Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0.1_Memorandum_PA2008-114Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949)644 -3200 To: Planning Commission From: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager Date: February 23, 2012 Re: Study Session on Newport Banning Ranch: Land Uses, Development Regulations, and Architectural Guidelines This is the third in a series of study sessions on the proposed Newport Banning Ranch project. The purpose of the study sessions is to provide the Planning Commission and the public the opportunity to review and discuss details of the proposed project prior to public hearings. Planning Commission public hearings on the project will be conducted following the study sessions. This study session will focus on the proposed land uses, property development regulations, and architectural guidelines. The primary documents for this discussion will be the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (NBR -PC) and the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan (NBR -MDP). The NBR -PC would establish the allowable land uses, general development regulations, and implementation and administrative procedures. The NBR -MDP would provide detailed design criteria for each land use component to guide the review of subsequent development approvals. These include architectural guidelines and as well as plans for landscaping, landform alteration, trails, roadways and infrastructure, and water management. The study sessions are for discussion purposes only and no action will be taken by the Planning Commission. Interested parties are encouraged to limit their comments and questions to the issues that are the subject of each study session. Public notice of the study sessions was provided by the posting of the agenda at City Hall and on the City's website. In addition, notice was distributed through the City's Select Alert system and through a press release. 1 Correspondence Item No. Ola From: Terry Welsh Newport Banning Ranch Study Session PA2008 -114 To: Burns, Marlene; Michael Toerge; Subject: Letter to Commissioner Toerge Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:05:21 AM Commissioner Toerge: Thank you for holding the Banning Ranch study sessions. These study sessions are necessary to allow the planning commissioners to conduct a critical analysis of the proposed Banning Ranch development - - -a development that plans for almost 30% more residential units than all of Newport Coast (based on 2000 data) on a parcel about 1 /10th of the size of Newport Coast - - -not to mention the wealth of biological resources on Banning Ranch that would be affected. After having attended the first two sessions I can make the following observations and recommendations. 1. While NBR LLC has every right to promote their proposal, the study sessions might not be the appropriate place for them and their paid consultants to have an organized block of time to "sell" their proposal to the commissioners. NBR and their consultants speak in glowing terms about their proposed project, gushing over features which they think will win favor with the Coastal Commission, and simply ignoring any negative impact that their project will have. Again, I support their right to promote their investment, but I question whether the commissioners' limited time is best spent listening to these "sales pitches" by consultants who are on the payroll of NBR. What is most surprising is that NBR is being allowed an organized block of time to do this, while the public, who have been following this issue for years and have much, much, much to say, are being limited to the time left over when NBR is finished speaking, and then only allowed individual three - minute speaking slots. 2. Rather, the study sessions should be devoted to understanding the impacts of the proposed Banning Ranch development and how the impacts will affect the planning process. Again, the public, including individual citizens as well as community organizations such as Banning Ranch Conservancy, Sierra Club Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force, SaveBanningRanch.org, Banning Ranch Defenders, Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach, and Concerned Citizens of Newport Crest, have been following this issue, in some cases, for over a decade, including conducting research, gathering data and analyzing the proposed project. This is the kind of information that needs to be at the center of any critical analysis for planning purposes. This is information that is glaringly missing from the draft EIR. NBR and their consultants surely need to be present at these study sessions, but their purpose should be to provide critical facts and answers, rather than use up the sessions with large blocks of time devoted to "warm and fuzzy" portrayals of the proposed project. 3. It is obvious that more study sessions need to be held. There are 18 sections of the draft EIR that should be studied, each with its own session, and many of these, such as Biological Resources, Circulation, and others, clearly need more than one study session. For example, I spoke briefly (for 3 minutes) on vernal pools/ wetlands on 1/19. I was barely able to scratch the surface. I could easily have spent the entire 90 minutes on this important subject, which will have profound effects on the tract plan for the project. The data in the draft EIR is extremely limited and fails to acknowledge most of the vernal pool /wetlands on the Banning Ranch mesa. Vernal pools /wetlands and their inhabitants are only one small part of the overall ecosystem. Another extremely important component is the coastal sage scrub and its bird population. Again, the data in the draft EIR is far from complete. Before the Newport Beach Planning Commission passes judgment, the Commission is obligated to conduct a critical analysis of the project in the form of study sessions in which all the important data is discussed. Even if these extra study sessions extend the review process for another several months, it is time well- spent. 