HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_Study Session_11-03-2011NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard
Thursday, November 3, 2011
STUDY SESSION MEETING
4:30 p.m.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth
ABSENT (EXCUSED): None.
Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director; Patrick Alford,
Planning Manager; Leonia Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; and Marlene
Burns, Administrative Assistant
B. CURRENT BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 1 Newport Banning Ranch Environmental Impact Report
Chair Unsworth welcomed attendees and reported that the primary purpose of the study session is to
educate the Commission on the Banning Ranch Project and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
documents including the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been prepared in conjunction with
the approval. He added that after a staff report, the applicant will make a presentation, and then the public
will have an opportunity to provide comments. He pointed out that the draft EIR has been distributed as
required by law and is available throughout the public comment period which will close November 8, 2011.
He noted strict enforcement of time limits and stated that the most helpful comments for the Commission will
be focused on the EIR document, itself, and not the project. No action will be taken by the Planning
Commission during the study session, but rather during a subsequent regular meeting.
Planning Manager Patrick Alford presented an overview of the application addressing the project site and
elements of the application including the General Plan Amendment, Pre - zoning /Zone Change, Planned
Community Development Plan, Master Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, an Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan, a Pre - annexation Development Agreement, and the Environmental Impact Report. Mr.
Alford reviewed each element in detail. Regarding the Planned Community Development Plan, Mr. Alford
reported that it establishes land use regulations, property development regulations, and the administrative
process. It calls for the 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.
Approximately 252.3 acres 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 and remediated for development and /or open
space.
Mr. Alford reported that the Master Development Plan provides another level of detail and if approved by the
City, it will be reviewed by the Coastal Commission as a Master Coastal Development Permit. He reviewed
the various components of the Master Development Plan including land use and development plans, a
master plan for trails and public access system, master landscaping plans, architectural guidelines as well as
others. Mr. Alford reported the Tentative Tract Map will establish lot configurations, roadways, major
infrastructure, easements, dedications, and drainage and water quality improvements. He reviewed the basic
components of the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan as well as the Pre- annexation and Development
Agreement.
The EIR examines the potential impacts generated by the proposed Project in relation to the following CEQA
Checklist categories: aesthetics and visual resources, land use and planning programs, geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, population, housing, employment, transportation and circulation, air quality,
green house gas emissions, noise, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, recreation
and trails, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, utilities, and alternatives. He addressed the
Page 1 of 4
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 11/03/2011
timeline, the previous meetings in which the proposed project was reviewed, the current public review period,
and the availability of the EIR document.
Chair Unsworth invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mike Mohler, Newport Banning Ranch, LLC, introduced partner George Basye and deferred to him for a
report.
Mr. Basye presented an overview of the property and reported that the surface and mineral estates are
separate and distinct noting that the oil operator is a different group. He presented a brief history of the
General Plan process for the property, including allowable uses and densities as well as preferred options for
future uses for the site. He noted that the proposal provides for a mixed -use development plan and that it
exceeds the open space requirements and is within the allowable intensities. He addressed existing
conditions including the complicated network of oil -field roads and pipelines, and oil operations. Mr. Basye
noted that one of the agreements, which has been negotiated, provides for their ability to force a
consolidation of the oil operations.
Mr. Mohler reviewed the major features of the project including the open space, park lands, and oil
consolidation areas. He stated that development is proposed on less than twenty -five (25 %) percent of the
property. He addressed the Comprehensive Habitat Preservation and Restoration Program provided in the
draft EIR, a water - treatment plan, land stewardship, parks and trails, and pedestrian and bicycle bridges. Mr.
Mohler reviewed roadways including primary access points and noted that they are consistent with the City's
circulation plan. He addressed the villages, densities and the planned resort, as well as community interface,
setbacks and edge conditions. He reported on the various costs and stressed that there would be no cost to
the public.
Commissioner Hawkins asked regarding a third -party mitigation bank and the conditions to the third -party
taking an interest.
Mr. Mohler responded that the property would be cleaned of oil and fully remediated and be a "canvass."
In response to an inquiry from Chair Unsworth, Mr. Basye stated leading agencies responsible for cleaning
up the oil fields would be either the Orange County Healthcare Agency or the Water Board. The State
Department of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources will be involved in managing, inspecting and signing
off on oil well abandonments.
