HomeMy WebLinkAbout20150925 Robert Rush1
Nova, Makana
From:RR@USRG.net
Sent:Friday, September 25, 2015 11:35 AM
To:Nova, Makana
Cc:Brown, Leilani
Subject:Newport Center Villas Mitigated Negative Declaration
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
September 25, 2015
Makana Nova Delivered via Email and USPS
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Via Email: mnova@newportbeachca.gov
Re: Newport Center Villas Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Ms. Nova,
I have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration published by the City of Newport Beach which had been submitted on
behalf of the Newport Center Villas on September 9, 2015 and have serious concerns that the public is being denied true and
accurate information about the impacts of proposed Newport Center Villas condo development.
There are many specific problems and insufficiencies with the study, but the most important problem is that this level of
environmental review is wholly insufficient for a project of this large of a change from the existing land use on the site.
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND APPLICANT MUST BEGIN A PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AT
ONCE AND COMPLETE THAT REPORT BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY
COUNCIL.
Failure to do so will subject the City and this project to a legal challenge of this environmental determination.
The following is a list of problems with the documents provided for public review. It should be noted that this is not an
exhaustive list. The residents of the City, were only provided with a 20 day review of this document. When the project
undertakes the proper environmental review, the review will be 45 days and we will be able to make more thorough
comments. A real environmental review will also provide much more information, which I reserve the right to review and
comment upon.
Land Use
General Plan Consistency – The Newport Villas project is inconsistent with various policies and goals of the General Plan,
including Policy LU 6.14.4, which states that high rise buildings should be located to the north of Newport Center to form a
visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the south and west.
2
There is simply no way that this project and General Plan Amendment can move forward without an environmental impact
report analyzing the effects of this change to the General Plan Land Use Policy. This change affects more than this individual
project and must be studied fully.
Aesthetics
Height – The project would be significantly taller than other buildings in the immediate vicinity, which would degrade the
existing environment. The MND says that the buildings are similar, specifically identifying some. However, those buildings are
primarily less than 40 feet, with only the buildings across Anacapa Drive ranging from 22 -75 feet. The project also would not
comply with GP Policy LU 6.14.4, which states that development within Newport Center should concentrate the greatest
building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road, where natural topography is highest and
progressively scale down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along Pacific
Coast Highway.
As stated above, these are not issues that can be adequately addressed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Ocean Views – Per Figure 4-3, the project would block a view of the ocean from Newport Center Drive. Though not this
specific section, a nearby portion of Newport Center Drive is recognized in the General Plan as a Coastal View Road. Figure 4-
3 is taken from the sidewalk and disguises the ocean views along Newport Center Drive, which are much greater than shown.
This is not an issue which an MND can address. An EIR must be completed and circulated for public review.
Light and Glare – The MND must analyze the impacts associated with new light and glare created by the project, which is
significantly taller than the immediately surrounding buildings. Also, the project’s location along Newport Center Drive, which
has limited views of the ocean, could create hazardous glare problems for pedestrians and vehicles.
This has not been analyzed and therefore the environmental review cannot be sufficient.
Public Services
Fire and Police Services – The MND fails to adequately analyze the impacts to fire and police services. It concludes that both
are less than significant based on the project’s location approximately one mile from existing fire and police stations. This
analysis fails to determine whether the increase in residents (approximately 109) would significantly impact some
performance standard (response time or service ratios, for example).
This potential impact must be studied.
Car Wash – The MND fails to analyze what the impacts of removing the only car wash within several miles will do to the
environment. New residents with cars will increase the demand for car wash services and the removal of the existing car
wash will have an impact on the environment by forcing people who used this location to wash their cars elsewhere, resulting
in increased traffic, or at home, resulting in additional water usage and additional runoff with non-treated chemicals.
Traffic
Construction Traffic – The MND fails to account for impacts from construction, including to traffic and parking, although it
acknowledges that (1) there will be a maximum of 250 construction workers during construction activities; and (2) there will
be significant truck trips associated with demolition and construction. These must be analyzed, especially given that
construction employees typically arrive together and leave together.
