The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0.1_Memorandum_PA2008-114 (2)Memorandum 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: March 8, 2012 Re: Study Session on Newport Banning Ranch: Draft Environmental Impact Report This is the fourth study session 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. Unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission, this will be the last study session on the proposed project. This study session will focus on the findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR was prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Newport Beach City Council Policy K -3, "Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act." The EIR provides a comprehensive evaluation of the reasonably anticipated scope of the proposed project. It is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision makers and the general public regarding (1) the objectives and components of the proposed Project; (2) any potentially significant environmental impacts (individual and cumulative) that may be associated with the planning, construction, and operation of the project; and (3) appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these significant impacts. The City of Newport Beach is the "Lead Agency" for the proposed project under CEQA, and is principally responsible for approving the project. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in an EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. 1 In compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to maximize opportunities for the public and other public agencies to participate in the environmental review process. The scope of the EIR includes issues identified in consultation with the City during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period (March 18, 2009 to April 17, 2009); two public scoping meetings (both on April 2, 2009); and environmental issues raised by agencies and the general public in response to the scoping process and the NOP's circulation. The Draft EIR was released for public review and comment by the City on September 9, 2011. The 60 -day public review period ended on November 8, 2011. The City is in the process of evaluating all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR, and will prepare written responses to these comments. The response to comments will be presented to the Planning Commission prior the public hearings on the proposed project. Copies of the Draft EIR and related documents are available at the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at all branches of the Newport Beach Public Library, and on the City's website at http:// www. newportbeachca.gov /banningranch. 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. `a Consultant Presentation Item No. 0.1a Newport Banning Ranch Study Session PA2008 -114 Newport Banning Ranch Environmental Impact Report Overview March 8, 2012 Newport Banning Ranch Land Use Plan Exhibit 3-2 Ne"Wd SWMV Rmch OR Proposed Project • 401 acres (ac): 40 ac, in the City • 1,375 dwelling units (du) • 75,000 square feet (sf) commercial uses • 75 room resort inn • 51 ac. of park, including 27 -ac. Community Park • 252 ac. of open space, with trail system and pedestrian bridge Objectives of CEQA • Disclosure of environmental effects of a project • Identification of ways to avoid /reduce significant environmental effects • Prevent environmental damage by requiring feasible mitigation and alternatives • Foster interagency review • Enhance public participation Timeline Agency Meetings in late 2008 and 2009 Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) City of Costa Mesa City of Huntington Beach Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Notice of Preparation /Public Review March 18, 2009 to April 17, 2009 Two scoping meetings: Agencies & Public Timeline Continued Prepare Draft EIR including Technical Reports 60 -Day Public Review Period: Sept. 9, 2011 to November S, 2011 Responses to Comments Study Sessions Public Hearings What Does CEQA Require? - Consideration of all phases of a project, including development and operations - Comparison of existing environmental conditions (baseline) to future conditions following implementation What Does CEQA Require.? Environmental Impacts: Indirect Direct Short -term (e.g., construction) Long -term (e.g., operations) Cumulative Growth - inducing Unavoidable What Does CEQA Require? - Mitigation of Significant Impacts Project Design Features Standard Conditions and Requirements