The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPA2017-228 Comment 19b_04302019_GraceFrom: janice@webideation.com Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 10:21 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Jurjis, Seimone; Alford, Patrick; Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Kleiman, Lauren; Koetting, Peter; Kramer, Kory; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William Subject: 4302 Ford Road - Request for an Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Zdeba, In reviewing materials on file at the City’s website for the proposed project at 4302 Ford Road, I find the following are not adequately addressed and I ask that an Environmental Impact Report be required: Environmental Issues 1. Hazardous materials - Currently, there are barrels of hazardous chemicals visibly stored on the adjoining ATT property. Without thorough soil and groundwater reports, there is no way to determine if hazardous materials will be disturbed and distributed during construction. The safety of future residents on the site is also at risk. Section 4.1 of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report used as the basis for the IS/MND states that “No hazardous materials are used on the Site for janitorial and building maintenance …” However, there is no mention of the barrels of hazardous materials stored at the ATT building and openly visible from the street. Also, the ATT property has a history of reported hazardous material contaminations, as cited in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report by Citadel. This alone should merit an EIR of the proposed development site. 2. Land use and Planning – The proposed project’s density is not in keeping with current standards established within the community and introduces increased-density housing directly adjacent to single-family residences. The established density on every street within the community is one single- family home per approximately 6,800 square feet of land. Given the acreage of the proposed development of 1.06 acres or 46,174 square feet, the number of housing units in keeping with the surrounding community would be 7 homes. Ford Road was made into a cul-de-sac in 2005 for the purpose of separating the community from traffic generated by surrounding areas, to enhance safety and privacy. Adding such dense housing here would largely negate that effort and greatly impact the privacy and quiet enjoyment of the adjoining single-family residential area. Section 2.3 of the IS/MND names Bonita Canyon Sports Park as an adjacent land use but not the single-family homes within the 300-foot notification radius the City used as its guide to notify nearby residents of the proposed project. Also, Section 8 of the IS/MND erroneously states that the parcel is approximately 42,200 acres. This calls into question the report’s findings. 3. Noise – Because there is no truck turnaround on the property, trucks will be backing in and out of the driveway onto Ford Road with backup alarms sounding throughout the day. With back-up beepers having an estimated volume level of 97–112 decibels, there would be a substantial noise level increase for the neighbors and park visitors. This is well above Newport Beach Municipal Code 10.26.025 Exterior Noise Standards of 55 decibels, as seen here. The IS/MND measured existing conditions and does not account for this kind of activity. The developer argues that there is a turnaround in the underground parking area, but with a height limit of 8’2”, it cannot be used by regularly-sized UPS and Fedex trucks. 4. Public Services & Recreation – New residents will likely use the park and its already-crowded pickleball and tennis courts and soccer fields. In addition, although the project meets the City’s number of required parking spaces, it is reasonable to believe residents will regularly use the park’s parking lot, especially with a gate from the property’s pool area opening onto the parking lot. 5. Traffic Hazard – Of great concern is that there is no truck turnaround, so delivery and moving vans will have to back into and out of the driveway across the sidewalk and bike path. Even if the bike path is redirected to the opposite side of the street, kids are not going to cross to that side of the street if traveling on Ford Road toward MacArthur, which is the route many CDM Middle & High School kids take. The proposed driveway will be squeezed into an area not intended for another driveway between two reasonably-spaced existing driveways, creating a possible bottleneck of trucks backing in or out while cars are entering and exiting the park, and kids are riding bicycles on the street, sidewalk or bike path all within about 30 feet. The proposed driveway legitimately presents a safety hazard. It just isn’t the right place for trucks. 6. Traffic Generation – The estimated peak hour trips of 9 to 11 generated by the project are derived from a website that estimates from national traffic patterns, and not consistent with the realities of this particular area of Newport Beach. Because the cost of the proposed homes will restrict ownership to high-income earners, each residence will likely have 2 or more cars. High-income earners are also likely to be later in their careers and have driving-age children who also have their own cars. And these residents are also highly unlikely to use public transportation. Also, the number of daily deliveries to service 21 units will put a substantially higher number of trips onto Ford Road, especially with the increased use of Amazon Prime, Door Dash, etc. by high-income earners. The traffic study used in the IS/MND does not address this. In addition, in peak-hour traffic, one often waits through 5-6 traffic lights before turning from Ford Road onto Mesa View before exiting the community at Mesa View and Bonita Canyon. Any increase in residency will negatively impact an already highly- congested intersection. These facts render the traffic component of the IS/NMD invalid, given the location and specificities of the proposed project. Thank you for taking the time to consider the realities of the project in terms of how they actually impact the community, not based upon highly generalized standards derived from situations inconsistent with this neighborhood’s unique qualities. The concern is legitimate. There is no wisdom in shoving that development onto such a tiny parcel of land at the expense of the safety and quiet enjoyment of our community. Further, I found it unsettling how overly friendly Ray Lawler of Hines, the developer, was received by the Planning Commission the night of the April 18 meeting. It gave me the impression of an unfair advantage. I hate to think of the Commissioners as anything but professional. I wish I weren’t given that image. Janice Grace Website | Email | Social Marketing WebIdeation.com 949.413.7848 cell Subscribe to Small Business News