Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-15 _EQAC_AgendaDATE /TIM E LOCATION: Roll Call AGENDA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Monday, September 15, 2008 7:00 p.m. Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 1. Minutes of July 21, 2008 (draft minutes attached) 2. Committee Recommendation on Appointments to EQAC (attachment) Environmental Expertise: Michael Alti 3. Analysis of Sample Comments and Responses on Draft EIRs (attached) a. Task Force on Green Development Representatives' Report s. Coastal /Bay Water Quality Committee Representatives' Report 6. Economic Development Committee Representative's Report 7. Report from Staff on Current Projects 8. Public Comments s. Future Agenda Items 10. Adjournment NEXT MEETING DATE: Page 1 October 20, 2008 AGENDA *Attachments can be found on the Citys website http: / /www.city.newport- beach.ca.us. Once there, click on Ct� Council then scroll to and click on Agendas and Minutes then scroll to and click on Environmental QualityAffairs. If attachment is not on the web page, it is also available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, 2nd Floor. Page 2 file: / / /F: /Apps /W EBDATA /I ntemetlEnviromnentalQual ityAffairsComm itteeAgendas /mn07- 21- 08.htm CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES 7 -21 -08 Draft minutes of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee held at the City of Newport Beach City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, on Monday, July 21, 2008. Members Present: X Nancy Gardner, Council Member /*X Sandra Haskell X Michael Henn, Council Member E Barry Allen E Bruce Asper /*E Dolores Otting, Vice Chair /4E Kristine Adams Susan Knox X /*E Kimberly Jameson X Arlene Greer X Kevin Kelly E Timothy Stoaks X Laura Dietz /*E Ray Halowski tiX Kenneth Drellishak, Chair X Barbara Thibault E Laura Curran /*X Merritt Van Sant X Michael Smith X Robert Rush X Michael Pascale Staff Representatives: Guests: X Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Chairperson Ken Drellishak called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. 1. Minutes of June 16, 2008 Arlene Greer moved to approve the minutes, with amendments adding information regarding the Task Force on Green Development and Coastal /Bay Water Quality Committees representatives' reports. Sandra Haskell seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 2. Report from subcommittee on DEIR for San Diego Creek Channel (Upper Newport Bay to I -405) Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Project and review and approval of comments Page 1 file:IlIF:/ Apps /WEBDATAI Internet/ EnvironmentalQualityAffairsCommittecAgendas /mn07- 21- 08.htm Chairperson Drellishak provided an overview of the project and the location of significant information in the DEIR and Appendix, especially the Operations and Maintenance Manual. Dolores Offing moved approval of the comments as amended, and Merritt Van Sant seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 3. Task Force on Green Development Representative's Report Council member Gardner distributed minutes of the last meeting. 4. Coastal /Bay Water Quality Committee Representative's Report None 5. Economic Development Committee Representative's Report Chairperson Drellishak reported that the EDC had received a presentation on the City's traffic signal synchronization program. 6. Report from Staff on Current Projects Sharon Wood reported on the status of code enforcement at the corner of Coast Highway and Dover Drive, and provided the status of the following projects: AERIE, Hyatt Regency, and Santa Barbara Condominiums. 7. Public Comments Dolores Otting announced that she will be replaced on EQAC, and that it has been a pleasure for her to work with the Committee. 8. Future Agenda Items September: o Recommendation to appoint Dolores Offing to the Community Association vacancy o Training on comments and responses on environmental documents Future: o AQMD speaker on air quality impact analysis 9. Adjournment Chair Drellishak adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Page 2 11� F2F�4 A Wi50ry oy " �rt;rvrgk•,. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o ' 3300 Newport Boulevard :» a Newport Beach, CA 92663 •3 ��� City Clerk (949) 644 -3005 c " � Fax (949) 644 -3039 DIRECTIONS: One application can be used for all the appointive positions you are applying for. Applications should be filled out completely sothat the City Council may fully evaluate your qualifications. It is the responsibility of the applicant to familiarize themselves with the duties and responsibilities of the position(s) applied for. Detailed information outlining the responsibilities of the positions can be obtained from the City Cierk's office or on the City's website: www.city.newport- beach.ca.us (General Info /Citizen Participation). Applications will be kept on file for two years for the positions) applied for. If you are not selected for appointment during that period of time, it will be necessary for you to re- submit an application if you are still interested in being considered. NOTICE: Section 702 of the City Charter requires that members of Boards or Commissions appointed by the City Council shall be from the qualified electors of the City. This document is a public record and may be posted on the internet. NAME OF BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee Name: Ald I Michael ... Joseph (Last) (First) Residence Address (required): 3 Serena Court Zip Code: 92663 How long have you lived in Newport Beach? 