Mitigation Measures - Alternatives to the Proposed Project Environmental Topics Analyzed in EIR • Land Use and Related Planning Programs • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Geology and Soils • Hydrology and Water Quality • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Biological Resources • Population, Housing, and Employment • Recreation and Trails Environmental Topics Analyzed in EIR (Continued) • Transportation and Circulation • Air Quality • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Noise • Cultural and Paleontological Resources • Public Services and Facilities • Utilities Project Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward: • Development Consistent with County General Plan • Alternative Site • Construction of General Plan Roads Project Alternatives A: No Action /No Development B: General Plan Open Space C: Proposed Project With North Bluff Road to 17th Street D: Reduced Development & Reduced Development Area E: Reduced Development Area F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Alternative A: No Action/ No Development Ongoing Oil Operations Remains Unincorporated Orange County Alternative B. 0 General Plan Open Space Property Acquisition Oilfield Remediation Oil Consolidation Wetlands and Habitat Restoration and Long- Term Management Construction of Roadway Network Active Park Alternative C: Project With North Bluff Road to 17th Street Same Development as Proposed Project North Bluff Road Terminates Just North of 17th Street Alternative D: Reduced Development &Reduced Development Area 1,200 du (compared to of 1,375 du) 60,000 sf commercial in Urban Colony (compared to 75,000 sf) 15,000 sf of visitor - serving commercial (instead of 75 room resort inn) Approx. 39 acres of parks (compared to 51 acres). No Nature Center or Interpretive Trails 269 ac of Open Space (compared to 252 ac.) Development footprint decrease from 98 to 93 acres Alternative E. 0 Reduced Development Area Same number of dwelling units: 1,375 (T density) 60,000 sf commercial in Urban Colony (compared to 75,000 sf) 15,000 sf of visitor - serving commercial (instead of 75 room resort inn) Development footprint decrease from 98 to 93 ac. 269 ac. of Open Space (compared to 252 ac.) No Nature Center or Interpretive Trails 39 acres of park compared to 51 acres. Alternative Fee Increased Open Space and Reduced Development Same number of residential units (1,375 du): Higher density, smaller lots Development area decreases from 97 to 84 ac. No resort inn or visitor - serving commercial uses. Open space increases from 252 to 282 ac. No Nature Center or interpretive trails 60,000 sf of neighborhood commercial 35 ac. of parks, inc. 22 -ac Community Park Fully Mitigated Impacts • Land Use: Policy Consistency • Aesthetics and Visual Resources: Less than Significant Visual Character Impacts • Geology and Soils • Hydrology and Water Quality • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Biological Resources Fully Mitigated Impacts • Population, Housing, and Employment • Recreation and Trails • Cultural and Paleontological Resources • Public Services and Facilities • Utilities Land Use and Related Planning Programs • Would not physically divide an established community. • Consistent with applicable land use policies Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Views of site would be altered: less than significant impact • Topographical alterations: less than significant Exm" View. Pmpa Y .. (Nate: Lends inp m Sumo Ridge Pe Sd* C b dienpe l an fir eBencY eppmv ,) e..o':wmq.w�emv View 7 Resort Colony: Resort Inn Exhibit 4.2 -3a Ne.pa 8a Ra OR Yremn vutws.e.+.earouwre+x•. ,...� ..�..m Visual Simulations Key Map Exhibit 4.2 -2 Newport Bamm Ranh EIR �x x w.wtrvr a ww✓ P.op VreWINOt=LanauaD�ng on Surest RMpe PaM1 faBjeCmdirge EaseEmNW perry appwrta) s..Q VUS¢nmxmw View I Resort Colony Resort Flats Exhibit 4.2 -3b Newport Bm Ra OR F wm m �+swwwa.�ma�+w�N Ensune View ravuerv�ewvrmm Yew 2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Exhibit 4.2 -4 Report flarNrg Rardr DR Iti ®n rlpRVws�wsi v ..us+rr a. v VK.. Preps View . mm View 3 Resort Colony. Resort Flats Exhibit 4.2 -Sa Re.pvf sum* Ranch pR i.�wn�apl.