4. Community organizations should be given block time. The Banning Ranch Conservancy asked for such a block for the 1/19 session, but was refused. When we asked whether individual citizens could cede their public comment time to us, again we were refused. On 1/19, while many excellent comments were delivered by the public, they were not presented in an organized manner. By gathering data from the public in short three minute spots, the Commission is denying itself the knowledge and understanding it seeks. Additionally, the study sessions should be held in the evening, rather than 4:30. I work in Anaheim and had to make arrangements at my job to leave by 3:45 to be at the Council Chambers by 4:30. ] suspect many others found the 4:30 start time impossible to make. 5. While the public has raised excellent points and has provided data on the proposed Banning Ranch development in the 60 -day draft EIR comment period, there is reason for concern that these points and data will not be reviewed by the City Council. I was told during the Sunset Ridge Park EIR approval process by one councilperson that they had not reviewed the entire EIR, nor the public's comments, nor the responses by the consulting firm, but were rather just planning on relying on City's staff's recommendation. At over 7000 pages, I suspect the same will be true for the Banning Ranch EIR. Another reason for concern is that the EIR consulting firm is the same as that used for Sunset Ridge Park (Bonterra) and if you did review Bonterra's responses to the public's comments, you would find the responses were designed to defend the wording of the original draft EIR, rather than incorporate the comments and appropriately re -write the draft EIR. One important difference with the Banning Ranch proposed project is that the Planning Commission is taking an active role in the planning of this project. It is essential that the Planning Commission sees that a much more complete and vetted analysis process occurs with the proposed Banning Ranch development than occurred with the Sunset Ridge Park plan. 6. Finally, the proposed project is unparalleled in Newport Beach history for many reasons and will require the intense focus of the Planning Commission. Rather unique is the fact that the General Plan clearly makes a priority of preserving all of the Banning Ranch property as open space. As stated in the General Plan..... After receiving community input, GPAC (General Plan Advisory Committee) developed a "Vision Statement" a description of the City that residents want Newport Beach to be now and in 2025 —to serve as a blueprint for this General Plan Update. GPAC, with the assistance of planning professionals and using the Vision Statement as a guide, then developed this General Plan to ensure that the City achieves the vision by, among many other things, doing the following: ............. ■ Supporting efforts to acquire Banning Ranch for permanent open space Last Thursday, 2/9, you raised concerns that speaker Steve Ray was spending too much time on the General Plan priority that calls for the preservation of all of Banning Ranch as open space. You said, to the effect of, "These study sessions are supposed to be covering the development proposal..... not the General Plan priority." I am in agreement that the study sessions should focus on the development proposal. There are simply too many issues with the development proposal and any diversion into other matters draws the commissioner's attention from the task at hand. However, it is clear from some of the questions that commissioners asked of Steve Ray that there is much to be learned on the progress made by the Banning Ranch Conservancy and other groups towards the General Plan priority. One commissioner said something to the effect of, "It has been six years and there has been no progress towards the General Plan priority." I can personally attest, that after having chaired something like 110 meetings on Banning Ranch since 2006, there has been tremendous progress made towards the General Plan priority. I am convinced that what is clear is that there is little knowledge in City Hall about our efforts...... efforts that I am convinced can preserve ALL of Banning Ranch as open space in a better, less expensive, and more timely manner than NBR's proposal. In fact, what has prevented even further progress has been the unwillingness of NBR to even allow a non - binding appraisal of Banning Ranch for Measure M purposes (such a non - binding appraisal of Banning Ranch should be pre- requisite before the City will consider further processing of the NBR proposed development). Before passing judgment on the proposed Banning Ranch project, the Commission needs to understand and evaluate where things stand with the General Plan priority. So in keeping with your philosophy that the study sessions for the proposed Banning Ranch project should be kept separate from any discussion of the General Plan priority, I think it is appropriate that a separate series of study sessions devoted entirely towards the General Plan priority be held. One session could cover costs estimates, one could cover funding sources, one could cover clean up, and one could cover the future Banning Ranch Park and Preserve visioning process. This series could run concurrently with, or after the completion of, the current study sessions focusing on the proposed NBR development. In conclusion, the community supports the study sessions. The study sessions, if held in a thoughtful way, can be very helpful. Thank you for your consideration. I hope these observations and recommendations will serve the Commission well. Please share this with the other commissioners and planning staff. Terry