4.5 years Home Phone: 631 -2075 Business Address: 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 Business Phone: 651 -7476 Irvine, California 92614 Email Address: mjaltiCayahoo.com Have you ever been convicted of any crime or violation of any law or statute otherthan minortraffc violations? ® NO 0 YES (If yes, attach separate sheet with explanation) (Middle) ea ?mWikv411 �? %i .M.R '�.a�� ��3M,�irk' �A Er '35m YyAtte University of California, Los Angeles Law J.D. 2001 U nivers i ty of C a] iforn I a, L us A ng e les Business Economics B.A. 1998 CONTINUE TO PAGE TWO 1 •g• -'., r', k" �'g�} axuYcl:^a+� �.g`r. S ! i S �I a , �. PnororCurrentGVixExpenencee (m[lu�e�mernbership�n � xprofesslonal eharlty yr comm`f'uu�orgamzahon F, , 'Mj T .'3�d r r %), 9" iCti y: i'a'q':5 t'u � : ,��r ,�,,.0 ie edss � �x,.�� �. `(if an �+ � '�'� �"tt�'iy�:r �. V.' iY {�n�.rl'�`i�.P C,'� SYFrv'tg€ =14' +.2'k w y1' r�, }�,a�t���,_..,m embershi Lebanese American Foundation (Lebanese American Prof Assoc) Board Member May 2007 to present Maronite Outreach (Christian Charity Organization) Media Coordinator 2005 to present Occupational History. Begin with your present or most recent position. List all positions separately held for the last five years. &A+9s �4qb 'fd F � th' d Eirm ar Orgamzatron5y,}t Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh 1 y.. Fkn"' ,av�f � E 9ce -s] art- Tye5of Bismes �y L- S ail 71..n9krk' nYYS+s tG i���"c^ Law Firm Vgy iF T +e , , r` TeflI,�e� �a ^.tit .L+e, '?:F,RI tA'- Attorney K,Va& p ' 4 GdR,1TYlIM+U. a Dates ofEmpinyment�,. ..:¢S 7':re 5/04 to present McCormick, Kidman & Behrens Law Firm Attorney 1/03 to 5/04 References. Include names of at least two residents of Newport Beach who are not officially connected with the City. 1, Name F. Scott Jackson Address 15 Hillsborough Phone No. 752 -8585 2. Name [Andrew Schutz Address 69 Old Course Drive Phone No. 752 -8585 Summarize why you wish to serve the City of Newport Beach on a board, commission or committee. Include any special qualifications you have which are particularly appropriate to the position forwhich you are applying. I have lived in Newport Reach for nearly five years and am a proud resident of this great city. I would like to become more active in the City and contribute my skills and experience to the community. I am a land use attorney with significant experience in environmental law, particularly with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act. My land use experience includes reviewing, revising, and challenging EIRs, Negative Declarations, and other environmental review documents. With my solid understanding of the CEQA process and what constitutes an adequate environmental review document, I believe I can contribute greatly to the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee. I certify that all statements made on this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 1 have read and understand the duties and responsibilities of the particular position(s) that I am applying for and authorize the release of this information on the internet. [BOX MUST BE CHECKED IF SUBMITTING ELECTRONICALLY) Signature Michael Alti Date August 7, 2008 ANALYSIS OF ®EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES GOOD EXAMPLES Comments 4. Page ES -7 and 3C -11 • Please revise the language describing mitigation measure ruutiher M- 3C2 to clearly identify the proposed improvements at the imersection of MacArthur Boulevard 4 -4 and Jamboree Road, As it currently reads, it is dilTicgft to understand what improvemertts are being proposed. 5. Page ES-9 —Revise mitigation measure M- 31).12 to ensure that construction- related traffic on the City of Irvine wix, s wiu be addres d and mitigated in the EHL The City is requesting that 4-5 the construction traffic hours be Limited to 9'40 a ti3. to 3:00 p.m. and 7:40 p.m. to 5.00 am. 2k. The City does not pwnh construction traffic dining the peak hours, Responses 4-4 Mitigation Measure M -3C.2 calls for the aMdou of a third westbound left - turn lane and a fourth eastbound through lane at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, Please note that Jamboree Road is considered to be the east -west street, and MacArthur Boulevard is considered to be the north -south street. 4-5 The City of Irvine, via e-mail of February 1, 2005 from Diane Nguyen, agreed to the following. Mitigation Measure M -3D.12 is revised to add the following: Construction traffic hours will be prohibited as follows: 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday; 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday; all day Sunday and federal holidays. All vehicles involved with material deliveries, loading or transfer of materials, equipment service, and maintenance of any devices for or within any construction project shall not operate oo City of Irvine streets during prohibited hours unless a waiver has been granted by the City. Staff Analysis Comments ask for specific revisions to mitigation measures for clarity and accuracy, and to ensure that impacts in Irvine will be mitigated. These are relevant environmental issues, and the responder can easily understand what's needed. Comment 7. Tables 2 -2 & 2 -3 — Oki wh dhet the RD. Olsen project at 28111 Main St m t3fi0 aaretG* tsd