µsweaaaoarueRMalt� I�IrN Yew 3 Resort Colony: Resort Inn Exhibtt 4.2 -5b .i.. Ex.t p V. w..o<vw.ra.w.w.YSw View 4 Open Space Preserve and Consolidated Oil Sites Access Road Exhibit 4.2 -6 NewpM 8a Rawwb EAR pmp��. View 5 Open Space Preserve and North Family Village Exhibit 4.2 -7 Newport Raining Rents EIR E.aang View 1617— 741= a� :vemrvev��av View 6 North Bluff Road at 19th Street Exhibit 4.2 -B N.,y aaM9Rauh OR �revm aer Exrs g V� Prepe V," ewcx+rbew Mla View 7 Urban Colony Exhibit 4.2 -9 Ab p dawn VReM'EIR �M1rOOl11 W IIMI��MxlaN_YrY�Y Pape Y (R The Caaane C..,.Mr CnW L..e.V Caller. atlaaeanrim. h pa mBye.gh1s &tl Y¢.I snulali ) sa.cvireeaas�mv View 8 Community Park and South Family Village Exhibit 4.2 -10 N.patBa Rack6R �d' ➢!ir'I r.ii P,.P t[I V. aw.:1 ..s.... .Il View 9 From Eastbound West Coast Highway Resort Flats Exhibit 4.2 -1 la Ale., taa Rash OR pV �11.N1R'IH..a�hala.�.iUMN .we .lr1M Prape Vier aR.cvuer�ewovrano view 9 From Eastbound West Coast Highway: Resort Inn Exhibit 4.2 -11 b A"w Ra.V Re M' E/R a�.�l OOIRM�YRITRPtl/dOl6111tl_�aJrnM Geology and Soils • Seismic Activity: Compliance with Building Codes • Faulting: Setback Zones • Soil Erosion and Sedimentation: Compliance with Best Management Practices and Regulatory Requirements • Grading: 2,500,000 cubic yards (cy) including approx. 900,000 cy of excavation activities and approx. 1,455,000 cy of corrective grading. Hydrology and Water Quality • Potential Water Quality Impacts: Construction of water quality basins Green Street Program (Low Impact Development Features) Compliance with Water Quality Management • Increased Runoff Captured in on -site basins, etc. • No development in 100 -year floodplain Hazards and Hazardous Materials Site Remediation Remediation of soils and removal of oil infrastructure, asphalt, concrete Remediation related to any methane & volatile organic compounds Estimated 246,00 cy: 138,00 cy hydrocarbon- impacted soil & 108,000 cy of road materials & concrete Hazards and Hazardous Materials Compliance with Final Remedial Action Program: Requires Approval and Oversight by Regional Water Quality Control Board and Orange County Health Care Agency Health Risk Human Health Risk Assessment Health risk associated with Toxic Air Contaminants for Off -Site and On -Site Receptors: Less than Significant based on SCAQMD Thresholds Population, Housing, and Employment No Impacts: Proposed Project is Consistent with Projected Growth for Site, City, and Region Recreation and Trails • Project Includes approximately 51.4 gross ac. of parkland, including 26.8 ac. for the public Community Park Exceeds park dedication requirements • Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge • Public Trails Cultural and Paleontological Resources • No impacts to known historical resources • Impacts to three archaeological sites • Potential impacts to paleontological resources Public Services and Facilities • Fire Protection: May require a temporary station to meet response times • Police Protection: No significant impacts • Schools: Available capacity • Libraries: No significant impacts • Solid Waste: No significant impacts Utilities • Water Supply: Can be served by City; Water Supply Assessment approved in 2011. • Wastewater Facilities: Adequate treatment capacity available • Energy: Electricity, Natural Gas: No significant impacts Significant Unavoidable Impacts Aesthetics and Visual Resources: Lighting Traffic Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions Noise Land Use Compatibility Aesthetics and Visual Resources: Lighting • "Dark Sky" Lighting Program: Adjacent to Open Space Preserve • Overall Lighting of Property, including Community Park • Introduction of Night Lighting Identified in City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR as significant and unavoidable Traffic • City of Newport Beach: Newport Blvd at West Coast Highway (Fully Mitigated) • City of Costa Mesa (Significant, Unavoidable): - Monrovia at 19th Street - Newport at 17th Street - Newport at 18th Street - Newport at 19th Street - Newport at Harbor Boulevard - Pomona at 17th Street - Superior at 17th Street Air Quality • Construction Emissions: NOx • Long -Term Operational Emissions: VOC and Carbon Monoxide • Cumulatively Consideration Contributions to Regional Concentrations of Ozone Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Quantities would exceed City's Significance Threshold: Cumulatively Significant with Mitigation Noise • Construction: Significant Unavoidable with Mitigation • Vehicular Noise in Costa Mesa: 17th St west of Monrovia; Mitigation is Rubberized Asphalt • Vehicular Noise in Newport Beach: 15th St west of Placentia; Mitigation is Rubberized Asphalt (fully m itigated ) • Vehicular Noise from Bluff Road and 15th Street Land Use Compatibility • Generally compatible • Related to long -term