas, fuel
modification areas, trash areas, maintenance buildings and office structures,
exterior lighting, sewer and water laterals, alleys, slopes, slope drains,
reciprocal access areas within the cluster courtyard single family detached
homes, multifamily attached homes, the resort inn and commercial uses and
private residential park and recreation areas within the interior of the tract are
private and shall be maintained by the Master Association, or Sub -
Association(s) unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.
h. A statement that the Association shall be required to advise residents that
complaints about offensive odors may be reported to the City using the Quest
online format on the City web site and /or to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District at 1- 800 - CUT -SMOG (1- 800 - 288 - 7664).
i. Information to be provided to homeowners on the established setback and
height requirements for additions and accessory structures conforming to the
requirements of the approved NBR Planned Community Development Plan.
j. A statement that all homeowners and residents within 100 feet of open space
areas shall be provided written information upon close of purchase or signing of
rental agreement, regarding the applicable requirements of Mitigation Measure
MM 4.2 -1 regarding the "dark sky" lighting program for the project. (PDF 4.6 -4)
5
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
k. A statement indicating that Lots 8, 189,191- 193,199, 203,224,227,229,233 shall
be retained by deed restriction as designated public park in perpetuity and
maintained by a Master Association, a Sub - Association, conservancy and /or
other approved and appropriate agency, and that no structures development or
encroachment shall be permitted within the designated park area except as
shown on the Final Map, approved Site Development Review, approved
landscape and park improvement plans, or as otherwise approved by the City.
I. Provisions that following recordation of each Final Map, each Association
formed for the subdivision shall submit to the Director of Community
Development a list of all current Officers of the Association.
m. A statement indicating that proposed amendments to the CC &Rs shall be
submitted for review to the Director of Community Development or designee,
and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the amendments being valid.
n. A statement that the City has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any of
the provisions of the CC &Rs.
o. An agreement between the applicant and the Association that on an annual
basis by June 1 of each year reports will be furnished to the Director of Public
Works in compliance with the reporting requirements of codes and ordinances
adopted by the City with respect to the NPDES program.
p. A reference to the plan for maintenance of fuel modification zones in
accordance with the approved Fire and Life Safety Program for the project.
20. Prior to Final Map approval the applicant shall reflect on the Final Map or prepare
separate instruments to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works all public
access easements, deed restrictions or other instruments including but not limited to
those providing for permanent public access to the open space interpretive trails
including the Bluff Toe Interpretive Trail, the Southern Arroyo Interpretive Trail, the
Upland Interpretive Trail, and the Lowland Interpretive Trail and those providing City
access for maintenance of storm drains. (PDF 4.8 -2)
21. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit an open space management
plan for approval by the Director of Community Development, for the long term funding
and management of the open space preserve which includes the right -of -way
reservation for 19th Street, Lettered lots A through E, Lettered Lots G through R, and
all public interpretive trail easements. The open space management plan shall identify
all entities responsible for ownership, management and maintenance of the open
space preserve and their credentials which qualify the entity as capable of
management and maintenance of the open space preserve and able to implement all
applicable mitigation measures identified in the MMRP of the FEIR SCH No.
2009031061. The open space management plan shall describe the method of
financing and funding the management and maintenance of the open space preserve
in perpetuity. Approval by the City of the long term management plan is a condition
precedent to recordation of a final map. (PDF4.6 -2) The open space management
plan shall include but not be limited to identification of funding, management
responsibilities, and maintenance activities for but not limited to the following:
.9
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
a. Maintenance and periodic repair and replacement of park facilities in the Talbert
Trailhead Interpretive Park and Vernal Pool Interpretive Park, all open space
interpretive trails, and associated appurtenances including but not limited to
landscaping, restrooms, trail routes and surfaces, fences, benches and other
facilities.
b. Maintenance of all repaired and restored bluff slopes pursuant to the NBR Bluff
Restoration Plan. (PDF 4.3 -3)
c. On -going habitat protection, restoration, and maintenance, including on -site
supervision of trail and habitat areas by qualified personnel, operation of
interpretive trails, signs and displays, and funding for any public outreach
programs.
d. Maintenance of drainage systems, water quality management systems, and
other devices required to protect on -site habitat and water quality. The
drainage system maintenance program shall include a statement that prior to
conducting any maintenance activities for the water quality treatment basin
located in Lot I, the open space preserve management entity shall post a
written notification of temporary trail closure dates and times at key points along
the Upland Interpretive Trail to accommodate maintenance vehicles using the
right of way adjacent to the trail. The written notice shall be posted at least 48
hours prior to the scheduled maintenance and shall state the hours and
duration of the trail closure.
e. Maintenance of fuel modification zones within the open space preserve in
accordance with the NBR Fire and Life Safety Program approved for the
project.
f. The five year Maintenance and Monitoring Program for all restored habitat
areas pursuant to the Standard Vegetation Monitoring Procedures outlined in
the project FEIR SCH No. 2009031061. (PDF4.6 -3)
22. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable development and
Final Map fees associated with but not limited to Community Development
Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney review of CC &Rs, map and
plan check, hydrology review, geotechnical and soils reports review, parks
improvement plan review, grading plan review, traffic and transportation, and
construction inspection.
23. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and shall obtain the approval of the City Attorney for, a
buyer's notification disclosure form, to be given to all buyers, which indicates the
location, if applicable, of any abandoned oil production facility within 10 feet of the
residential lot and the existence, operations, and characteristics of continuing oil
production activities within the boundaries of the project as well as notification of
potential exposure to nuisance, noise, risk of upset and hazards, and /or objectionable
odors of continued oil production activities.
24. Prior to Final Map approval for residential, resort, and /or commercial development the
applicant shall provide separate labor and material improvement bonds or irrevocable
7
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
letters of credit in a form and amount acceptable to the Director of Public Works for
100% of estimated improvement cost, as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Director of Public Works, for each, but not limited to, the public and
private improvements for the each of the following separately:
a. Street improvements, monuments, sidewalks, traffic signal, striping and signage,
trail and park improvements, street lights, sewer systems, water systems, storm
drain and water quality management systems, erosion control landscaping and
irrigation in public rights of way, private slopes and common area recreational
areas, and off -site improvements required as part of the project.
25. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall complete geotechnical trenching and
field investigations, consistent with all adopted state codes in effect at the time, by a
qualified geologist, and shall submit a geotechnical report for review and approval by
the Director of Community Development, to confirm the adequacy of any proposed
project development fault setback limits in accordance with the mandates of the
Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. (MM 4.3 -2)
Prior to Recordation of Final Map
Note: Multiple Final Maps may be prepared by the applicant and submitted for approval
by the City. Unless otherwise noted, conditions 26. through 32 apply to the project area
included on the applicable map.
26. Prior to recordation of the Final Map(s), the applicant shall submit for review, and shall
obtain the approval of the County Surveyor for a digitized map pursuant to applicable
Orange County ordinance. The applicant shall pay for all costs of said digital
submittals, including supplying digital copies to the City of the final County Surveyor
approved digital map.
27. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of
dedication of all fire protection access easements consistent with Tentative Tract Map
17308, to the City of Newport Beach.
28. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit for review and shall
obtain approval of the Director of Public Works for all utility maintenance easements
and make an irrevocable offer of dedication of the appropriate easements to the City of
Newport Beach.
29. Prior to applicable final map recordation the applicant shall provide documentation of
acquisition or option to acquire the full right of way width of North Bluff Road between
16th Street and the southerly boundary of Lot 2 and of 16th Street between North Bluff
Road and the easterly boundary of the project as identified on Tentative Tract Map No.
17308.
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
30. Prior to applicable final map recordation, the applicant shall provide documentation of
acquisition or option to acquire adequate right of way width of 151h Street from the
easterly project boundary to a point east of the project boundary, as determined by the
Public Works Director.
31. Prior to final map recordation the applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer of
dedication to the City for the following as identified on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308:
a. Full right of way for Bluff Road and North Bluff Road from West Coast Highway
to the northern boundary of Lot 1, right of way adjacent to the project site at
West Coast Highway, and the full right of way for 15th Street, 16th Street, and
17th Street within the project boundaries.
b. Partial right of way as determined by the Director of Public Works for North Bluff
Road from the northern boundary of Lot 1 to 19th Street (from North Bluff Road
to the eastern terminus of the existing roadway.)
c. Lots 231 and 232 (Central Community Park), and Lots 194 -196 (North
Community Park).
32. Prior to applicable final map recordation the applicant shall establish right way
reservations as identified on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 for the southerly half
section of 19th Street from the Santa Ana River to the eastern terminus of the existing
roadway.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
Note: Grading permits as noted in this section do not apply to grading activities required
for oil field remediation.
33.Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall pay any unpaid City
administrative costs and unpaid costs incurred by City retained consultants
associated with the processing of this application to the City.
34. Prior to issuance of grading permits for improvements permitted by the Director of
Community Development to commence pursuant to approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 17308, the applicant shall provide separate labor and material improvement
bonds or irrevocable letters of credit in a form and amount acceptable to the Director
of Community Development for 100% of estimated grading cost, as prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Director of Community Development.
35. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall pay all applicable City fees
which may include but is not limited to map and plan check, water connection, sewer
connection, hydrology review, geotechnical and soils reports review, grading plan
review, traffic and transportation, and construction inspection.
36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach shall be provided
the authority by the County of Orange to issue grading permits in the unincorporated
NO
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
area of the project site. If said authorization is not provided to the City, prior to
issuance of grading permits, the annexation of the unincorporated area of the project
site to the City of Newport Beach shall be completed and approved by the OCLAFCO
as set forth in Government Code Section 56658 and summarized in OCLAFCO's
Processing Policies and Procedures Manual.
37. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall obtain all necessary
permits required by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the requirements
of the California Coastal Act.
38. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed.
39. Prior to the issuance of grading permits within areas subject to the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Fish and Game, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that a Section 1600
Streambed Alteration Agreement has been obtained.
40. Prior to the issuance of grading permits within areas subject to the jurisdiction of the
US Army Corps of Engineers, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Development that a Section 404 permit has been obtained.
41. Prior to the issuance of grading permits within areas subject to the jurisdiction of the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the applicant shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a Water Quality Certification
pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act.
42. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board, the Orange County Fire Authority, and /or the California
Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources have approved a final Remedial
Action Plan for the project.
43. Prior to the issuance of grading permits within Caltrans right of way, the applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all Caltrans
encroachment permits have been obtained for the widening and improvement of West
Coast Highway as indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308.
44. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all existing survey monuments are
located in the field in compliance with AB 1414 for restoration by the Registered Civil
Engineer or Land Surveyor in accordance with Section 8771 of the Business and
Professions Code.
10
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
45. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the limits of grading shown on Tentative Tract
Map No. 17308 must be verified by a Geotechnical Engineer. Grading shall not be
permitted to extend beyond the limits as indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
without approval of the Director of Community Development.
46. Prior to issuance of grading permits a list of "good housekeeping" practices,
consistent with the approved Water Quality Management Plan, shall be submitted by
the contractor for incorporation into the long -term post- construction operation of the
site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants would be used, stored, or spilled on the
site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum
truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or
pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution
(e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). (SC 4.4 -5)
47. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit documentation in a
form and of a content determined by the Director of Community Development that any
hazardous contaminated soils or other hazardous materials removed from the project
site shall be transported only by a Licensed Hazardous Waste Hauler to approved
hazardous materials disposal site, who shall be in compliance with all applicable State
and federal requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations
under 49 CFR (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standards, and under 40 CFR 263 (Subtitle C of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act), The Director of Community Development shall verify that only
Licensed Haulers who are operating in compliance with regulatory requirements are
used to haul hazardous materials. (SC 4.5 -2)
48. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Director of Community Development
shall review the grading plan for conformance with the grading shown on the
approved tentative map. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and
soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City.
Grading plans shall indicate all areas of grading, including remedial grading, and shall
extend to the limits outside of the boundaries of an immediate area of development as
required by the City. Grading shall be permitted within and outside of an area of
immediate development, as approved by the City, for the grading of public roads,
highways, park facilities, infrastructure, and other development - related improvements.
Remedial grading for development shall be permitted in within and outside of an
immediate development area, as approved by the City, to adequately address
geotechnical or soils conditions. Grading plans shall provide for temporary erosion
control on all graded sites scheduled to remain unimproved for more than 30 days.
Grading plans shall incorporate contour grading techniques to minimize impacts to
existing public view points from West Coast Highway. (PDF 4.2 -1) If the applicant
submits a grading plan that deviates from the grading shown on the approved
tentative map (specifically with regard to slope heights, slope ratios, pad elevations or
configurations), as determined by the Director of Community Development, the
Director of Community Development shall review the plan for a finding of substantial
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
conformance. If the Director of Community Development finds the plan not to be in
substantial conformance, the applicant shall process a revised tentative map or, if a
final map has been recorded, the applicant shall process a new tentative map. A
determination of CEQA compliance shall also be required. (SC 4.3 -1)
49. Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall provide evidence satisfactory
to the Director of Community Development, that the applicant shall provide for
monitoring of grading activities to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code, regarding the discovery of human remains. If human remains are
found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined,
within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and
disposition of the human remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains
are or are believed to be Native American, s /he shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the NAHC must
immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the
deceased Native American. The designated Native American representative shall
complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The
designated Native American representative would then make recommendations to the
applicant on the disposition of the human remains. (SC4.13 -1)
50. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit project
site disturbance, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Director of
Community Development that the applicant has retained a qualified Archaeologist to
observe grading activities and to salvage and catalogue archaeological resources, as
necessary. The Archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grade conference; shall
establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish, in
cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work
to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as appropriate. If
archaeological resources are found to be significant, the Archaeologist shall
determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City and applicant, for
exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition
of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community
Development. Based on their interest and concern about the discovery of cultural
resources and human remains during project grading, a qualified Native American
Monitor(s) shall be retained to observe the grading activities for which an
archaeological monitor is present. Nothing in this condition precludes the retention of
a single cross - trained observer who is qualified to monitor for both archaeological and
paleontological resources. (MM4.13 -1)
51. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit project
site disturbance, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Director of
Community Development that the applicant has retained a qualified Paleontologist to
12
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
observe grading activities and to conduct salvage excavation of paleontological
resources as necessary. The Paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading
conference; shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance; and
shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or
redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils as
appropriate. Any earth - moving activity associated with development, slope
modification, or slope stabilization that requires moving large volumes of earth shall
be monitored according to the paleontological sensitivity of the rock units that underlie
the affected area. All vertebrate fossils and representative samples of
megainverteb rates and plant fossils shall be collected. Productive sites that yield
vertebrates should be excavated, and approximately 2,000 pounds (Ibs) of rock
samples should be collected to be processed for microvertebrate fossil remains. If
any scientifically important large fossil remains are uncovered during earth - moving
activities, the Paleontologist shall divert heavy equipment away from the fossil site
until s /he has had an opportunity to examine the remains. If warranted, a rock sample
shall be collected for processing. The Paleontologist shall be equipped to rapidly
remove fossil remains and /or matrix (earth), and thus reduce the potential for any
construction delays. If scientifically important fossil remains are observed and if
safety restrictions permit, the Construction Contractor shall allow the Paleontologist to
safely salvage the discovery. At the Paleontologist's discretion, the Grading
Contractor may assist in the removal of the fossil remains and rock sample to reduce
any construction delays. All fossils shall be documented in a detailed Paleontological
Resource Impact Mitigation Report. Fossils recovered from the field or by processing
shall be prepared; identified; and, along with accompanying field notes, maps and
photographs, accessioned into the collections of a designated, accredited museum
such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) or the San Diego
Natural History Museum. Because of slope modification, fossil- bearing exposures of
the Quaternary marine deposits may be destroyed. If feasible, a few stratigraphic
sections with fossil- bearing horizons shall be preserved for educational and scientific
purposes. (MM4.13 -3)
52. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would allow for
project site disturbance, the applicant shall provide written evidence that a
paleontological survey be conducted pursuant to the requirements of Mitigation
Measure 4.13 -4 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of FEIR SCH No.
2009031061.
53. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit project
site disturbance, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach
Police Department that a construction security service or equivalent service shall be
established at the construction site along with other measures, as identified by the
Police Department and the Public Works Department, to be instituted during the
grading and construction phase of the project. (SC4.14 -5)
13
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
54. Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits the applicant shall submit for review
and approval by the Director of the Municipal Operations Department, a 1" =200'
Utilities Master Plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer consistent with the NBR
Master Development Plan showing all existing and proposed public and private sewer
pump stations, force mains, laterals, mains and manholes, domestic water service
facilities including gate and butterfly valves, pressure reducing stations, pressure
zones, fire hydrants, and meters; storm drain facilities to include storm drain mains,
laterals, manholes, catch basins, inlets, detention and retention basins, water quality
basins and energy dissipaters, outlets, pipe sizes, pipe types and any other related
facilities as identified by the Director of the Municipal Operations Department, fiber
optics, electricity, gas and telephone /telecommunications. The Master Utilities Plan
shall provide for the following:
a. All public utilities shall be constructed within dedicated public rights of way
and /or easements or as approved by the Director of Public Works.
b. The water quality basin and diffuser basin within the development as described
on lots I and L respectively shall be maintained by the entity identified in the
open space management plan. The water quality basin within the Community
Park as described on lot 194 shall be constructed as part of the Community
Park, offered for dedication to the City as part of the Community Park, and upon
acceptance by the City shall be publicly maintained.
c. Domestic water plans shall be designed to take advantage of existing City of
Newport Beach water transmission facilities that connect to the project site to
minimize off -site impacts. (PDF4.15 -3)
d. Domestic water plans shall provide a level of redundancy by making a
connection between the City of Newport Beach Zone 1 and Zone 2 water lines.
(PDF 4.15 -2)
55. Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits the applicant shall submit a Park and
Trails Implementation Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development, Director of Public Works, and Recreation and Senior Services Director.
The Park and Trails Implementation Plan shall include at a minimum:
a. Community Park Improvement Plans.
b. A project schedule describing the sequencing of construction of park and trail
improvements and the timing for the design, construction, and dedication or
recordation of public easements of all parks and trails within the project.
56. Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits, the applicant shall submit a
construction management and delivery plan for each phase of construction to be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. Upon approval of the plan,
the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the
stipulations set forth in the approved plan. (SC 2.12 -1) The construction management
plan shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. Construction phasing plan
b. Parking plan for construction vehicles and plan for equipment storage
T
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
c. Construction area traffic management plan for the project for the issuance of a
haul route permit. The traffic management plan shall be designed by a
registered Traffic Engineer. The traffic management plan shall identify
construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street
closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit
routes. The traffic management plan shall identify the routes that construction
vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic
controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the project.
Advanced written notice of temporary traffic disruptions shall be provided to
emergency service providers and the affected area's businesses and the
general public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to
disruptions. The applicant shall ensure that construction activities requiring
more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour on West Coast
Highway, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be prohibited between
June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic.
At all other times, such activities on West Coast Highway shall be limited to 25
truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the
Director of Public Works. Haul operations shall be monitored by the Department
of Public Works, and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion
problems arise. A staging area shall be designated on site for construction
equipment and supplies to be stored during construction. (SC 4.9 -3)
d. A construction and equipment staging area plan which shall be located in the
least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained
and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions.
e. A construction fencing plan to include installation of a six - foot -high screen and
security fence to be placed around the construction site during construction.
f. A 24 hour hotline number shall be provided at all construction sites for
complaints or questions regarding construction activities. (refer to MM 4.10 -9)
g. Construction mitigation measures as required by the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for FEIR SCH No.2009031061.
h. A statement that all grading and construction shall comply with NBMC Section
10.28.040 (Noise Ordinance). (SC 4.12 -1)
i. A statement to requiring construction contractors to sweep paved roads within
and adjacent to the project site if visible soil materials are carried to the streets.
Street sweepers or roadway washing trucks shall comply with SCAQMD Rule
1186 and shall use reclaimed water, if available.
j. A statement that all grading plans and specifications include temporary noise
barriers for all grading, hauling, and other heavy equipment operations that
would occur within 300 feet of sensitive off -site receptors and occur for more
than 20 consecutive working days. The noise barriers shall be 12 feet high, but
may be shorter if the top of the barrier is at least one foot above the line of sight
between the equipment and the receptors. The barriers shall be solid from the
ground to the top of the barrier, and have a weight of at least 2.5 pounds per
square foot, which is equivalent to % inch thick plywood. The barrier design
shall optimize the following requirements: (1) the barrier shall be located to
15
k.
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
maximize the interruption of line of sight between the equipment and the
receptor, which is normally at the top of slope when the grading area and
receptor are at different elevations. However, a top of slope location may not be
feasible if the top of slope is not on the project site; (2) the length and of the
barrier shall be selected to block the line of sight between the grading area and
the receptors; (3) the barrier shall be located as close as feasible to the
receptor or as close as feasible to the grading area; a barrier is least effective
when it is at the midpoint between noise source and receptor. If preferred by
the applicant or contractor, the construction of a temporary earth berm may be
used as the noise barrier. Earth berms provide greater noise reduction than
wood or masonry walls of the same height. A temporary noise barrier shall not
be required when it is demonstrated to the Director of Community Development
that a barrier would not be feasible. Reasons may include, but not be limited to
(1) the barrier would cause impacts more severe than the construction noise,
(2) the barrier would interfere with the construction work, and (3) a property
owner refuses to allow the barrier. (MM 4.12 -1)
A statement that contractors be required to implement the following measures:
I. Construction waste diversion will be increased by 50 percent from
2010 requirements.
ii. To the extent practical, during the oilfield clean -up and
remediation process, the contractors will be required to recycle
and reuse materials on site to minimize off -site hauling and
disposal of materials and associated off -site traffic. (PDF4.11 -5)
A statement to be provided to all construction contractors that requires all
construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term
emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air
pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that
fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the
presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as
notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best
Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The
measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
I. Clearing and grubbing: Apply water in sufficient quantity to
prevent generation of dust plumes.
ii. Cut and fill: Pre -water soils prior to cut and fill activities and
stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities.
iii. Earth- moving activities: Pre -apply water to depth of proposed
cuts; re -apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp
condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100
feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once earth - moving
activities are complete.
iv. Importing /exporting of bulk materials: Stabilize material while
loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at least six
16
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and stabilize material while
transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
V. Stockpiles/bulk material handling: Stabilize stockpiled materials;
stockpiles within 100 yards of off -site occupied buildings must not
be greater than 8 feet in height, must have a road bladed to the
top to the top of the pile to allow water truck access, or must have
an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete
stockpile coverage.
m. Traffic areas for construction activities: Stabilize all off -road traffic and parking
areas; stabilize all haul routes; and direct construction traffic over established
haul routes. Rule 403 defines large operations as projects with 50 or more
acres of grading or with a daily earth- moving volume of 5,000 cubic yards at
least 3 times in 1 year. The project is considered a large operation. Large
operations are required to implement additional dust - control measures (as
specified in Tables 2 and 3 of Rule 403); provide additional notifications,
signage, and reporting; and appoint a Dust Control Supervisor. The Dust
Control Supervisor is required to:
• Be employed by or contracted with the applicant;
Be on the site or available on site within 30 minutes during
working hours;
• Have the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust
mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403
requirements; and
• Have completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and have
been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class.
(SC4.10 -1)
n. A statement that all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be
equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; mufflers shall be
equivalent to or of greater noise reducing performance than manufacturer's
standard. Stationary equipment, such as generators, cranes, and air
compressors, shall be located as far from local residences and the Carden Hall
School as feasible. Where stationary equipment must be located within 250 feet
of a sensitive receptor, the equipment shall be equipped with appropriate noise
reduction measures (e.g., silencers, shrouds, or other devices) to limit the
equipment noise at the nearest sensitive residences to 65 dBA Leq. Equipment
maintenance, vehicle parking, and material staging areas shall be located as far
away from local residences and the Carden Hall School as feasible. (MM 4.12-
2)
o. A statement that contractors shall be required to provide a minimum two week
notification to affected residents within 300 feet and the Carden Hall school of
the start date, duration, and nature, and noise abatement measures of any
grading operation or similar noise generating activity. (MM 4.12 -3)
p. A notification for contractors that the operation of large bulldozers, vibratory
rollers, and similar heavy equipment is prohibited within 25 feet of any existing
off -site residence. (MM 4.12 -4)
17
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
57. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Bluff Road, the applicant shall provide
written notice to affected residents of an offer of installing dual pane windows /sliding
doors on the fagade facing the Newport Banning Ranch property. The offer of retrofit
shall only apply to the owners of the residences (Owners) with rear elevations directly
adjacent to the Newport Banning Ranch property in the western and northern
boundaries of Newport Crest Condominiums impacted by significant noise levels
(significant being a cumulative increase over existing conditions greater than 5 dBA)
associated with the Project as determined by a licensed Acoustical Engineer.
Improvements would be subject to the approval of the Homeowners Association and
condominium unit owners. The applicant shall be responsible for the implementation
of the noted upgrades pursuant to the following provisions and guidelines: (i) in order
to participate in the program and receive new windows /sliders, each condominium
owner must provide written notice to the applicant within 45 days following receipt of
the proposed program from the applicant, that the owner wants to participate in the
program; (ii) failure to respond within such time period shall mean the owner desires
not to participate; (iii) the applicant shall provide the Association with written
specifications and a Bid Estimate from a licensed window contractor; (iv) the
windows /sliders shall be installed by a qualified and licensed third -party contractor as
part of one overall program pursuant to a contract between the Newport Crest
Homeowners Association (Association) and such third -party; (v) to ensure
architectural compatibility and obtain the Association shall provide written approval of
such work prior to the execution of a contract with the contractor and Association; (vi)
the total cost of the window /slider replacement, to be reimbursed by the Applicant to
the Association for all Owners shall not exceed the total cost identified in the Bid
Estimate approved by the applicant; and (vii) provided the applicant receives the
reimbursement request from the Association within 60 days following completion of
the work, the applicant shall reimburse the Association for the cost of the work within
30 days of the applicant's receipt of a final receipt, bill or invoice from the Association
evidencing that window /slider replacement work was completed pursuant to the
approved estimate. (MM 4.12 -7)
58.Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits for roadway improvements, the
applicant shall submit a "dark sky" lighting plan consistent with the requirements of
the NBR -PC to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. The "dark
sky" lighting plan shall indicate the location of street lights which may only be utilized
at key intersection locations as approved by the Public Works Department. (PDF 4.6-
4)
59. Prior to issuance of grading permits, if determined necessary by the Community
Development Department Building Division Manager, the applicant shall record a
Letter of Consent from any affected property owners permitting off -site grading, cross
lot drainage, drainage diversions, and /or unnatural concentrations. (SC 4.3.2)
`E.
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
60. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the
Construction General Permit and submit the above to the State Water Quality Control
Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The applicant shall
provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing
with the State Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall detail measures and
practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on
water quality.
61. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the
approval of the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works.
The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure
that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur.
The WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection,
maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control)
BMPs.
62. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits for any residential, commercial, resort or
park development area the applicant shall commence implementation of the NBR
Habitat Restoration Plan. (PDF4.6 -2)
63. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a planting plan for
the arroyos for review and approval by a qualified biologist designated by the Director
of Community Development. The arroyos planting plan shall identify the use of native
riparian vegetation consistent with the NBR Master Development Plan, Appendix A,
Habitat Restoration Plan. (PDF4.4 -4)
64.62.Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits adjacent to bluff slopes the
applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Community
Development a Bluff /Slope Restoration Plan that identifies eroded portions of bluff
slopes to be repaired and stabilized. The Bluff /Slope Restoration Plan shall include a
planting plan utilizing native vegetation that does not require permanent irrigation.
(PDF- 4.3 -3)
Prior to Issuance of Demolition and Building Permits
65. Prior to issuance of building permits for applicable portions of the project, subject to
grading permits, site remediation activities consistent with the Final RAP shall be
completed to the satisfaction of all state and local agencies with oversight
responsibility as identified in the Final RAP.
66. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of residential and
commercial uses, the applicant shall pay the required Property Excise Tax to the City
of Newport Beach, as set forth in its Municipal Code ( §3.12 et seq.) for public
improvements and facilities associated with the City of Newport Beach Fire
19
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
Department, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, and City of Newport Beach
public parks. (SC 4.14 -1)
67. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall obtain approval of a plan
stating that water for firefighting purposes and an all weather fire access road shall be
in place before any combustible materials are placed on site.
68. Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit, the applicant shall submit for
review and shall obtain the approval of the Director of Community Development,
plans indicating the location and type of unit address lighting to be installed.
69. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall complete that portion of
the approved fuel modification plan determined to be necessary by the City of
Newport Beach Fire Department prior to the introduction of any combustible materials
into the area. This generally involves removal and thinning of plant materials indicated
on the approved fuel modification plan(s). (SC 4.14 -3)
70. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable fees to the
Newport-Mesa Unified School District Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California
Government Code Payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete
mitigation of school impacts. (SC 4.14 -6)
71. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any residential unit, the applicant shall pay
the City of Newport Beach the applicable portion of a fire facilities impact fee equal to
its fair share of the need for a relocated Fire Station Number 2, as may be further
defined in the DA. The fair share fee shall be based on total number of project
dwelling units as a ratio of the total number of dwelling units within the service area of
relocated Fire Station Number 2. (MM 4.14 -2)
72. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit testing for all structures for presence of
lead -based paint (LBP) and /or asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) shall be
completed. The Asbestos - Abatement Contractor shall comply with notification and
asbestos removal procedures outlined in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (SCAQMD's) Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos - related air quality health risks.
SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any demolition or renovation activity and the
associated disturbance of ACMs. This requirement shall be included on the
contractors' specifications and verified by the Director of Community Development.
All demolition activities that may expose construction workers and /or the public to
ACMs and /or LBP shall be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations,
including, but not limited to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Subchapter R (Toxic Substances Control Act); CalOSHA regulations (Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations §1529 [Asbestos] and §1532.1 [Lead]); and SCAQMD
Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities). The
requirement to adhere to all applicable regulations shall be included in the contractor
specifications, and such inclusion shall be verified by the Director of Community
20
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
Development prior to issuance of the first grading permit. (SC 4.5 -1)
73. Prior to issuance of applicable building permits, the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Community Development for review and approval, architectural plans and
an accompanying noise study that demonstrates that interior noise levels in the
habitable rooms of residential units due to exterior transportation noise sources would
be 45 dBA CNEL or less. Where closed windows are required to achieve the 45 dBA
CNEL limit, project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the
California Building Code. (SC4.12 -3)
74. Prior to issuance of applicable building permits, the applicant shall submit for review
and approval by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, development plans for
the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services.
Public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans.
The applicant shall prepare a list of project features and design components that
demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. (SC 4.14 -4)
75. Prior to the issuance of building permits plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Development to include requirements that all contractor
specifications include a note that architectural coatings shall be selected so that the
VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. (SC 4.10 -2)
76. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit for review and
approval by the Director of Community Development building plans designed to meet
or exceed all State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Newport Beach codes in
effect at the time of application for building permits. Commonly referred to as Title 24,
these standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the
use of energy- efficient building standards, including ventilation; insulation;
construction; and the use of energy- saving appliances, conditioning systems, water
heating, and lighting. Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes
or calculations demonstrating compliance with energy standards. (SC 4.15 -3)
77. Prior to the issuance of building permits annexation of the unincorporated area of the
project site approved for residential, commercial, visitor serving and community park
purposes to the City of Newport Beach shall be completed and approved by the
OCLAFCO as set forth in Government Code Section 56658 and summarized in
OCLAFCO's Processing Policies and Procedures Manual.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy
78. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for any residential dwelling unit, the
resort inn, or any commercial structure in Site Planning Area 10a (northerly block
only), Site Planning Area 10b (northerly block only), and Site Planning Area 12b, Fire
21
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
Station Number 2 shall be complete and operational at the existing City Hall site at
23300 Newport Boulevard or at another location that the Newport Beach Fire
Department has determined is sufficient to provide fire response within the Fire
Department's established response time standards. (MM 4.14 -1) In the event the
replacement station for Fire Station 2 is not operational in time for issuance of use
and occupancy for the above stated Site Planning Areas, then prior to issuance of
building permits for any combustible structure in the above Site Planning Areas, the
applicant shall provide and improve a site, as defined by the Development Agreement
within the Community Park, areas for a temporary facility of sufficient size to
accommodate one engine company and one paramedic ambulance of at least three
firefighters on a 7- day /24 -hour schedule. The temporary fire station site shall be within
the project limits of disturbance approved as a part of the project such that no new
environmental effects would occur. (MM 4.14 -3)
79. Prior to issuance of use and occupancy certificates for any residential, resort or
commercial use construction of all applicable roadways, parkways, median and
median landscaping, sidewalks, intersection street lights, streets, alleys, traffic signals
and signage and utilities including but not limited to water, water quality management,
sewer, storm drain, fiber optics, gas, electricity, telephone and telecommunications
necessary to serve the use shall be completed and operational to serve the use, the
extent of which shall be determined by the Director of Public Works and the Director
of the Municipal Operations Department.
80. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit for the last residential
dwelling unit in the North Family Village, the following park improvements shall be
constructed: (i) the Vernal Pool Interpretive Park within Lot F; and, (ii) park
improvements for the Nature Center Interpretive Park within Lot 233, CC &Rs, deed
restrictions, access easements, or other instruments providing for public access and
use of the facilities in perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the facilities
for public use, shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development.
81. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any residential use in the
North Family Village or Urban Colony, the construction of improvements to the
Talbert Trailhead Staging Area Interpretive Park ( "Talbert Trailhead ") within Lot Q
shall be completed and public access easements, CC &Rs, deed restrictions or other
instrument providing for public access and permanent maintenance for the Talbert
Trailhead in perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the facility for public
use, shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
82. Prior to the issuance of the first use and occupancy permit for Lot 1, Urban Colony,
the applicant shall construct all improvements to North Bluff Park, Lot 189, including
all trail and recreational improvements, and deed restrictions, access easements, or
other instruments providing for public access and use of this portion of North Bluff
22
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
Park in perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the facility for public use,
shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
83. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy permit for the last residential
dwelling unit in the North Family Village, the construction of the Lowland, Upland, and
Bluff Toe Interpretive Trails shall be complete, and CC &Rs, deed restrictions, access
easements, or other instruments providing for public access and use of the facilities in
perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the facilities for public use, shall be
recorded to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
84. Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, applicable fuel modification
shall be installed, completed, and inspected by the Fire Department. This includes
physical installation of features identified in the approved NBR Fire and Life Safety
Program (including but not limited to plant establishment, thinning, irrigation, zone
markers, and access easements, among others). If satisfactory, a Newport Beach
Fire Department Official shall provide written approval of completion at the time of this
final inspection. If applicable, a copy of the approved plans shall be provided to the
Homeowners Association (HOA). Fuel modification shall be maintained as originally
installed and approved.
85. The applicable Property Owner, HOA, or other party that the City deems acceptable
shall be responsible for all fuel modification zone maintenance. All areas shall be
maintained in accordance with the approved Fuel Modification Plan(s). This generally
includes a minimum of two growth reduction maintenance activities throughout the
fuel modification areas each year (spring and fall). Other activities include maintaining
irrigation systems, replacing dead or dying vegetation with approved materials,
removing dead plant material, and removing undesirable species. The Fire
Department shall conduct regular inspections of established fuel modification areas.
Ongoing maintenance shall be conducted regardless of the date of these inspections
to ensure that the landscape palette will be maintained as approved. (SC 4.14 -3)
86. Prior to the issuance of use and occupancy permits the applicant shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that applicable street name signs have
been installed.
87. Prior to the issuance of use and occupancy permits the applicant shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all street improvements damaged
during construction have been repaired or replaced.
88. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy for the South Family
Village or Resort Colony, whichever is first, the completion of the following roadways,
consistent with the roadway sections indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308:
a. West Coast Highway improvements along the full project frontage to
include median reconstruction, design and installation of the traffic signal
23
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
at Bluff Road and West Coast Highway, construction of full roadway
improvements including sidewalk along the inland half section, and
restriping of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Newport
Boulevard to provide for one southbound right turn lane, one shared right
turn/ left turn lane, and one left turn lane.
b. Full width right of way improvements for Bluff Road and North Bluff Road
from West Coast Highway to 16th Street.
c. Full width right of way improvements for 15th Street from Bluff Road to
the point approved by the Director of Public Works where 15th Street
tapers to meet road improvements existing at the easterly project
boundary.
d. Partial improvements for 15th Street from the easterly project boundary to
Monrovia Avenue sufficient to provide at a minimum, a functional two
lane roadway as determined by the Director of Public Works.
e. Full improvements if feasible, or partial improvements providing at a
minimum a functional two lane roadway as determined by the Director of
Public Works, for 16th Street between North Bluff Road and the existing
terminus at the easterly project boundary.
f. Construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of 151h Street and Bluff
Road.
89. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy for the North Family
Village and /or Urban Colony, whichever is first, completion of the following roadway
consistent with the sections indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308:
a. Full width improvement of North Bluff Road from 16th Street to 17th
Street.
b. Partial improvement to North Bluff Road from 17th Street to the
northern boundary of Lot 1, including establishment of the eastern
curb line in a location compatible with implementation of a full Primary
Arterial with the extent of remaining improvements to be determined
by the Director of Public Works.
c. Full width improvement of 16th Street from North Bluff Road to the
easterly boundary of the Project.
d. Full width improvement of 17th Street from North Bluff Road to a point
at the easterly boundary of the Project where 17th Street tapers to
meet existing off -site improvements as determined by the Director of
Public Works.
e. Construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of North Bluff Road
and 17th Street
90. Prior to the issuance of the 209th certificate of use and occupancy for the North Family
Village and /or Urban Colony whichever is first, the functional completion consistent
with the roadway sections indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 of the
following roadways shall be complete:
24
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
a. Full width improvement of North Bluff Road from the northern
boundary of Lot 1 to 19" Street.
b. Improvements to 19th Street from North Bluff Road to the easterly
boundary of the project, as determined by the Director of Public
Works.
91. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy for any residential,
commercial, or resort use in the project all applicable master infrastructure
improvements identified in the Final SWPPP and WQMP including debris basins, bio-
swales, energy dissipaters, drainage pipes, water quality basins and other
improvements shall be constructed and the applicant shall provide all necessary
dedications, deed restrictions, covenants or other instruments for the long
maintenance of the facilities in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of
Public Works.
92. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of use and occupancy for the 1015 residential
dwelling unit in the South Family Village and Resort Colony combined, or prior to the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Resort Inn facility, whichever
comes first, the applicant shall complete construction of all improvements to South
Bluff Park including all trail and recreational improvements, and deed restrictions,
access easements, or other instruments providing for public access and use of the
South Bluff Park in perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the South Bluff
Park for public use, shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City.
93. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of use and occupancy for the 209th residential
dwelling unit in the North Family Village, the applicant shall complete construction of
all improvements to North Bluff Park adjacent to the North Family Village including all
trail and recreational improvements, and deed restrictions, access easements, or
other instruments providing for public access and use of the North Bluff Park in
perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the North Bluff Park for public use,
shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City.
94. Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy for Lots 1, 10 -88, 128 -162, 184,
185, and 187 the applicant shall construct the water quality basin located in Lot I and
this facility shall be operational to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
(PDF 4.4 -2)
95. Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy for Lots 89 -125, 163 -183, 186
and 188 the applicant shall construct the water quality basin and a diffusing basin
located in Lot L and these facilities shall be operational to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. (PDF4.4 -2)
96. Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy for the resort inn, the applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that the applicant
has submitted an application to Caltrans for approval of all required Caltrans permits
for the construction by the applicant of the pedestrian bridge spanning West Coast
25
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
Highway as indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308. If the applicant receives
approval from Caltrans for construction of the pedestrian bridge, the applicant shall
subsequently submit improvement plans for review and approval by the Director of
Public Works, Director of Community Development and Director of Recreation and
Senior Services for the construction of the pedestrian bridge. (PDF4.8 -3) Nothing in
this condition shall prohibit the City from issuing a certificate of use and occupancy for
the resort use in the event that CalTrans does not approve the applicant's request for
permit approval for construction of the pedestrian bridge.
Subdivision Improvement Plans
97.AII subdivision improvement plans shall identify the use of best management
practices (BMPs) for erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, storm
water and non -storm water management, and waste management/pollution control.
The BMP's identified for implementation shall demonstrate that potential effects on
local site hydrology, runoff, and water quality remain in compliance with all required
permits, City policies, and the Project's Water Quality Management Plan and Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan. (PDF4.4 -6)
98.The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite
improvements to permanent line and grade in accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.24
(Subdivision Design), with the exception of the deviations from this Chapter as
described on TTM No. 17308 and approved by the Director of Public Works.
99.The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite
improvements to permanent line and grade in accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.28
(Subdivision Improvement Requirements), with the exception of the deviations from
this Chapter as described on TTM No. 17308 and approved by the Director of Public
Works.
100. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite
improvements to permanent line and grade in accordance with Chapter
19.32(Improvement Plans).
101. Approval of improvement plans shall in no way relieve the applicant or the
applicant's engineer of responsibility for the design of the improvements or from any
deficiencies resulting from the design, nor from compliance with any tentative map
condition of approval.
102. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite
improvements to permanent line and grade in accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.36
(Completion of Improvements).
103. All subdivision improvement plans for arterial roadways within the Project and all off-
site City of Newport Beach roadways shall include the use of rubberized asphalt, or
eLV
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
pavement offering equivalent or better acoustical properties in accordance with City
standards. (SC4.12 -4)
104. All new utility lines to serve the project shall be installed in underground trenches.
105. Intersection design shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and comply
with City's sight distance standards.
106. All subdivision improvement plans shall include the use of light emitting diode (LED)
lights for street lights.
107. Subdivision improvement plans shall provide for the design and construction of
Ethernet traffic signal communication network improvements linking the new traffic
signal locations to the existing City traffic signal management system.
108. Subdivision improvement plans for roadway systems within the Project shall be
coordinated with the Orange County Transit Authority OCTA and the City to identify
locations, as applicable, for bus stops within the internal roadway system. If bus
turnout locations are identified during consultation with OCTA, the subdivision
improvement plans shall be designed to include the bus turnouts. (PDF 4.11 -3)
109. Subdivision improvement plans for Streets A, B, C, E, F, G, I and K shall be
designed to incorporate "Green Street" and other Low Impact Development features
such as bioswales and bio- cells, canopy street trees, traffic calming features and
minimal use of street lighting consistent with the requirements of the NBR Master
Development Plan, Appendix D, "Green and Sustainable Program." (PDF4.4 -3)
110. All subdivision improvement plans shall include a drainage plan approved by the
Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development which is designed
to ensure that runoff systems from the Project to West Coast Highway and the
Semeniuk Slough will be stabilized and maintained through the Project's drainage
system. (PDF 4.4 -5)
111. Prior to approval of improvement plans for the pedestrian /bicycle bridge spanning
West Coast Highway, the applicant shall provide separate labor and material
improvement bonds or irrevocable letters of credit in a form and amount acceptable
to the Director of Public Works for 100% of estimated improvement cost, as prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Director of Public Works, for the
construction of the pedestrian bridge.
112. All subdivision improvement plans shall conform to the following Fire Department
requirements:
a. Fire hydrants shall be installed and tested prior to placing any combustible
materials on the job site.
b. Detailed plans of underground fire service mains shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to installation.
27
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
c. Blue hydrant identification markers shall be placed with new hydrants.
d. All weather access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
during time of construction for emergency personnel.
e. Fire apparatus access rods shall be designed, maintained, and identified as per
Newport Beach Guideline C.01 Emergency Fire Access and C.02 Fire Lane
Identification.
f. All security gates shall have knox locks for after hours emergency personnel
access to the construction site.
Release of Financial Securit
113. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community
Development that the Project CC &Rs have been approved by the City Attorney and
the appropriate Association(s) has been formed.
114. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all survey monuments damaged or
destroyed are restored.
115. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall submit as -built plans
prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer depicting all street, traffic signal, sewer,
water, and storm drain improvements and street signage and signage placements,
traffic markings and painted curbing, and all other required improvements shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
116. Prior to the release of financial security, all domestic water and sewer systems shall
be fully tested in the presence of a City staff representative, to verify system
performance in accordance with design specifications.
117. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall execute an agreement to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community
Development which designates the maintenance responsibilities for all landscaping
and irrigation systems in the Project.
118. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall submit as built plans at an
appropriate scale to the Director of Recreation and Senior Services showing as -built
grading, trails, park improvements, and pedestrian bridge landing areas on both
sides of West Coast Highway (if the bridge is constructed).
119. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of the Municipal Operations Department that all
underground public utilities necessary for the construction of residential, resort, park
or commercial uses to proceed as indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 have
been completed in accordance with the approved Utilities Master Plan and that the
as -built plans for said improvements, prepared by a Registered Civic Engineer have
28
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
been submitted and approved by the Director of the Municipal Operations
Department.
29
Exhibit C
Required Findings for TTM No. 17308
EXHIBIT C
Required Findings
Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003
In accordance with Section 19.12.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the
following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The proposed tentative tract map provides lot configurations consistent with the
land uses, densities, and intensities of the Open Space /Residential Village land
use designation established by the General Plan.
A -2. The proposed tentative tract map allows the development a residential village,
containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor
accommodations, and active community parklands, with a majority of the
property preserved as open space.
A -3. The proposed tentative tract map provides for the development of a cohesive
planned community with a connective street system, pedestrian walkways and
trails.
A -4. The proposed tentative tract map provides bluff top parks, which sets
development back from bluff faces and provides public views of the ocean,
wetlands, and surrounding open spaces.
A -5. The arterials and streets on the proposed tentative tract map are consistent with
the roadway specifications of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan.
A -6. The proposed tentative tract map provides for the dedication of 16.9 acres of
community parkland, which exceeds the project's obligation under the Park
Dedication Fee Ordinance and contributes towards the 20 to 30 -acre community
park specified by the Land Use Element and Recreation Element of the General
Plan.
Finding:
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
EXHIBIT C
Required Findings
Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The project site contains topographic and natural habitat constraints. However,
the proposed tentative tract map provides for development that is sited away or
buffered from the arroyos and bluffs and wetlands and other habitat areas.
B -2. There are no designated Alquist- Priolo Fault Zones within the project site and the
proposed tentative map provides of all habitable structures to be excluded from
fault setback zones.
B -3. The project site is a producing oil field. However, the project site would be
remediated and all the existing oil operations will be consolidated into two
locations.
Findin :
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the
decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an
environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made
pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that
specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The design of the subdivision locates the majority of the development in the
eastern portion of the project site and adjacent to the developed areas, which
preserves larger, intact areas of high value habitat.
C -2. The proposed project would have direct and indirect impacts on habitat that
supports special status species. However, the environmental impact report
prepared for the project concluded that significant impacts to these habitats can
be mitigated to a less than significant level through mitigation measures.
Finding:
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems
2
EXHIBIT C
Required Findings
Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. There are no designated Alquist- Priolo Fault Zones within the project site and the
proposed tentative map provides of all habitable structures to be excluded from
fault setback zones.
D -2. While the project site is currently impacted primarily by petroleum hydrocarbons,
following testing, no contaminant levels were found to exceed the hazardous
concentration levels defined by State and federal guidelines.
D -3. The project site will be remediated and all the existing oil operations will be
consolidated into two locations.
D -4. The project is conditioned to comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire
Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public
improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the
Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Finding:
E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making
body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for
use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to
ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within a subdivision.
Facts in Support of Finding:
E -1. The project site contains existing public utilities easements. However, the design
of the subdivision and the type of improvements proposed present no conflict
with these easements. Existing easements will remain in their current
designated locations or will be modified to be substantially equivalent to ones
previously acquired by the public.
Finding:
F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision
Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California
Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a
5'i:lTUM
Required Findings
Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003
subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or
the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial
agricultural use of the land.
Facts in Support of Finding:
F -1. The project site does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of
statewide importance and no portion of the project site is covered by a
Williamson Act contract.
Finding:
G. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code: (1) There is an adopted specific plan
for the area to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making
body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for
the area.
Facts in Support of Finding:
G -1. The project is not located in a specific plan area.
Finding:
H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have
been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
H -1. The proposed tentative tract map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the
California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating
and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport
Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check
and inspection process.
H -2. Single- family detached residential roofs, commercial building roofs, and HOA-
owned public building roofs, which have adequate solar orientation shall be
designed to be compatible with the installation of photovoltaic panels or other
current solar power technology.
11
EXHIBIT C
Required Findings
Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003
Finding:
1. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map
Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's
share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the
region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal
and environmental resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
J -1. The Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) for the proposed project
proposes the construction of a minimum of 50 percent of the required affordable
housing on the project site. The remaining affordable housing obligation would be
met through the payment of in -lieu fees; the construction of off -site affordable
housing including the rehabilitation of existing off -site housing that would
contribute to meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
requirements; land dedication; or a combination thereof.
Finding:
J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing
sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of Finding:
J -1. The City has adequate sewer system capacity to serve the requirements of the
proposed project. The proposed project would be able to tie into the existing
sewer system without adversely affecting the system or causing any water quality
affects or violating existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Finding:
K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the
subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where
applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the
Coastal Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
K -1. The project site is entirely within the Coastal Zone, but is not located within a
certified Local Coastal Program. The City has a certified Coastal Land Use Plan
(CLOP), but not a certified Implementation Plan. The CLOP designates the
5
EXHIBIT C
Required Findings
Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003
project site as a Deferred Certification Area; therefore, the policies of the CLOP
area not applicable to the project site.
K -2. The proposed subdivision design conforms with the public access and recreation
policies of the Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
a. The proposed project would provide several miles of off - street multi -use
public trails, on- street public bike trails, and pedestrian paths for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
b. The trails would provide connections to on -site land uses and habitat areas
and would connect to the existing regional trail system, other parks, and open
space areas.
c. 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.
d. The public parks, trails, and interpretive areas would be available for active
and passive recreation uses by residents and visitors.
e. To facilitate public access, public parking areas will be provided at park and
recreational areas and along most streets within the project site.
Exhibit D
Required Findings for Traffic Study No.
TS2008 -002
EXHIBIT D
Required Findings
Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
In accordance with Section 15.40.030 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), the following findings and facts in support of such
findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this
chapter and Appendix A (NBMC Section 15.40).
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. A traffic study, entitled Traffic Impact Analysis for Newport Banning Ranch in the
City of Newport Beach, prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.,
2011(traffic study), was prepared for the project in compliance with Municipal
Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Appendix A).
A -2. The traffic study analyzed the worst -case scenario where the proposed project
would be completed within 60 months, considered in the study as being 2016.
A -3. The traffic study found that the following intersection exceeds the Level of
Service (LOS) "D" standard in the City of Newport Beach:
• Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway (AM LOS E: Project Impact
0.024)
and the following intersections exceed the LOS D standard in the City of Costa
Mesa:
• Newport Boulevard at Victoria Street/22 "d Street (AM: LOS F; no Project
impact)
• Monrovia Avenue at 19th Street (AM: LOS E; Project impact to
unsignalized intersection)
• Newport Boulevard at 19th Street (AM: LOS E; Project impact: 0.51)
• Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard (PM: LOS F; Project impact:
0.080)
• Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester Street (PM: LOS F; Project
impact: 0.079)
• Pomona Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS E; Project impact to unsignalized
intersection)
1
EXHIBIT D
Required Findings
Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
• Superior Avenue at 17th Street (PM: LOS E; Project impact: 0.165)
• Newport Boulevard at 17`h Street (PM: LOS E; Project impact: 0.036)
A -4. The traffic study found the following improvements to the intersection of Newport
Boulevard at West Coast Highway would result in the project not causing or
making worse an unsatisfactory level of service at this intersection:
• Restripe southbound approach to provide one exclusive right -turn lane,
shared right/left -turn lane, and one exclusive left -turn lane on Newport
Boulevard.
A -5. The traffic study found the following improvements to the intersections in Costa
Mesa would result in the project not causing or making worse an unsatisfactory
level of service at these intersections:
• Monrovia Avenue /19th Street: Install signal
• Newport Boulevard /19th Street: Add a second southbound left -turn lane
on Newport Boulevard.
• Newport Boulevard /Harbor Boulevard: Add fourth southbound through
lane on Newport Boulevard.
• Newport Boulevard /18th Street (Rochester St): Convert southbound right -
turn lane to a shared through /right lane on Newport Boulevard.
• Pomona Avenue /17th Street: Install signal.
• Superior Avenue /17th Avenue: Convert westbound approach to provide
one left, one shared /left, one through, and one dedicated right -turn lane.
• Newport Boulevard /17th Street: Add fourth southbound through lane and
one dedicated northbound right -turn lane.
Finding:
B. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including
the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in Subsection 15.40.030.8 can
be made:
Findings for Approval. No project shall be approved pursuant to this chapter unless the
Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, finds that:
2
EXHIBIT D
Required Findings
Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
1. Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of project
approval; and:
a. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic
service at any impacted primary intersection, or
b. The project including circulation improvements that the project proponent is
required to make and /or fund, pursuant to a reimbursement program or
otherwise, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic
service at any impacted primary intersection, or
c. The project trips will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic
service at one or more impacted primary intersection(s) but the project
proponent is required to construct and /or fund, pursuant to a reimbursement
program or otherwise, circulation improvements, or make contributions, such
that:
(1) The project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of
traffic service at any impacted primary intersection for which there is a
feasible improvement, and
(2) The benefits resulting from circulation improvements constructed or
funded by, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic
mitigation study made by, the project proponent outweigh the adverse
impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there
is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if implemented, fully satisfy
the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (B)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse
impacts and benefits, only the following improvements and /or
contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to the
improvements and /or contributions described in subparagraphs (a) and (b)
below:
(a) Contributions to the preparation of, and /or implementation of some or
all of the recommendations in, a traffic mitigation study related to an
impacted primary intersection that is initiated or approved by the City
Council,
(b) Improvements, if any, that mitigate the impact of project trips at any
impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible
improvement(s) that, if implemented, would satisfy the provisions of
Section 15.41.030 (B)(1)(b),
(c) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any
impacted primary intersection in the vicinity of the project,
3
EXHIBIT D
Required Findings
Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
(d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any
impacted primary intersection operating, or projected to operate, at or
above 0.80 ICU, or
d. The project complies with (1)(b) upon the completion of one or more circulation
improvements; and:
(1) The time and /or funding necessary to complete the improvement(s) is
(are) not roughly proportional to the impacts of project - generated trips,
and
(2) There is a strong likelihood the improvement(s) will be completed within
forty -eight (48) months from the date the project and traffic study are
considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or
appeal. This finding shall not be made unless, on or before the date of
approval, a conceptual plan for each improvement has been prepared in
sufficient detail to permit estimation of cost and funding sources for the
improvement(s); the improvement(s) is (are) consistent with the circulation
element or appropriate amendments have been initiated; an account has
been established to receive all funds and contributions necessary to
construct the improvement(s) and the improvement is identified as one to
be constructed pursuant to the five year capital improvement plan and as
specified in Appendix A, and
(3) The project proponent pays a fee to fund construction of the
improvement(s). The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the estimated
cost of the improvement(s) by a fraction. The fraction shall be calculated
by dividing the "effective capacity decrease" in the impacted primary
intersection attributable to project trips by the "effective capacity increase"
in the impacted primary intersection that is attributable to the
improvement. The terms "effective capacity increase" and "effective
capacity decrease" shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions
of Appendix A; or:
2. The project is a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation
System Improvement Plan with construction of all phases not anticipated to be
complete within sixty (60) months of project approval; and
a. The project is subject to a development agreement which requires the
construction of, or contributions to, circulation improvements early in the
development phasing program, and
b. The traffic study contains sufficient data and analysis to determine if that
portion of the project reasonably expected to be constructed and ready for
11
EXHIBIT D
Required Findings
Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
occupancy within sixty (60) months of project approval satisfies the provisions
of subsections (B)(1)(a) or (B)(1)(b), and
c. The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan are not made
inconsistent by the impact of project trips (including circulation improvements
designed to mitigate the impacts of project trips) when added to the trips
resulting from development anticipated to occur within the City based on the
Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and
d. The project is required, during the sixty (60) month period immediately after
approval, to construct circulation improvement(s) such that
(1) Project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic
service at any impacted primary intersection for which there is a feasible
improvement,
(2) The benefits resulting from circulation improvements constructed or
funded by, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic
mitigation study made by, the project proponent outweigh the adverse
impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there
is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if implemented, fully satisfy
the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (B)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse
impacts and benefits, only the following improvements and /or
contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to the
improvements and/or contributions described in subparagraphs (a) or (b):
(a) Contributions to the preparation of, and /or implementation of some or
all of the recommendations in, a traffic mitigation study related to an
impacted primary intersection that is initiated or approved by the City
Council,
(b) Improvements, if any, that mitigate the impact of project trips at any
impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible
improvements) that, if implemented, would fully satisfy the provisions
of Section 15.40.030 (B)(1)(b),
(c) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any
impacted primary intersection in the vicinity of the project,
(d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any
impacted primary intersection operating, or projected to operate, at or
above 0.80 ICU; or
3. The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal finds, by the
affirmative vote of five- sevenths (517) of the members eligible to vote, that this
EXHIBIT D
Required Findings
Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
chapter is inapplicable to the project because the project will result in benefits that
outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on the circulation system;
Facts in Support of Findin
B -1. The proposed restriping the southbound approach of Newport Boulevard at West
Coast Highway to provide a right -turn lane, shared right/left turn lane and left -turn
lane is an improvement identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan,
and therefore a feasible improvement under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The
conditions of approval require the restriping occur in the early phase of
development, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building
constructed in the South Family Village or Resort Colony. The traffic study
determined, based on sufficient data and analysis, that the proposed project
under a worst -case scenario of full build -out by 2016, when taken together with
the circulation improvement, will not cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory
level of traffic service at Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway.
B -2. The proposed project does not result in an inconsistency between the Land Use
Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan by the impact of project
trips (including circulation improvements designed to mitigate the impacts of
project trips) when added to the trips resulting from development anticipated to
occur within the City based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
Zoning Code. The development included in the proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan. Off -site mitigation improvements proposed within the City
of Newport Beach, are also included in the Circulation Element.
B -3. The proposed project meets the requirements for a Comprehensive Phased Land
Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan as the project is
subject to conditions of approval and a development agreement which requires
the construction of, or contributions to, circulation improvements early in the
development phasing program.
B -4. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the
traffic study and the conditions of approval, all of the findings for approval in
Section 15.40.030.8.2 can be made with respect to the required mitigation
measures within Newport Beach.
B -5. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the
traffic study, the finding in Section 15.40.030.B.2.b cannot be made with respect
to the impacted intersections identified in Costa Mesa because the City cannot
enforce mitigation measures outside its jurisdiction.
B -6. Based on the public benefits outlined in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations and included in the conditions of approval, the proposed project
will result in benefits that outweigh the project's impact on the circulation system
59
EXHIBIT D
Required Findings
Traffic Study No. TS2008 -002
Finding:
C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or
make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and
to comply with all conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The traffic study determined, based on sufficient data and analysis that the
proposed project under a worst -case scenario of full build -out by 2016, when
taken together with the circulation improvement, will not cause nor make worse
an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at Newport Boulevard and West Coast
Highway.
C -2. Mitigation measures require that the applicant make best efforts to negotiate in
good faith to arrive at fair and responsible arrangements to either pay fees and /or
construct the required improvements in lieu of the payment of fees to be
negotiated with the City of Costa Mesa.
7
Exhibit E
Required Findings for AHIP No. AH2008-
001
EXHIBIT E
Required Findings
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001
In accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 19.54.070.D (Inclusionary
Housing), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. The purpose of this chapter (Chapter 19.54) would be served by the
implementation of the proposed alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Implementation plan (AHIP)
that contains alternative methods to on -site construction of affordable units.
A -2. The AHIP proposes the construction of a minimum of 50 percent of the required
affordable units on the project site. The remaining affordable housing obligation
would be met through the payment of in -lieu fees; the construction of off -site
affordable housing including the rehabilitation of existing off -site housing that
would contribute to meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) requirements; land dedication for affordable housing; or any combination
these methods.
A -3. The AHIP serves the purpose of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by
providing a range of strategies, including on -site new construction, off -site new
construction and rehabilitation of existing units, payment of in -lieu fees, and /or
land dedication to provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for all
social and economic segments, including very low -, low -, and moderate - income
households.
Finding:
B. The units provided are located within the City and are consistent with the
requirements of this chapter [Chapter 19.54].
Facts in SuDoort of Findin
B -1. The project site is proposed to be annexed to the City and the project cannot be
implemented unless the annexation occurs.
B -2. The AHIP requires all affordable units provided off -site, either through new
construction or through renovation and restriction of existing housing units, to be
located within the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach.
B -3. The AHIP complies with the affordability requirement of Section 19.54.040.A of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code by providing that 15 percent of all new
housing units constructed by the project be affordable to very low, low and
EXHIBIT E
Required Findings
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O08 -001
moderate income households. Section 19.54.040.A.1 provides that a lower
percent of affordable units may be approved as part of an AHIP, if the project
includes units for very low- income households. The AHIP provides that the
affordable units be comprised of either 5 percent Very Low Income or 10 percent
Low Income or 15 percent Moderate Income or a combination of all of these
income levels.
B -4. The AHIP requires all affordable units provided will be restricted, as enforced
though a Affordable Housing Implementation Agreement with the City, to ensure
that the unit remains affordable to very low -, low -, or moderate - income
households.
B -5. Affordable Housing Implementation Agreements will be executed and recorded at
each phase of development for affordable units to be constructed within that
phase, or for land proposed to be dedicated, or for any in -lieu fees to be paid.
B -6. The AHIP requires that renovation of existing off -site units to affordable units to
comply with the requirements of Section 19.54.070.B of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
B -7. The AHIP requires that any land dedications for affordable housing to comply
with requirements of Section 19.54.070.0 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
B -8. The AHIP provides that the affordable units provided will be restricted for a
period of not less than 30 years.
Finding:
C. It would not be feasible or practical to construct the units on site.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The AHIP requires that a minimum of 50 percent of the required affordable units
be construction on site.
C -2. The project site is constrained by the topography and sensitive habitat areas.
Furthermore, policies of the General Plan require that a majority of the project
site be preserved as open space. Therefore, the project site has limited area for
residential development.
C -3. Implementation of the AHIP will be evaluated at each development phase which
will include consideration of off -site affordable units, dedication of land or the
payment of in -lieu fees. The conclusion of this evaluation will be subject to an
Affordable Housing Implementation Agreement between the applicant and the
City of Newport Beach.
Exhibit F
Recommended Statement of Public
Benefits
EXHIBIT F
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFITS
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Newport Banning Ranch
project identified several significant impacts of the project which could not be reduced to
less than significant. CEQA requires that where impacts cannot be reduced to less than
significant, the lead agency must identify the "specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations," against which the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts are considered in deciding whether to approve the project.
(CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guideline Section 15093.) Should the City Council
determine to approve the Newport Banning Ranch project, it must adopt findings as
required by CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The draft Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared
and provided to the City Council for its consideration. However, to understand the
project benefits which may considered in weighing the significant effects of the project,
a preliminary list of project benefits and considerations is presented for review. This list
should be considered a preliminary draft which may be subject to change prior to City
Council consideration.
1. Long -term protection of over 50% of the project site as natural open space
and habitat consistent with the City's General Plan.
The City's General Plan Policy LU 3.4 prioritizes the acquisition of Banning
Ranch as an open space amenity for the community and region, to enhance wetlands
and other habitats and provide parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. In
order to implement this policy, however, LU 6.3.2 recognizes the need to obtain
sufficient funds through private fundraising, State bonds, environmental mitigation fees,
or other financing mechanisms, none of which have been identified to date. As the
General Plan acknowledges, "due to the significant cost of purchasing the site and
habitat restoration, a large amount of revenue would need to be generated to help fund
preservation of the majority of the property as open space." (Housing Element at 5 -48.)
Consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.4, the project will implement a
comprehensive Habitat Restoration Plan that encompasses approximately 235 gross
acres of the project site and will provide for the restoration of wetlands and other habitat
areas, and the preservation and long -term maintenance of existing open space,
sensitive habitats and additional restored and created habitats at no cost to the public.
2. New public and coastal access will be provided.
The project will make available to the public a site that has been privately- owned,
and closed to the public since the 1940s, and will provide new public and coastal
access through construction of a road connection to West Coast Highway and the
beach, access to open space and trails, and a pedestrian bridge to the beach. The
EXHIBIT F
project will also provide approximately 475 new public parking spaces in the coastal
zone.
3. Dedication and improvement of land for public park, recreational, and open
space purposes in excess of the requirements of California law and City
ordinances.
In addition to the restoration and long -term preservation of natural open space
and habitat areas described above in #1, above, the City's General Plan also
contemplates the provision of parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods and
City residents in general. Under the General Plan's primary use as open space, in
addition to the costs of property acquisition, the City and its residents would be
responsible for funding the cost of park improvements. The project provides
approximately 21 gross acres of public parkland and improvements. As described
below, the project's parkland dedication and improvements exceed the parkland
dedication requirements under State law and provide significant open space and
recreational benefits to the City and its residents.
Government Code Section 66477 (commonly known as the "Quimby Act ") allows
a city to require the dedication of land or require the payment of fees for park and
recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map. The Quimby
Act establishes limits on the amount of land that is required to be dedicated. Based on
the number of dwelling units proposed, the project would be required to dedicate
approximately 15 acres of parkland only. The Newport Banning Ranch project will both
dedicate land and provide improvements to the following parks and recreational trails.
The public parks, recreational and open space provided by the project are as
follows:
• The improvement of the North Community Park and the Central Community
Park, totaling 20.8 gross acres (16.9 acres net);
• The improvement of the Bluff Park and Interpretive Parks in accordance with
the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, totaling 24.6 gross
acres;
• The improvement of a trail system through open space areas in accordance
with the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, totaling
approximately 7 miles of trails throughout the project site; and
• The improvement of coastal public access via a Pedestrian and Bicycle
Bridge from the project site across West Coast Highway to the beach.
2
EXHIBIT F
4.
The Newport Banning Ranch property is an active, operating oil field. In addition,
as an active, operating oil field, and as detailed under the City's General Plan, if
acquisition of the property were pursued through public funds, additional funds would
have to be identified by the City to pay for the costs of habitat restoration and parkland
improvements. Further, the City and public would be required to either allow the oil
operator to continue its operations until oil operations cease, or pay for the
consolidation, clean up and remediation of the oil field to implement the habitat and
parkland goals of the City's General Plan. The project provides for the consolidation of
the existing oil operations into two areas thereby permitting oil field abandonment and
clean up to commence on the remainder of the project site in advance of when they
would have occurred. The costs of the comprehensive oil field abandonment and
remediation is estimated at approximately $30 million — none of which will now have to
be funded by the City or the public. In addition, the oil operation consolidation will allow
for habitat restoration activities to occur in advance of when it would have absent the
project's ability to require consolidation.
6. Provision of Area -wide Water Quality Benefits.
The project is designed to include water quality basins that are proposed to be
sized to treat off -site urban run -on from areas of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach
developed with commercial, industrial and residential uses, that currently drains through
the project site and flows untreated into the project lowland areas and to the Semeniuk
Slough, in addition to capturing and treating on -site urban runoff from within the project.
The 103 -acre Semeniuk Slough is identified in the City's Coastal Land Use Plan as an
Environmental Study Area which is characterized by open estuarine, southern coastal
salt marsh, and ornamental plant communities. Potential impacts to the Slough include
water quality degradation and sediment build -up. (Coastal Land Use Plan at 4 -15 and
4 -16.) By capturing and treating this urban runoff, the Project will provide significant
water quality benefits to the Semeniuk Slough.
6. Net Fiscal Benefits to the Cit
The fiscal impact report prepared for the City concluded that, "Based on the
revenue and cost projections ... the project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2
million per year at full build out." (Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Newport
Banning Ranch Annexation to the City of Newport Beach, prepared by Applied
Development Economics, dated December 29, 2011 at page 16.)
7. Provide a Variety of Housing Opportunities within the City Consistent with
the City's General Plan.
The City's Housing Element establishes as a goal: A balanced residential
community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all
c
IM /:llcltiiy
social and economic segments. (Housing Element Goal H2.) The project will provide a
wide range of housing types from single family detached to higher density attached and
multi - family units that will provide a variety of housing opportunities within a single
Project site — a feature not available in many other areas of the City or new
developments elsewhere in the City due to the limited number of sites and the sizes of
parcels available for new residential development. In addition, the project will provide at
least 50% of its affordable housing requirements on site which will provide greater
opportunities for all segments of the City's population to enjoy living on the project site.
8. Fire Station Improvements.
The project will contribute up to $700,000 towards the redevelopment of Newport
Beach Fire Station No. 2, and in the event the redevelopment of a station is not
completed by the City prior to development of certain areas of the project site, the
project will also make available an onsite location for a temporary fire station.
9. Sustainable Design.
In addition to its emphasis on a mix of uses and housing opportunities, the
Newport Banning Ranch Project is designed as a sustainable and green community that
provides the benefits of promoting energy efficiency and resource conservation that will
combine to reduce the project's greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the State's
goals set forth under AB 32. The following Project components implement
sustainability:
• The project will provide a network of public pedestrian and bicycle trails to
reduce auto - dependency by connecting proposed residential neighborhoods
to parks and open space within the project site and to off -site recreational
amenities, such as the beach and regional parks and trails, and will
coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority to allow for a
transit routing through the project site.
• The project is registered under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design- Neighborhood Development (LEED -ND) Program, and will be
consistent with the program's green building requirements.
• The project provides compact development patterns by concentrating
development in two main clusters which minimize habitat fragmentation and
provides larger, more contiguous areas for open space protection, habitat
restoration and parkland.
• The project will implement a "dark sky' lighting program to minimize light
spillage into adjacent native habitat areas.
• The project will exceed adopted 2008 Title 24 energy conservation
requirements by a minimum of 5 %.
4
EXHIBIT F
• The project will require that all residential development incorporate: low water
use appliances; Smart Controller irrigation systems; Freon -free air
conditioning units; multimetering "dashboards" in each dwelling unit to
visualize real -time energy use; and solar orientation of structures to promote
compatibility with the installation of photovoltaic panels or other current solar
power technology.
• The project has provisions for parking spaces for electric or hybrid vehicles
and installation of facilities for Level 2 electric vehicle recharging.
• The project will implement remediation and cleanup of the oil field, which
includes the ability to recycle and properly dispose on -site oil field materials.
Additionally, the treatment and cleaning of impacted soils will be done on -site
which significantly reduces the potential export of oil field materials and
impacted soils.
• The project will also increase construction waste diversion by 50% from 2010
requirements; and recycle and reuse construction materials onsite to
minimize off -site hauling and disposal of materials.
G
Exhibit G
NBR -PC with Recommended Revisions &
Errata (under separate cover)
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
Page 2 -2
Delete the word "bars" from Section 2.2.1.3 as follows
2.2.1 Planned Community Districts
3. Visitor - Serving Resort/Residential District, to allow for a maximum 75 -room resort inn to
include ancillary uses such as restaurants and -bars, spas, fitness centers, meeting and banquet
facilities, retail shops, and other similar complementary visitor - serving commercial uses or free
standing visitor serving retail uses without a resort inn component. This district also allows for
resort- oriented residential units of up to 40.0 dwelling units per gross acre if developed in
conjunction with the resort inn. In the event a resort inn is not developed this land use district
allows the development of residential land uses of up to 9.0 dwelling units per gross acre within
the entire district, with or without visitor - serving commercial uses or visitor serving commercial
uses alone.
Page 2 -4
Change the acreage assigned to Community Park as follows:
2.4.1 Community Park District (CP)
Approximately 26.8-21.8 gross acres designated as CP shall be developed as a public
Community Park as part of the Project and offered for dedication to the City to serve the active
recreational needs of the Project residents and the community at large.
Page 2 -4
Change the acreage assigned to Bluff Park as follows:
2.4.2 Bluff Park District (BP)
Approximately 20-.9 25.9 gross acres are designated as BP to serve as a passive recreational
area and a buffer between the Visitor - Serving Resort/Residential District and Open Space
Districts.
Exhibit 2 -1 Planned Community Development Plan
Change the land use designation for 5.0 acres of Community Park (southerly CP) to Bluff Park,
Exhibit 2 -2 Planned Community Development Table
Change the acreage designated as CP from 26.8 acres to 21.8 acres.
Change the acreage designated as BP from 20.9 acres to 25.9 acres.
Page 2 -5
Add the following text to Section 2.5, Visitor Serving Resort/Residential District (VSR/R), first
paragraph as follows:
The purpose of the Visitor - Serving Resort/Residential District is to designate approximately
11.3 gross acres to allow for development of a resort inn and resort oriented residential uses
within the NBR -PC. In the event a resort inn is not developed in this land use district, the NBR
PC allows for development of residential uses and /or visitor serving commercial uses within the
land use district. Uses allowed within the VSR /R District include the following:
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
Page 2 -5
Delete the words "and bars" and add the following text to the first paragraph of Section 2.5.1 as
follows:
1. Resort Inn and Resort Oriented Residential Uses
A resort inn of -up4o with a maximum of 75 overnight accommodations (guest rooms) with a
lobby and related guest areas, along with support commercial uses ancillary to a resort, such
as, restaurant(s), and -bars gift and sundry shops, business center(s), fitness center(s),
spa /salon /treatment rooms, swimming pools and recreation facilities, banquet and meeting
rooms, areas for food and beverage preparation, administrative offices, housekeeping areas,
maintenance areas, and employee facilities. Ancillary commercial uses are those uses
customary and proportional to the resort. Visitor serving- Commercial uses insluded as part of
ancillary to resort inn development shall not be counted as part of the maximum 75,000 square
feet of commercial area permitted within the NBR -PC.
Page 2 -5
Add the following text to Section 2.5.3 referencing the NBR -PC provisions for transfer of
residential dwelling units among residential districts as follows:
3. Residential Uses
Up-to In the event a resort inn is not developed in the VSR /R district, development of a
maximum of 100 conventionally -owned residential dwelling units is allowed pursuant to the
provisions Section 4.18 "Transfer of Residential Dwellinq Units," of the NBR -PC.; in- the event -a
resort inn is not developed in he These residential dwelling units shall be
counted as part of the maximum 1,375 residential dwelling units permitted within the NBR -PC.
Page 2 -5
Add the following text to Section 2.5.4 referencing the NBR -PC provisions allowing for transfer
of visitor serving commercial uses to the VSR /R district and delete "bars" as a visitor serving
commercial use:
4. Visitor Serving Commercial Uses
In the event a resort inn is not developed in the VSR /R district, development of visitor- serving
commercial uses independent of a resort use inn sash as, to include but not limited to
restaurant(s), and -bars; gift and sundry shops, business centers, fitness centers, spas and
salons, swimming pools and recreation facilities and similar uses are permitted subiect to the
provisions of Section 4.19 "Transfer of Commercial Area from MU /R District to VSR /R District,"
of the NBR -PC. This - type -ef All visitor serving commercial use developed independently of a
resort inn shall be counted as part of the maximum 75,000 square feet of commercial area
permitted within the NBR -PC.
Page 3 -1, Add the following text to the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.2.1,
"Oil Operations," as follows:
All surface oil production facilities located in areas outside of the OF District in existence after
the effective date of the NBR -PC shall be legal non - conforming structures, and subject to NBMC
Chapter 20.38, "Nonconforming Uses and Structures," and-subjeGt selely to the provisions 0 f
N13M6 Sections 20.38.010 through 20.38.050 ofGhapter -20.38 and may continue for a
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
maximum period of ten years following completion of annexation of the unincorporated County
areas of the Project Site to the City .
Page 3 -3
Add the following requirement:
Page 3 -4
Delete the following text from Section 3.3 Landscape Regulations:
6. The design an provement-e€ -all developer- installed publiG parks, inelu g landscape and
irrigation plans, wit e PFgjeGt Site shall be 6ubjeGt to appFoval of a Site Deve4opn%nt
Review by the kl "Site
Page 3 -12
Revise Section 3.9.7, "Legal Non- Conforming Uses, "as follows:
3.9.7 Legal Non - Conforming Uses
Any use within the Project Site lawfully existing at the time of the effective date of the NBR -PC
including, without limitation, surface and subsurface oil and natural gas production operations,
maintenance and operation of existing easements and pipelines, surface leases for storage
yards, and other oil- related buildings, structures, and maintenance areas shall be considered
legal non - conforming uses and may be continued subject to NBMC Chapter 20.38.010 through
20.38.050, "Nonconforming Uses and Structures," for up to ten years following the completion of
annexation of areas located in the unincorporated County to the City, notwithstanding any
omission of a particular such use in Table 3 -1, "Allowable Uses." Legal+ ion-senforming- uses -are
not peffnitted to be expanded.
Pages 3 -14 and 3 -15
Revise Table 3 -1, Allowable Uses as follows:
Delete Bars and Nightclubs as conditionally permitted uses in the MR /R and VSR /R
districts.
Delete Breweries, micro as a conditionally permitted use in the VSR /R district.
Delete Residential Care Facilities 6 or fewer unlicensed as a conditionally permitted use
in the RL, RL /M and RM districts.
Delete Nightclubs as a conditionally permitted use in the MU /R and VSR /R districts.
Page 4 -5
Revise Section 4.4.6, 'Requirement for Site Development Review" as follows:
3
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
4.4.6 Development Activities Pursuant to Approved MDP and Recordation of Final Me
4.4.6.1 Activities Subiect to Communitv Park Improvement Plan Approval
The following development activities are permitted pursuant to approval of the MDP for the
Project Site, subject to recordation of a final subdivision map, approval of a Community Park
Improvement Plan, and approval of all required permits from local. State (including Coastal
Commission). and Federal agencies:
1. Construction of public park and recreational facilities in the CP district.
4.4.6.2 Activities Subject to Reguiren%nt4w Site Development Review Approval
The following development activities are permitted pursuant to approval of the MDP for the
Project Site subject to recordation of a final subdivision map, City approval of Site Development
Review, as described in Section 4.5, "Site Development Review," of the NBR -PC, , and
approval of all required permits from local, State (including Coastal Commission), and Federal
agencies:
Development of land uses within the Residential Districts, Visitor Serving Resort and
Residential District, Mixed Use and Residential District, and Dark- and - Recreation
District. BP and IP Districts.
Page 4 -7
Add a new Section 4.6, Community Park Improvement Plan, and renumber subsequent sections
accordingly.
4.6 Community Park Improvement Plan
4.6.1 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of Community Park Improvement Plan is to provide for the review of specific
park design prior to construction of public park and recreational facilities in the CP district.
4.6.2 Applicability
Approval by the City of a Community Park Improvement Plan is required prior to
construction activity within the CP District of the NBR -PC as described in Section 4.4.6
"Development Activities pursuant to Approved MDP and Recordation of Final Map."
4.6.3 Review and Approval
A Community Park Improvement Plan shall include, a comprehensive site plan for the
community park, floor plans and elevations for any community facility buildings and
restrooms, landscape and irrigation plans, lighting plans, plans for play fields and passive
recreation areas, parking layout, and other public facilities to be located within the
Community Park, grading plans, infrastructure improvement plans, and any other
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
information deemed necessary for review by the Director of Recreation and Senior
Services. The Community Park Improvement Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Recreation and Senior Services.
Page 4 -8
Revise the last paragraph in Section 4.8 "Coastal Development Permit," as follows:
When any CDP(s) or MCDP is approved by the Coastal Commission that varies from the
approval granted by the City for the same application, said GOP(s) eF MGDP shall be
the applicant shall submit a request
action on the request.
Page 4 -14 through 4 -17
Delete Section 4.16," Land Use Acreage Refinement, Transfer of Residential Dwelling Units,
and Transfer of Commercial Area," Delete Section 4.17, "Minor Modifications," as follows
5
NO
._
..
-
5
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
MW Arib-O"
._ W.
.-
KNOWN ~
!Nil 110,00011112
ON
MW Arib-O"
._ W.
.-
KNOWN ~
ON
MW Arib-O"
._ W.
.-
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
.-
Page 4 -14
Add a new Section 4.17, "Substantial Conformance," as follows:
4.17 Substantial Conformance
conformance with the NBR -PC provided the change complies with the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
There is no resulting reduction in the total area allocated to the CP District: and
The total area within the Project Site boundary does not exceed 401.1 gross acres.
Page 4 -15
Add a new Section 4.18, 'Transfer of Residential Dwelling Units," as follows:
4.18 Transfer of Residential Dwelling Units
ilill
Development Table," for the Land Use District receiving additional dwelling units:
2. The total number of dwelling units for the Project Site does not exceed 1,375;
3. All dwelling units planned within the Land Use District can be developed pursuant to the
3
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
transfer concludes that there would not be any greater traffic impact generated as a result
of the transfer than would be generated without the transfer. Trip generation rates shall be
in the transfer.
5. The total number of dwelling units within the MU /R Land Use District does not exceed 730:
and
6. A corresponding subdivision map is approved by the City if the transfer results in a change
to any previously approved subdivision map.
A request for transfer of residential dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements:
a. The request for a transfer of residential dwelling units from one land use district to
another shall be submitted as part of an application for approval of either a Master
Development Plan for the Project Site or as part of an application for approval of a
subdivision map or a Site Development Review;
101
Page 4 -16
Add a new Section 4.19, "Transfer of Commercial Area from MU /R to VSR /R," as follows:
4.19 Transfer of Commercial Area from MU /R District to VSR/R District
In the event a resort inn is not developed in the VSR /R District, a request to transfer a portion of
the total commercial area as described in Exhibit 2 -2 "Planned Community Development
r_u_ n r___ a,_ au un n:_a..:.a a_ ate_ \ IOnln n:,,a.:,.a 9—. .J.., ... L..........a .J --- lL..,.
full service health spa park and recreation facilities and similar uses may be approved as part
of the review of either a Master Development Plan Site Development Review, or subdivision
map application submitted for the Project Site, provided:
2.
The total area of commercial uses developed within the Proiect Site does not exceed
75,000 square feet.
U
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
based on standard trip generation values in the current version of ITE's "Trip Generation."
unless the Traffic Engineer determines that other rates are more valid for the uses involved
in the transfer. The visitor serving commercial uses can be developed pursuant to the
applicable development regulations established in NBR -PC Chapter 3 "Land Use and
Development Regulations." for commercial development within in the VSR /R land use
district.
3. All commercial uses planned for development within the VSR /R district can be developed
pursuant to the applicable development regulations established in NBR -PC Chapter 3
"Land Use and Development Regulations." for the type of commercial use planned for
development,
subdivision map or a Site Development Review:
Page 4 -17
Add a new Section 4.20, "Transfer of Commercial Area from MU /R District to RUM or RM
District," as follows:
4.20 Transfer of Commercial Area from MU /R District to RUM or RM District
provisions:
PA
residential district.
3. The total area of commercial uses developed within the Project Site does not exceed
75.000 square feet.
a
EXHIBIT G
NBR Planned Community Development Plan Revisions and Errata
Page 4 -17, Renumber Section 4 -18 to Section 4 -20 and revise text as follows:
4.48 20 Amendments
All proposed changes to the NBR -PC other than those identified in Section 4.1 7, Mena
Med�#isatienG—," 4.18. "Transfer of Residential Dwelling Units. Section 4.19. "Transfer of
Area from MU /R to RUM or R/M District," of the NBR -PC or as otherwise provided for within the
NBR -PC, shall be considered amendments to the NBR -PC and shall be reviewed pursuant to
the provisions of NBMC Chapter 20.56.050 "Planned Community District Application
Procedures."
10
Exhibit H
NBR -MDP with Recommended
Revisions & Errata (under separate
cover)
EXHIBIT H
NBR Master Development Plan Revisions and Errata
Page 3 -3
Revise Section 3.2.2 as follows:
3.2.2. Parklands
1. Public Community Park comprising approximately 26.8 21.8 gross /11.7 18.0 net
acres in SPAS 7a, 7b, and 7c, which shall be developed for public active and passive
recreation as part of the Project and offered for dedication to the City;
2. Public Bluff Park comprising approximately 20:8 25.9 gross /17:6 21.20 net acres
in SPAS 7a, 8a and 8b which shall be developed for passive park recreation as part of
the Project and made permanently available for public use; and...
Exhibit 3 -1 Master Development Plan
Change the land use designation for Site Planning Area 7a from Public Community Park to
Public Bluff Park.
Exhibit 3 -2 Master Development Table
• Change the land use designation for Site Planning Area 7a from South Community
Park to South Bluff Park
• Change the subtotal acreage for Public Community Parks from 26.8 gross acres
and 21.7 net acres to 21.8 gross acres and 18.0 net acres.
• Change the subtotal acreage for South Bluff Park from 7.3 gross acres and 6.9 net
acres to 12.3 gross acres and 10.6 net acres.
• Change the subtotal for Public Bluff Parks from 20.9 gross acres and 17.5 net acres
to 25.9 gross and 21.10 net acres.
Page 3 -23
Change Section 3.5.1 as follows:
The following parks comprise the Parklands land use component of NBR:
• 26-.8 21.8 gross /2-1 -718.0 net acres of Public Community Parkin SPAS 7a; 7b and
7c;
• 20:9 25.9 gross /1-7.6 -21.10 net acres of Public Bluff Park in SPAs 7a, 8a and 8b; and
• 3.7 gross /2.9 net acres of Public Interpretive Parks in SPAs 9a, 9b, and 9c.
Page 3 -29
Change Section 3.5.2 as follows:
3.5.2 Public Community Park Development Plans
As part of the Project, a 26.8 21.8 gross -/21-.7- 18.0 net -acre Community Park will be
developed and offered for dedication to the City of Newport Beach. The development plan
for the Community Park (SPAs 7a7 7b, and 7c) is a Project Development Plan providing a
sufficient level of design detail for Coastal Commission approval of a Coastal Permit for this
park. The Public Community Park site is comprised of the three two subareas as described
below:
EXHIBIT H
NBR Master Development Plan Revisions and Errata
• The North Community Park Project Development Plan, illustrated in Exhibit 3 -6a,
contains 15.9 gross /13.5 net acres and will be improved as an active park to include
lighted turf sports fields, lighted hard courts, picnic facilities, age- specific playground,
restrooms, off - street public parking, and may include synthetic turf.
• The Central Community Park Project Development Plan, illustrated in Exhibit 3-
6b, contains 5.9 gross /4.5 net acres and will be improved as a passive recreational
area, including picnic areas, informal open play turf areas, and off - street public parking.
Page 3 -37
Change Section 3.5.3 as follows:
3.5.3 Public Bluff Park Project Development Plans
The 20.9 25.9 gross -/1 -7-.6 21_10 net -acre Public Bluff Park will be a linear and op cket park
system developed as part of the Project and will provide active and passive recreation
facilities, including approximately two miles of public pedestrian trails. Pedestrian trails
within the Parklands are described in more detail in NBR -MDP Chapter 4, "Master Trails
and Coastal Access Plan."
1. South Bluff Park Project Development Plan
South Bluff Park (SPAs 7a and 8a) comprises approximately 7.3- 12.3gross /6.1)-10.6 net
acres, and extends along the perimeter of the Resort Colony, and South Family Village, and
east of Bluff Road adjacent to the Open Space Preserve. Exhibit 3 -7a, "South Bluff Park
Project Development Plan," illustrates the public facilities that will be constructed as part of
the Project. As shown, South Bluff Park will be a passive park providing view opportunities
from the Resort Colony edge toward the Pacific Ocean and views of open space from the
South Family Village edge and from the area east of Bluff Road.
Revise the following Exhibits:
• Exhibit 3 -4, Parklands Project Development Plans — Change the designation for the
South Community Plan to South Bluff Park
• Exhibit 3 -5, Parklands Project Development Table — change the land use
designation for Site Planning Area 7a from South Community Park to South Bluff
Park and change the subtotal gross and net acreages for Community Park and
Public Bluff Park accordingly.
• Revise Exhibit 3 -6c, from South Community Park Project Development Plan to
South Bluff Park Project Development Plan.
• Exhibit 4 -1, Master Trails and Coastal Access Plan — change South Community
Park to South Bluff Park.
EXHIBIT H
NBR Master Development Plan Revisions and Errata
• Exhibit 5 -19, Key Map for Community Transition /Interface Sections — change the
color code for South Community Park to Bluff Park
• Exhibit 5 -23, Section DD — Change color code and revise title of Exhibit as follows:
South - Community Bluff Park Interface with Newport Crest Community.
Section 3.5
Page 10 -3
Revise Section 10.6.2 as follows:
10.6.2 Activities Requiring Subsequent Site Development Review Approval
Following approval by the City of the NBR -MDP the following development activities are
permitted within the Project Site subject to recordation of Final Map No. 17308 and any
subsequent subdivision map(s), approval by the City of Site Development Review pursuant
to NBR -PC Section 4.5, "Site Development Review," any additional local required permits,
and any permits from State (including Coastal Commission), and Federal agencies with
permitting jurisdiction over the activity:
1. Construction of residential, commercial, and visitor serving resort uses in all Villages and
Colonies;
2 . Construction of Bluff Parks and Interpretive Parks; and
3—. Gon6truetien -of- the Community- Park.
Page 10 -3
Add new Section 10.6.3 as follows:
10.6.3 Activities Requiring Community Park Improvement Plan
Following approval by the City of the NBR -MDP the following development activities are
permitted within the Project Site subject to recordation of Final Map No. 17308 and any
Improvement Plan Approval," any additional local required permits, and any permits from
State (including Coastal Commission) and Federal agencies with permitting jurisdiction
over the activity:
1. Construction of the public Community Park.
Page 10 -5
Revise Section 10.7.3 as follows:
10.7.3 Authorization for City to Issue Construction -Level Permits as part of MCDP
The MCDP shall authorize the City to be the final review authority for any subsequent
planning development permits and construction level permits, as required by the NBR -PC,
for implementation of those activities described in Section 10.6 of the NBR -MDP and within
3
EXHIBIT H
NBR Master Development Plan Revisions and Errata
the areas illustrated on Exhibit 10 -1, without additional Coastal Development Permits,
provided the subsequent permits are consistent with the NBR -MDP Project Development
Plans. Subsequent required planning development permits and construction level permits
shall include, but are not limited to, Site Development Review, Community Park
Improvement Plan Approval Use Permits, Final Tract Maps, final grading permits, model
home permits, building permits, and other required permits.
Page 10 -10
Add new Section 10.12, "Community Park Improvement Plan," as follows:
10.12 Community Park Improvement Plan
Park Improvement Plan." shall be required prior to construction of the public Community
Park.
Page 10 -10
Renumber Section 10.12 and revise text as follows:
10.12 - -Miner Medifisatiens
10.13 Substantial Conformance
The following are- sensidered miflerfnedi€isatiens -te constitute substantial conformance
with the NBR -MDP including Exhibit 1 -4, "Site Planning Areas Map," Exhibit 3 -1, "Master
Development Plan," and Exhibit 3 -2, "Master Development Table."
Land Use Acreage Refinements
A change in the Site Planning boundary lines as illustrated on Exhibit 1 -4 "Site Planning
Areas Map," and corresponding change in the Gross Acres for the respective Site Planning
Area as described on Exhibit 1 -5, "Site Planning Areas Table," of up to fifteen percent
(15 %) -are as approved permitted -as part the appreval of either a Site Development Review,
or subdivision map application submitted for the Site Planning Area, provided the
refinement(s) to Gross Acres does not result in:
.. nsrsn
.. rsrr.
n:srzT•rrrtaz+ar -rm
A reduction in the total acreage allocated to Open Space;
2. A reduction in the total area allocated to the Community Park;
3. The total area within the Project Site boundaries exceeding 401.1 gross acres;
EXHIBIT H
NBR Master Development Plan Revisions and Errata
Less than two roadway access points from North Bluff Road into the North
Family Village; and /or
Less than two roadway access points into both the South and North Family
Village.
Page 10 -10
Renumber and Revise Section 10. 12.2 as follows:
40.42.210.14 Transfer of Residential Dwelling Units
A change in the number of residential dwelling units for any Site Planning Area as
described on Exhibit 1 -5, "Site Planning Areas Table," resulting from a transfer of
residential dwelling units from one Site Planning Area to another, and as approved
pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.18. " Transfer of Residential Dwelling Units," of the
NBR -PC, is permitted as part of the approval of a Site Development Review provided:....
Page 10 -11
Renumber and Revise Section 10. 12.14 as follows:
co3EV.=.►M,1Var=0M.1111 eerrlarTH
10.15 Modifications to Approved Project Development Plans
The following constitute ad"eaal allewable-Fnlner-modifications to the NBR -MDP Project
Development Plans which may be approved as part of Site Development Review or
subdivision review, and not requiring an amendment to the NBRMDP:
1. Change in utility or public service provider as described in NBR -MDP Chapter 8,
"Master Roadway and Infrastructure Plans;"
2. Change in roadway alignment of any roadway illustrated on the "Master Roadway
Plan" of the NBR -MDP when the change results in a centerline shift of 150 feet or less;
3. Change to roadway sections as described in NBR -MDP Chapter 8, "Master
Roadway and Infrastructure Plans as approved by the Director of Public Works
4. Refinements to the Architectural Design Guidelines pursuant to Section 10.10;
5. Refinements to the mix, distribution, and design of architectural products with-as--a
partefsubsequent Site -B Review-and senstraetien drawings provided that:
a. The character and style of the architecture remains consistent with the intent of the
Project's architectural style;
b. The nominal lot size dimensions and nominal building square footages do not
exceed 20% of the original architecture proposed within the Site Planning Area; and
c. All applicable development regulations and standards set forth in the NBR -PC are
5
EXHIBIT H
NBR Master Development Plan Revisions and Errata
complied with.
Page 10 -12
Delete the following text:
NO 0:6-RIONW, :I jiml
-
'- r+.�:�
d. 'dentifleation of the GWROFGhip Of the Site PlanAing Area(s) to be affeeted by the
tion- whish -the- irester-deems
nesessaFy-
Page 10 -13
Renumber and revise Section 10.13 as follows:
10-13- 10.16 Amendments to the NBR -MDP
All proposed changes to the NBR -MDP other than those identified in Section '^ 42, "M
Mediftatiens;" 10.14 Transfer of Residential Dwelling Units and Section 10_15
"Modifications to Approved Proiect Development Plans," shall be considered amendments
to the NBR -MDP and shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of NBR -PC
M.
EXHIBIT H
NBR Master Development Plan Revisions and Errata
Section 4.4 "Master Development Plan."
to the City Council for consideration and final action on the request.
Page 10 -13
Renumber and revise Section 10.14 as follows:
4044- 10.17 Amendments to the Master CDP
Amendments to the MCDP are considered to be those changes considered as
amendments to the NBR -MDP pursuant to NBR -MDP Section 10.13 10.16. Following City
approval of any amendment to the NBR -MDP a corresponding application for an
amendment to the MCDP shall be submitted for approval to the California Coastal
Commission.
Exhibit 10 -1, Master Entitlements and Subsequent Approvals Map
Change South Community Park to South Bluff Park
Add the following text to the notations:
Land Use Development per City- approved Master Development Plan and CCC- approved
Master Coastal Development Permit. Additional Site Development Review, and /or
Community Park Improvement Plan Approval by City is required, but additional Coastal
Development Permit is not required, prior to Land use Development and construction
permits.
ME,,
EXHIBIT K
Project Boundary
Project Boundary
.. ...........
. ...... ...
1.3
1
t.
a.�J, � \
,lp
\� 1
Exhibit I
Tentative Tract Map No. 17308
21 M-41.
co
kf
fl
hx�
Ail! ill
$ !/
i ^ �
0 -13S Und 1710—f/9-1
'Mal ..
ƒ/
` |�)
y
it [ _.• G ,
\ §\ ` /•\ - , , .