writs w4h 6, w s.E' of;Lf was cansidered.in the. cuYSeuiaiive impacts io ihre grO=— Dt:is•niit. listed =der the Tables 2 -2 md 2 -3 for Qic summmy b {pending a. appEdV . pmJects. Foryour "7 idbrmation; tbe'coudittiorW use permit vas approved by tlse Planning 'Cor eission oa flatofrr 31,;2fltDD�. _ Response 4 -7 The R. D. Olsen project at 2801 Main Street (340 dwelling units, 6,500 sf of retail) was inadvertently omitted from Table 2 -3; it was however assumed in the traffic analysis (see Table 2, Page 9 of the "Me report), It is hereby --- added to Table 2 -3 of the EIR. Staff Analysis Comment notes information omitted from a table in the EIR, and helps responder correct the problem. Comment At the Fletcher Jones dealership, vehicles waiting to be serviced are dropped o" on Hay-view Way. To ensure that vehicles do not stack onto Dove Street at the new Lexus dealership, the Final EIR should include a stacking and queuing study to determine 2-22 if the staging areas are large enough to accommodate the volume of customers at peak drop off hours. Response 2 -22 The Uxus site will provide three dedicated inbound queuing lanes, each more than 350 feet in length, (storage capacity for approximately 40 vehicles) for customers arriving for service. If the number of incoming vehicles exceeds the capacity of the three dedicated lanes, the center lane and one of the outbound Ianes on the service entrance can be temporarily used for queuing inbound customer vehicles until the queue dissipates. This would allow for a total of approximately 60 additional vehicles. Once the arriving vehicles are processed, they will be taken into the service building. The service building will accommodate 160 vehicles being servlced waiting to be serviced, and already serviced. After being serviced, cars will be taken to the carwash area, which will accommodate an additional 26 vehicles. The layout of the Lexus site and the generous vehicle stacking and staging areas have been designed specifically to avoid the queuing and overflow problems experienced at other dealerships. 2 Staff Analysis Comment asks for additional analysis of potential traffic impact; response provides greater detail than was included in DEIR. Comment While the DEIR calls out nine areas for specific discussion, the DEIR also indicates that "other areas" may be subject to land use changes, but changes in these areas are not quantified. Further, although a table is presented which quantifies changes for the nine specific areas, the sum of the parts adds up to more development than the total presented in the DEIR. For example, Table 3 -3 indicates that multi - family residential will increase from 30,159 units cit%nxide under the existing general plan to 33,992 units citywide under the proposed plan, an increase of 3,833 units. Yet when increases in each of the nine individual areas are added, together, the total increase in multi- family units would be 5,796, not including any changes in allowable units elsewhere in the c;t_> Similarly, Table 3 -3 shows that allowable office development city wide will decrease by 1.7 million square feet, dropping from 14,576, 930 square feet to 12,867,500 square feet. This is important because the'DEM indicates elsewhere that some impacts created by the increase in residential development would be offset by decreases in office use. However, when the changes 7 in office development presented for each of the nine areas are added together, the decrease in otiice use totals only 1.4 million square feet. r Response 5A -7 The increase in nmlu- fatnile dwelling units' in subareas, shown in Table 3 -3, is higher than nc� increase. cir;widc- due ro reductions in the number of dwelling tuiiu allowed outside the subareas in the proposed General Plan Update. The largesr component of This difference is the correction of a coding error, which overstated the multi —Family residential Patendal in the Niewport %orrh area by over 1,3 00 units for the existing Gencral Plan. Reductions also occur because the proposed General plan Update raflects the actual number of units developed at One Ford Road and Sailhouse, nearly- 250 £ewer than allowed in the existing General plan. Finally, there are reductions in the number of unties allowed on Lido Isie and at .Bay-side vltlzge in the proposed General Plan Updnre. The difference of 300,000 square feet in office dcvelopmcnr between the subarea and cin-udde numbers is accounted for by the proposed land use change from Administrative, Professional and Financial to :tifixed Use for the area along Dover Drive described on page 3.17 of the Draft EIR, Table 3.3 has been revised to include a column showing land use changes for the remainder of the City, which reflects the changes proposed in the "other land use areas" described on page 3.17. Table 3 -3 is reprinted here. Staff Analysis Comment requests clarification of information in the DEIR that is confusing, and essential to analysis of environmental impacts. Response explains and provides revisions to the DEIR table in question to complete the picture. Comment Clarification. is also requested in the Final EIRregirding'which interect or, improvements are techuically and Iegallyfeasible. We are specifically Concerned rgar':ing the proposed improvemems to the Gtniversity/Irvinc intersection. Although a series of long ranee improvements arc identified (see Tables 6 and 5 -10 in the Traffic Study), the