noise and night illumination Environmentally Superior Alternative Alternative B: Open Space Alternative F: Increase Open Space and Reduced Development Consultant Presentation Item No. O.lb Newport Banning Ranch Study Session PA2008 -114 Biological Resources The E I R section addresses the existing biological resources; project impacts; and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The analysis is based on the Biological Technical Report prepared by BonTerra Consulting. Regulatory Setting The evaluation of impacts is based on applicable laws, codes, and standards that govern biological resources. These include: • Federal Endangered Species Act • Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 • California Endangered Species Act • California Environmental Quality Act • California Coastal Act • Streambed Alteration - Fish and Game Code • Native Plant Protection - Fish and Game Code • Natural Communities Conservation Plan - Fish and Game Code • California Fully Protected Species - Fish and Game Code • Nesting Bird Protection - Fish and Game Code • California Code of Regulations Title 14 • California Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act Methodology 2008 through 2011 - General /focused biological surveys were conducted BonTerra Consulting under contract to the City 1998 through 2002, 2006 through 2011 — Biological surveys were conducted by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) for the Applicant Where time frames overlapped, and GLA was performing focused surveys efforts, BonTerra shadowed the surveys to verify observations Literature Search Literature search was conducted to identify special status plants, wildlife, and habitats: — CNPS's Electronic Plants of California Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular — CDFG's California Natural Diversity Database Methodology Vegetation Mapping and Plant Surveys • Vegetation mapping and general plant surveys: and January and October 2010. • Special status plant surveys: March, April, May, August 2009 September 2009, June, July, and • GLA conducted focused plant surveys for the Applicant in 2006, 2007, and 2008 Jurisdictional Delineation - F • Federal jurisdiction - "Waters of the U.S." and wetland resources identified per USACE standards • State of California jurisdiction - "Waters of the State" — generally include riparian habitats supported by a river, stream, or lake • Coastal Commission jurisdiction - within the Coastal Zone, Coastal Commission generally requires the presence of only one of the three parameters (e.g., hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation) Methodology Wildlife Surveys General wildlife surveys were conducted during vegetation surveys and during all focused surveys in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Focused wildlife surveys were conducted for: • fairy shrimp (dry /wet season, multiple years) • burrowing owl (wintering /breeding season, multiple years) • coastal California gnatcatcher (2006, 2007, and 2009) • southwestern willow flycatcher (2006, 2007, and 2009) • least Bell's vireo (2006, 2007, and 2009) t Existing Conditions Vegetation Types 8 vegetation types (45 sub - types) Vegetation Type Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub Grassland and Ruderal Grassland Depression Features Marshes and Mudflats Riparian Scrub /Forest Disturbed Riparian Scrub /Forest Other Disturbed and Developed Areas Existing (Acres) 37.63 N111.1! 120.4 M- 31.45 21.71 38.87 133.15 Percent of Project Site 9.3% 5.1% 29.8% 0.1% 7.8% 5.4% 9.6% 32.9% Total 404.25 100.0% Existing Conditions _ � ;rvcc�*svar9.s� Fmlea Boundary Vegetation Types and Other Areas ■ coeslel Sege Scrad ■ Distud,ed coastal Sage Scrub Grassland and Ruderal �y Orassand Depression Feelares Existing Conditions Wildlife Wildlife species observed or expected on site: California treefrog garden slender western fence lizard side - blotched lizard black phoebe salamander bushtit house wren California ground black rat Virginia opossum coyote squirrel Bird species are the most common /varied wildlife on site. Common and resident species freauentiv observed include: great blue heron great egret killdeer mourning dove black phoebe American crow bushtit house wren Anna's hummingbird European starling American kestrel red - tailed hawk Special Status Biological Resources Special Status Species are defined by the: USFWS - federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Candidate Species California - State Endangered, Threatened, Fully