!
is
. �
@� |
tj , m
;
#
„ �|
\`
Jul / |(§ E §
R | |
$)
a 2/
B&:
§ � /� <y \\ �
r
:| )(2 \
!
t 1:5 \[ /
» \% 3 Lu
m �
! ` �
|
� AI.
Z
1
1
mi
t
\ .0
l
I
1
1
1
1 '^
1�
1�
1
IW
IW
1�
1�
1�
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
e
i
A ,
1
/
A
A �
l i
R 9
R =
n
/ � B
11 /Vl Y
I
r$
N
I
1"
N
�pSp� N
-- -- - - -- - -
- ---
- - -- - - - --
,9
b 1
°
0
I
1"
0
- --
-- -- - - -- - -
- ---
- - -- - - - --
O
�
�
1
p -.� -
.�' ,•p'
S1ALL1
i �
zz
to
1
ql
1
NM
1 �
i t
0 Il� z
O �
t
e
,
t
'1
_i
0
t
t
t
s 1
• i F
f
as y
y3
,r I
r' I
, 9
n
9
. .A,
r
A�
•_� `p.I
If
e � p
JA
\ '.
"d
� �'�
\ \ Y
1
/ ♦♦ % 'may
OR
�
��
.tea � � �� � @@
_"�.��• , 1
i
63
a .
Exhibit J
NBR Affordable Housing Implementation
Plan
Newport Banning Ranch (NBR)
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP)
Revised April 2012
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Backaround
This Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) has been prepared in order to comply
with the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan as well as Chapter 19.54 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, Inclusionary Housing, which provides that an AHIP must be
prepared by Applicant to set forth a plan for meeting the City's goal of providing a balanced
residential community comprised of a variety of housing types and opportunities for all social
and economic segments of the community including very low, low and moderate income
households. This AHIP is provided in fulfillment of those requirements and details Applicant's
approved strategies for meeting City requirements.
Chapter 19.54.060 of the Municipal Code provides that "Residential subdivision projects of 51
dwelling units or more shall be required to submit an AHIP." Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17308
is an element of Applicant's entitlement package. This map provides for a maximum of 1,375
dwelling units and meets the minimum threshold for submittal of a mandatory AHIP for City
review and adoption.
1.2 Project Description
The Newport Banning Ranch (NBR) is a 401 -acre master planned community regulated by the
City of Newport Beach (City) and other stakeholder governments. The master plan, following
extensive community outreach and facilitation; was crafted by a multi - disciplinary team of
architects, engineers, planners, and environmental specialists to implement the entitlement
standards provided under the Alternative Use option of the Newport Beach General Plan as
approved by voters in November, 2006.
The Alternative Use option provides for 1,375 dwelling units, 75,000 square feet of retail and
convenience commercial, and a 75 -room coastal inn with spa facilities and services. More
than half of the property is to be set aside for open space for public parks and playgrounds as
NBR AHIP - 04/10/12 1
well as protected areas for environmentally sensitive and other habitats. Oil production
facilities now on the site will be consolidated into two drilling and production areas.
2.0 Affordable Housing Plan
2.1 Definitions
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provides further guidance on the preparation of an AHIP
and the City's published housing guidelines and rules including definitions. A number of those
definitions, especially definitions about rentals, are relevant to the NBR AHIP including:
A. Affordable Housing Agreement. The Agreement entered into is to be in
compliance with Section 19.54.080, which provides legal restrictions by which the
affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to
very low -, low -, or moderate - income households, as applicable. With respect to
rental units, rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement
recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner - occupied units,
resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and /or
other similar documents recorded against the applicable property;
B. Affordable Housing Cost. Affordable housing cost for very low income
households shall not exceed 30 percent of 50 percent of area median income
adjusted for family size. Affordable housing cost for low income households shall
not exceed 30 percent of 70 percent of area median income adjusted for family
size. Affordable housing cost for moderate income households shall not be less
than 28 percent of the gross income of the household, nor exceed 35 percent of
110 percent of area median income adjusted for family size. In determining the
maximum household income for a given affordable unit, it shall be assumed that
each bedroom is occupied by two persons, except for efficiency units (one
person)..
C. Affordable Rent. An annual rent that does not exceed 30 percent of maximum
income levels for very low -, low -, and moderate - income households, as adjusted
for household size. In determining the maximum household income for a given
NBR AHIP -04/10/12 2
affordable unit, it shall be assumed that each bedroom is occupied by two
persons, except for efficiency units (one person).
D. Affordable Unit. An ownership or rental housing unit, including senior housing,
affordable to households with very low -, low -, and moderate income as defined in
Section 9.54.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
E. Applicant. Newport Banning Ranch LLC, including any successors) -in - interest.
F. City. The City of Newport Beach.
G. Low - Income. Income between 50% and 80% of the Orange County median
income, adjusted for actual household size, as established annually by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development.
H. Moderate Income. Income between 80% and 120% of the Orange County
median income, adjusted for actual household size as established annually by
the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
I. Very Low Income. Income 50% or less of the Orange County median income,
adjusted for actual household size, as established annually by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development.
2.1 Affordable Housing Obligation
A. Number of Units /Income Levels. The City's Housing Element includes a goal
that 15% of all new housing units in the City be affordable to very low, low and
moderate income households. A maximum of 1,375 units are proposed'. The
Affordable Units shall be comprised of either:
1. Five Percent Very Low Income (69 units); or
2. Ten Percent Low Income (138 units); or
' The unit count may vary based on final project approvals. The relative percentage of affordable units shall remain the
same.
N B R AHIP —04/10/12 3
3. Fifteen Percent Moderate Income (206 units); or
4. A combination of the above.
For the purpose of calculating the number of affordable units in the event a
combination of units is to be provided, a Very Low Income Unit shall be deemed
to be the equivalent of three Moderate Income Units and two Low Income Units.
A Low Income Unit shall be the equivalent of 1.5 Moderate Income Units. For
example if 20 Very Low Income Units are provided either 146 Moderate Income
Units or 98 Low Income Unit would be required to complete the affordability
requirement.
B. If for any reason the number of approved market rate units authorized is not
constructed, or cannot be constructed due to the operation of law or economic
conditions, then the number of affordable units provided or the fees paid in -lieu of
providing rentals shall be reduced proportionally so that Applicant's obligation
does not exceed the percentage requirement.
C. Excess Affordable Units. In the event that Applicant constructs affordable units
in excess of the maximum required amount, Applicant may be entitled to such
additional incentives pursuant to the City's Density Bonus ordinance codified in
Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.32, as the same may be amended
from time to time. Such incentives shall be proposed and approved through an
Affordable Housing Implementation Agreement (See Section 2.5.A).
2.2 Methodology
A. Options. Applicant shall comply with its affordable housing obligation by any
combination of the following:
1. Constructing the new Affordable Units on -site or offsite.
2. The renovation and restriction of existing housing units.
3. The payment of the City's In -lieu Fee.
NBR AHIP -04/10/12 4
4. The dedication of land for affordable housing.
B. Minimum Onsite Requirement. A minimum of 50% of Affordable Housing
Obligation shall be provided on Site. Applicant and City agree that regardless of
the permissible measures employed by Applicant to meet Affordable housing
objectives and the mandates of the AHIP, including fee payments and /or land
dedications, Applicant will insure that at least 50% of the AHIP affordable
housing will be constructed on site as either for sale housing or rentals.
C. Off -site Location. Affordable units provided off -site, either through new
construction or through renovation and restriction of existing housing units, shall
be located within the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach.
D. Off -Site Renovation. Renovation of existing off -site units to affordable units shall
meet the following requirements:
1. The interiors and exteriors of the units shall be substantially renovated to
improve the livability and aesthetics of the units for the duration of the
affordability period.
2. The units shall be returned to the City's housing supply as decent, safe and
sanitary housing and meet all applicable Housing and Building Code
requirements.
3. Renovations shall include energy conserving retrofits that will contribute to
reduced housing costs for future occupants of the units.
4. The units shall not already be subject to affordability income restrictions
unless such restrictions are set to expire in three years or less. In such
cases, the affordability covenant shall provide for thirty (30) years in
addition to any existing covenant time.
E. In -Lieu Fee. Applicant shall, at Applicant's election, be permitted to pay an in-
lieu fee for each unit constructed in order to fulfill up to 50% of the Inclusionary
Housing Program requirements.
NBR AHIP -04/10/12 5
I . The per dwelling unit in -lieu fee will be paid at the time each dwelling unit
building permit for market rate housing units is otherwise ready to issue.
2. The per dwelling unit in -lieu fee will be paid in the amount in effect at the
time each dwelling unit building permit for market rate housing units is
otherwise ready to issue.
3. There shall be no such Inclusionary Housing Program fees required for
Commercial, Institutional, or Resort buildings, including lodging buildings.
F. Land Dedication. In addition to the provision of on -site affordable units for
eligible households provided by Applicant or Applicant's agents, Applicant may
also propose to dedicate land to the City or to a City- designated housing
developer for the provision of affordable units in lieu of constructing any or all of
the affordable units required by City regulations.
1. The land offered for dedication shall be of sufficient size to construct the
number of affordable units that Applicant would otherwise be required to
construct.
2. In the event that Applicant cannot dedicate such land in time to fulfill City
requirements for a particular sequence of market rate housing, then
Applicant shall post improvement security subject to approval by City
guaranteeing such dedication by a time certain.
3. Any land offered for dedication shall be assumed to accommodate 40
units per acre.
4. Any land offered for dedication shall have suitable topography and
sufficient vehicular access and infrastructure to accommodate 40 units per
acre.
5. The location and size of the land to be dedicated shall be subject to the
approval of the City Council, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
NBR AHIP - 04/10/12 6
2.3 Term
City and Applicant understand and acknowledge that any affordable units provided as qualified
Inclusionary Housing Program units shall be restricted for a period of not less than thirty (30)
years; and, that such the Affordable Housing Cost or Affordable Rent can be adjusted annually
to reflect any changes to the Median Family Income for Orange County as determined by
California HCD. Such requirements shall be recorded in a rental agreement or affordable
housing covenant against the applicable property as provided in the Municipal Code.
2.4 Regional Housinq Needs Assessments (RHNA)
A. Requirements. City and Applicant agree that any units constructed and or
renovated to meet City Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Requirements shall also
meet Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing
Needs Assessments (RHNA) specifications for qualified affordable housing.
B. Income Limits for California. The California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) publishes income limits for California counties
adjusted for family size. The most recent edition of the Income limits was
published June 13, 2011 and established an Orange County Area Median
Income of $84, 200 for a family of four (4) persons. HCD further adjusted
permissible income limits for the various income categories defined by HCD
including:
• Extremely Low $27,700
• Very Low Income $46,150
• Lower Income $73,850
• Median Income $84,200
• Moderate Income $101,050
NBR AHIP -04/10/12 7
2.5 Implementation
A. Affordable Housing Implementation Agreement. An Affordable Housing
Implementation Agreement (AHIA) will be executed and recorded at each
development phase of development for any affordable units to be constructed
within that phase, or for land proposed to be dedicated, or for any in -lieu fees to
be paid, or for any other permissible measure or measurers for compliance with
City's Inclusionary Housing Program.
B. Authority. Each AHIA shall be approved by the Community Development
Director in conjunction with the approval of any Tract Map and /or Site
Development Review for NBR development phases.
C. Unit Production Security. As security for the provision of the affordable housing
provided for in the Affordable Housing Agreement Applicant shall post
compliance security bond guaranteeing the subsequent construction of required
affordable units for that phase, or an appropriate land dedication or a
combination of such measures as permitted by this AHIP. The bond shall be in
the amount of in -lieu fee in effect at that time for each dwelling unit to be
constructed.
D. Timing. AHIA shall be executed and recorded, and security posted at each
appropriate final map. Security will be released when a certificate of use and
occupancy is issued for the related affordable rate units.
2.6 Sequencing
A. The affordable units provided or arranged for to be phased as follows:
1. Certificate of use and occupancy for Fifty percent of market rate units:
commence construction on, or payment for fees /dedication of lands for
one -third of required units.
NBR AHIP - 04/10/12 8
2. Certificate of use and occupancy for Seventy Five percent of the market
rate units commence construction on, or payment of fees /dedication of
lands for the next one -third of required units.
3. After issuance of certificate of occupancy for Seventy Five percent of the
market rate unit, a reconciliation process will be created to determine the
final number of affordable housing units required to be constructed and /or
payment of fees /dedication of land
4. At the earlier to occur of certificate of use and occupancy for the last
market rate: commence construction on, or payment of fees /dedication of
lands for final required units.
3.0 Administration
3.1 Modification of Requirements
If the requirements of Chapter 19.54 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are modified by the
City Council during the term of the AHIP agreement to eliminate the requirement for the
payment of in lieu affordable housing fees for the privilege of constructing market rate housing,
then Applicant shall be entitled to a waiver of any further fee obligations for the provision of
affordable housing units for fees not already paid, or for buildings not already constructed
and /or renovated and occupied.
3.2 Amendments
This AHIP may be amended by mutual agreement of the City and Applicant. Such an
amendment, so long as it is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and with
the Development Agreement, shall not require an amendment to the General Plan itself, the
Coastal Development Permit or to the Development Agreement.
N B R AHIP -04/10/12 9
Exhibit K
Project Boundary
EXHIBIT K
Project Boundary
W
Project Boundary
1
Attachment No. PC 2
Fiscal Impact Analysis
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH ANNEX
TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FINAL DRAFT
DECEMBER 29, 2011
Prepared for
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by
Applied Development Economics
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 560 • WaLnnrt Creek, California 94596 • (925) 934 -8712
2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 168 • Sacramento, CA 95833 • (916) 923 -1562
NvRvnv.adeusa.com
APPLIED
DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMICS
CONTENTS
1. Introduction .....................................................................................................
..............................1
2. Project Description ..........................................................................................
..............................2
3. Public Services Plan .........................................................................................
..............................7
FiteDepartment ..........................................................................................
..............................7
PoliceDepartment ......................................................................................
..............................9
LibrarySystern ..............................................................................................
.............................10
Parksand Recreation ...................................................................................
.............................10
Stteet /Facility Maintenance ........................................................................
............................1'1
4. Fiscal Impact on City of Newpott Beach ..................................................... .............................13
Municipal Sernice Expenditures ................................................................ .............................13
Revenues........................................................................................................ .............................14
NetFiscal Impact. ............................................................................. .................................... -.18
5. Capital Facilities Funding ............................................................................... .............................19
1 . INTRODUCTION
The proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project would entail annexation of 360 acres from
Orange County jurisdiction into the City of Newport Beach. This report is prepared
pursuant to City Council Policy D-2, which requires analysis of the fiscal impact of such
annexations on City finances and related City sevices and facilities. The report also
provides information for use by the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCo) pursuant to requirements under the I{nox- Cortese Act related to the ability of
local jurisdictions to provide adequate public services to areas proposed for annexation.
The analysis in the report has been coordinated with the Public Services Analysis in the
DEIR for the Newport Banning Ranch Project. However, the standards of significance
under CEQA focus on physical impacts to City facilities where expanded capacity may be
needed to serve the proposed project. In contrast, the fiscal analysis also addresses impacts
to City Departments' operations and maintenance budgets in addition to any new facilities
that may be needed.
The fiscal analysis uses the Newport Beach Fiscal Impact Model to help calculate revenue
and cost impacts of the proposed project. This model was initially developed in support of
the General Plan Update, which was adopted in 2006.1 The model has been updated to
reflect Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 costs and revenues from the Newport Beach City Budget. The
fiscal impact model calculates public sctvice impacts for specific land uses that support the
residential population, the employment base and the visitor population in Newport Beach.
It also calculates the public revenues that each type of land use typically generates for the
City, including property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes as well as a variety of user charges
and fees.
The fiscal impact model is designed to calculate the average cost of public services required
by new development, on the assumption that new development affects City services in
apptoximately the same way that existing development does. The model nets out certain
costs that are unlikely to change with expansion of City government, such as the number
of City Department Directors and Division managers, as well as the City Council and City
Clerk expenditures, but otherwise assumes that City administrative support and overhead
tends to increase as City government activities grow to provide services to an expanding
population and employment base. Over the long term, this is clearly the dynamic that
local governments experience. In the short term, development projects may have lower or
higher cost impacts depending on the existing capacity of City services to accommodate
mote development, and the level of expenditure needed to expand services incrementally if
existing capacity is not available. The output from the fiscal impact model can be modified
to address these circumstances for each individual project. In the case of Newport Banning
Ranch, maintenance costs for certain facilities that have community wide benefit, such as
the community park and the Bluff Rd. on the periphery of the project site, have been
\ technical description of the fiscal impact model may be Found in: Applied Development Economics, Firad Lnp "I
Analpsis and dfodel, NenpwY Bemb Geneml Plan Update, January 2004.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 1
prorated to reflect the fact that the proposed project does not by itself require these
facilities.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Newport Banning Ranch Annexation Area extends in the northwest
direction fiom the City of Newport Beach and is currently located within the Newport
Beach Sphere of Influence (SCI). "The annexation includes parcels that total approximately
360 acres. An additional 41 acres are part of the proposed project site and currently within
Newport Beach City limits? I'hese parcels ate along the eastern edge of the site and include
portions of the Mixed Use /Residential development, the Community Park and the
Medium Density residential. The proposed project could result in the additional
development of up to 1,375 dwelling units, 75,000 sq. ft of commercial space, and 75
overnight accommodations in a Resort Inn. The following maps identify the project area
and vicinity.
PROJECT ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
The public services needs for the project, as well as its fiscal impact on the City, are a
function of the population, jobs, and visitors it supports and the economic characteristics
of the development, including its assessed value and the taxable sales and lodging revenues
it generates. The '1,375 dwelling units in the development are projected to house 3,012
residents, based on an average household size of 2.19 persons. It is also estimated that the
retail and lodging components of the project will employ 422 workers.'
The assessed value of the project at buildout is estimated at $1.52 billion, based on an
average price per residential unit of $1.2 million and values of $300 to $350 per sq.ft. for
the retail and lodging development. The estimate also accounts for about half of the
required 206 inclusionary below market rate units, valued at $309,000 per unit, being
provided on -site. The project plan calls for the remainder of the inclusionary units to be
provided offsite or through in -lieu fees.
The retail components of the project include both the restaurants and gift shops in the Inn
as well as ground floor commercial in the miffed use portion of the project. For this
analysis, it is estimated that the retail space overall would generate about $355 per sq,ft in
taxable sales. This is slightly below the expected sales performance for retail in Corona del
2 parcels within the City limit: include 114 -1 -0 -049 (1.424 ac.), 114 -170 -050 (2823 ac.), 114- 170 -063 (10.238 ac.), 114-170-
083 (28.457 ac.).
t'The employment estimate is based on employee density factors developed for the 2006 General Plan Update, which range
from 303 sift. per retail employee to 707 sq.ft. per employcc for the lodging development. 'file jobs for the 22,000 sq.ft. of
restaurants, gift shops and fitness center in the Inn arc calculated at the rem8 rate. "Therefore, for purposes of the
cmpluyment calculations, the analysis assunles a total of 97,000 sq.ft. of retail uses. I lowcvcr, the 15,000 sq.ft. fitness
center in the hotel tyould not generate much sale> is so it is not included in the sales tax calculations.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 2
Mar and the Lido /Cannery area.' This estimate assumes a mixture of resort level visitor
spending as Nvell as local serving retail in the mixed use development.
a Applicd Development Economics, Ceaera /P /nn Updale Relnil mid Conrmnun/dlarkel,,Innlyris. December 2002. Adjusting the
2002 figures for inflation plus the current retail downturn, comparable current aeerage sales for these two areas would be
S363 /sy.ft.
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 4
The 75 overnight lodging units are anticipated to attract nearly 160 visitors per dap, at an
average group size of 3.0 persons and a 70 percent occupancy rate.5 The transient
occupancy tax calculations in this report assume an average published room rate of $200
per night and 70 percent occupancy of the facility. This rate is about 25 percent above the
average level of lodging rooms in the City currently. However, for comparison, the Pelican
Hill Resort reports a minimum rate of $495 per night.
Based on the taxable sales calculations discussed above, the restaurants and gift shop would
generate about $2.8 million in taxable sales per year. In addition to this amount, the
Resort Inn visitors would be expected to spend another $2.7 million per year on taxable
items elsewhere in Newport Beach, based on the 2007 visitor surveys conducted by Lauren
Schlau Consulting (LSC).
s These Factors represent City averages as presented in Lauren Sehlau Consulting (1-0,C), Eraiond<ImpnrU and Profile of
Neuporl Beodr t'izitorr. September 2007. Market conditions have deteriorated since the time of this report, but it is
anticipated that by the time the Newport Banning Ranch Inn project is built, market conditions will have rebounded.
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
e
Cityof
Hunt/ngton Beach
FIGURE 2 — NEWPORT BANNING RANCH VICINITY
Coun(yof
0/ww
NEWPORTM
MNCH
coot
cv of
Cosies Mesa
Sourer Newport Banning Ranch Alaa er Sitc Plan
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
3. PUBLIC SERVICES PLAN
This section of the report addresses five major service categories that would provide
services directly to the project and its residents and businesses: police services, fire
protection, Libraries, packs and recreation, including cultural and senior citizen programs,
and facilities maintenance, including parks and streets maintenance. The analysis below
discusses any staffing and facilities expansions needed to serge the proposed project and
provides estimates of the annual cost to extend services to the site. The City would also
incur additional expenditures for general government services indirectly provided to the
project. The costs for these services are provided in the next chapter that discusses the
overall fiscal impact of the project. Sources reviewed and utilized in the analysis presented
in the Public Services Plan include the Draft Environmental Impact Report commissioned
for the proposed Newport Banning Ranch annexation application, and the most recent
Municipal Services Review (NISR) for Newport Beach, the Orange Count' LAFCO 111micpnl
Services Peviem/Spbere o1"Lrf7nence Report dated July 2006.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The portion of the project site which is an unincorporated area, is currently served by the
Orange County Fire Authority. The City provides protection to the entire City, with some
assistance from the Costa Mesa Fire Department through automatic aid agreements. Eight
Newport Beach fire stations are strategically located throughout the City, each serving its
immediate surroundings with:
• Fite protection
• Fire prevention
• Hazards reduction
• Emergency medical services
Staffing reported in the Newport Banning Ranch Draft EIR ( "DEIR) includes 117 full -time
Fire fighters. Of the eight fire stations, each has one engine company; three have paramedic
vans; and two have ladder trucks. A fire engine and paramedic ambulance responds to each
emergency call.
Each type of emergency has different total response time objectives which include the time
from receipt of the call until the appropriate responding unit is on scene.
The total response time objectives of the Department are broken up into dispatch
processing expectations, turnaround time, and travel time objectives (Table 1). The Fite
Department expects the MetroNet dispatch center to complete dispatching within 50
seconds for 90 percent of calls and within 90 seconds for the remaining 10 percent. For
dispatches requiting the donning of full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), turn
around should be completed within 80 seconds, while the standard for non -PPE calls is 60
seconds. Travel time objectives vary and are presented in Table 2 below.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 7
TABLE i
TOTAL
First Due Response requiring P.P.E.*
Less than 5 Minutes and 20 Seconds
First Due Response without P.P.E.
Less than 5 Minutes
Advanced Life Support Response requiring P.P.E.
Less than 9 Minutes and 20 Seconds
Advanced Life Support Response without P.P.E.
Less than 9 Minutes
Effective Response Force requiring P.P.E.
Less than 9 Minutes and 20 Seconds
Effective Response Force without P.P.E.
Less than 9 Minutes
Source: Newport banning Ranch DPIR, page 4.14 -5.
Notes:
T.P.E. stands for Personal Protective Equipment
*'It is the objective of the Fire Depamnetit to achieve these response times 90% of the time
TABLE 2
TRAVEL TIME OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
UNIT _ 90% of Responses Remaining 10% of Responses
First Due Units Less than 4 Minutes Less than 10 Minutes
Advanced Life Support Responses Less than 8 Minutes Less than 10 Minutes
Effective Response Force Less than 8 Minutes Less than 15 Minutes
Source: Newport Banning Ranch DEIR, page 4.14 -5
PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A Fite Department study evaluated the City's ability to provide adequate response to the
proposed project as well as its existing service area without the provision of an additional
fire station. Based on the Fire Department's review of the proposed I\faster Development
Plan and the findings of the study, Station Number 2 could not serve the entirety of the
proposed project development within the City's established response time standards. In
order to maintain appropriate response times, a temporary fire station] would be required
on the project site to serve those areas of the site that cannot be served by existing Station
Number 2. Site preparation and construction of the temporary fire station, which the Fine
Department estimates it about S192,800, would be paid for by the applicant.'
The City has sufficient minimum staffing levels currently in place to staff the temporary
fire station; however, these temporary positions would have to be hired as overtime
positions, the cost of which would be paid for by the applicant. The Five Department
estimates the annual operations cost for the temporary station at about $123,800,
including personnel, supplies, utilities and other necessary services. The temporary fire
station would be required unless a replacement fire station is operational in a location that
ptovides appropriate response tithes. The temporary fire station would remain in operation
until a replacement fire station is operational that could serve the project in its entirety.
There will be an incremental cost to the Fire Department to respond to fire and medical
emergencies generated by the project and its residents and visitors. The City's fiscal impact
model estimates that this incremental cost would be approximately $741,000 per year,
a Ron Gamble, Newport Beach Acting Assistant Cluef /Fire Marshal, personal communication, November 14,
2011.
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
based on a per capita service impact approach. More than half of this cost would be
associated with responses to medical emergencies.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Most of the project area is currently in Orange County unincorporated area and is served
by the North Operations Division of the Orange County Sheriffs Department. The
Newport Beach Police Department provides police protection to the City of Newport
Beach, along with mutual aid from the Costa Mesa Police Department. The Newport
Beach Police Department provides the following services:
• Emergency police response
• Non - emergency police response
• Routine police patrol
• Traffic violation enforcement
• Traffic accident investigation
Animal control
Parking code enforcement
Staffing at the Newport Beach Police Department includes 285 personnel (1 chief, 3
captains, 8 lieutenants, 22 sergeants, 115 sworn officers, 92 civilian personnel, and 44
seasonal and part-time personnel). The Department does not have a staffing standard.
Currently, there are '1.3 officers per 1,000 residents.
PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
To maintain the current officer to resident ratio, the Department would need to employ
about three additional officers. In addition, the lodging and commercial portions of the
project would generate additional police calls for service. The service analysis conducted
for the 2006 General Plan Update indicated that retail and lodging uses comprise 20
percent of the demand for police services in Newport Beach. The project would not require
expansion of existing facilities, or the construction of new facilities.
The Police Department currently spends 5267,400 per sworn officer, including all non -
sworn support staff, equipment, data analysis and administrative functions and costs. The
City's fiscal impact model calculates an average cost impact for the Newport Banning
Ranch project of $1.03 million per gear. However, the incremental cost of adding three
sworn patrol officers would likely be lower, assuming other department personnel such as
community service officers and management staff would not need to be increased. The
average cost of a sworn officer is about $125,600, including direct salary and benefits.
Departmental support services, including vehicle replacement and fleet maintenance, adds
about 37 percent to this cost, bringing the total per officer to $172,100. Three new officers
at this cost would total S516,300.
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
LIBRARY SYSTEM
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Newport Beach Library employs approximately 90 employees and runs four
public library branches including the 54,000 square foot Central Library. The Balboa and
Nlatiners branches are four and five miles from the project site, respectively. The Corona
Del Dlat branch and the Central Library are farther away. The libraries serve "71,784 active
borrowers, and the System circulates over 1,701,400 items annually" according to the
DEIR.
PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
The DEIR indicates that the City Library System determined that the Project "would not
create the need for new or expanded library facilities." However, there would be increased
usage of the system and incremental costs associated with the increased service demands of
the project. The City fiscal model estimates this incremental cost impact at about $209,200
per year, based on an average current expenditure of S155.53 pet capita by the City
Library.
PARKS AND RECREATION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Cite currently provides 347.9 acres of parks and also maintains an additional 99.2
acres of Beach Recreation area along the ocean front. On a citywide basis, including the
bench areas, the City meets its standard for park acreage but there are areas within the City,
including West Newport and Newport Heights that that do not have sufficient park space
to meet local needs. The City General Plan identifies the needs for a 20 -30 acre community
park on the Newport Banning Ranch site.
The City spends $5.1 million per year maintaining its parks and an additional $7.7 million
pet year providing recreation programs, cultural and arts programs, and senior citizens
services. The City has adopted a Quimby Act Ordinance - Dedication and Fees Ordinance
(Clly of l\'eiyporl Beach iilunicioal Code, §§ 19.52.010- 19.52.090) - requiring nmv residential
subdivisions to provide 5 acres per 1,000 population or contribute to a fund in lieu of
actual park dedication or construction or a combination thereof.
PROJECT IMPACTS
The proposed project at Newport Banning Ranch includes approximately 51 gross acres of
public parkland in the form of one community park of approximately 27 gross acres, a
network of bluff parks totaling approximately 21 gross acres, 3 interpretive parks with
approximately 4 gross acres, and a system of bicvcle and pedestrian trails. These design
elements in the project would meet and exceed the City requirements for approximately 15
acres of parkland under the Quimby Act and the General Plan requirement for a 20 -30
acre community park.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 10
The project developer would construct park facilities and offer for dedication the park
facilities and the land for the community park and construct the park facilities. The bluff
parks and interpretive parks are to be made available for public use. The City General
Services Department would assume maintenance responsibilities for the community park
areas and the project HOA would assume maintenance of the remaining parks that are
accessible to the public. As noted above, the City spends about $5.1 million per year
maintaining the 347 acres of non -beach parks. Based on this average cost, the community
park would require 5352,700 pet year to maintain. Since this park is intended to be a
citywide asset, this full cost is not counted against the Newport Banning Ranch Project in
the fiscal summary below. However, it does represent an increase to City park maintenance
costs overall. The average cost impact of project residents' use of all City parks is estimated
at about $151,750 per year.
Also, it is estimated that project residents' use of City recreation facilities, arts and cultural
programs and possibly senior services would create additional City costs of about $259,000
per year. Overall, the City funds about 40 percent of its recreation programs through fees,
which would reduce the net cost impact of the project to $155,400 per year.
STREET /FACILITY MAINTENANCE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The General Services Department maintains City streets and facilities, including storm
drains, street trees and signs, as well as beach cleanup and refuse pickup. The City
currently maintains about 83 miles of roads ranging from two lane undivided commuter
roads to eight lane divided roads. In addition to General Fund revenues, the City uses State
gas tax funds to help maintain streets. The City also receives other regional funds for
transportation infrastructure, including Measure bI which provides regional sales tax
monies to jurisdictions for transportation infrastructure purposes. Including all of these
revenue sources, it is estimated the City spends an average of $89,200 per mile annually on
street maintenance, including long -term capital replacement expenditures. This is averaged
across all types of streets and does not include related expenditures for street landscaping
or storm drains.
PROJECT IMPACTS
In addition to internal circulation, which is estimated at about one mile, the proposed
project would add two arterial roads to the City inventory, North Bluff Rd. and Bluff Rd.,
with an approximate combined length of 1.5 miles. Extension of existing City streets into
the site would add about 0.3 mile to the total and the project also proposes to construct a
pedestrian bridge over Pacific Coast Highway. The HOA would maintain all parkways and
bioswales. In addition, the project traffic analysis indicates that less than 50 percent of the
traffic on Bluff Rd and North Bluff Rd. would be directly related to the project. Based on
these conditions, it is estimated that annual street maintenance costs would be about
$142,000.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 11
The actual costs in the early years of the project would likely be less, but then would
increase in later years. Additional City costs for maintenance of Bluff Rd., North Bluff Rd.
and connecting external streets not attributable to the project would be $71,000.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 12
4. FISCAL IMPACT ON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The public service plan above identifies potential City service expenditures needed to
support the proposed development of Newport Banning Ranch. In addition, there would
be other costs for general government functions normally provided by the City to
residents and businesses in Newport Beach. This section summarizes the projected City
costs and discusses the revenue sources anticipated to help defray the expenses. This section
addresses operating costs and revenues for the City. The next section addresses capital
improvements needed to implement the project and potential funding sources for those
costs.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE EXPENDITURES
The services required to support the proposed project ate estimated to cost about $2.7
million per year (Table 3). These costs were estimated with the aid of the City's fiscal
impact model, which was developed for use in the 2006 General Plan Update process. For
this analysis, the model has been updated to reflect the 2010 -2011 City budget. In addition,
certain cost estimates have been adjusted to reflect the specific design features of the
project and the public service impacts identified in the DEIR for the Newport Banning
Ranch Project.