Welsh President, Banning Ranch Conservancy Correspondence Item 01b �CV-IVED ay Newport Banning Ranch Study Session P PA2008 -114 February 11, 2012 Hi Patrick, COMMUNITY FEB 15 2012 C� DEVELOPMENT OZ- 0 rOF NEWPOO I should have cc'd you on the enclosed. Can you please ensure these comments are part of the Newport Banning Ranch administrative record? e Also, I wanted to suggest that at the beginning of the meeting on 2/23, you or the Planning Commissioner Chairman get a rough number of how many public comments will be made. This might help with overall 'meeting management'. So, if it looks like there will be a lot of public comments then perhaps ask the Applicant if they expect to use the entire hour for their overview and presentation. If they plan to use the whole hour, then you or the Chairman set expectations with the public at the onset of the meeting that each comment must be brief and to the point. Thanks very much, Patrick. Dorothy Kraus 10 Wild Goose Court Newport Beach, CA medjkraus @yahoo.com February 10, 2012 Subject: Newport Banning Ranch Study Session, February 9, 2012 Dear Chairman Toerge, Please include these comments in the City's administrative record for the Newport Banning Ranch project. Please see below for comments I prepared for last night's study session but was unable to deliver due to meeting time running out. 'My name is Dorothy Kraus, and I live in Newport Beach. I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief comment today. The Newport Banning Ranch dEIR states that their park requirement is 15 acres based on the City's subdivision code that there be '5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents'. The proposed 16 acre North Community Sports Park includes: 6 lighted tennis courts 3 lighted soccer fields 1 lighted basketball court 1 baseball field 1 softball field Skateboard park 2 tot lots 1 fitness par course Public restrooms And, 174 off - street public parking at two locations, plus the possibility of another 20 parking spaces in a third location. NBR dEIR Exhibit 4.8 -1, North Community Park is enclosed for reference This proposed Sports Complex is immense. Are surrounding communities such as Newport Crest, Newport Knolls, One Nautical Mile, and Brook View Newport expected to endure the noise, lights, traffic, pollution, and safety risks associated with this Sports Complex idea? (Highlighted for emphasis) In addition, the current park location doesn't work because it has been documented as a wintering site for the Burrowing Owl. I'd also like to make mention of the Coastline Community College project that is under construction at 1515 Monrovia. This is a 3 -story 55,000 square foot building with a 300 space parking lot directly adjacent to the structure. This facility butts up to the proposed Sports Complex. Please refer to the enclosed Newport Banning Ranch dEiR exhibit 4.8.10, Master Trails and Coastal Access plan, and envision the college right under the words '16th Street Parking Spaces', which is just slightly north of 15th street on Monrovia. Please also refer to the enclosed picture which was taken from Newport Crest of the construction going on at the college. Banning Ranch is in the foreground. The Newport Banning Ranch dEIR does not address the impacts that will result from this enormous Sports Complex and a 55,000 square foot facility existing side -by -side in such close proximity to residential communities. The degradation in the quality of life for people living in these communities will be significant. Consideration for moving this Sports Complex somewhere else needs to take place such as relocating it north of 17th street.' I'd also like to take this opportunity to appreciate your role as a Planning Commissioner. It must be a challenging job to represent such a beautiful city like Newport Beach with so many passionate constituents who desire to keep it pristine and beautiful. I must tell you that I was disappointed in the Study Session meeting last night. I felt that it was unfair that Mr. Steve Ray was put on the stop and blamed for taking up the public comment time when 3 times he tried to leave the podium. Mr. Tucker initiated the discussion on the Banning Ranch Conservancy's plan to acquire the property which unfortunately went on too long. This unfortunate event is a strong indication that the time of the day and duration of these study session meetings, and the inability for public comments to be made in excess of a few minutes is not working nor fair. However, I do appreciate that you encouraged Mr. Ray and all of the public to present letters to the Planning Commission making requests such as allowing extended time for the public to comment on a project that will have staggering implications to the City and people who live here. I hope the format of future Newport Banning Ranch Planning Commission meetings is changed to accommodate all vested parties. Thank you again. Respectfully submitted, Dorothy Kraus 10 Wild Goose Court Newport Beach 92663 medjkraus @yahoo.com 949 - 337 -6651 Enclosures NAIUSO PROPERTY • ' 16TH STREET :Y,,'•l — Fitness /Par Course \ CITYUTILITIJS j YARD - Inlelprelive GalheringI Seating Area "\ Safety Fencing 6 Tennis Cowls Pithlxd) ti Perking •- ' (19 + /- Spaces Decompose d— \�� ` - Landscape \ Granite Access \ \'' Road/ Trail ��' Buffer Edge \\ Water Quality —' \� - - Softball Basin - \\�\ �/ Field Overlay Public Access — - Driveway - Basketball Court Li hied _ 3Soccer Fields (8 ) Potential Area Piryilc (Lighted) OfRe)eb>a' Pa (399'x190) de fa )Zehrodm 9e) (y /Ag peclat t d Tot L 25) -- v day .. . if aLea e f __ fd.Qv ay PU V. NORTH COMMUNITY PARK NEWPOutnry T COMMmUNITY " -- Source: FORMA 2011 North Community Park Development Plan Exhibit 4.8 -3 Newport Banning Ranch EIR N o/7Tor wAE YC O N 5 U L T 1 N O a (rev 082311 IffO) R:IProleclslNevpwMl51Gmph"s EIR�a4.8J NC mrMarkDmPlanpdf I. I Ill to,; lital QM epjjg I