Protected, Rare species, California Species of Special Concern, Special Animal or Watch List Conservation Organizations - Species of Local Concern are those that have no official status with the resource agencies, but are being watched because either there is a unique population in the region CNPS -List 1 B to List 4 Special Status Biological Resources Status 1 Plant Species Observed On Site USFWS CDFG CNPS southern tarplant - 113.1 southwestern spiny rush — 4.2 California box -thorn — 4.2 woolly seablite — 4.2 Special Status Biological Resources Special Status Wildlife Species Observed On Site Status USFWS CDFG San Diego fairy shrimp FE — Cooper's hawk — WL (nesting) sharp- shinned hawk — WL (nesting) northern harrier — SSC (nesting) white - tailed kite — FP (nesting) osprey — WL(nesting) Merlin — WL(non- breeding /wintering) California gull — WL(nesting colony) burrowing owl — SSC loggerhead shrike — SSC (nesting) least Bell's vireo FE SE (nesting) California horned lark — WL coastal cactus wren — SSC coastal California gnatcatcher FT SSC yellow warbler — SSC (nesting) yellow- breasted chat — SSC (nesting) Belding's savannah sparrow — SE Special Status Biological Resources San Diego Fairy Shrimp was found to occur with 7 ponded areas on site: VP1 - VP2 - AD3 -E - G -1 - J Two solitary male least Bell's vireos observed in the willow riparian habitats of the lowland during the 2006, 2007, and 2009 focused surveys. Coastal California gnatcatcher surveys (2009) identified a total of 17 territories, consisting of 16 breeding pairs and 1 solitary male. or IF �� It Special Status qiqlogt qg I _Resources Special Status Biological Resources Jurisdictional Areas 53.76 acres of USACE jurisdiction - Approved jurisdictional determination from the USACE on June 3, 2009, based on information in GLA's March 5, 2009 delineation. This delineation was independently verified by BonTerra Consulting. 12.08 acres of CDFG jurisdiction 84.48 acres of California Coastal Commission jurisdiction Project Design Features PDF 4.6 -1 Minimum of 220 gross acres of the Project site as wetland restoration /water quality areas, habitat conservation, and restoration mitigation areas. PDF 4.6 -2 Habitat Restoration Plan provides for the preservation and long -term maintenance of preserved and restored habitat onsite. PDF 4.6 -3 Habitat Areas that are restored will be subject to a five -year Maintenance and Monitoring Program. PDF 4.6 -4 A "dark sky" lighting concept will be implemented within areas of the Project that adjoin habitat areas. Biological Thresholds Threshold 4.6 -1 Have a substantial adverse effect on any special status species. Threshold 4.6 -2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other special status natural community. Threshold 4.6 -3 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. Threshold 4.6 -4 Interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife. Threshold 4.6 -5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Project Impacts The determination of impacts is based on a comparison of Project maps depicting permanent and temporary impact areas and maps of biological resources on the Project site. Rough and Precise Grading /Development - permanent impact Utility Infrastructure - permanent impact Water Quality Basins - permanent impact Open Space Trails - permanent impact Bluff Repair - temporary impact Vernal Pool Interpretive Area - temporary impact Consolidated Oil Sites - permanent impact Planting Buffers at Consolidated Oil Sites - temporary impact Oilfield Remediation and Pipe Remediation - temporary impact Existing Oil Operation Roads- temporary impact Fuel Management Zones - permanent impact Project Impacts �; ............ Project Impacts Total Area Not Significant Existing Impacts % Impacted % Not Impact Mitigation Vegetation Type (Acres) (Acres) Impacted (Acres) Impacted Identified Required Preservation/ Coastal Sage Scrub 37.63 11.92 25.71 Yes 32% o 68% Restoration Disturbed Coastal Preservation/ .. 2064 1119 9.45 Yes Sage Scrub 54% 46% Restoration Grassland and Preservation/ 120.40 100.13 20.27 Yes Ruderal 83% 17% Restoration Grassland Depression Preservation/ .. 