\lost of the direct services requited for the project and their related costs were discussed in
the previous chapter. The fiscal model also provides an estimate of General Government
costs, which reflect administrative and support services provided by City government to
the direct line departments and the residents and businesses of the City. The City
departments included in the General Government category are the City Clerk, City
\Manager, Human Resources, City Attorney, and Administrative Services. C11ne City
Council is not assumed to have increasing annual expenditures due to new development.)
The budgets for these departments represent approximately ten percent of the City's
General Fund budget. In Table 3, the General Government costs are calculated as a percent
of the direct service department costs and are estimated to total $240,000 per year at full
build out of the project.
In terns of line department costs, the largest expenditure would be for fire protection and
emergency medical response after annexation. The cost estimate for fire protection reflects
the increased calls for service, both for medical emergencies and structure related
emergencies, at the point when the project is served from a new permanent fire station. As
indicated in the earlier discussion of Fire Department impacts, the applicant would be
obligated for payment for the construction and operation of a temporary station onsite
until a new permanent station can be constructed.
As indicated in the public services plan, the Police Department would need three
additional sworn personnel to maintain the current sworn officer to resident ratio and the
cost estimate also includes related support functions, staff and operating expenses within
the Department.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 13
The Public Works /General Services cost estimate reflects maintenance of the community
park onsite and project residents' use of off -site parks, as well as streets, storm drains,
signage and lighting. As discussed in the previous chapter, the full maintenance of the
community park is not directly attributed to the Newport Banning Ranch project since it
would be used by all City residents. Some of the costs for street maintenance are also
shown under the category of CIP streets, Gas Tax and 11- feasure M. Taken together, these
cost categories reflect not only the direct onsite expenditures to maintain project facilities,
but also the average cost related to project traffic wear and teat on other City streets and
facilities.
Once the project is developed, it would have minimal impact on the Community
Development Department. Typical activities include remodels or other owner - initiated
physical changes to the development. The City levies planning, building permit fees and
other charges for such services so it is likely that little of the $56,000 per year shown in
Table 3 would be a net cost to the City. City charges for service are estimated below in the
revenue section and are shown as one of the revenue sources available to defray project
related expenses.
The Community Services line item of $468,000 includes both the Library and the City
Recreation Department. It also includes City cultural, acts and senior citizens program
costs. Again, residents of the project may also pay certain fees for these setvices,
particularly for recreation programs, so the net cost would be less than shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3
EXPENDITURE IMPACTS ON THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH
Expenditure Categories
Annual Costs
GENERALFUND
General Government
$292,000
Police
$516,000
Fire
$726,000
Public Works /General Services
$604,000
Community Development
$56,000
Community Services
$468,000
CIP Streets
$12,000
Other CIP Projects
$9,000
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
$2,632,000
Gas Tax
$34,000
Measure M
$49,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$2,715,000
Source: ADF Inc
REVENUES
The first effect of the proposed annexation would be the transfer of a portion of the
property• tax currently paid on the property from the County to the City. Orange County
and the City of Newport Beach have executed a tax sharing agreement to govern this
transfer of revenue for annexations in general, which is discussed in more detail below.
Once the annexation is completed and the proposed development of the site begins to
occur, then the project would also be subject to other taxes and fees collected by the City
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 14
of Nexvport Beach. These revenues would be available to help pay for the cost of services
discussed above.
PROPERTY TAX
Under California law, all private property pays a base property tax equal to one percent of
the assessed value of the property. The total tax rate may be higher than one percent if the
voters in the jurisdiction approve additional amounts by a two-thirds majority. Typically,
additional tax amounts are approved to pay for school bonds or other special purpose
financing projects. The base one percent tax is distributed to a number of taxing agencies
that provide services, either directly or regionally, to the property. Contiguous parcels with
similar taxing agency jurisdictions are grouped together into Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) and
the property tax for all the property within the TRA is distributed on a percentage basis to
the taxing agencies. In Table 4 below, the middle column shows the distribution of the one
percent tax within the unincorporated TRA in which the Newport Banning Ranch
property is currently located. The agencies for which the tax distribution will change upon
annexation ate shaded.
TABLE 4
TAX
C87 -.01 960A
Orange County Water District
1.04153%
1.04153%
C87 -.02 961A
Orange Co. Water Dist -Water Reserve
0.01270%
0.01270%
C89 -.01 708A
Orange County Transit Authority
0.33532%
0.33532%
C90 -.06 916G
OC Sanitation k6 Gen Fund
2.39268%
2.39268%
UGA -.01 3208
Nesvport-Mesa Unif Gen Fund
40.69529%
40.69529%
VAA-.01 3008
Coast Comm College Gen Fund
11.35150%
11.35150%
ZAA -,01 600A
OC Deot of Education-Gen Fund
1.62527%
1.62527%
400-400.01 710A OC Flood Control District
2.32279%
232279%
405 - 405.01 713A OC Parks CSA 26
1.80188%
1.80188%
664- 664.01 ODIC Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
12.03246%
12.03246%
664 - 664.01 002A Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
2.25561%
2.25561%
664- 664.01 706A Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
- 0.75050%
- 0.75050%
664 - 664.01 708A Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
0.22355%
0.22355%
664 - 664.01 710A Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
0.95423%
0.95423%
664-664.01 713A Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
0.34470%
0.34470%
664- 664.01 744A Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
0.10865%
0.10865%
664 - 664.01 9166 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
0.66842%
0.66842%
Total
1.00000%
1.00000%
Sourcc: ADI: Inc
The tax sharing agreement between the City and the County was adopted in 1980. The
agreement was amended in 2002 to reflect a slightly different tax distribution for the
Newport Coast annexation, contingent upon the City annexing the Bay Knolls area, which
occurred in 2003. The amendment also memorialized prior agreements to transfer the tax
share from the County Library and the Orange County Fire Authority to the City since
the City provides those services directly. This amendment did not specifically reference the
future annexation of Newport Banning Ranch. For purposes of this analysis, we have
Applied Development Economics, Inc 15
assumed the transfer of the library and fire authority tax but used the older tax split
between the City and the County, which slightly favors the County. This has a very minor
effect on the resulting tax share for the City. The City would receive about 52 percent of
the County's current share, which is only 7.25 percent, compared to 51 percent under the
Newport Coast allocation. Under this scenario, the components of the City's new tax share
for Newport Banning Ranch would be as follows:
Taxing Agency Allocation
C84 -.01 706A 0 C FIRE AUTHORITY -GEN FUND 13.23621%
120- 120.01 002A ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 1.96133%
100 - 100.01 001C ORANGE CO GEN. FUND 3.76741%
NEW ALLOCATION FOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 18.96496%
The current assessed value for the site is $43.2 million and the base one percent tax paid by
the property owners is estimated at $432,326. The County General Fund currently receives
about $31,360 of the tax. Upon completion of the annexation, the County General Fund
would continue to receive $ 15,072 (48 percent of its original amount) and the City would
begin to receive $81,990 (about 18.96 percent of the total). 'The County Libtary and the
County Fite Authority would no longer receive property tax from the site.
At full build out of the proposed project, the land and improvements ate estimated to
haven total assessed value of S 1.52 billion as described in the project description above.
This valuation includes only the developed portion of the property and does not ascribe
assessed value to the parks or open space portions of the site. With this assessed value, the
City would receive S2.89 million per Year in property tax and the County General Fund
would receive about S531,200 per ),car. (The County- would also incur some increased costs
for services it provides on a countmvide basis).
OTHER CITY REVENUES
As shown in Table 4 below, the base property tax represents a little over 60 percent of the
total revenue the project would likely generate for the City of Newport Beach. t1 brief
description of the major revenue categories is provided below.
Property Tax in lieu of Vehicle License Fees: Several years ago, as part of the
proposition IA "triple flip" agreements between the State of California and local
government jurisdictions, the State lowered vehicle license fees but agreed to make up the
difference to local government through additional property tax allocations. These funds
are allocated differently than the base property tax discussed above, but the revenues do
increase as assessed value increases in the City. In Newport Beach, this revenue represents
about 10.8 percent of the base property tax allocation, and is projected in Table 4 on that
basis. It should be noted that the City continues to receive a share of the regular motor
vehicle license fees, which is estimated at $14,000 in Table 4.
Sales Tax: The project planned for Newport Banning Ranch includes 75,000 sq. ft. of
retail, plus an additional 7,000 sq.ft. of sales tax generating space in the resort, including
the restaurants and gift shops. This commercial space will directly produce sales tax and, in
addition, the inhabitants of new residential development as well as additional visitors
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 16
attributed to the development of the resort will patronize local businesses. The sales tax
estimates anticipate these effects. The taxable sales potential from the mixed use retail space
is approximately equal to the anticipated spending from the 1,375 households in the
project, although the project description does not indicate the mix of retail stores planned
for this part of the development. Normally, households do not do all of their shopping in
one place so it is likely they will patronize other stores in addition to those onsite.
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED PROJECT ANNUAL REVENUES
Revenue Categories
Annual Revenues
GENERALFUND
Property Tax
$2,890,000
Property Tax in -lieu of VLF
$292,000
Sales Tax
$333,000
Transient Occupancy Tax
$427,000
Franchise Taxes
$68,000
Business Licenses
$43,000
Motor Vehicle -in -Lieu
$14,000
Other Intergovernmental
$27,000
Charges for Service
$225,000
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
$68,000
Licenses and Permits
$9,000
Use of Property
$135,000
Other Revenue
$13,000
Interest Income
$33,000
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
$4,594,000
Gas Tax
$76,000
Measure M
$19,000
TOTAL REVENUE
$4,688,000
Source: ADF, Inc
Given the location of the project, it is possible that a significant portion of the residents'
offsite spending could occur in Costa \4esa tither than in Newport Beach. In order to
avoid double counting sales tax dollars, the analysis is based on typical sales per sq.ft.
figures for the retail space father than on the projected household spending patterns for
the resident population. The analysis does include about $5.5 million per year in taxable
sales from the resort and offsite spending from resort visitors. The total regular sales tax
from the project under these assumptions is projected at about $333,000 per year. \4casure
NI is also a regional sales tax revenue which is allocated to local jurisdictions for
transportation purposes. It is estimated in Table 4 as a function of regular sales tax
generation.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): As described in the project description, the analysis
assumes an average room rate of S200 per room and a 70 percent occupancy rate for the 75
lodging units. The City levies a 10 percent TOT tax on room revenues, which would
generate S383,200 per year for the Citl.. Newport Beach also features a large number of
vacation rental units and the project includes 87 visitor serving residential units. Based on
the average TOT revenues from this source citywide, the residential portion of the project
could generate another $43,400 in TOT per year.
Other revenues in Table 4 are projected on a per capita basis with the aid of the City fiscal
model.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 17
Franchise taxes are charged on utility bills for electrical, of and telephone service
provided by private utility companies.
Business license fees are ascribed mainly to the commercial and lodging portions of
the project but also include the potential for home based businesses in the
residential component of the project.
Charges for service, fines, and licenses and permits include a wide range of direct
charges by the City, mostly for over -the- counter services provided to residents and
businesses. This also includes categories such as library and parking fines. Not
included in these categories, however, are the initial fees and permits associated
with the annexation process and entitlements for the proposed development. These
are assumed to be one -tune revenues for the City to defray actual expenditures for
City staff and officials to process the development application. The revenues in
Table 4 reflect ongoing revenues once the development is completed.
Use of &Toney and Property includes parking tnetet fees among a variety of other
revenue sources for the City, including rental or lease of various City facilities. It is
assumed that use of City facilities and these related revenues grow generally as
more residents and businesses ate added to the City.
NET FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the revenue and cost projections shown in Tables 3 and 4, the proposed project
would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2.0 million per year at full build out (Table 5).
Tire City would have a somewhat lower benefit overall due to increased maintenance costs
for the community park and the Bluff Rd., as shown in the right hand column of Table 5.
Thus, the regular tax and fee income generated by the project for the City would be
sufficient to cover the operations and maintenance costs associated with providing the full
range of City, services to the project.
TABLE 5
NET FISCAL IMPACT
Project Share Total City Costs
Total Revenues $4,688,000 $4,688,000
Total Expenditures $2,715,000 $2,986,974
NET $1,973,000 $1,701,026
tiouiee: ADD, Inc
The next section of the report addresses the issue of funding the public facilities and
infrastructure needed to implement the project.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 78
5. CAPITAL FACILITIES FUNDING
Currently, City services are not provided to the proposed annexation site. In order to
implement the proposed project, the developer would need to install the following
improvements:
• Circulation system including North Bluff and Bluff Roads, local roads, and local
residential streets. The project plan also includes a pedestrian and bicycle bridge
over the Pacific Coast Highway and off -site improvements to 15`h, 16`h, and '17`h
Streets in the City.
• Water, sewer, storm drainage, and water quality treatment infrastructure.
• Street landscaping and lighting.
• Approximately 51 gross acres of parks. The project also includes the dedication of
approximately 252 gross acres and approximately 240 net acres of open space, with
associated public trails and facilities.
The new development would be subject to the City's Excise tax on new construction and
traffic impact fees. It is assumed the development would not be subject to Quimby Act fees
since it is providing sufficient park acreage onsite. The excise tax is charged at the rate of
$.21 pet sq.ft of new construction is allocated to capital improvements needs related to
City fire services and libraries. Bascd on the potential new development on the project site,
"fable 6 estimates the anticipated amount of the excise tax at about $585,000. The City also
has a fair share traffic impact fee, which is allocated to citynvide traffic improvements. As
shown in 'fable 6, it is estimated that the proposed development would pap nearly $4.7
trillion in traffic impact fees, based on current fee levels. It is possible the Fait Share Fee
will be updated and increased by the time this project is approved. This could also be
adjusted based on developer's construction of toads beyond what is needed for the project.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 19
0
N
N O� Vt
�+MN
'1 N
r1. '1.N
N N � N N N
OHO ? 000
M
N
O
M
C mm I W M M
O M W M M
W
WLL LL L
0� C N D C Uf VI to
W Ff-F-
�g
� W
Q � u
LL LL
~ W o f o p 00
LL
> j
CL
O ci��ti�EE
1� M pi
lh tD P
•+ M
00 01000
00 {L NNO
Vt Q y M N N
�
z
N �
C
C
9
V
Of0
'fi
Attachment No. PC 3
Correspondence
Alford, Patrick
From: Dave Sutherland [davesutherland4 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:41 PM
To: Alford, Patrick
Subject: NBR EIR comments
Mr Patrick Alford,
Subject: Newport Banning Ranch
Please have these comments added to the official record on the NBR EIR
Views:
The EIR report that was presented provided some simulated views and the impact of
views from several locations.
What was painfully obvious, was there were no simulations on view impacts from
locations that would have significant impacts on views, primarily, those from the
properties of the residents of Newport Crest. Last summer, during a walk around of the
property sponsored by NBR, this was a request made by Crest residents to have these
view simulations provided that the NBR people said would be provided. They were never
provided.
Noise:
The projected closest proximity of Bluff Rd to Newport Crest is 22'. The EIR report
provides noise impacts based on an average. This basis for noise impacts taken as an
average does not truly consider the noise impact of those residences that are located
near the closest point.
The mitigation offered is to provide double paned windows to reduce the noise. Not only
is this woefully inadequate and ineffective, as we live in a climate where our windows
are seldom closed, but it does not address the impact of the use of our decks, a place
we might never be able to enjoy again.
Air Quality:
There is much data that has been accumulated over recent years of the negative health
impact of people living in close proximity to major roadways. The proposed Bluff Road
would be within the "high risk" proximity for residents of Newport Crest. NOx, CO are
among the many harmful toxic gases that would be generated by these vehicles
traveling this road and the only mitigation to reduce these unhealthy consequences
would be to relocate the road to a distance much farther from Newport Crest than
currently planed.
Sincerely,
Dave Sutherland, resident 12 Summerwind Ct Newport Beach.
Alford, Patrick
From:
john bath babethwdwrk @yahoo.com]
Sent:
Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:54 PM
To:
Alford, Patrick
Subject:
banning ranch
I've lived in west Costa Mesa for over 40 years; (Freedom Homes). I dont know
anyone that wants this development. The only people that want it are the rich
developers that stand to make millions on the deal along with the city of
Newport Beach; and none of them live here. Why doesnt the voice of those that
will reap the "dirt" from this count? WE DONT WANT ITI1111111111111!!!1111
1
NO
%der L isft L.I
District Mission: April 2, 2012
Dedicated to Satisfying
our Community's
If ater Needs
COMMUNITY
APR 022012
p DEVELOPMENT
0 ,2'
?y OF NEWPOO e
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
BOARD OF DIRECTORS P.O. Box 1768
FRED R. BOCKMILLER Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
President
Division I
JAMES F. ATKINSON
First Division IV Subject: Subject: Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council
SHAWN DEWANE
Vice President
Division V Dear Mr. Alford:
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Division ll Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa Water) has reviewed and provided written
TRUDV OHLIG -HALL comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed Newport
Vim President
Division III Banning Ranch project (SCH# 2009031061) on November 7, 2011, and provided public
comment at the Public Hearing of the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012. We would
like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed project.
PAUL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E.
General Manager As our comments reflect, water service provided to the Banning Ranch site by Mesa Water
COLEEN L. MONTELEONE has the least environmental impact when compared to other water service providers.
District Secretary Providing water service with minimal environmental impact coincides with the intent of
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY CEQA. Mesa Water encourages the City Council of Newport Beach to consider this fact prior
District Treasurer to adopting the above mentioned EIR.
BOWIE, ARNESON,
WILES & GIANNONE
Legal Counsel Consideration of comments provided by Mesa Water is essential to meeting CEQA
requirements mentioned in: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c):
The range of the potential alternatives to the proposed project shall
Include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives
of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the
significant effects.
Water service provided by Mesa Water can be "feasibly accomplished" while maintaining
reduced environmental impact. This was stated in our comment letter dated November 7,
2011. Comments made in this letter utilized multiple source references including; The
California Department of Water Resources, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, Orange County Water District, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The
scientific data provided by these qualified sources were not considered in the response to
comments.
/rt Alaa CawAdated
Water Dl Wl
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
April 2, 2012
Page 2 of 2
District Mission:
ledicated to Satisfying
ourConmrunity's Mesa Water continues its request in considering these facts prior to the EIR being
!Water Needs approved by Newport Beach City Council. Attached are the two documents referenced.
Please include these attachments with this letter to City Council for review. We thank you
for the consideration of our comments and look forward to the City Council addressing these
issues.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FRED R. BOCKMILLER
President Sincerely,
Division I
JAMES F. IV ON
First Vice President
Division ion IV
SHAWN DEWANE
Vim ivisionV Paul E. ShoeAr8e
JAMES FISLER General Manager
Vice President
Division II
TRUDY OHLIG•HALL
Vice President
Division III Attachments; Comment letter dated November, 7, 2012
Energy Intensity Analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District
%UL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E.
General Manager
:OLEEN L. MONTELEONE
District Secretary
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY C.
District Treasurer
BOWIE, ARNESON,
WILES R GIANNONE
Legal Counsel
Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
1965 Placentia Avenue ♦Costa Mesa, California 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 • FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mesawater.org
►IN 0",�Cll i
District Mission:
November 7, 2011
Dedicated to Satisfying
We understand that the proposed project site consists of approximately 401 acres of land.
our Community's
Approximately 40 acres of the project site are located within the Incorporated boundary of
Water Needs
the City of Newport Beach, and approximately 361 acres are in unincorporated Orange
VICTORIA L. BEATIFY
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
District Treasurer
City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
P.O. Box 1768
FRED R. SOCKMILLER
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
President
Division I
JAMES F. ATKINSON
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061)
First Vice President
for the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project
oiWSbn
SHAWN l President
Dear Mr. Alford:
Division V
JAMES FISLER
Mesa Consolidated Water District Mesa Water has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Vice
Division ll nt
Impact Report ( Draft EIR ) for the proposed Newport Banning Ranch project ( SCHi
TRUDY OHLIG -HALL
2009031061). We thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and appreciate
Vice President
DlAsiun 111
your consideration of our comments as they relate to the proposed water supply for the
project. We offer the following comments at this time and look forward to your response:
BOWIE, ARNESON,
WILES & GIANNONE
Legal Counsel As proposed, the project would involve the development of the approximately 401 acre site
with 1,375 residential dwelling units (du); 75,000 square feet (so of commercial uses, a 75-
room resort inn with ancillary resort uses, and approximately 51.4 gross acres for active and
passive park uses including a 26,8 gross acre public Community Park. Approximately 252.3
gross acres (approximately 63 percent) would be retained in permanent open space. The
project site's existing surface oil production activities located throughout the site would be
consolidated into approximately 16.5 acres. The remaining surface oil production facilities
would be abandoned /re- abandoned, remediated for development, and /or remediated and
restored as natural open space.
As stated in the Draft EIR (see page 4.15 -9), water service in the City of Newport Beach (City)
is provided by three purveyors: the City, the Irvine Ranch Water District, and Mesa Water.
The project site historically received water service from Mesa Water. The project site is
located adjacent to the water service areas of the City and Mesa Water. Water supply and
service for the Newport Banning Ranch project is proposed to be provided by the City (Le., a
LAFCO service reorganization will be required), which relies greatly on imported water.
Project Description:
PAUL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E.
General Manager
We understand that the proposed project site consists of approximately 401 acres of land.
COLEEN L. MONTELEONE
Approximately 40 acres of the project site are located within the Incorporated boundary of
District Secretary
the City of Newport Beach, and approximately 361 acres are in unincorporated Orange
VICTORIA L. BEATIFY
County within the City's Sphere of Influence. The entire site is within the Coastal Zone, as
District Treasurer
established by the California Coastal Act.
BOWIE, ARNESON,
WILES & GIANNONE
Legal Counsel As proposed, the project would involve the development of the approximately 401 acre site
with 1,375 residential dwelling units (du); 75,000 square feet (so of commercial uses, a 75-
room resort inn with ancillary resort uses, and approximately 51.4 gross acres for active and
passive park uses including a 26,8 gross acre public Community Park. Approximately 252.3
gross acres (approximately 63 percent) would be retained in permanent open space. The
project site's existing surface oil production activities located throughout the site would be
consolidated into approximately 16.5 acres. The remaining surface oil production facilities
would be abandoned /re- abandoned, remediated for development, and /or remediated and
restored as natural open space.
As stated in the Draft EIR (see page 4.15 -9), water service in the City of Newport Beach (City)
is provided by three purveyors: the City, the Irvine Ranch Water District, and Mesa Water.
The project site historically received water service from Mesa Water. The project site is
located adjacent to the water service areas of the City and Mesa Water. Water supply and
service for the Newport Banning Ranch project is proposed to be provided by the City (Le., a
LAFCO service reorganization will be required), which relies greatly on imported water.
Mesa C,a-GoWed
VIDivisioe v °t
Water District
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
November 7, 2011
Division II
Page 2 of 9
District Mission:
sourCd to
General Comments:
unitafyt+ig
air Coann +udty's
The following comments are provided based on our review of the information provided in
g P P
Mater Needs
the Draft EIR regarding the proposed water supply for the project and the associated
environmental impacts with the use of imported water as currently proposed. The Draft
EIR's analysis is currently Inadequate as it does not consider an appropriate range of feasible
alternatives or mitigation measure (in fact completely Ignores) in the form of the provision
of water to the project through Mesa Water, which can provide the water supply to the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
project through 100% local water sources, The provision of local water to the proposed
FRED P KMILLER President
e
project via Mesa Water, as opposed to through imported water sources via the City as is
Division I
proposed under the project, would reduce significant environmental impacts associated with
JAMES F. ATKINSON
the proposed project, Substantial revisions and recirculation of the Draft EIR is required to
First Vice President
Division IV
correct these deficiencies.
SHAWN DEWANE
VIDivisioe v °t
Use of imported water by the proposed project would create an unnecessary consumption of
energy (see CEQA Guidelines Appendix F), which exacerbates the state and region's air
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
quality emissions and production of greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn exacerbates
Division II
global climate change and associated environmental impacts. Additionally, provision of
TR Vi e President ALL
imported water would also continue to contribute to the general degradation of the Bay
Division III
Delta area, in which southern California relies on imported water through the State Water
Project.
\UL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E. Specific Comments:
General Manager
'OLEEN L. MONTELEONE 1, The Draft EIR Falls to Consider a Reasonable Ranee of Alternatives
District Secretary
VICTORIA L. B CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that:
District Treasurer surer
WILES O ARNESON, The range of the potential alternatives to the proposed project shall
Legal Counsel Include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives
of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the
significant effects.
The EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts associated with greenhouse gas
emissions and air quality. As the City's water supply is heavily reliant on imported water, the
use of the City's water to provide domestic water service to the site would result in an
unnecessary consumption of energy, the production of which results in state and regional air
quality emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. As Mesa Water relies solely on local
groundwater sources (as discussed below), the use of Mesa Water service would result in an
incremental reduction in the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, an alternative that would include the
use of Mesa Water in lieu of the City's water service would not conflict with any of the stated
project objectives. Finally, because existing Mesa Water distribution facilities are located
adjacent to the project site, the use of Mesa Water service at the project site would be
feasible. Therefore, the Draft EIR was deficient as it failed to include an alternative that
would have considered the use of Mesa Water, which would have been a feasible alternative
that would not have conflicted with the project objectives.
1965 Placentia Avenue 6Costa Mesa, California 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 • FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mesawater.org
NJU Water Ddkt
WW
Mr. Patrick 1. Alford, Planning Manager
November 7, 2011
Page 3 of 9
District Mission: 2, Use of lmported Water versus Local Water is an inefficient and Unnecessary
edicated to Satisfying
our Cmn unity's Consumption of Enterp„y
it'ater Needs
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FRED R. BOCKMILLER
President
Division I
JAMES F. ATKINSON
First Vice President
Division IV
SHAWN DEWANE
Vice President
Division V
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Division II
TRUDY OHLIO-HALL
Vice President
Division III
\UL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E.
General Manager
:OLEEN L. MONTELEONE
District Secretary
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY
District Treasurer
BOWIE, ARNESON,
WILES 6 OIANNONE
Legal Counsel
The Draft EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions. A comparison of energy demands associated with the provisions
of water to the proposed project via the City (imported water) versus Mesa Water (local
water) has been conducted and is summarized below. This comparison demonstrates that
provision of water to the project through the City would result in an inefficient and
unnecessary consumption of energy. This is inconsistent with CEQA Guideline 15126.4(a)(1)
which states:
An EIR shall describe feasible measures which would minimize significant
adverse impacts, including where relevant ingjicient and unnecessary
Consumption of energy,
The Draft EIR is deficient as it does not identify feasible mitigation measures which would
minimize the significant air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts that were
identified. There is no analysis of alternative water sources for the proposed project, which Is
one of the most important issues facing Southern California today. As demonstrated in
Attachment A, provision of water to the project site by Mesa Water can be accomplished in a
more energy efficient manner than is currently proposed, and the Draft EIR does not identify
this as a mitigation measure for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, In fact,
calculations of energy consumption at Mesa Water for groundwater extraction with colored
water treatment of some of that groundwater show energy consumption values that are
significantly lower than using imported water as a portion of the water supply. See Table 1:
Table 1: Energy Intensities of Different Water Supplies (Mesa Water, 2011)
1965 Placentia Avenue 6Costa Mesa, Califomla 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 1 FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mesawater.org
Total
Supply
Percent
I kWh /af
Notes
Imported State Water
62%
3,000
5 and 10 year averages for imported
Project
water supplies in Metropolitan
Water District 2010 Regional
Urban Water Management Plan
RUWMP).
Imported Colorado River
38%
2,000
5 and 10 year averages for imported
Aqueduct
water supplies in Metropolitan
Water District 2010 Regional
Urban Water Management Plan
RUW MP). _
MWD Treatment Imported
100%
490
Water
_
Imported Weighted Average
3,105
Includes treatment energy
Groundwater
100%
650
Energy to pump
1965 Placentia Avenue 6Costa Mesa, Califomla 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 1 FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mesawater.org
WaterDttt
District Mission:
Dedicated to Satisfying
our Community's
Water Needs
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FRED R. SOCKMILLER
President
Division 1
JAMES F. ATKINSON
First Vice President
Division IV
SHAWN DEWANE
Vice President
Division V
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Division II
TRUDY OHLIO•HALL
Vice President
Division III
\UL E. SHOENBEROER, P.E.
General Manager
:OLEEN L. MONTELEONE
Dis(ricl Secretary
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY
District Treasurer
BOWIE, ARNESON,
WILES S GIANNONE
Legal Counsel
Mr. Patrick 1. Alford, Planning Manager
November 7, 2011
Page 4 of 9
Table 1: Energy Intensities of Different Water Supplies (Mesa Water, 2011)
1965 Placentia Avenue 6Costa Mesa, Califomla 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 • FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mosawater.org
Total
Supply
Percent
kWh /af
1,550
Notes
Energy to treat the colored water
Current CWTF Treated
Groundwater
that is pumped. Not included in
clear water.
Future CWTF Treated
38%
1,100
Upgraded system to start up in
Groundwater
2012
Groundwater Re lenishment Activities by OCWD
Santa Ana River
60.7%
50
Diversions
Future imported water
10.1%
3,105
a
o
purchases
Groundwater
29.1%
1,441
o
Replenishment System
`v
Operation
Total Groundwater
1,542
Pumping +CWTF (38 %) +
Weighted Averse
I
replenishment 62%
Santa Ana River
54.5%
50
Diversions
o
Future imported water
9.1%
3,105
Npurchases
Groundwater
36.4%
1,441
N
Replenishment System
Operation
Total Groundwater
1,585
Pumping +CWTF (38 %) +
Weighted Averse
replenishment (62 %)
Santa Ana River
50.8%
50
Diversions
Future imported water
8.5%
3,105
g
purchases
1
o
Groundwater
40.7%
1,441
oReplenishment
System
cu
Operation
Total Groundwater
1,610
Pumping+ CWTF (38%) +
Weighted Average
replenishment (62%
1965 Placentia Avenue 6Costa Mesa, Califomla 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 • FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mosawater.org
/rt Mesa Ca-isoic bed
Water Dishhict
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
November 7, 2011
Page 5 of 9
District Mission:
-edicaled to Satisfying
3. Reduction in Enorgy Consumption Will Reduce Regional Air Emissions,
our Conunu nity's
Including Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IVater Needs
The reduction in energy consumption that can be accomplished through the continued
provision of water by Mesa Water will result in reduction in energy consumption that will
have a corresponding reduction in the generation of air emissions, including greenhouse gas
emissions, which are significant when considering the long -term provision of water to the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
project. When considering the additional 613.5 acre feet per year of water demand
FRED PresWent LLER
projected for the Newport Banning Ranch development and the projected GHG production of
Division I
approximately 0.24 metric tons CO2 per acre foot of water delivered from Mesa Water using
JAMES F. ATKINSON
entirely groundwater resources, the total GHG production to service the Newport Banning
First ovision VaeM
Ranch from Mesa Water is projected to be approximately 147.7 metric tons CO2 per year.
SHAWN DEWANE
This reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would help meet the State's overall greenhouse
vlays`onivnt
gas emission reduction goals mandated by the State and is consistent with the provisions of
CEQA Guideline 15126.4(a) which states:
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Division II
Consistent with section 15126.4(a), lead agencies shall consider feasible
TRUDY ONLIO -HALL
Vice President
means, su orted b substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or
pin Y / g
Division ill
reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse emissions.
Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions
may include, among others:
\UL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E.