Commissioner Hawkins expressed concerns regarding discrepancies in existing condition service levels
assigned to Superior and Coast Highway in the EIR and the traffic study.
Chair Unsworth opened the public comments section of the meeting. He invited Steve Ray, the
spokesperson for the Banning Ranch Conservancy, to come forward, and noted his request to speak for
fifteen (15) minutes as other speakers had yielded their time to Mr. Ray. The speakers who donated their
time to Mr. Ray were: Dan Purcell, Deborah Lawson - Sisker, and John Sisker.
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Steve Ray, Executive Director of the Banning Ranch Conservancy thanked the Commission for the
opportunity to speak. He reported that not all comments would be presented to the Commission this evening,
but would be presented before the close of the public comment period. He reported that Banning Ranch is
the largest parcel of unprotected coastal open space remaining in Southern California and explained that in
spite of the oil operations, nature has thrived. He noted that it contains all of the elements to support it as an
on -going ecosystem and addressed interdependencies of the system to survive. He expressed concerns
that the proposed development would interfere with those interdependencies. He stated that there is
valuable wildlife on the property, including coastal sage habitats.
Page 2 of 4
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 11/03/2011
Mr. Ray presented a short history of the Conservancy as well as its mission statement and noted the
importance of the preservation, acquisition, conservation and management of the entire Banning Ranch as
permanent public open space /park and coastal nature preserve. He referenced the 2006 General Plan
Amendment noting that the priority preference, as passed by voters, was that Banning Ranch be maintained
permanently as an open space and park. He stated that the group is carrying out the will of the voters and is
also trying to acquire it at fair market value, conserve it, and restore it to its full, natural health as well as
maintaining it as a coastal nature preserve and park. He reported that the group is attempting funding
through Measure M and addressed other funding sources. He opined that there is no room for nature where
the proposed development is going to occur.
Mr. Ray reported the identification of fifty -five (55) potential vernal pool wetlands on site, which the EIR fails to
recognize and referenced some areas where critical habitats exist. In addition, he reported actions the group
would take to improve the area.
In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Myers, Mr. Ray addressed the ecosystems that would
disappear with the proposed development as well as most of the vernal pools.
In response to comments by Commissioner Amer! regarding vernal pools, Mr. Ray reported they are
ephemeral water bodies, formed during the rainy season.
Community Development Director Brandt clarified that the purpose of the study session was to hear
comments and questions from the public and that the Commission may direct any comments and questions
to staff.
Vice Chair Toerge commented regarding the 2006 General Plan Amendment providing a reasonable amount
of time for interested parties to negotiate to buy the property.
Mr. Ray noted that without the cooperation of the owners, it makes it difficult to begin negotiations.
Vice Chair Toerge inquired as to whether an offer has been made and Mr. Ray stated that no formal offer has
been made because of problems accessing the property.
Jim Mosher noted that the project is not being considered at this time, but rather the EIR. He expressed
concerns regarding the amount of money spent by the City; listed basic guidelines set by the State regarding
the EIR process, and opined that the present EIR has not been prepared in accordance to CEQA
requirements relative to its size. He further opined that if such a large document is needed, the project must
be bad for the environment.
Ron Frankiewicz expressed concerns regarding traffic and noise impacts in addition to excess air pollution,
and hazardous materials associated with the project. He declared his opposition to the project.
James Quigg expressed concerns regarding the extreme costs of cleaning up as well as the threat of
tsunamis, which have not been addressed.
Chair Unsworth invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Mohler stated his intent to address every question raised, and to back up every commitment made. He
expressed a desire to strike a balance with everyone concerned.
Chair Unsworth inquired as to the percentage of open space versus the proposed development.
Mr. Mohler responded that approximately seventy -five (75 %) percent will remain open space and addressed
the amount of off -site costs for clean up.
Commissioner Hlllgren expressed concern regarding the size of the document
Page 3 of 4
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 11/03/2011
Mr. Mohler opined that a thorough document does not necessarily constitute a bad project.
Commissioner Myers stated that the third -party restoration issue needs to be explained further in the EIR.
Chair Unsworth suggested clarification of traffic depictions on Pacific Coast Highway.
D. ADJOURNMENT — 5:42p.m.
Page 4 of 4