040 013 0.27 Yes Features 33% 68 o /o Restoration Preservation/ Marshes and Mudflats 31.45 2.45 29.00 Yes ° 8 /0 92% Restoration Preservation/ Riparian Scrub /Forest 21.71 2.68 19.03 Yes 12% 88% Restoration Disturbed Riparian Preservation/ 38.87 10.25 28.62 Yes Scrub /Forest 26% 74% Restoration OtherAreas 133.15 97.57 73% 35.58 27% No No TOTAL 404.25 236.32 1 58% 167.93 1 42% Wildlife Impacts General Habitat Loss and Wildlife Loss • Significant to Local Populations • Mitigate by Coastal Sage Scrub, Grassland, Vernal Pool, & Riparian Habitat Preservation & Restoration Impacts to Nesting Birds /Raptors • Significant for intentional loss of any active nest • Mitigate by limiting vegetation removal between Feb. 15 — Sept. 15, and construction avoidance measures Foraging Habitat for Raptors • Significant impacts to approximately 124.83 acres of foraging habitat • Mitigate through the restoration & preservation 205.53 acres of various habitats Foraging /Roosting Habitat for Bat Species • Significant impacts to the loss of approximately 124.86 acres of foraging & roosting habitat • Mitigated through the restoration & preservation of coastal sage scrub, grassland habitat, marsh habitat, & riparian areas Special Status Species Impacts Southern Tarplant • Significant loss of approx. 5,000 of 24,747 individuals observed in 2009 • Mitigate: Southern tarplant restoration program (seed collection & re- establishment) San Diego Fairy Shrimp • Significant impact to known populations • Mitigate : Develop & implement a 3.58 -acre vernal pool conservation/ restoration area Light- footed Clapper Rail, Western Snowy Plover, and Belding's Savannah Sparrow • Significant impacts to marsh habitats used by these species • Mitigate: Restore and /or preserve approx. 9.9 acres of marsh habitat on site or immediately off site and avoidance measures during construction Coastal California Gnatcatcher • Significant impacts to approx. 23.11 acres of coastal sage scrub & disturbed coastal sage scrub that provides potential habitat for this species • Mitigate: Restore & preserve 82.91 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. Special Status Species Impacts Coastal Cactus Wren • Significant impacts to approx. 2.92 acres of potential habitat • Mitigate: Restore & preserve 82.91 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, including approx. 10 acres of coastal sage scrub dominated by cactus Least Bell's Vireo • Significant impacts to approx. 2.74 acres of undisturbed & disturbed willow riparian scrub & willow riparian forest habitats • Mitigate: Restore & preserve 38.8 acres of riparian habitat Burrowing owl - only expected to winter based on the 2008, 2009, and 2010 survey results • Significant impacts to approx. 100.13 acres of grasslands & ruderal habitat • Mitigate: Restore & preserve 70.34 acres of grassland habitat Jurisdictional Im pacts Permanent Temporary Impacts Impacts Total Impacts Jurisdictional Features (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) USACE (Waters and Wetlands) 0.32 3.93 4.25 CDFG 1.87 0.05 1.92 California Coastal Commission 2.52 6.48 9.00 a It is important to note that riparian vegetation types and jurisdictional areas should not be considered as identical resources. Although these resources often overlap, there are many areas on site where the riparian vegetation types are located outside resource agency jurisdiction. As an example, mule fat scrub typically occurs in riparian areas (relating to or located on the banks of a river or stream); however, the majority (96 %) of the mule fat scrub impacted on the Project site occurs in upland areas or areas outside jurisdictional boundaries. Note: USACE jurisdictional resource base data was provided by GLA and verified by BonTerra Consulting. CDFG and California Coastal Commission jurisdictional resource base data was provided by BonTerra Consulting. Jurisdictional Impacts \ F El . v CEQA Required Mitigation HABITAT MITIGATION SUMMARY Total Preservation Total Area Not and Preservation/ Existing Impacts Affected Preservation Restoration Restoration Restoration to Vegetation Type (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Impact Ratios Coastal Sage Scrub and Disturbed 58.27 23.11 35.16 35.16 47.75 82.91 Approx. 3.5:1 Coastal Sage Scrub Grassland and 120.40 100.13 20.27 20.27 50.07 70.34 Approx. 0.7:1 Ruderal Grassland Depression Features (includes Features 0.50 0.24 0.26 0.26 3.32 3.58 Approx. 15:1 VP1, VP2, AD3, E, G, I, and J) Marsh 31.45 2.45 29.00 7.25 2.65 9.90 Approx. 4:1 Riparian and 60.58 12.93 47.65 23.03 15.77 38.80 Approx. 