General Manager
(2) Reductions In emissions resulting from a project through
:OLEEN L. MONTELEONE
implementation of project features, project design, or other
District secretary
measures. such as those described in Apuendix F
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY
DisUkl Treasurer
Again, the Draft EIR is deficient with respect to this section of the CEQA Guidelines as it does
BOWIE, ARNESON,
VALES 6 GIANNONE
not analyze the potential greenhouse gas emissions reductions associated with provision of
Legal counsel
water to the project by Mesa Water. Provision of local water sources to supply the project is
feasible and can readily be provided by Mesa Water. Utilizing local water sources would
result in an incremental reduction in the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions by
reducing the energy demands as compared to provision of imported water to serve the
project. However, there is no analysis of this feasible measure in the Draft EIR, and
therefore, the Draft EIR is inadequate with respect to this provision of the CEQA Guidelines.
4. Use of Imported Water Will Continue to Contribute to Impacts to the Bay Delta
Ecosystem
The Draft EIR is deficient as it fails to include an alternative or mitigation measure that
would utilize Mesa Water service for the project site in order to reduce, indirectly, the
impacts to the Bay Delta that occur with imported water supplied through the State Water
Project. The impacts on the Bay Delta by using imported water are well known and are
identified in the Draft EIR (e.g., see EIR page 4.15 -5).
1965 Placentia Avenue &Costa Mesa, Califomia 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 6 FAX (949) 674 -1036
www.mesawater.org
IN • — , I
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
November 7, 2011
Page 6 of 9
District Mission: Impacts on the Bay Delta associated with the use of imported water, which would be
ledicated to Satisfying
our Community s completely avoided by the use of local water supplies, are extensive. High profile species
Water Needs impacted by the State Water Project include the delta smelt, anadromous salmonids, and
giant garter snake; however, many species are impacted by activities within the Bay Delta
associated with the State Water Project,
JAMS FISLER
Vice Presdentt Access to most of the historical upstream spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and
Division If steelhead trout has been eliminated or degraded by manmade structures (e.g., dams and
TRUDV OH silent LL
Vice President weirs) associated with water storage, conveyance, flood control, and diversions and exports
Dlvlsdnlil for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and hydropower purposes. Upstream diversions and
dams have decreased downstream flows and altered the seasonal hydrological patterns.
Reduced flows from dams and upstream water diversions result in spawning delays,
IMLE.SHOENBEROER,P.E. increased straying, and increased mortality of out - migrating juveniles. (Yoshiyama et al.,
General Manager 1998; DWR, 2005).
:OLEEN L. MONTELEONE
DlsWet Secretary Provision of local water by Mesa Water should be considered a feasible alternative or
VICTORIA L.6 mitigation measure to the proposed project. However, the Draft EIR did not consider this
Distinct Treasurer surer
BOWIE, ARNESON, measure or alternative, which is inconsistent with the primary purpose of CEQA.
WILES 6 (HANNONE
Legal Counsel 5. The Draft FIR Fails Jo identify Conflicts with City of Newport Beach General
Plan and California Coastal Commission Policies
Table 4.11 -7 of the Draft EIR provides a consistency analysis for the project with certain City
and State policies. The Draft EIR fails to identify that the project's use of the City's imported
water would conflict with a policy of the California Coastal Commission and the City's
General Plan. Page 4.11 -33 of the Draft EIR states that a Coastal Act Policy includes that new
developments shall "minimize energy consumption..." The corresponding consistency
analysis does not consider the unnecessary and inefficient consumption of energy that would
occur associated with the use of the City's imported water instead of Mesa Water's locally
produced water. Additionally, Page 4.11 -28 of the Draft EIR identifies LU Policy 6.4.10 of the
City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element that would;
Require that any development of Banning Ranch achieve high levels of
environmental sustainahility that reduce pollution and consumption of
energy, water, and natural resources to he accomplished through ...
Infrastructure design and other techniques.
1965 Placentia Avenue *Costa Mesa, Califomia 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 ♦ FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mosawater.org
Large numbers of delta smelt are lost to entrainment in the Central Valley Project (CVP) and
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
State Water Project (SWP) water export facilities. In addition, the CVP and SWP water
FRED PresdenMILLER
export facilities and other diversions export phytoplankton, zooplankton, nutrients, and
Division I
organic material that would otherwise support the base of the food web in the Delta, this
JAMES F. ATKINSON
reducing food availability for delta smelt. The risk of entrainment to delta smelt varies
First Division Vdent
seasonally and among years. The greatest entrainment risk has been hypothesized to occur
SHAWN DEWANE
during winter when pre- spawning adults migrate into the Delta in preparation for spawning.
Vice Presdent
Division V
(Moyle, 2002; USBR, 2004).
JAMS FISLER
Vice Presdentt Access to most of the historical upstream spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and
Division If steelhead trout has been eliminated or degraded by manmade structures (e.g., dams and
TRUDV OH silent LL
Vice President weirs) associated with water storage, conveyance, flood control, and diversions and exports
Dlvlsdnlil for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and hydropower purposes. Upstream diversions and
dams have decreased downstream flows and altered the seasonal hydrological patterns.
Reduced flows from dams and upstream water diversions result in spawning delays,
IMLE.SHOENBEROER,P.E. increased straying, and increased mortality of out - migrating juveniles. (Yoshiyama et al.,
General Manager 1998; DWR, 2005).
:OLEEN L. MONTELEONE
DlsWet Secretary Provision of local water by Mesa Water should be considered a feasible alternative or
VICTORIA L.6 mitigation measure to the proposed project. However, the Draft EIR did not consider this
Distinct Treasurer surer
BOWIE, ARNESON, measure or alternative, which is inconsistent with the primary purpose of CEQA.
WILES 6 (HANNONE
Legal Counsel 5. The Draft FIR Fails Jo identify Conflicts with City of Newport Beach General
Plan and California Coastal Commission Policies
Table 4.11 -7 of the Draft EIR provides a consistency analysis for the project with certain City
and State policies. The Draft EIR fails to identify that the project's use of the City's imported
water would conflict with a policy of the California Coastal Commission and the City's
General Plan. Page 4.11 -33 of the Draft EIR states that a Coastal Act Policy includes that new
developments shall "minimize energy consumption..." The corresponding consistency
analysis does not consider the unnecessary and inefficient consumption of energy that would
occur associated with the use of the City's imported water instead of Mesa Water's locally
produced water. Additionally, Page 4.11 -28 of the Draft EIR identifies LU Policy 6.4.10 of the
City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element that would;
Require that any development of Banning Ranch achieve high levels of
environmental sustainahility that reduce pollution and consumption of
energy, water, and natural resources to he accomplished through ...
Infrastructure design and other techniques.
1965 Placentia Avenue *Costa Mesa, Califomia 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 ♦ FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mosawater.org
Water District
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
November 7, 2011
Page 7 of 9
District Mission: Again, the corresponding analysis does not identify the potential use of Mesa Water service
iedicated to Satisfying
our Community's in order to reduce the consumption of energy that would occur in association with utilizing
Water Needs imported water from the City's water supply. The failure to identify these potential conflicts
with policies analyzed in the Draft EIR resulted in a deficiency In the analysis of greenhouse
gas emissions.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 6. The City Cannot Make the Findings Pursuant to CFQA Section'21081(3)(al that
FRED R. BOCNMILLER are Necessary In Order to Approve the Project
President
Division I Pursuant to CEQA 21081(3) (a), the City must be able to make certain findings with respect
J First Vice President N to the significant impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the proposed project
Division IV before being able to approve the project. Specifically, the City must be able to make the
SHAWN DEWANE following finding with respect to the provision of water by the City, as proposed, instead of
Vice President
Division V by Mesa Water:
JAMES FISLER
Vice g�I nl "Specific economic. kaaL socia l. technologica l. or other considerations,
TRUDY OHLIG -HALL including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities
Vice President for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
Division III alternatives Identified in the environmental impact report."
Furthermore, as stated In 21081,5 "In making the findings required by
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081, the public agency shall
\UL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E. base its findings on substantial eviden In the record."
General Manager
OLEEN L. MO NE
Diskkt Secretary salary Section 15021(a) (2) 'A public agency should not approve a project as
VICTORIA L. BEATLEY proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures
aaWtTreaserar available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the
BOWIE, ARNESON, project would have on the environment"
WILES 6 OIANNONE
Legal Counsel
Section 15021(6) "In deciding whether changes to a protect are feasible,
an agency may consider specific economic, environmental, legal, social,
and technological factors,"
The provision of local water to serve the project is a feasible alternative that would
substantially lessen the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. The
City cannot reject this environmentally superior alternative /mitigation measure because It
will not be able to find that provision of water to the project site is infeasible for economic,
legal, social, or technological considerations. Regarding the required findings that are
identified above:
Economic. The economic cost of provision of local water to the project by Mesa Water
would be no greater than would be by the City.
1965 Placentia Avenue [.Costa Mesa, California 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 & FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mosawater.org
"Water: The project area is currently not within the boundary of an agency that
provides retail water services. The two agencies providing retail water services to
UIL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E. surrounding areas are the City of Newport Beach and Mesa Water. The Draft EIR
General Manager should Identify and evaluate plans for the extension and delivery of retail water services
SILEEN L. MONTELEONE to the project area,"
District Secretary
VICTORIA r asurer Y Thus LAFCO, the agency with responsibility of identifying utility district and municipal
District ORIATreasurer
BOWIE, ARNESON, annexations "create planned, orderly and efficient patterns of development (Govt. Code
WILESd GIANNONE §56668)" has identified Mesa Water as one agency that may be in a position to provide
Legal Counsel orderly and efficient service to the Banning Ranch Development.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Draft EIR is deficient in that it does not include an alternative or a
mitigation measure that would have evaluated the potential reduction of energy and other
corresponding impact reductions associated with annexation into the Mesa Water for water
service, which can serve the project with 100 % groundwater resources. Use of local water
supplies would: 1) reduce energy demand /consumption of the project (reference CEQA
Guidelines Appendix F); 2) the reduced energy consumption would reduce state and region -
wide air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; 3) reduction in GHG would reduce potential
significant impacts associated with global climate change identified in the Draft EIR; and, 4)
local water supplies would reduce impacts to the Bay Delta associated with the use of
Imported water through the State Water Project. Recirculation of the Draft EIR is required in
order to provide a thorough analysis of these issues as it relates to the provision of water to
the project. This is clearly stated in CEQA Guideline 15088.5(a) which states:
1965 Placentia Avenue *Costa Mesa, Callfomla 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 • FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mesawater.org
Mr. Patrick j. Alford, Planning Manager
November 7, 2011
Page 8 of 9
District Mission:
Leval, There are no legal barriers to the provision of water by Mesa Water. Similar to the
edicated to Satisfying
our Community's
proposed project, annexation of service would be required through LAFCO.
Water Ncede
Social, There are no social effects associated with Mesa Water providing water
supply /service to the project.
Technoloelcal. Mesa Water has the ability to serve the project site without any additional
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
technological considerations as compared to the City providing such service.
FRED R. B LER
President
Division I
In the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) letter dated April 7,
JAMES F. ATKINSON
2009, in which LAFCO commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), LAFCO stated that:
First Vice President
Division IV
SHAWN DEWANE
".. "Project Description" should adequately address all other related changes of
Vice President
organization affecting any P ublic a g encies in the project area that may result ' om the
Division v
development of the proposed planned communities and annexation to the City of
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Newport Beach. These should include, but are not limited to the discussion of the
Division II
concurrent annexation of the area to the Mesa Water and /or the Costa Mesa Sanitary
TRUDYOHLIG•HALL
Vice President
District"
Division III
"Water: The project area is currently not within the boundary of an agency that
provides retail water services. The two agencies providing retail water services to
UIL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E. surrounding areas are the City of Newport Beach and Mesa Water. The Draft EIR
General Manager should Identify and evaluate plans for the extension and delivery of retail water services
SILEEN L. MONTELEONE to the project area,"
District Secretary
VICTORIA r asurer Y Thus LAFCO, the agency with responsibility of identifying utility district and municipal
District ORIATreasurer
BOWIE, ARNESON, annexations "create planned, orderly and efficient patterns of development (Govt. Code
WILESd GIANNONE §56668)" has identified Mesa Water as one agency that may be in a position to provide
Legal Counsel orderly and efficient service to the Banning Ranch Development.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Draft EIR is deficient in that it does not include an alternative or a
mitigation measure that would have evaluated the potential reduction of energy and other
corresponding impact reductions associated with annexation into the Mesa Water for water
service, which can serve the project with 100 % groundwater resources. Use of local water
supplies would: 1) reduce energy demand /consumption of the project (reference CEQA
Guidelines Appendix F); 2) the reduced energy consumption would reduce state and region -
wide air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; 3) reduction in GHG would reduce potential
significant impacts associated with global climate change identified in the Draft EIR; and, 4)
local water supplies would reduce impacts to the Bay Delta associated with the use of
Imported water through the State Water Project. Recirculation of the Draft EIR is required in
order to provide a thorough analysis of these issues as it relates to the provision of water to
the project. This is clearly stated in CEQA Guideline 15088.5(a) which states:
1965 Placentia Avenue *Costa Mesa, Callfomla 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 • FAX (949) 574 -1036
www.mesawater.org
FY V o l W 71f f [fir iris t
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
November 7, 2011
Page 9 of 9
Dino ter Missing:
'A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new
eouca,redmslity'rr,rg
out- Cor,nngniry's
information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the
Water Needs
availability of the draft EIR for public review Under Section 15087 but
before certification."
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15088.5(a) (3), significant new information includes:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
"A feasible project alternative or• mitigation measure considerably
FRED President OMILLER
different from others previously analyzed world clearly lessen the
Division
significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project
JAMES F. ATKINSON
proponents decline to adopt it.."
First Vice President
Division IV
SHAWN DEWANE
In order to reduce the Project's cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG
vlDivsionvnl
inventory, and its significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact, the following feasible
mitigation should be included in the EIR (Section 4.11.8 Mitigation Program):
JAMES FISLER
Vice President
Division II
MM 4.11.6 To reduce energy consumption and related greenhouse emissions, the
TRUDY
Vi a Preeldentt
City shall assure that domestic water service to the Project is provided
Division 111
to the greatest extent feasible from locally - produced groundwater
sources rather than imported water supplies,
\OL E. SHOENBERGER, P.E. Mesa Water encourages you to consider inclusion in the CIR analysis Costa Mesa Sanitary
General Manager District's annexation to the project area. Costa Mesa Sanitary District promotes zero waste
:OLEEN L. MONTELEONE strategies to comply with S8 1016 and innovative wastewater technologies and solutions to
Distrkl Secretary
protect the environment.
VICTORIA L. BEATLEV
District Treasurer
BOWIE,ARNESON, We thank you for the consideration Of our comments and look forward to review of the re-
WILES d GIANNONE circulated Draft EIR addressing these issues.
Legal Counsel
Sincerely,
Paul E. Shoenberg , P.E.
General Manager
Attachment A: Energy Consumption TMl
c: City of Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
1965 Placentia Avenue 6Costa Mesa, California 92627
Telephone (949) 631 -1200 & FAX (949) 574.1036
www.mesawater.org
HIR Energy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 1 of 14
Attachment A
Technical Memo for Energy Intensity Analysis for
Mesa Consolidated Water District
1. Introduction
Due to the geography and scarcity of water, Southern California relies on imported water and local
water supplies for both potable and non - potable users. Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa Water)
provides water service to more than 110,000 customers in an 18 square mile area. The service area
includes the City of Costa Mesa, parts of Newport Beach, and some unincorporated sections of orange
County, including the John Wayne Airport. Mesa Water currently uses a mix of local groundwater and
Imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River. Starting next year, Mesa Water will
use no Imported water and projects that they will not need to use imported water at any point in the
foreseeable future. A map of Mesa Water's service area is shown below in Figure 1.
This technical memorandum provides a brief analysis of the energy required to import and treat
Imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) as well as energy required to extract and treat for
color local groundwater. In this memo, the GHG emissions associated with that energy consumption are
also estimated.
Energy consumption rates are known as energy Intensity, which is the total amount of energy,
calculated on a whole- system basis, required for the use of a given amount of water in a specific
location. Table 1 below shows the energy Intensities for each water supply used by Mesa Water,
Table 1: Energy Intensities of Different Water Supplies (Mesa Water, 2011)
Total
Supply
Percent
kWh /af
Notes
Imported State Water Project
62%
3,000
5 and 10 year averages for imported
water supplies in Metropolitan Water
District 2010 Regional Urban Water
Management Plan (RUWMP).
Imported Colorado River Aqueduct
38%
2,000
5 and 10 year averages for imported
water supplies in Metropolitan Water
District 2010 Regional Urban Water
Management Plan (RUWMP).
MWD Treatment Imported Water
100%
490
Imported Weighted Average
3,105
Includes treatment energy
Groundwater
100%
650
Energy to pump
Current CWTF Treated
1,550
Energy to treat the colored water
Groundwater
that is pumped. Not included in clear
water.
Future CWTF Treated
38%
1,100
Upgraded system to start up in 2012
Groundwater
FOREnergy Intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 2 of 14
Table 1; Energy Intensities of Different Water Supplies (Mesa Water, 2011)
Tot / I
Supply
Percent
kWh /af
Notes
Groundwater Replenishment Activities by OCWD
Santa Ana River Diversions
60.7%
50
Future Imported water
10.1%
3,105
purchases
oGroundwater
Replenishment
29.1%
1,441
^i
System Operation
Total Groundwater Weighted
1,542
Pumping +CWTF (38 %) +
Average
54.5%
replenishment (62 %)
Santa Ana River Diversions
50
Future imported water
9.1%
3,105
purchases
gGroundwater
Replenishment
36.4%
1,441
System Operation
N
Total Groundwater Weighted
1,585
Pumping +CWTF (38 %) +
Average
replenishment (62 %)
Santa Ana River Diversions
50.8%
50
Future Imported water
8.5%
3,105
E
purchases
iGroundwater
Replenishment
40.7%
1,441
C
System Operation I
NTotal
Groundwater Weighted
1,610
Pumping +CWTF (38 %) +
Average
I
replenishment (62 %)
FaEnergy Intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 3 of 14
Figure 1. Mesa Water Service Area (Mesa Water Website, 2011)
DIRECTOR DIVISIONS.
MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT
B
DIVISION POPULATION
20,351
2 21,205
3 21,219
4 20.995
6 _ _ _21,726
TOM 105,
3000 0 3000 F.0
1••3,000'
LEGEND
p DM91ON AREA BOUNDARY
STREETS AND NIONWAYS
�MESABOUNOARY
LABELS
O DMSION AREA NUMBFA
n1111;
1
,
O
DIVISION POPULATION
20,351
2 21,205
3 21,219
4 20.995
6 _ _ _21,726
TOM 105,
3000 0 3000 F.0
1••3,000'
LEGEND
p DM91ON AREA BOUNDARY
STREETS AND NIONWAYS
�MESABOUNOARY
LABELS
O DMSION AREA NUMBFA
1 LR Energy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 4 of 14
As the population grew within Mesa Water Districts service area, Mesa Water has Increased supply of
water to customers. A significant effort has been increasing the use of groundwater and reducing the
dependence on Imported water as the supplies for Mesa Water's customers, Figure 2 below shows the
annual water from Imported and groundwater sources, over the past 44 years with projections of water
supply from these sources over the next 5 years.
Figure 2. Total Distributed Water by Water Source - Mesa Consolidated Water District
Annual Water
25
20 —
a,
15
`u
Q
C
R 10
O
5
®r-614A �p �pgppf
mOf �a��^�d����01�01NOt O1N01��01SS0OOOOOOOOOO
nnnnnnnnnn000000a0 oOO�ro Om�ma+rnmpm�mm o�000
NM M .�- Ie�/emi emiN�INN.m- INei.-1'iei ei emi .m-1 e-I rl rlrl ri.- Irl. -I ei.�NNNN NNNNNNNN NNNN
■ Imported Water ■ Groundwater
f.a Energy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 5 of 14
Figure 3 shows the 5 -year totals of water from different water sources over the last 44 years with
projections for the next 5 years.
Figure 3: Total Distributed Water by Water Source 5 -Year Sums - Mesa Consolidated Water District
120
100
« 80
v 60
c
0
9 40
F
5 -Year Water
1966 -71 1971 -76 1976 -81 1981 -86 1986 -91 1991 -96 1996 -01 2001 -06 2006 -11 2011 -16
■ Imported Water ■ Groundwater
2. Imported Water
The Metropolitan Water District Imports water from the California State Water Project (SWP) and from
the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) which requires a large amount of pumping energy to overcome the
adverse geography. The SWP is a state -owned system, managed by the California Department of Water
Resources, The SWP provides supplemental water for agricultural and urban uses. SWP facilities
Include 1,200 -plus reservoirs, which have a total storage capacity of more than 42.7 million acre feet
(AF), 22 pumping and generating plants, and nearly 660 miles of aqueducts (CA SWP Website, 2011).
SWP facilities are shown below in Figure 4.
faEnergy Intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District
Figure 4. California State Water Project Facilities (CA SWP Website, 2011)
C d�Nrd Hyatt
PPruP?0& Wo •AAa op Loke
le,.a MOD I MOW \ -010111!e �I eGmu
w Po'mgl?ari �L •F,e,rhm rn LPLC
T w,i, ello PVnp!na.
Oem:+Ging P140
BE40 5Icagh PUng9r:g
Cmdella P:: nr:ng P1,M
Ronh say N,UeWjd'
SolAh Bay Aquadmi --
L4Ye DN Va'.le
San UASRese1%0'
Dos C,nlgos CIMPI Iq
LeS PedbS P Unprg Pk"
DetlgCr Wl Pumping PleM �__
elmstwe Pwpllg Plent 4tlercw,s1rWK n)
MONO Pe PumPlrg Plant(antlercaIAl l
cbl1 '(e.'t rwcnn
tl. 0. smkr. DeSa Pumftg Plarrt
Shah soy PUroP n',J Plm -it
o41 Vero Pumping Ptwe.
Plwd
Page 6 of 14
-Cue- \Shill Pmeplrg P1aW.
J R. TCCrink K4eo;e, Ridge PUmP'nI Plant
A D. E dmondan P V"Ping PNr!
&0' td, amo POVkWW' _ .. _
I.J. Clvignen lY:cU OnPPmiMrg vianP /
OsU Purnpir" PIarM1
W. E. V1wv Pov4,Plwd
Py,amid Lute
Weal
Peres
The SWP is the largest consumer of electrical energy in the state of California, requiring an average of
12.2 billion kWh per year to convey water through Its aqueducts. On average, approximately 3,000 kWh
Is necessary to pump one AF of SWP water to southern California, and 2,000 kWh is required to pump
one AF of water through the CRA to southern California (Wilkinson, 2007). For the last 5 years and 10
years, the average amount of CRA water brought to southern California has been approximately 38% of
the total Imported water and the amount of SWP water has been approximately 62% of the total. All
water distributed to Mesa Water is treated by MWD, which requires approximately 490 kWh per AF to
meet Title 22 requirements. Based on this, the weighted average energy intensity for water Imported to
Mesa Water Is estimated to be approximately 3,105 kWh per AF (MWD, 2011). This energy Intensity
Includes conveyance and treatment factors. Mesa Water's goal is to reduce their use of imported water
to zero, solely relying on local groundwater supplies to meet demands. Mesa Water Intends to meet
this goal In 2012.
faEnergy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 7 of 14
3. Groundwater
Mesa Consolidated Water District extracts water from eight groundwater wells, from Orange County's
groundwater basin which underlies central Orange County from Irvine to the Los Angeles County border
and from Yorba Linda to the Pacific Ocean. A representative section of the Orange County groundwater
basin is shown below in Figure 5. It is replenished by water from the Santa Ana River, which Is the main
contributor and Imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Figure 5, Cross - section of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Mesa Water Website, 2011)
Cross - section of the Orange County Groundwater Basin
The Orange County Groundwater Basin includes a portion of the aquifer where the water is an amber
color resulting from the buried ancient redwood forests that used to grow In the area. In the early
1980's, Mesa Water District became the first water supplier in Orange County to treat and distribute
colored water. In 1998, Mesa Water opened its Colored Water Treatment Facility (CWTF) and reduced
the district's reliance on costly Imported water. The facility produces and treats five million gallons of
amber colored water per day via two groundwater wells. The facility also helps to keep the amber
tinted water from seeping into our region's clear -water reserves.
f7 Energy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 8 of 14
As stated above in Table 1, the energy Intensity to extract and distribute groundwater to consumers is
approximately 650 kWh per AF. In addition to the energy Intensity required to extract and pump
groundwater, the total energy intensity of the groundwater includes replenishment from 3 different
sources. Orange County Water District (OCWD) replenishes the groundwater basin by means of
diverting Santa Ana River flows, purchasing imported water and recycling water via their Ground Water
Replenishment System (GWRS). The energy intensities of these water sources are, respectively 50 kWh
per AF, 3105 kWh per AF, and 1441 kWh per AF (OCWD, 2011). Note that the colored groundwater
Is not actively replenished by OCWD and, therefore, use of this groundwater does not include the
replenishment energy expended by OCWD. However, to use colored groundwater, it is necessary to
treat it to remove the color. Currently, the CWTF treatment process adds about 1,550 kWh per AF to
the energy intensity of extracted amber - colored groundwater. The efficiency of this treatment process
will be improved by mid 2012 to only 1,100 kWh per AF (Mesa Water, 2011). Additionally, in 2012,
Mesa Water will have the capability of treating sufficient quantities of colored groundwater to replace
imported water In Its entirety. Figures 2 and 3 show the groundwater use and imported water use for
the last 44 years plus the projected uses for the next 5 years.
4. Energy Intensity
Energy consumption associated with using local groundwater supplies, even with some of those local
groundwater supplies being treated to remove color, results in lower energy consumption than when
importing water. The energy intensities from Tabie 1 were used to estimate the energy consumption
associated with the different mixes of water supplies Mesa Water has used for the last 44 years. The
energy consumption estimates were also applied to the projected water supplies Mesa Water is
expecting to use for the next 5 years. Figure 6 shows the estimated annual energy consumption for
Imported water and groundwater and the total estimated annual energy consumption. Figure 7 shows
the 5 year estimated energy consumption.
L l Energy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 9 of 14
Figure 6. Estimated Annual Energy Consumption for Groundwater and Imported Water used by Mesa
Water.
hDREnergy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 10 of 14
Figure 7. Estimated 5 -Year Energy Consumption for Groundwater and Imported Water used by Mesa
Water.
250
200
150
Y
C
O
f 100
50
5 -Year Energy
1966 -71 1971 -76 1976.81 1981 -86 1986.91 1991 -96 1996 -01 2001 -06 2006.11 2011 -16
■ Imported Water Energy Use ■ Groundwater Energy Use
S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A greenhouse gas (GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal
Infrared range. One GHG Is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the primary GHG produced during
electricity production. GHG emission factors or rates associated with electricity consumption are an
estimate of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO,) emitted per kilowatt -hour of electricity. The Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG &E) has the most readily available published estimates of average GHG
emission factors since 2003. PG &E estimates average emission factors each year since 2003 based upon
all the sources of electricity that PG &E delivered to customers during a specific year. PG &E was among
the earliest companies to voluntarily quantify and report its GHG emissions using rigorous, publicly -
vetted GHG reporting stands. Prior to 2003, there were no commonly- accepted guidelines to report the
GHG emission factors from a utility. Prior to 2003 it Is possible to calculate GHG emissions from
electricity use by using a factor from a study published in 1990 by Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory which cites an emission factor of 0.566 Ibs COdkWh The average GHG emission factors
which PG &E has produced since 2003 have been authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission
in Decision 06 -12 -032. GHG emission factors from electricity use provided by PG &E are shown below in
Table 2.
IaREnergy Intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 11 of 14
Table 2. GHG Emission Factors from Electricity Use Provided by PG &E
Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors
Emission Type Emission Factor
Year
IbsCOr/kWh
Historical Emissions
1990
0.566
2003
0.620
2004
0.566
2005
0.489
2006
0.456
2007
0.636
2008
0.641
2009
0.575
Current Emissions
2010
0.559
2011
Future Emissions (Estimated)
2012
0.453
2013
0.431
2014
0.412
2015
0.391
2016
0.370
2017
0.349
2018
0.328
2019
0.307
2020
0.290
Using an emission factor of 0,566 for all years before 1990, linearly Interpolating between 1990 and
2003, and using the designated GHG emission factor for each corresponding year above, the GHG
emissions from electricity use by Mesa Water District for each water supply over the past 44 years are
shown below in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 8 shows estimated annual emissions. Figure 9 shows estimated
5 -year emissions.
laqEnergy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 12 of 14
Figure 8. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions from Electricity Use by Mesa Water for Each Water Supply
Annual GHG Emissions
14
12
10
08
u
c
96
.
v
v4
c
0
tit
0
r�oomo.+rvmav�enaomo.+rrm uia�oomo�r�ma�n�noomo�- +rvma�n�ncorno�- +rvmo�n�
�so�nnnr.r� nnn nneo ao eo oP�ao eo oa op o�mmmmmmmmmm4 °44444444'"•, -, ",•, -�•-�
io r�oo duo. -irvmcl �n �b r�oo o'io.�rvmo�n�naomotirv�n �F �n�naomo.- irvmg�n�noomo.lNmdin
��o �o�n nr�n�nnr�nnoo oo oo oa oo oo ao oowoomrnmmmmmmmm0000 000ao'+r+.i �.-a'+
��mmmmmmm���m�mmmmmmmmmmmm�mmmmmo�m000NOOOa00000000
■ GHG Emissions Imported Water n GHG Emissions Groundwater
HREnergy intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 13 of 14
Figure 9. Estimated 5 -Year GHG Emissions from Electricity Use by Mesa Water for Each Water Supply
5 -Year GHG Emissions
60
s0
N
O
40
N
C
0
1".
u
a 30
f
v
c
R
0 20
s
10
1966 -71 1971 -76 1976 -81 1981 -86 1986 -91 1991 -96 1996 -01 2001 -06 2006 -11 2011.16
■ GHG Emissions Imported Water ■ GHG Emissions Groundwater
6. Conclusion
The projected estimated energy consumption and GHG emissions for 2011 -2016 Is approximately 84%
of the estimated energy consumption and GHG emissions for 2006 -2011 and 62% of the estimated
energy consumption and GHG emissions for 2001 -2006. Mesa Consolidated Water District will conserve
energy and reduce GHG emissions by using local groundwater resources rather than Imported water
through the California SWP. By developing the local groundwater supplies through investing in the
colored water treatment plant, Mesa Water will reduce statewide energy consumption and GHG
emissions by more than half from historical energy consumption and GHG emissions.
When considering the additional 613.5 acre feet per year of water demand projected for the Newport
Banning Ranch development and the projected GHG production of approximately 0.24 metric tons CO2
per acre foot of water delivered from Mesa Water using entirely groundwater resources, the total GHG
production to service the Newport Banning Ranch from Mesa Water is projected to be approximately
147.7 metric tons CO2 per year.
Note that all values presented in this document are based on operational analyses conducted by
agencies referenced. All values are subject to change based on re- evaluation of current or future
operations.
hD7 Energy Intensity analysis for Mesa Consolidated Water District Page 14 of 14
7. References
California Department of Water Resources. Website: California State Water Project.
htto: / /www.water.co.goy /swa /; (Accessed October 2011).
Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara;
(2007); California's Energy -Water Nexus: Water use in Electricity Generation; May 7, 2007.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency, (2000);
Methodology for Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems, and an
Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated Water- Energy Efficiency
Measures; January 2000.
GEI Consultants /Navigant Consulting, Inc.; (2010); Embedded Energy In Water Studies, Study 1:
Statewide and Regional Water - Energy Relationship; August 31, 2010.
Mesa Consolidated Water District, Website: Colored Water Treatment Facility.
htto : / /www.mesawater.oryJcolored water treatment.php; (Accessed October 2011).
Mesa Consolidated Water District (2011); Email Communication with Barry Carlson, Historical Water
Production by Source; October 14, 2011.
Mesa Consolidated Water District. Website: Well Fact Sheet;
htto: /Iwww.tpesawater.org /well factsheet.ohp; (Accessed October 2011).