There is simply no way that the City of Newport Beach could approve this study without this information.
Trip Generation – The MND’s Traffic Appendix uses the High-Rise Residential Condominium designation from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Handbook to predict trip generation numbers. It should have used the Residential
Condo/Townhouse designation or some other designation, which has higher traffic generation rates. Because there are two
parking spots for each unit and 26 guest parking stalls, it is likely that the project will generate traffic beyond that assumed in
the MND.
High-Rise Condo Resid. Condo/Townhouse
3
AM Peak Hour 0.34 0.44
PM Peak Hour 0.38 0.52
The traffic studies supporting this document are wholly insufficient and must be re-run as part of an EIR.
Car Wash – As stated above, the MND fails to analyze the impacts on traffic of redirecting all of the existing car wash traffic to
car washes located miles away. The environmental review should disclose the number of users of the carwash and then
analyze where these existing trips will be redirected.
Noise
Construction Noise – The MND fails to analyze potential temporary increases in ambient noise from construction activities,
instead relying on a noise exemption in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Because of the claimed exemption, there is also
no noise analysis (i.e., calculations) with respect to construction noise, including noise generated from construction traffic.
This Project cannot be approved without a comprehensive noise study.
Operational Noise – Operational noise is not quantified and compared to a baseline noise condition. With respect to mobile
source noise, the MND simply says that there would be less traffic. It does not actually analyze operational noise from the
development itself (e.g., from the HVAC system, rooftop pool, or valet).
This Project cannot be approved without a comprehensive noise study.
Deferral of Mitigation – Mitigation measure MM NOI-1 requires the City, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to verify
that an acoustical analysis of the architectural construction plans was prepared to ensure the building will comply with
applicable noise standards. Here, the MND does not (1) analyze the potential impact (deferring analysis); or (2) identify
specific measures. See Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275 [“an agency goes too far when it
simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be
made in the report”]. The determination of whether a project will have a significant impact, and the formulation of measures
to mitigate those impacts, must occur before the project is approved. Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195
Cal.App.4th 884, 906. Additionally, mitigation measure MM NOI-1 would not mitigate impacts to adjacent uses.
This project cannot be approved with these mitigations in place. These mitigations cannot be included in this MND because it
fails to analyze the impacts.
Water and Wastewater
Water Usage – The MND states that the project would require approximately 10,417 gallons of water per day. This number is
calculated based upon a wastewater generation estimate of 7,516 gallons per day/acre. This analysis artificially
underestimates the real water usage and wastewater generation of the project and is inconsistent with the water use analysis
from other projects in the City:
The Ebb Tide MND uses a per capita water demand figure of 178.9 gallons per day per capita. Applying this number to the
109 residents of the proposed Newport Villas project yields a water demand of 19,500 gallons per day. This is more
consistent with the City’s adopted Urban Water Management Plan, which identifies the City’s 2015 water use target
as 228.1 GPCD.
The Lido Villas MND shows that 23 townhomes would generate 172,800 gallons of wastewater per day, a vast increase
over the Newport Villas project’s estimated wastewater generation.
The City of Newport Beach cannot apply different standards to similar projects within the City. This is an attempt to
circumvent the required studies in an EIR.
Compliance with State Law
4
Section 1.4.1 of the MND – CEQA OBJECTIVES – The MND itself states the law, “If significant adverse impacts cannot be
avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and balance the project’s environmental concerns with other goals and benefits in a statement of
overriding considerations.” There are numerous areas such as air quality which this project cannot possibly meet the
standards or mitigate the impacts and which the City must do a full EIR to study.
Conclusion: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is wholly insufficient to analyze the impacts of this Project. As stated
above, The City of Newport Beach MUST begin a proper environmental review before attempting to hold any hearings on
this project. Failure to comply with State Environmental Law will subject the City and the applicant to a legal challenge of
the sufficiency of the environmental determination.
Additional comments will be forthcoming if the City insists on holding public hearings without further study.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Rush
Robert L. Rush,
Homeowner 5205 River Ave.
and 29 year resident of NB
cc: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
Via Email: LBrown@newportbeachca.gov