3:1 Disturbed Riparian Total 1 271.20 1 138.86 1 132.34 85.97 1 119.56 1 205.53 a The preservation /restoration to impact ratio (last column in table) is not a required mitigation ratio. Rather it identifies the ratio that could be achieved. CEQA Required Mitigation Other Resource Specific Mitigation Measures MM 4.6 -6 Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act MM 4.6 -7 Re- Establishment of Special Status Plant Species MM 4.6 -8 Light- footed Clapper Rail, Western Snowy Plover, Belding's Savannah Sparrow - Obtain regulatory approvals, avoidance procedures, & replacement of habitat MM 4.6 -9 California Gnatcatcher — Obtain Biological Opinion from USFWS, restore & preserve 82.91 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat; implement Construction Minimization Measures MM 4.6 -10 Coastal Cactus Wren - Avoid habitat, incorporate cactus into the planting palette; implement Construction Minimization Measures CEQA Required Mitigation Other Resource Specific Mitigation Measures MM 4.6 -11 Least Bell's Vireo - Obtain a Biological Opinion from the USFWS /CDFG, restore and preserve 38.80 acres of riparian habitat; Implement Construction Minimization Measures MM 4.6 -12 Burrowing Owl - Avoided where possible, restore & preserve 70.34 acres of grassland habitat MM 4.6 -13 Raptor Nesting - Provide protection for nesting raptors CEQA Required Mitigation Other Resource Specific Mitigation Measures MM 4.6 -14 Invasive Exotic Plant Species - Removal of invasive plant species. Landscape Plans reviewed by a Biologist to ensure that no invasive, exotic plant species are used in landscaping adjacent to any open space. MM 4.6 -15 Human Activity - Fencing plan shall be planned & implemented to limit access to the open space within the lowlands. Informational signage provided MM 4.6 -16 Urban Wildlands Interface - Develop & distribute a wildland interface brochure • Extra Slides ,c, _� California Vernal Pools s Igo IlL Central California Grassland Vernal Pool BRC "Vernal Pool" 20: Actually in Paved Road t Vernal Pool with swale in early drying phase BRC "Vernal Pool" 19 — Pond on Road Shoulder ter. Vernal Pool: drying phase with typical rings of wildflowers BRC "Vernal Pool" 5: Soil Remediation Stockpile r.. `. i ` -y�!' I ^n -..`, , `' t� `�; : v « �� ✓�,/,'�r� �+r �.'s"Pd .i/ �. `�..y� r� �,,� - - - - •. I '•.�._�.'`i�!h�4 <'2a', b.R,��IIF - �=s; _.,m�..a:' -- - San Diego Vernal Pool: Dry Phase BRC "Vernal Pool" 47: Active Oil Well Pad at low point in canyon 0 m1g.. m yF m' ilk AL Conservancy Presentation Item No. 0.1c Newport Banning Ranch Study Session PA2008 -114 Banning Ranch is the largest parcel of unprotected coastal open . space remaining in Orange County *Maximum Development •Maximum allowed under General Plan Banning; Ranch Proposal •Residential Units •Commercial Space 1375 75,000 sq. ft. 1375 75,000 sq. ft. *Hotel Rooms 75 75 Development of OC'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 Development of OC'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 -Green -Location of California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens based on studies from 1992 - 200 -Red line -Outline of proposed development "footprint" , -Aquamarine -Location of vernal pool complex in middle mesa / -Dark Blue Ln w. ' •Planned City parks which are 5W _apart of the proposed development r. -Yellow 0 -Ticonderoga Vernal Pool Banning Ranch is the largest parcel of unprotected coastal open . space remaining in Orange County Conservancy Presentation Item No. 0.1d Newport Banning Ranch Study Session CITY d WV PORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Hgue W 1 7 RANNNG RANCH DEVELOPMENT CONSTRNNTS Legend / Wr wftqxj� 3a Hoak - FbWct Vme Rar**V** 1: T:Mr.^1Gf44]17r, Ratcwancnnvmhgfol� 01410 u rm aeAlbnal n Woo dobn gWft rc 9 a1 � tidali a 50 bat bdre 1 -518 CorOoklft -= WC ..Aso -216mm .wu. Wn^�eae.n-n ma ePA�emL Paun>..wac 1mr/a: ElP iI aby' t�f iKa7a Master Ms.Wpmt ROMAV Ror" €1R i{ - AH51. — iuMly iam3k. YNaR wlBp �- s..h relu. www t.n.r ny' Iw Slur. FBf "I l Exhibit 3 -15 .fM.1�4_YCrr.r P r ' h LAlnd I _ I.1 i CSFM U GN Q6cL W:1Ntol �r R F Milli[ C Octlti � — EIMIIII ,] GAMOMIA G]WcOtch. Ceti 1 HOhilal UnIt Map 4ASTAL „ r , Figure 2 ,�; Correspondence Item No. 0.1e Burns, Marlene Newport Banning Ranch Study Session From: GeraN Proccacino [Gravyl ain1@roadrunnei PA2 O O 8 —114 Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 ]:38 PM Ta: Bums, Marian Subject: Planning Commision Meeting 318112 Dear Ms Burns, I was at tonight's study session but due to time restraints did not speak. I have a couple of questions concerning the proposed Banning development that I hope you can pass on to the members of the planning commission. I thank you in advance. What precisely are the negative effects on the quality of life for the