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan.
http: / /www.mwdh2o.com /mwdh2o /pages /vourwater /RUWMP /RUWMP 2010.pdf.
Orange County Water District (OCWD). Website: Orange County Water District Publications and Reports.
http:/Iwww.ocwd.com/Publications--Reports/ca-43.asox; (Accessed October 2011).
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &E); (2010); GHG Emission Factor Info Sheet;
www.pae.com /Includes /... /pAe A g emission factor Info sheet.pdf; April 8, 2010.
Wikipedia Website; Greenhouse Gas; hlto: //en.wlkipedia.orA/wiki /Greenhouse gas; (Accessed October
2011).
Wilkinson, Robert C.; (2007); Analysis of the Energy Intensity of Water Supplies for West Basin Municipal
Water District; March, 2007.
Wilkinson, Robert C; (2008); Congressional Hearing on: Water Supply Challenges for the 21`' Century;
2008.
April 5, 2012
Newport Beach Planning Commission
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(via e-mail)
Re: March 22, 2012 Hearing Item 4 - Newport Banning Ranch - (PA2008 -114)
Honorable Commissioners,
I would like to add my voice to that of Suzanne Forster in her April 4, 2012 letter to the editor of
the Daily Pilot requesting the Planning Commission rescind its two late night decisions of March
22, 2012 regarding the Newport Banning Ranch (NBR) application (recommendations to
Council regarding re- circulation and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)) and
reschedule a properly noticed and conducted hearing on the NBR EIR. This seems particularly
important to me for a project of wide public interest in multiple communities and I request that
this letter be made part of the administrative record for EIR SCH No. 2009031061.
1 agree with Ms. Forster that the Chair's instructions to the public, however well intentioned,
were extremely intimidating, both in substance and tone, and at least in my view improperly
discouraged from speaking those members of the public who did not feel they were qualified
environmental experts with significant new factual information to add to the record. I also agree
with Ms. Forster that the traffic section of the EIR most likely requires significant revision in view
of the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA)'s recent decision to permanently remove the
19th Street bridge from the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways without providing any
agreed to mitigation measures — a fact which staff declined to acknowledge even though the
City of Newport Beach (CNB) is either initiating or in the process of considering litigation to
modify the OCTA action.
In addition I feel compelled to raise the following procedural and substantive issues which in my
view improperly limited public participation and which I feel will permanently cloud the
Commission's recommendations:
1. Inadequate hearing notice
2. Inadequate time to evaluate Response to Comments
3. Inadequate /misleading agenda listing
4. Improper handling of overflow crowd
5. Misleading and incomplete staff report
6. Failure to provide context for hearing
7. Lack of credible basis for actions
8. Adoption of defective resolution
1. Inadequate hearing notice
Please see Attachments 1 and 2 to this letter for a transcription of the notice of the March 22,
2012 CNB Planning Commission hearing published in the Daily Pilot on March 10, 2012. The
NBR portion of the notice (Attachment 1) describes the project, identifies the components of the
project application and informs the public than environmental concerns have been dealt with by
means of an EIR prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Jim Mosher to Planning Commission, April 5, 2012 — page 2 of 9
guidelines. The notice gives no hint regarding the purpose of the March 22 hearing, and could
be read to imply the EIR has been completed and certified.
Compare this to the notice of the subsequent item (Attachment 2) which clearly notifies the
public of the purpose of the hearing and the contemplated actions.
The similar but somewhat more extensive notice mailed to neighboring property owners (not
attached) does include a line before the CEQA notice saying "The Planning Commission will
provide recommendations to the City Council for final decisions on these applications.
Additional public notice will be provided as to the date, time, and place of City Council hearings."
But again, no hint is given that the NBR DEIR will be the subject of the March 22 hearing, or that
recommendations regarding it would be made at that time.
2. Inadequate time to evaluate Response to Comments
On March 16, 2012 just six days before the hearing scheduled for an unstated purpose, CNB
released 1030 pages of Responses to Comments, 1200 pages of appendices related to those
comments, and a 96 page Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program related to the NBR
DEIR. Even for those who knew the March 22 meeting would focus on the DEIR this was a very
large volume of closely worded material to digest in a very short time, especially for those,
including the Commission, who are not environmental professionals with 40 hours a week (or
more) to devote to the matter.
Several members of the public testifying on March 22 said they found the responses to their
own comments non - responsive. Aside from a few perfunctory questions from Commission to
staff at the March 22 hearing it is unclear if anyone, including staff or consultants, made any
effort to determine if the public agencies submitting comments found the responses adequate or
if they continued to have reservations about the NBR DEIR.
3. Inadequate /misleading agenda listing
The agenda listing for the NBR portion of the Planning Commission's March 22, 2012, on the
basis of which the public is supposed to be able to determine if they want or need to attend, is
transcribed in Attachment 3 to this letter.
The agenda listing for the previous item (the Ocean Boulevard lot merger) clearly states in the
Summary the purpose of the hearing and under Action mentions not only that the Commission
will be conducting a hearing, but that it will be recommending approval or denial by means of
adopting one of two alternative resolutions referenced in the associated staff report.
By contrast, the NBR agenda listing gives no hint under Summary of what the purpose of the
hearing, and there is nothing under CEQA Compliance suggesting the EIR is tentative or has
not already been approved. Under Action the public is told the Commission will "Receive staff
report focused in Environmental Impact Report," conduct a hearing and continue the hearing to
April 5, 2012.
Jim Mosher to Planning Commission, April 5, 2012 — page 3 of 9
This is defective in two ways. First, based only on this agenda the public might reasonably
assume the EIR had already been certified and a staff report on the EIR was to be presented
simply as a way to set the context for opening a hearing on the development application, which
was be continued to a future date. Second, for those more familiar with the culture of CNB
Planning Commission agendas, the absence of any mention that a resolution was going to be
considered for adoption definitely means that no action would be taken until a subsequent
meeting.
I have personally examined all the Planning Commission agendas back through 2009, and a
number from prior years, and although the Commission may suggested modifications to the
actions recommended by staff, prior to the March 22 NBR matter I have been unable to find any
prior instance in which the Commission took an action when no action was noticed in the
agenda. In a number of instances the agenda announced under Action, as for the NBR listing,
that the Commission would "(1) Conduct public hearing; (2) Continue public hearing to ..." On
rare occasions the Commission modified the recommended date for the continuation of the
hearing, but in every case the Commission continued the hearing as promised without taking
any action beyond ones clearly noticed in the agenda.
Although the Assistant City Attorney assured the Commission that the March 22 votes were
properly agendized in compliance with the Brown Act, the California Attorney General in their
handbook on the very similarly worded Bagley -Keene Act (governing state, as opposed to
county and local, agencies) notes that if a body voluntarily chooses to distinguish action from
discussion items in their agendas, they should feel compelled to fit their actions to their notices.
In summary, no one seeing the March 22, 2012 agenda would have expected the Planning
Commission to do anything other than open a hearing on the NBR and continue it to April 51".
While the Chair, in his opening remarks to the NBR matter, may have implied actions on the EIR
might be taken that night, that is insufficient. A reasonable person relying on the agenda would
have assumed that before any such actions were taken they would have an additional
opportunity to provide input on April 5, and perhaps beyond.
4. Improper handling of overflow crowd
As the Commission may be only dimly aware, a very large crowd assembled at the CNB Council
Chambers at 6:30 pm on March 22, the noticed time of the hearing. The crowd filled the lobby
and overflowed into the courtyard, a problem compounded by staff having scheduled the
contentious Ocean Boulevard item (which itself may have filled the Chamber) on the same
night. Staff did not have an adequate supply of agendas or staff reports, nor did they provide
any means for the overflow crowd to hear or participate in the proceedings. For example, at the
beginning of the meeting the Chair offered to allow some of the overflow public to sit at the staff
conference table at the front of the hall, but even inadequate as that was, those being invited
could not hear the invitation.
Since no indication was given as to when the NBR matter would be heard, or if the entire
overflow audience would have a chance to be seated for it, many left in frustration, and
assuming they had seen a copy of the agenda would have done so assuming they would have
an opportunity to speak and participate on April 5, before any action was taken. No
announcement, audible or otherwise, was made to the contrary prior to the commencement of
the NBR hearing at 9:00 pm. At a minimum, it would seem to me the overflow crowd should
have been given a reasonable time to express their views through written comments before the
Jim Mosher to Planning Commission, April 5, 2012 — page 4 of 9
Commission considered any action, or have been clearly notified as to whether the hearing was
going to be continued (as promised) or not.
5. Misleading and incomplete staff report
The staff report compounds the confusion regarding whether any action was contemplated on
Agenda Item 4 (the NBR application) at the March 22, 2012 meeting by copying on handwritten
page 1 the inadequate language from the agenda as "Project Summary" and
"Recommendation." Again there is no hint the EIR has not been already approved and that a
vote or votes or a resolution or resolutions is contemplated at the March 22 meeting.
On the contrary, those who leaf through to handwritten page 7 will see that the timeline for the
"EIR Review Process" includes not only the March 22 hearing before the Planning Commission,
but also a second one on April 5, and possibly more.
Those who notice a draft resolution recommending certification is included in the staff report as
Attachment No. PC 1 will have had this impression reinforced by the "Whereas" on handwritten
page 20 which says that "public hearings were held on March 22 and , 2012," where it
can only be assumed the dates of subsequent hearings on the EIR were intended to be added
to the blank space.
The only thing contradicting this interpretation is the statements made under "Discussion" on
handwritten page 8, suggesting the March 22 meeting will be devoted to the EIR and the April 5
meeting to the development application — but we now know the staff was not in fact prepared to
conduct a hearing on the application on April 5 and asked for the NBR matter to be continued to
April 19.
The staff report is also inadequate in providing no clear menu of actions required to complete
consideration of the EIR by the Planning Commission.
6. Failure to provide context for hearing
As indicated in the draft minutes of the March 22 meeting, Agenda Item 4 began with an
explanation by the Chair of the EIR process. For those who had not previously attended a
meeting regarding the NBR application, this was woefully inadequate, especially since, as noted
above, the vast bulk of the audience were provided with neither agendas or staff reports. To the
best of my recollection neither the project nor the contents of the EIR were described, and the
Commission launched into a short laundry list of questions, apparently assuming everyone in
the audience had attended all the Study Sessions and had time to understand the structure and
content of the EIR (described only as "oh the documentation is exhaustive — I think it's three feet
tall) on their own.
Considering this was the first public hearing, and especially in view of the absence of agendas
and staff reports, I feel the public deserved having the context laid a bit better before being
asked to comment on something they may or may not have seen.
Jim Mosher to Planning Commission, April 5, 2012 — page 5 of 9
7. Lack of credible basis for actions
In moving to reject re- circulation of the NBR DEIR and in adopting the resolution recommending
its certification, the Planning Commission is presumably telling the CNB Council that it has
thoroughly reviewed the EIR and, in its independent judgment, agrees with all its conclusions.
To put this in context, Attachment No. PC 3 to the March 22, 2012 Staff Report is a table giving
a "Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Program." Although it seems to list
"insignificant" and "less than significant" impacts as well, the table includes something like 90
numbered questions (an exact total is difficult because, for example, question Threshold 4.6 -5
contains three separate questions that are not separately numbered) that have to be answered
as to whether they have an environmental impact or not. The consultant appears to have
concluded that something like 23 of these will have "no impact," 47 will have (after mitigation)
"less than significant impact" and 8 will have a "significant unavoidable impact."
It is absolutely incredible to me that after diligently reviewing the project application, 1432 pages
of the DEIR (plus another 5817 pages of appendices), the 1030 pages of comments (plus
another 1200 pages of appendices), and the 96 page Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and listening to the public testimony at its study sessions and public hearing, that the
Planning Commission failed, in its independent judgment, to find a single instance in which they
might reach a different conclusion from the applicant and consultant as to the significance of a
particular impact, or think a different mitigation measure might be more effective.
I am particularly curious if the Planning Commissioners agree with the applicant and consultant
that a massive pedestrian bridge over West Pacific Coast Highway has no visual impact, or that
an alternative of annexation without development (that is continuing under the current
ownership, but with the City Charter forcing consolidation of oil operations) should not have
been considered (Alternative A, as I understand it, assumes no annexation, and therefore a
continuation of oil operations as they now exist).
8. Adoption of defective resolution
In addition to thinking the NBR DEIR should be re- circulated (due primarily to defective noticing
for which the consultant could offer no adequate response), had I known the draft resolution in
the March 22, 2012 staff report was going to be considered at that meeting (and not on April 5
or at some subsequent meeting, as the agenda and staff report implied) I would have spoken
against it, for it is highly defective, both on its own merits and in comparison to other resolutions
adopted by the Planning Commission recommending certification of EIR for other projects.
As a Newport Beach taxpayer I think I am most concerned about the final boilerplate "Whereas"
on handwritten page 20 of the staff report (page 2 of 23 of the draft resolution), which seems to
state the Planning Commission is recommending certification on the assumption that the costs
of any legal challenges will be borne by the project applicant — but offers no suggestion as to
how that assumption will be implemented or could be enforced by the City Council. For an EIR
that is almost certain to provoke a legal challenge this seems to me to be an extremely serious
shortcoming. At the same time, I am also concerned that such a guarantee, if feasible, could
lead to a "we can approve anything because we won't have to pay to defend it" attitude, which,
at least to me, serves neither the public nor the applicant well.
Jim Mosher to Planning Commission, April 5, 2012 — page 6 of 9
Beyond that, the 19 page "Exhibit B — Findings of Fact" is, in my opinion, highly defective both in
substance and in comparison to the attachments to other resolutions recommending certification
of EIRs approved by the Planning Commission in the past, and I am again startled that the
Commission voted to adopt this without recommending a single change.
First, I am unable to find any guidance given as to the Council as to the CEQA required
definition of what constitutes the Final EIR and the administrative record related to it.
Second, I am able to detect relatively clear findings supporting the conclusions of the EIR only
with regard to the 5 to 7 "Effects with No Impact" listed on handwritten page 39 of the staff
report (page 21 of the 23 page draft resolution). With respect to the list of the 8 to 13 (it's hard
to count precisely) "Significant Unavoidable Impacts" listed on pages 22 and 23 of the draft
resolution, the findings supporting the conclusion that these are significant frequently lack clarity
and the findings supporting the notion these effects cannot be mitigated are generally non-
existent. Moreover, the list of "no impact" effects appears to be an arbitrary subset of the effects
concluded to have "no impact" as listed in the following Attachment No. PC 3 to the Staff
Report. I am unable to understand why one particular subset of "no impact" effects deserves
support by "Findings of Fact" and the others do not.
Third, the Commission appears to be offering the Council no guidance at all as to proposed
findings regarding the 47 or so other effects the EIR concludes will have a "less than significant
impact" after mitigation — either as to why they are significant to start with or as to why the
proposed mitigation measures would be effective.
On that final note, it is unclear if the Commission, after reviewing it, is making a
recommendation with regard to the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program since it is
unclear from the resolution what the Commission is recommending be regarded as the Final
EIR for the NBR project.
Again, attention to proper process, a thorough independent analysis of impacts and mitigation
measures and a sincere effort to engage public involvement seem particularly important for a
high profile project involving communities outside Newport Beach. For the above reasons and
others stated in public comment, I feel the City's handling to date of the NBR environmental
review has been inadequate and urge the Commission to reconsider its March 22nd decisions
regarding re- circulation and certification of the EIR.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of my comments
Yours sincerely,
James M. Mosher, Ph.D.
2210 Private Road
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
iimmosher(a�yahoo.com
(949) 548 -6229
Jim Mosher to Planning Commission, April 5, 2012 — page 7 of 9
Attachment 1 : Content of Notice Published in Daily Pilot - March 10, 2012
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Regular Meeting March 22, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
1. SUBJECT: Newport Banning Ranch - PA2008 -114
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.
SUMMARY: A proposed planned community on a 401.1 acre project site 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. 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) and a
pre- annexation zone change is proposed for those portions of the project site located within
the City's Sphere of Influence from County zoning to PC -57; Planned Community
Development Plan would 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).
APPLICATION:ER2009 -002, DA2008 -003, NT2008 -003, GP2008 -008, PC2008 -002, and
CA2008 -004
CEQA COMPLIANCE: NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City of Newport Beach has prepared
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) -SCH No. 2009031061 to evaluate the environmental
impacts resulting from the proposed project. The DEIR has been prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for
Implementation" of CEQA, (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
Jim Mosher to Planning Commission, April 5, 2012 — page 8 of 9
Attachment 2: Remainder of Notice Published in Daily Pilot - March 10, 2012
2. SUBJECT: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger - PA2011 -141
2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard
SUMMARY: At the direction of the City Council, the Planning Commission will reconsider Lot
Merger Application No. LM2011 -002 requesting approval to combine 2808 and 2812 Ocean
Boulevard. The Commission will review alternative development standards proposed by the
applicant to be applied to the development of the property. The Planning Commission will
make a recommendation of approval or denial to the City Council, which will hear the
application at a future meeting.
APPLICATION: LM2011 -002
CEQA COMPLIANCE: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations).
Published Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Daily Pilot March 10, 2012
Attachment 3 : Content of March 22, 2012 Agenda Listing
ITEM NO. 4 Newport Banning Ranch - (PA2008 -114)
5200 West Coast Highway
SUMMARY: A proposed planned community on a 401.1 acre project site for development of
1,375 residential dwelling units, a 75 -room resort inn and ancillary resort uses, 75,000 square
feet of commercial uses, approximately 51.4 acres of parklands, and approximately 252.3 acres
of permanent open space.
CEQA COMPLIANCE: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2009031061 to
evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The EIR has been
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as
amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
1) ACTION:
1) Receive staff report focused in Environmental Impact Report;
2) Conduct a public hearing; and
3) Continue public hearing to April 5, 2012.
Jim Mosher to Planning Commission, April 5, 2012 — page 9 of 9
Attachment 4: California Attorney General's View of Agenda Requirements
From the AG's Bagely -Keene Open Meeting Handbook:
"The agenda items should be drafted to provide interested lay persons with enough
information to allow them to decide whether to attend the meeting or to participate in that
particular agenda item. Bodies should not label topics as "discussion" or "action" items
unless they intend to be bound by such descriptions. Bodies should not schedule items
for consideration at particular times, unless they assure that the items will not be
considered prior to the appointed time. "
Source: http: / /ag.ca.gov /publications /bagleykeene2004 ada.pdf (under "Notice and
Agenda Requirements" on page 8)
Note: l have not found time to locate a similar statement by the Attorney General with
regard to the Brown Act, but the statutory sections being interpreted are essentially
identical in the two acts.
Additional References/ Web Links
Suzanne Forster letter to Daily Pilot:
http: / /www, da ilypi lot, com /news /opinion /tn -dpt- 0403 -m ail bag- 20120403, 0, 2060329, story
March 22, 2012 Planning Commission agenda and staff report:
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=l 328
Specifically:
http : / /www.newportbeachca.gov /PLN /PLANNING COMMISSION.asp ?path= /03 -22 -2012
Burns, Marlene C o r r e s n o n de n c e
From Gerard Proccacino [Gravytminl @roadmnneccomj Item No. 3a
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 201211:34 AM
To: Burns, Marlene
Subject: Newport Beach Planning Commission Meeting, 4/19/2012 Newport Banning Ranch
PA2008 -114
Dear Ms Burns,
I am emailing you to ask you please to forward my comments to the Planning
Commission for review before their 4/19/12 meeting. I am unable to attend. I thank
you in advance.
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I would like it to be on record that I am opposed to the massive development proposed
for the Banning Ranch property. I realize that the Commission has approved the dEIR
and I was not pleased that there was a sense of rush to evaluate. I was at that
meeting but do to work restraints could not stay late enough to voice at the public
hearing. I was there when it was said that with the overwhelming public comments that
the "insignificant impacts" could not addressed. Well, I want to share some of those
"insignificant impacts" that will negatively affect the life of me and my neighbors in the
Lido Sands Community. Although the total project, with approx. 4,500 permanent
residents and who knows how many more daily residents manning the commercial,
retail and lodging venues will be a mind boggling culture change to the total West
Newport Community I will only address the proposed Bluff Rd.
I have lived in my home, which is directly in front of where proposed Bluff Rd. is to
intersect with PCH, for forty years. This intersection will place, with all turns, eight
lanes of traffic with tall, ugly steel gray, traffic and pedestrian signals right outside my
bedroom windows. We home owners in West Newport spent thousands of dollars to
underground utilities and now there is proposed visual pollution with this intersection.
"Insignificant impact ?" The homes in Lido Sands bedrooms face PCH. Most of the
homes such as mine, are quaint, mid century beach cottages. Many of the windows in
these homes, including mine, have 50's cathedral ceilings with windows from floor to
roof. The flashing lights will pollute my home with light twenty four hours a day.
"Insignificant impact ?" The motor vehicles descending down the 8% grade of Bluff Rd.
will shine their headlights into my bedrooms twenty four hours a day. "Insignificant
impact ?" The stopping and starting of motor vehicles and revving engines, especially
motor cycles, creating noise pollution. The wall separating Lido Sands from PCH is a
mere seven feet high, a residential property line fence is six feet high. Has
consideration been taken into account of how noise reverberates and is amplified off
the bluffs, towards Lido Sands? "Insignificant impact ?"
I think that these and all insignificant impacts must be addressed. Time and deliberate
investigation must be taken not to overlook details that can abruptly and negatively
effect me and the citizens of Newport Beach.
I remember that the first and best choice for the environment, by Bonterra, was to
leave Banning Ranch as natural as possible. Why is there not a priority to support the
City's General Plan priority to preserve this last and only natural property as open
space?
Why does the City of Newport Beach need this development? Why do the people of
Newport Beach need this development? Please do not approve this development as it
is in front of you. Please drill deeper into all the negative impacts and ask the
developer to cure them or leave it alone. Please do not Los Angelize Newport Beach.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gerard Proccacino
Lido Sands, Newport Beach, CA
z
ORAW �YNTY 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 i Irvine, California 926145904
phone: 949.794.2242 i fe6~4.0443 1 www.ocbe.org
BL SINESS COUNC L P�
April 19, 2012 COMMUNITY Correspondence
APR 19 2012 Item No. 3b
Mr. Michael Toerge, Chair Newport Banning Ranch
Newport Beach Planning Commission p DEVELOPMENT Gs PA2008 -114
3300 Newport Blvd. t- 40
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Op IVEWP00
RE: Newport Beach Banning Ranch Development (Agenda Item 3) - SUPPORT
Dear Mr. Toerge:
Orange County Business Council represents the largest, most diverse businesses in the region. We
advance Orange County's economic prosperity while protecting a high quality of life. We support the
Newport Banning Ranch plan as a well thought out proposal that represents both community and city
input, and responsibly addresses housing, commercial, and open space needs for Newport Beach.
The business community cites the lack of housing affordable to their workforce and proximate to their
jobs as a major impediment to attracting and keeping workers. When it comes to the health and vitality
of our communities, an adequate supply of housing is key. Even with a down market from an economic
development perspective, we have a shortage of housing at every job level. OCBC strongly believes that
the cities within Orange County must plan to meet our current and future rousing needs.
Although there will certainly be more study, the foundational land use designation and density for the
property are consistent, if not better than, the surrounding development. In addition, the NBR plan is the
only option that ensures public access, habitat creation, oil field cleanup and more than 75% of the site
preserved as permanent open space - at no cost to taxpayers.
Additionally, the roadway system follows the voter approved Newport Beach General Plan as well. In
fact, the proposed roadways are reduced from what the General Plan calls for, and designed to consider
the needs or Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and the surrounding region - dispersing
both local and regional traffic.
Newport Banning Ranch has the opportunity to become a model for other cities for urban infill and
brownfleld redevelopment, providing a beneficial mix of residential, commercial, recreation and open
space uses that will serve the local community and region in the years to come. The Newport Beach
Banning Ranch plan will be part of an overall solution for more compact and smart growth, and an
important step in supporting a sustainable future for the City.
The Business Council respectfully urges the Newport Beach Planning Commission to adopt the
resolutions before you and support the Newport Beach Banning Ranch plan.
Sincerely,
Kate Kfimow
Vice President of Government Relations
cc: Newport Beach Planning Commission
Newport Beach City Council
Mr. David Kiff, City Manager
SNAPING ORANGE COUNTrS ECONOMIC FUTURE
a6ec EZ :6 ZLOZ 61, �0
&A
&� Z \
LIR-5 .. "-A
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
April 19, 2012
Newport Banning
Ranch
j t � �_; - - Newport Beam Residenliel NeghtaTOoda
Newport Shores
OLA. Sands
`FYRr(t „ 13
G) West Newport Beach
< 1 Nawporl Island Iompmaled
_.
Newport Beach Townhouse
l
vI C6) BeIwa COVae
1 •t._y ~ i
O Newport Crest
j 14' �I. O SaavnM Newport
ONewport Knolls
f � l e) park LMo
ill Versailles
1 11 vela Baltoa
'+ ; �■ 1 li Newport Tenece
Cwta Mesa Residenpal Nelghhorhopfs
T R/
�� - .:Ft � k 11 Calilomia Saaeroem
- NIYIiERITzI _I '\ 7, „f
ke
S _
1
9
_ r tl to
a �°
1,375 dwelling units
75,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses
75 -room resort inn
51.4 ac of parkland
252.3 ac of open space, including:
220.9 acres of habitat
9.5 acres of public interpretive trails
2.6 acres of water quality and
detention basins
16.5 acres of oil production
2.8 acres of oil site buffers
General Plan Amendment
Circulation Element
Code Amendment
Prezoning /Rezone
Planned Community Dev. Plan
Master Development Plan
Tentative Tract Map
AHIP
Development Agreement
Studv Sessions
11/03/11 EIR Process
01/19/12 Subdivision & Circulation
02/09/12 Parks, Open space, &Trails
02/23/12 Land Use & Development
03/08/12 EIR
Public Hearings
03/22/12 EIR
04/19/12 Project
05/17/12 Project
TBD City Council public hearing(s)
NQWP�R
P
OQ 6�
i
f r,
kb �',
• Mix of housing types
• Consolidated oil operations
• Majority open space
o Street & trail linkages
Sustainable development
"Village Center"
OII
wet
Bra
O
4� II
0
tP `.
N
sm
N
Top of Edge —
of Bluff
aback from Tol
.f Edge of Bluff
AR.•s¢. ea..mN
Q nmuo�.ira�m
� NtlaCeurtXOrtm
o w•e. r••
� ea.¢IO.avn.,oNrl
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
MASTER
ClIy of Ne
Nature Vernal Pool
Center • Interpretive
> Area
z URBAN
Open Space COLONY
Preserve
BtU�
pl00,1
Open Space Preserve
\
E
\
Exhibit 3 -12
North Family Village
¢rbm.k�l�*.��>R¢iYyY�Mn�R�Y�I �p•mr
ONE
Dlidated Q
atinns
�a
�e
•rly /
Ne
I
ite
Conservation.
it Conservation
n
9
- exclusive Access Easement
1 Areas in the Open
based upon the Habitat
,A) Odter types of
Planning Areas .
tabve wetland habitat for
the basin. These basins
tr maintenance
in within the phystwt limns
caw4es are performed on a
to
6b 5
b
,e 1
5b
1 Southern Arroy
7 j' 1�3c CSS /Grassland.0
to
lb
1 1 4b
! vi�� s Otte
---..
a Souilterly
j ( Oil Site Buffer /
\.• J�, to
W Wen
`- 1 f
_ y
!l
MOE
vxm�e.
anx.s�,
� +...tea »o..�.s......
o. t
.cd.
,�� preryu.u.
_ E0,b,14 -1
Master Trails and Coastal Access Plan
r MR oEVE WENT,um
Dnen Snag
\mrhnlY llabiw `
!, Mitlorb /Rvmnb Nw •
lolledH
M�r11a /►raaNw Aae
3rMQe�
ncoE �
NMan
m•.' Wnhedr
Oil tiN[ Bulb
N�n.M1MY OY
Cnerrdida.im She
uuro
wnY+a+� +w
ar r+.wr....n4•
wd r.r 11
�tlLr•
•.y
ew /
Nrtrh up+ne c5s/cuWme Mn
Mlvnr Arr GrnYane Ann
Nmh Uld+nd C55 /GnWaM Mra
Nmrh[rn A G,"ane Arta
Suvrh Up4vefP5 /Gr+aJW M[a
� tt
•( - V.W Pool Vra fi. Arta
a
.w
LW+BIM
(SS /C.++rWe M.
$unml q +lpe
PoA
Wen Can Inpway Mff Art+
6.180:13 -3
Open Space Preserve
Project Development Plan
Swnbve Mmrn/ -
055 /GraWUd Arty
[NRUmr P+.iNNJiutMU e
-- //�
j��IM1alr
W
r/
Opnniunr Slle
V
snmhnly
- \ %
Y
Oil9.e llulln I
I
$unml q +lpe
PoA
Wen Can Inpway Mff Art+
6.180:13 -3
Open Space Preserve
Project Development Plan
C
S
t
ncal
vmlw„
Fmbrai
4en
IfG�NU_
I'1�1
III I
i�
T,IWn r.JUk,a
Nm WI Puk
� d 1
}
% N,Ime Comm
nsr.�
N'nn llwllrrr
IMruloa Ww
T Vveal Pool Imvprnl.c rkrva
•) wv.n
�TNmW Bldf Park
H.M1k9O
CY
s' uua.e
!\ \°'°( v nh cammllwn
�r
`
P.k C'PPUUOiry
Puk
.l — Saath COmmonin Park
t S .h Blurt Puk
S.nxl mNa
■ Local- serving commercial
Small boutique hotel
Active park
Possible school
r' Open North 810 Park
s�.
Space r \ ?C
Preserve
Dpi
� � 1
LAI
Open
Space
Preserve
r� v.
Urban Flats
IMF Slacked Flats)
(G.oe R.
Commend Y
Rewertial Above)
EPbibrt 3 -1
Urban Colony SPA 12b
Conceptual Development Plan
.WSTEN fAE ,LOPME1,tr P1AN l ) -' F2 9R �.=.. —h
(Gmund-FIpo1 Commazciat/
' _
PW
Residengal Above)
Pla[e
\ Free - Standing Commerdel
KIRA
abod yte
_
Urban Colony SPA 12a
Protect Development Plan
MASTER •EVELOFMENT ULAN
.... axas
x.... r.u....,.
I t[n it—
South
Bluff Park
ant
Resort I
-v._-
1I Flala l Setback from
Top, of Edge
of Bluff
IUH
• Top of Edge
of Bluff
F Ihibir 3 M
Resort Colony SPA 13b
Project Development Plan
HASTEN DEVE�DPMEI�[TVGN ' I I T A 1Rwo rOeh
Resort Co /ooy Road
Resort
nn
Open Space
Preserve `
of BWH -
7 - 77
Coast
Top of Edge
of Bluff
-
r
&him 119
Resort Colony SPA 13a
Conceptual Development Plan
a/R STER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
V 9 *xm „'A
_. ._.._.._.._.._.__.._.._.._.._..
;.
\ IiLnn i Wmn
I \
_\
N.n It. I \ 11,,
� �' wnnh I muh \ illApv
I
;.t
� Itrvmt COlunv
I iA
Exhibit 3-10
Villages and Colonies
NIMPORT nwNING RANCH Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LuY .rF Nnrpml Nnnan Cublmnu
J v.a..�WHwn..lsio- duF�n.l sis.n-
\
� CsfW HOIY l$FU 9s..rt1
\,
c+.c..ISO -Z,w
I
WaCaN He.Wo- KWAYn.E
�GSn COU1 He T..ISiOCYtr6iuny..
I
WIq HM.IMFA 9 k. 1W
RIYI Fn W J
�
p F:Q
.IIWI(M A-
� UbnFYn IMFA�SWLCFL.Y
'
l
N.n It. I \ 11,,
� �' wnnh I muh \ illApv
I
;.t
� Itrvmt COlunv
I iA
Exhibit 3-10
Villages and Colonies
NIMPORT nwNING RANCH Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LuY .rF Nnrpml Nnnan Cublmnu
eeekem cam(
(L9de0) PdentielRrnic Ames
ril
m SNSfeMeA Pert
Ago $peGeIRW �.