residents of Newport Beach as a whole, West Newport Beach , The Lido Sands Community and ME with my home of 40 years directly in the path of the proposed major Coast hwy Intersection? Why does Newport Beach need this intrusive mega development? Why haven't I seen the City aggressively trying to preserve this final virgin parcel in Orange County for all to enjoy it's God given Natural beauty? I pray that you deliberately drill into this proposal to totally see the negative effects this thing will have on our beautiful Newport Beach. Why would the City even consider to Los Angelize Newport beach? Please do not Los Angelize Newport Beach. Thank you. Respectfully, Gerard Proccacino Lido Sands Newport Beach, CA 1 Correspondence Item No. 01.f Newport Banning Ranch Study Session RFCFi PA2008 -114 a, !g 9.p % oA To whom it may concern: 0 16, 0 . 1 Please enter my public comment of 3/8/12, given at the Plannin& �04 5 Commission Study Session on Banning Ranch DEIR Impacts into` Administrative Record. �r eeAC" Thank you, Suzanne Forster ............................................... ............................... 3 -8 -12 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ON BR DEIR IMPACTS PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Suzanne Forster. I'm a resident of Newport Beach. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the Projects impacts today, but I don't think two hours is enough to cover a project of this magnitude. There are too many health and safety issues. Banning Ranch is a 400 - acre oil field with nearly 500 wells sitting on active fault lines within the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone —and there are 25 other Fault Zones in the vicinity. It appears to be a hotbed of potential earthquake activity and the DEIR talks about the potential for liquefaction in the lowlands and earthquake - induced landslides in the west - facing bluffs. All of these areas have been identified as a zones requiring investigation for liquefaction. So, have these investigations been done? If not, when are they going to be done? IMO, any potential for liquefaction of an oil field with homes sitting on top of it is too big a risk. But not just to the public. To the City. This exposes the City to liability. That's why this project should not be rushed through the approval process or rubber stamped. There's too much at stake. The real problem with the DEIR is the omissions. Many written public comments addressed this —and Sandra Genis wrote a 20 -page letter that addresses nothing but DEIR omissions. Her comments on the site's earthquake potential included these questions: Shouldn't fault zone data be updated and setback limits refined in compliance with existing State standards before the project is approved? Shouldn't more trenching to further refine fault mapping be completed before the project is approved? Matt Hageman's 7 -page letter on the oil field toxins asks that the DEIR be rewritten to include the necessary regulatory oversight, rather than deferring that oversight until after the DEIR is approved. His letter says this: "According to the DEIR `prior to the issuance of the first City- issued permit,' the RWQCB will receive a final Remedial Action Plan to `allow for site disturbance unrelated to oil remediation activities. Therefore, no agency review of the contaminants and plans for cleanup will occur until after DEIR certification'." Matt Hageman is an expert, but you don't have to be an expert to know that's totally backwards. And it's what makes this project unsafe. The DEIR also overlooks the health hazards of developing an oil field for residential use. A producing oil field creates unregulated oil wastes that contain very dangerous toxins, the kind that cause cancer and birth defects. Pollution is another problem. The air pollution from the construction and the traffic this project will create are not just local impacts, they're regional. Everyone's air will be affected. But according to EQAC, there are no ambient air analyses in the DEIR for pollutants like Nitrogen Oxide, which actually eats away at lung tissue from the inside. I can't begin to list all the omissions in three minutes, but what concerns me about these study sessions is that we're talking about the impacts last. Given the potential hazards of this project, the impacts should have been considered first. If a project is unsafe for the public, what's the point of talking about architecture styles and how many bars the hotel will have? Thank you.