TWLm(6 Z)
PVW¢ Beshacm
& IdV (Mh
bYMege)
Agc lizaC
TO LW (2 5
-J
SollOell fiob -- i
areney
dme League . --
Fiele omney
Pudic r
(f65• % spSPeces)
a
b�
J /Q.
� `.
I< Q
��' rlEwtpnrcN£Sz
' _ , COMMUNNv
eememffr
Exhra63-68
North Community Park
Grande ACVSSS
RPPE /Trell
� �2 \
Wafer Ouallry �
PPLIIc Access
omewey
eeekem cam(
(L9de0) PdentielRrnic Ames
ril
m SNSfeMeA Pert
Ago $peGeIRW �.
TWLm(6 Z)
PVW¢ Beshacm
& IdV (Mh
bYMege)
Agc lizaC
TO LW (2 5
-J
SollOell fiob -- i
areney
dme League . --
Fiele omney
Pudic r
(f65• % spSPeces)
a
b�
J /Q.
� `.
I< Q
��' rlEwtpnrcN£Sz
' _ , COMMUNNv
eememffr
Exhra63-68
North Community Park
- T Picnic Area Proposed �.
m Buffer Landscape's Joint -Use Pu1N
to 9bvk \ `r Planting along — Private Parking
Mesdllghts y \, Property Line for 20 + 1- Spaces
15TH STPEEr
Planting Ecotone
from Turf to Native /r, I J1
Natural Landscap@ - _ - -;
h'-
�• Open Play Turf
IIIIIII
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
CENTRAL COMMUNITY PARK -
NEWPORT CREST t —✓ -I /�.r'
COMMUNITY
i1.
Exhibit 3.6b
Central Community Park
Project Development Plan
a
Ll
�J
y .
SOUTH COMMUNITY
PARK
t
�.' )SUNSET RIDGE
PARK
<s
Family Picnic Area/
Open Play Turf
Sunset Ridge
Access Road
(Approximate Location)
Exhibit 3 -6c
South Community Park
NEW'° RT BANNING Project Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN I I ... ruscoc RMh
-
i
TA
R
•' I
PORT
RES
�' : ..............
Bars
Resort Ancillary Uses
Oil Operations
Community Parks
Minor Modifications
Substantial Conformation
Residential Transfers
Commercial Transfer
Retaining Walls
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17302
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
LFDAL DCSCRIP770N
•W1 Y10151'.'C'•0 W. 4iw MYtwlY InR.M M CSI w MRM!
rw mum r m•5[. Snrt � uinooM•, u mssw aY •IMO ar f•e nwt+l5ts
P M f1Y 0f WKOOf MMIMY YO OtIEA R. W11I M nI1Ml N IY111fN. aM
C1Y F0. Y0f II00 M( RtS1♦10f N1RYa5 0I M14 A/QM YMM1 tl' l0t Mm0
4#W11. CYIwM\ M • WMM Y A[ WrrW LMIYW R' SWt• Mt ft5dm9
Saar i n¢ a5 a nm+s, swims ar as •sores rnanr, uiiwmu.
LV4AINA IIIAY �10.1a
10
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
1 intersection in Newport Beach
8 intersection in Costa Mesa
15 percent of market rate units
5 percent Very Low (69 units); or
10 percent Low (138 units ); or
15 percent Moderate (2o6 units)
50 percent onsite
In -lieu fees
Off -site
Land dedication
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
OF THE PROPOSED
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FINAL DRAFT
DECEMBER 29, 2011
Prepare for
City of Newport Beach
Prqmrod by
Applied Development Economics
uu PdaRk n zeu<. wpm 5r+) • Wd wC,ck. r okra 94596 -(n5)914-8712
21rt1 Rive, M,. D, Sww 168 • SeciwcrW, CA 95833 • (916) 921 t 562
mmv.vdemacwn
APPLIED >
DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMICS
'r.
Open space preservation
Public coastal access
Excess parkland dedication
Oil field remediation
Water quality
Circulation improvements
Public benefit fee
Net fiscal benefits
■ Housing opportunities
■ Fire station improvements
Sustainable design
I
\ IiLen i Wmn
I \
_\
\
—.. M1i1.MWliinllry \
J v.a.�WHnm.. rsio- dMF�en sis.n- \
QCSMeHme.l$FU9sveq '\
O a.en c+.c..ISO Z,w
WaCaN Henn (SFO- ChNHICeMy.�E I
� Owsn Cem He T.. ISFO cw"xcuny.. I
WIipF IMFA'9 k.'W.l
RIYI Fn W J F:Q FMe
pIFA -SWfM fWq
� UbnFYn IMFASWLCFL.Y ',
w..eu.. cimn.�iW
.11A ,
In�nr
Exhibit 3-10
Villages and Colonies
NIMPORTn NINGRANCN Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LuY nl Nnepml Nnnan Cublmnu
-A9el MBwW.F
r;C
TralyrW MaPn1aFD�QdFM 3Ye -varel
�a\
ti` .
0 C®eW Namilso. SYCmg1
`
J ewmcam (WD. zia)
� Mm CwN Noma lsio.ciwmncauMenl
5
'�'�
�o .awce,nramwtsio.cmn.,�cawv.,e,
;r
O wYpaFm 1YFA. avaae FieAl
\'
Recn Ln Te 0.ppniw
®IMFA61aeYY
1
fYlf1
® ILEen FW IYFA 9Yt1N ilelvV
MI[Nllq WmMUFI
\
\ Ui mCowvy
fS
North Fe iy VUIW
So Fa ly Vifti,
Raw. Colony
Exhibit 3 -10
,» Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN i1� a( I(V^
L/fy of Newport aeaca
eremte. t� +a�rrmnmyrmeer_�eae� +carmeu�� �q�e�r
\
- \ ; � Urban CoboY
fS
Nwab Family VUIW
sZ r
Sovit Family Villagi,
Arl I P� Rewn Colony
i m�>a Pea.
Exhibit 3 -10
,» Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN i1� a( I(V^
Clly of Newport aeacb - CaINaFnu
eremte. t� +a�rrmnmyrmeer_�eae� +carmeu�� �q�e�r
�TraeebN MmrlaFD -QOIFM BYe -vnel
�'\ - y�%'
� 6'r
0 Cm.W NamilsD. SYCng1
� �
J ewmcam (WD. Z.)
Mmcoun llwra lsio.ciwmrlcauMen)
5�,. �jvl 11
�o .amce,nramwtsio.cme.,�cawv.,e,
t /(
A
0 wYpa Fm IYFA. avaae FieAl
1.1
Peamluoe�e Pa.eniw
®IMFA�nmcYefYlal
1
®IaW�FW IYFA�9YtlN ilelvV
MI[Nllq WmMUFI
1
Sovit Family Villagi,
Arl I P� Rewn Colony
i m�>a Pea.
Exhibit 3 -10
,» Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN i1� a( I(V^
Clly of Newport aeacb - CaINaFnu
eremte. t� +a�rrmnmyrmeer_�eae� +carmeu�� �q�e�r
I
I
KCf
Wprr.
Mn
_.. hqW Bp MnPry
7,. a Hwn -ISF
C.. NV,.s (5FD
_j brn Ce .6 D
Mtiv CV,I NVmnrS
o,Pn CwN XOmNI
JISP FNrf INFA 54
Feel wn mJ FW.)
�MFA � 9sYW FW s)
Mh.1VS CanmsrcV
i ll�,
I .e
Exhibit 3-10
Villages and Colonies
NIMPORTn NINGRwNCN Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CnY •r Nv.ryFf 9..Fn C.I,t.Fm. ,
m
s
z
I
\ Urban Colony
\ f
'k,/
AcoF
r+euardn
anaaand,
Area
�.. ",act SM Boarder,
iraedone Honor (SR) - owl Fawn Sdo-van
Coastal Xarm(S () - SdsYad)
Beach Cho as(SFO -ZAw)
( 1 Madr Cmd Honn (WD - CIWw /Caurthed)
0 Gncen Court HOrrw ISFC -
LdaYrrLawryw[
Nnaga'u%tMFA SaGC]FWt
Resort inn and FormFlawFI
(MFA 9ackMFwdw
Oroen FMn (MFA-SxhM PobY
MkaOLro C.1.1.d
\ reennv. wage
Ynt lllL y
O[LaV
NMMSn
1. cand
North Family Village
South Family Village
Resort Colony
c.,.hnge
Pe,
Exhibit 3 -10
Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT
— IC71Z Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Newport Beach - California i - ® }FKaE a -tymtt
adwww- er. rCnaa +noauywmww- rsaa+ara.- rrlar.� .weo�a
mwa
i
I
i
COE
,ra.b.
R
line,
Ama
•I pmpe sw eouw«
� rrearo«.I Home. �sro- a«IFm�ns�eF -v «�
O CovW Homes (SFD - Sift Y")
I� 6ftm Co11gn(5F0 -LLm
Mdu Court Hann (sco - ClutlmM -niaw)
- GerMn CwM Mmm.(SFO. CNtl«FOURryn
Viilare Flab o4FA -SM1MW FIM)
R. Mn and Rme F.
IMFA -$bdBU Flats)
L_J UMn Fbb (MFA -SbcxM Fleby
M� COmrwaY
T Urban Colony
7( \
�n a e.w•
veinl .,
South Family Village
Exhibit 3 -10
Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Newport Beach - California I
Nlh S
- -.I PrnPd Sw BourWr,
Q 'j y � 5 '
\ MSS- that Fran $IOYMEI
cii o mrmslSFO- Sift YN1
Bach Cnllgnl5F0 -LLan
Mdu Coun na— (sco - cluwinc-niam) it
G rMn cwM Ilarres ISFO- CNtlriCouRryrtll
Viilare Flab (MFA -BM1MW Fine)
Resort hn and Rmn F.
IMFA- SUcied FWpl
I. IUMnWbIMFA- SUe`w`FbbY I 'l
=.r
MIxM�OU COmrwaY i
South Family Village
Resort Colony
r,as I sxean R.Ne
rtenna. e.uge - v PvY
Y 11111 ��
n: l.l♦
Exhibit 3 -10
Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Newport Beach - California I
>uwars_..._ , waammm�rowr ..r- ry.e.aaM.- o.,- ae....mo..a
I
\ T Urban Colony
\ !
fg
ALOE
NYtlWt
\
Rmlrallon
�
Fres
\
Narth e,may vutag<
Nlh S
- -.I PrnPd Sw BourWr,
Q 'j y � 5 '
\ MSS- that Fran $IOYMEI
cii o mrmslSFO- Sift YN1
Bach Cnllgnl5F0 -LLan
Mdu Coun na— (sco - cluwinc-niam) it
G rMn cwM Ilarres ISFO- CNtlriCouRryrtll
Viilare Flab (MFA -BM1MW Fine)
Resort hn and Rmn F.
IMFA- SUcied FWpl
I. IUMnWbIMFA- SUe`w`FbbY I 'l
=.r
MIxM�OU COmrwaY i
South Family Village
Resort Colony
r,as I sxean R.Ne
rtenna. e.uge - v PvY
Y 11111 ��
n: l.l♦
Exhibit 3 -10
Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Newport Beach - California I
>uwars_..._ , waammm�rowr ..r- ry.e.aaM.- o.,- ae....mo..a
NYtlWt
•I pmpe sw eouw«
� rrearo«.I nomee �sro- a«IFm�ns�eF -v «�
O CovW Homes (SFD - Sift Y")
I� 6ftm Co11gn(5F0 -LLm
Mdu Court Hann (sco - ClutlmMw ri aw )
- GerMn CwM Mmme(SFO- CNtl«FOURryn
Viilare Flab (MFA -SM1MW FIM)
R. Mn and Rme F.
IMFA- $)xkeU Flats)
L_J UMn Fbb (MFA -SbcxM Fleby
M� COmrwaY
veinl .,
T Urban Colony
South Family Village
Exhibit 3 -10
�� Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Newport Beach - California I
C
n.
newel.
—.: pn,ac BYO BJYMwY
rra as HomeFISFD- DelF,a%S .vwl
toad nwmF ISFD- 9keyFN1
i BrNCdIgnIBFD -Z -LdI
Mcb COUrt Han® IBFD - Clunad Ownyod )
Ga. C.l . (Up - CNdwfi U ywr
0 WWRft (MFA- 6YGMFW)
® gaunt l nsE Rue F.
IMFA- SUakeEFYYM
® UMn FWh IMFA -SlWwd Fbny
Md C caa M
adnr a. new•
Y 11111 �i
O I.I♦
South Family Village
Rcsort Colony
SIrW Nape
PyY
Exhibit 3 -10
Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Newport Beach - California I I
evewsw_w_ nvrrrwlmpeemnr r>wn�frasd.- �Ja^..momm
\
Urban Colony
\
f f
\
�-
— NorWFamily Village
gip/
NMUSn
adnr a. new•
Y 11111 �i
O I.I♦
South Family Village
Rcsort Colony
SIrW Nape
PyY
Exhibit 3 -10
Villages and Colonies
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Development Plan
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Newport Beach - California I I
evewsw_w_ nvrrrwlmpeemnr r>wn�frasd.- �Ja^..momm
Keview Nroce
Dvervit:
PC & CC hearings
Coastal Commission — CDP /MCDP
City Considers Coastal Modifications
(PC & CC hearings)
Site Development Review (PC
hearings)
Grading & Building Permits
46
Newport Banning Ranch E R
Responses to Comments
Page 3 -33 The City evaluated whe&her the elimfna6fon of actess
from Wost Coast Highway wouid preclude scgnificent unavoidable
noise urripacts to certa`rrn residences in 71he Newport Crest
condbm'O'n urn development_ !Noise impacts from future traffic on
Sluff Road and 95th Street were evaluated in the !Draft SIR...
; - o-We.: RF Gbe gn�lusis etso conf rms that fon -gftr r�; R,
increases of some Newport Crest residences vroulld remio ft- bo e
the 5 d8A significance criteriion for noise increase. Therefore, the
proposed Prafect's noise inaacts as to some of the Newport
Crest residences are s6gnif cant and unavoidable.
I
L.s .OnWIMr
/c Community Transitions and Interface Key Map Exhibit 4.1 -1
AW*Wv ewrNV Rw.rh EAR
l�
7
r
M CNMa
1 !
_
v.ru ►mnr vn.i
WF.
rr
CIS w
1
t
5 -
-
,�• -- S.mFd, VWW
Ms. CW.,
L.s .OnWIMr
/c Community Transitions and Interface Key Map Exhibit 4.1 -1
AW*Wv ewrNV Rw.rh EAR
Awn/ Ma ~ clMou" Crbbw I I I I I I I
1bsOlrflpfwlMlA�f�A�.f 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
SOW wvda�
• b Q� IF4w.
dM"1 f"
f�
�'j n - M C..r♦
n - w R�II[luf
OW" Y44f tpt• ti' 1 .
•��� sw rr.. T
14 V.�1 aav
SedionEI -E1
Ll a�
•Ir#Mfr rwb ti
rlwsyr wsww.t
e •�
.f.
119W OM
11161111111111111 —
Section E2-E2
Central Community Park Interface with Newport Crest Condominiums
v.'w,na•1 BMvvV Rar" FIR -
w
a.A►c.,.f.+.r..
1 Iq MO /et SO4 !1!1
NMI YID bf4
Cs oWwrq
Ads
t,
f I 1 0 i II
tum tONi \LI•
Exhibit 4.1 -29
Newport Bar �ing Ranch EI
Responses to Comments
Letter from Cathy Mallkemus
Page 3,766,
4-12-8 Envi ronmental l pacbq: Impact Ana lysils - p.-ige .4.12-27
4. 4
The -docurnentstates that noise could be insta4ed
around, the second floor balconies. :o;f.N:ewpGrt. Crest homes
and that this :meas-ure is feasible. Is the a pplIcant suggesting
that we close an our open balconiot with walls??
Specifically,. what ` °barders"t is tho DER rotarring to and
1- - - - -�
w,ho d i inosif Via are fgas1b]'6?Z
�Ranch
Newport Bann' 'n ,g EIR
ns
Respoes to Cow amts
Res ponse to Letter from -C athy Ma Ike m us
Page 3-759f 0
I
-ed to allow the occupant to choose an o
6,4
closed 2osition.
L14-ii
Development of OC 3 s last large
coastal properties
*Site
Acres Residential Units
•Marblehead (San Clemente) 248 313
•Dana Point Headlands 121 118
•Bolsa Chica 2000 379
•Crystal Cove (Newport Shores) 980 635
•Castaways (Newport Beach) 133 119
*Banning Ranch 412 1375
19 11 asz - ey,4 -e r rfcoruo
Talking Point 41
• Traffic Impact Study No. TS2008 -02 Based on information:
the construction begun Costa Mesa based their traffic growth information by an
estimated 1% Prepared in accordance with Newport Beach's Traffic Phasing Ordinance
requires analysis be prepared based on traffic counts taken between Feb 2 — May 31. (NOT
DURING SUMMER MONTHS
• 65% of the Project traffic can be expected to travel along the street system in southwest
Costa Mesa
Talking Point #2
• Volume to Capacity Ratio (comments from CM 11/8/11 re DEIR traffic report)
Comment # 10 -- Page 4.9 -116: Table 4:9:34 exhibit shows projected increase in traffic due
to Project traffic distribution, reflects that approximately 35% of the Project traffic uses
17th Street. Considering the project trip generation of approximately 15,000 vehicles per
day, this translates to over 5,200 vehicles per day. However, the Table 4:9 -34 shows only
an increase of 3,912 vehicles. There should be an exhibit that shows clearly the level of
redistribution of background traffic with the construction of Bluff Road. Even with the
forecast as provided the volume to capacity ratio is over 0.90 for 17th Street as well as 19th
Street, resulting in a need for increased capacity on segments west of Placentia Avenue.
The need for this widening and timing should be addressed in the DEIR. Comment: The
Volume to Capacity ratio of 0.90 is considered to be less than significant. 17th street DIER
does not meet this criteria and mitigation is necessary because it is over 0.90
Talking Point#3 TRIP GENERATION
Comments: Trip Generation to and from Project is determined by:
• Development nodes
• Coded as separate traffic analysis zones
• In a distribution model
• Following different path assignments
• Best route to each zone
• Final traffic volumes on any particular street represent the sum of the trip assigned to that
particular path from each of the traffic analysis zones
• ff10 —The trip distribution exhibit (Exhibit 4:907) in the Draft EIR presents a general
indication of the distribution of Project traffic to /from the Project site to various off -site
destinations. However, because the proposed Project consists of several development
nodes throughout the Project site (which are coded as separate traffic analysis zones in the
distribution model), traffic follows different paths (assignments) to and from its
destinations, depending on the roadways that provide the best route relative to each zone.
For example, traffic from the resort inn /residential areas toward the south end of the
Project site would be more likely to use 15`h or 16th Street to get to the destinations to the
east; the residential areas to the north would be more likely to split up between 16th Street
and 17th Street to get to the same destinations to the east; and the mixed - use /residential
areas that straddle 17`h Street would be most likely to use 17th Street. The final traffic
volumes on any particular street represent the sum of the trips assigned to that particular
path from each of the traffic analysis zones. (NB response to above letter from Costa
Mesa's comments on the DEIR)
INTERNAL CAPTURE OR PASS -BY TRIPS
Comments:
• The Trip Generation Handbook indicates pass -by or internal capture rating to be at 34%
in peak pm traffic
• This Traffic Impact Study has adjusted this 34% assumption to a 10% assumption for a
"conservative approach"
• FROM 34% to 10%
• This report then estimates the combined trip totals (to and from project for all purposes
for the Project) at approximately 15,000 per day across connecting roadway network
• The Project Trip Generation Numbers DO NOT REFLECT trip generation numbers
creating impact OUTSIDE the project?
Internal capture or Pass-by Trips have the same affect... Motorists who are already traveling
on the surrounding roadways from one place to another, and who stop at the Project site on
their way to another location.... Project passing the commercial center on their way
to /from their homes, as well as other motorists who would use Bluff Road /North Bluff Road
and 17'h Street to get to /from PCH once the roadway system for the Project is in place. The
project assumes a pass -by rate of ten percent (10 %). However, The Trip Generation
Handbook indicates pass -by trips is 34% in the PM peak hour. Ten percent (10 %) is assumed
here, for a conservative approach. Bottom line —Trip Generation Handbook indicating 34%
for pass -by rate has been adjusted for a "conservation approach" down to 10% so they do
not add to proiect trip generation numbers that create impact outside the proiectl
Combined trip totals (to and from project, all purposes) for the residential, resort inn, and
commercial components of the Project would be 14,989 trips per day across connecting
roadway network. Street parking on the project site would be available to the public for
beach access. (Information from Consultant, Kinley -Horn)
Bottom line - -- adding 3,000 additional people in project development (household of 2) (then
including pass through traffic) - -- no matter how you calculate the numbers (through
development nodes separate traffic analysis zones, reducing internal capture and pass -by trips
from 35% to 10 %) we will experience definite Significant Unavoidable Impacts.
MORE IMPORTANTLY THAN THESE VARIOUS METHODOLOGIES UTILIZED FOR THIS TRAFFIC
IMPACT STUDY IS:
• TRAFFIC — "Additional Consultant Agreements provided in
City Council Staff Report Dated 1/12/10 Agenda Item #10
Traffic Analvsis
• Original Traffic Study information appeared on Newport Beach
website March 7, 2012) was prepared by Antony Brine, City Traffic
Engineer, David Keely, Senior Civil Engineer and Mike Erikson as
Contract Traffic Engineer.
Consultant Amendments — RBF Consulting Traffic
• Staff Report - Traffic and engineering services including contract
traffic engineering review of initial DIER report, EIR traffic report,
review of transportation and circulation issues, work with OCTA on
potential MPAH amendments — time and expenses not to exceed
$100,000 additional scope $85,000 —Total $185,000. Consultant
will provide the following additional contract traffic engineering and
development review services to the City of NB in conjunction with
processing of the NBRD. Mike Erickson will function on behalf of the
City Public Works Department during the review of the development
subdivision map application, coordinating the preparation of the
traffic report in support of the NBR EIR, reviewing the work product
of the project traffic consultant, reviewing transportation and
circulation issues associated with the project, reviewing and making
recommendations on road alignments, intersection configurations
and street sections coordinating with OCTA during the processing of
the project by the City and on any required cooperative MPAH study,
preparing analysis and reports as required monitoring schedules and
taking actions as are necessary and appropriate to ensure that City -
required reviews and actions take place in a timely manner. Other
comments: Remapping, recalculations and rewriting of reports to
reflect revisions and corrections to info on grading and limits of
disturbance by the applicant.
(Comment: Due to the fact that the Secretary the Newport Beach
Planning Commission, Commissioner Ameri, is Senior Vice President of
RBF Consulting and Mike Erikson has represented RBF Consulting
throughout this process, and above Consultant Amendment reflects
authorization for $185,000 for services rendered would be considered a
conflict of interest.)
Consultant Amendment— Bon Terra -Traffic
• Revise intersection analysis and ADT (average Daily Traffic) forecast
to reflect the applicant project revisions submitted to the city in
November 2009.
• Incorporate the applicant proposed mix of residential land uses,
modifications to roadway (page 12) revised number of dwelling units
in specific portions of the project area, and subsequent incorporation
of revised traffic analysis project trip rates
• Develop average daily traffic (ADT) forecasts for all study scenarios
for roadway segments (adjusted for street usage to and from
scenarios not totals)
• Revise intersection analysis and ADT forecasts to reflect the applicant
project revisions submitted to City in November 2009
• Forecast traffic volumes (based on applicant's November 2009
revised project land use proposal) with respect to flow conservation
to and from adjacent intersections
Reflects applicant's desire to have report based on 2009 information
for a 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis Report
April 19, 2012 www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949 250 0909
fax 949 263 0647
Chair Michael Toerge and Planning Commission Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RE: Newport Place Affordable Housing Amendment and Newport Banning Ranch
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
Dear Chair Toerge and Planning Commission Members:
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and
community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for
families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the
Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange
County to create strategic and effective housing and land -use policies that has led to new
construction of homes affordable to lower income working families.
With a significant lack of quality affordable homes, it is evident that Orange County is a
very expensive place to live in. While the economic downturn has allowed home prices to
be at an all time low, many lower income working families are still not able to purchase a
home and remain as renters; however, many of these renting families continually struggle
financially to live in the city they work in. Over the past year, Orange County had the
biggest rental increase in Southern California (13 %) and compared to other cities in
Orange County,' housing costs are significantly higher in Newport Beach .2
As the City moves forward in addressing the housing needs for all income segments of
the community, the Commission would like to acknowledge and commend the City's
leadership in facilitating and encouraging the development of homes affordable to lower
income families in the proposed Newport Place and Newport Banning Ranch
developments. The Commission believes the City is moving in the right direction in
implementing: 1) the City's 2008 -2012 Housing Element Housing Programs 3.2.2. and
3.2.3 in Newport Place and; 2) an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) for
Banning Ranch.
For the 2008 -2014 Housing Element planning period, the City's total Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA), including the un- accommodated portion of the 2000 -2005
RHNA, for lower income households are: 451 homes at very low - income, 319 homes at
low - income and; 442 homes at moderate- income. 3 To address the remaining RHNA
Rising Rents May Signal a Housing Market Recovery, Los Angeles Times, March 13, 2012
z City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element Draft, p. 5.30 and 5-3 1, August 2011.
t City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element Draft, p. 5 -45, August 2011.
Working for systemic change resulting in the production of housing for Orange County's extremely low income households.
Chair Toerge and Planning Commission Members
Page 2 of 3
April 19, 2012
needs, the City identified the John Wayne Airport Area and Banning Ranch as
opportunity sites suitable for residential development. In particular, the Airport Area was
identified as the "greatest potential" to accommodate the City's lower income RHNA
need of 770 homes and between 2010 and 2025, Banning Ranch is projected to represent
48 percent of the City's total new units.5 More importantly, these identified sites provide
a significant opportunity for the City to address its remaining RHNA needs for extremely
low -, very low- and low - income households. Providing an amendment to Newport Place
would permit residential development that includes a minimum of 30 percent of homes
affordable to lower income families.6 Also, the removal of the 10 -acre minimum site
requirement and allowing by -right development for multifamily housing affordable to
lower - income households is essential in encouraging and facilitating the development of
affordable homes in the Airport Area. In addition, Banning Ranch (subject to an AHIP),
is expected to provide the following: very low - income homes at 5 percent of total units
(69 homes) or; low- income homes at ten percent of total units (138 homes) or; moderate -
income homes at 15 percent of total units (206 homes) or; a combination of all three
income categories.'
In December 2011, the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) found the City's 2008 -2014 Housing Element in full compliance that was
contingent upon the following:
Successful implementation of Program 3.2.2, to remove the 10-
acre minimum site requirement and Program 3.23, to allow by-
right development for multifamily housing affordable to lower -
income households are critical to facilitate residential
development within the John Wayne Airport Area (PC I I and
PC 15).'
The Commission supports the City's efforts in planning the development of homes
affordable to lower income working families. The proposed zoning amendment in
Newport Place and AHIP implementation in Banning Ranch will not only provide quality
and affordable homes for the City's work force, but it will also build and contribute to a
more economically competitive and opportunity rich community.
a City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element, p. 5 -54, November 2011.
Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I, Newport Banning Ranch Project, City of Newport Beach, p. 4.7 -15,
Sept. 2011.
s City ol'Newport Beach Planning Commission StalTReport Agenda Item 2, p. 1, April 19, 2012.
' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report Agenda Item 3, p. 15, April 19, 2012.
a Letter from California Housing and Community Development to City of Newport Beach, p. I, December 2011.
Chair Toerge and Planning Commission Members
Page 3 of 3
April 19, 2012
Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings and additional information on the
proposed Newport Place and Newport Banning Ranch developments. If you have any
questions, feel free to contact me at (949) 250 -0909 or cesarc @kennedycouimission.org.
Sincerely,
I �C�e
(((
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
cc: Melinda Coy, State Department of Housing and Community Development
To: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
From: Norman J. Suker P.E., T.E
Re: April 19, 2012 Public Hearing for the Newport Beach Banning Ranch Development
Dated: April 19, 2012
I object to the approval of the Newport Banning Ranch (NBR) project as proposed and request
that all my comments be included in the records of any and all proceedings relating to the
Newport Banning Ranch project or its successors.
I request that no action by the Newport Beach Planning Commission be taken at this time
regarding the NBR project for the following reasons;
A) The OCTA Board has removed the 19" Street Bridge across the Santa Ana River. The
City of Newport Beach is contesting the Board's action and until this issue is reversed, the
commission must accept the fact that the 19" Street Bridge has been removed from the
OCMPAH.
B) The City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element Policy CE 3.1.3 Regional
Consistency states "The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways shall be
consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways ". The City's Master Plan is
now inconsistent with the OCMPAH.
C) The NBR DEIR traffic section states that if the 19" Street Bridge is removed from the
traffic analysis, that the intersection of the proposed Bluff Rd. and West Coast Highway will
have an Level Of Service (LOS) of "F ". No mitigation measures were proposed.
D) Caltrans has not approved the construction of the Bluff Rd. and West Coast Highway
intersection or a traffic signal at the intersection because the City of Newport Beach has not
applied for the necessary encroachment permits. Caltrans has stated in correspondence to the
City of Newport Beach dated December 9, 2009 regarding the Sunset Ridge Park that "The
proposed signalized intersection ( Bluff Rd. and West Coast Highway ) is not recommended ... ".
See attached letter.
E) Failure to remove the bridge from the City's Circulation Element will jeopardize
Measure "M" funding.
F) The California Coastal Commission has environmental issues with the proposed Bluff Rd.
at West Coast Highway that needs to be resolved.
Norman J. Suker, P.E., T.E
Newport Crest Resident
12110/2009 14:51 9497242592 CALTR" PAGE 01
J
Mff
r'.' 0.. :J:�: 4i� G�. r•; :Ir :uJ.h'y,t :nd. .: • .!A..; AJ,..
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Dishtct 12
02= t� -10.q
3337 Michelm Drive. Suite 380
r
To .:NA
Irvine, CA 926126894
Toi (949) 724 -2267
c*-"eu. PI-A an toe,
Fax: (949) 724 -2592
ne x cI G C
December 9, 2009
Past iC�N Fax Note 7671
02= t� -10.q
y 1
r
To .:NA
FWm V. AO) S
c*-"eu. PI-A an toe,
co' cA r.TVaAnS
ne x cI G C
Ph AI110- 12 &7
Fm a c, 611 y - Z.;?d 9
Fax 'i.a7ii _ I?ar4t ei
Janet Johnson Brown
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915
Subject: Sunset Ridge Park
Dear Ms. Brown,
Fleryowp6werl
Ra emwiflatort
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH #: 2009051036
Log #: 2285A
SR -1
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the Sunset Ridge Park Project. The project proposes construction of a City park with
active and passive recreational uses and an access road to the park through the contiguous private
property to the west (Newport Banning Ranch, SCH #2009031061). No nighttime lighting, other than
for public safety, is proposed. No nighttime park uses are proposed. The project would include the
following uses and facilities: I baseball field; 2 soccer fields; playground/picnic area; memorial garden;
overlook area with shade structure; pedestrian pathways and bike rack; restroom facilities,, up to 119
parking spaces. A signal is proposed on West Coast Highway at the park access road. The City also
proposes to widen a portion of the northern side of West Coast highway from Superior Avenue to a
point west of the park access road. The nearest State route to the project site is SR 1.
The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is. a responsible agency
on this project and has the following comment:
1. Table 1 -1, Threshold 4.3 -3 in the Level of Significance After Mitigation column should read,
"Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporation".
2. Tim proposed signalized irttersection is not recommended based on the MUTCD, chapter 4,
which reads, "a traffic control signal should not be installed if it shall seriously disrupt
progressive traffic flow".
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could
potentially impact State transportation facilities, If you have any questions or need to contact us, please
do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487.
Sirxxrely,
Mary Molavi, Acting Bratuch Chief
Local DevelopinetttlIntergovernmental Review
"Carftw mW"r mobNUy anon C ltfm 4"