DEM does not discuss the feasibility of the various improvements. Many intersections have multiple alit- catives, each of which seerrs to be ruled oat. For these reasons, we believe that the traffic 20 study and the DEIR's traffic analysis do not accurately reflect traffic conditions that are expected to occur in the Future and do not accurately describe conditions that support a frdma that all intersections will operate at LOS D or better. We suggest that the DER be revised to clearly identify which long range improvements have been determined by the City to be phymcally vnd Iegally feasible and therefore iticoroormed into the proposed Circulation Element and which of the improvements have been rejected because of environmental, right -af -way, or community issues. Response F lvao age 3 -1$; Table _i -el, idendhes transporzat on improccmcnts under the proposed General Plan Update. }'very intersection itnptovement recommended in either E.XhJbit CE -3 of the General Man Cirndation Element or Table ES -9 of the General Plan Transportation Study has been reviewed by the project ream, including the City Traffic Engineer, and been deemed most fcasihle of the. evaluated improvements, Infeasible improvements have been discussed and removed from further consideration, resulting in the revised LOS standard (LOS E) zr certain City intersections. 'it is also recognized, howcvcr., that future conditions may vary fzom the projections in the traffic study. Thetefore, the recommended Circulation Element policies specifically nhow for alternate improvements, as long as the resulting LOS conforms to the recommended City standards. Staff AnaNsis Comment raises a question about the feasibility of mitigation measures; response explains how feasibility was analyzed. 4 LESS EFFECTIVE EXAMPLES Comment Impact 3.4-1 (page 3.4 -29) states that "Focused surveys for special status plants could not be conducted in spring /surnmer 2007 due to drought conditions; therefore it is unknown which, it' any, special status plant species occur on the project site." The report then lists 10 potential species that could potentially occur at the project site. However, this area has been subject of monitoring for many years. Areothet reports available on species in the location? Mitigation Measure Included) in DER Mitigation Measure MM 3.4 -1. Pre - maintenance Special- Status Plant Survey A pre- maintenance special status plant survey will be conducted by the Project Biologist during. the pate flowering period (to be determined by monitoring a rcforence population) for the nine special - status plant species potentially significantly impacted by the proposed project (i.e., salt marsh bird's beak, intcnnc(liane mariposa lily, Coulter's saltbush, South Coast saltscale, Davidson's saltscale, southern tarplant, mud nama, coast woolly - heads, and estuary seablitc). The special- status plant surveys will follow guidelines developed by CNPS Jibor 3001). Tf any of * these species are located within the impact area, the impact would be considered potentially significant, depending on the status of the species and the number of individuals observed. If practicable, the project impact boundary will be adjusted to avoid impacts on this species. CNPS does not support any mitigation for special- status plants other than avoidance. If the impact is determined to be significant, and avoidance is not possible, a strategy will be developed based on guidelines developed in the Cl-,QA Guidelines (Tibor ?601): !_. avoiding the impact on the species to the extent possible through project planning; 2. minimizing impacts; 3. rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; 4. reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project; or i. compensating for the impact by replacing or providing suitable resources or environments. Staff Shows need to review entire analysis and mitigation measures. In this case, the mitigation measure -- to do pre - maintenance surveys and follow CEQA Guidelines if avoidance is not possible -- substitutes for surveys that could not be done as part of DER preparation. Comments The Fxecutive Summary provides a project overview and also states that there are two alternatives discussed in the DEIR, the No Project Alternative and the Reduced Project Alternative, However, it is not until the end of the document that the DEIR states that the Reduced Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, and "(f)or this reason the Reduced Project Alternative is now the preferred alternative." 2 -1 DEIR F. 46 The fact that the Reduced Project Alternative is now the preferred alternative makes much of the analysis in the DEIR superfluous. however, we.make the following comments on the DER in the hopes of improving the Final BIR and the proposed Project. This chapter provides the proposed Project background and a description of the proposed Project. With the exception of the site Iocation, environmental setting and 2.6 surrounding land uses, most of the information in this chapter relates to the alternative that has not been determined to be the preferred alternative. The Final ETR should firlly analyze the preferred altemative. Rest 2 -1 Tbere is very little difference between the project discussed throughout the Draft Lexus Newport Ea and the "Reduced Project Alternative ". The minor reduction in service bays of 13,000 square feet results in a minor reduction in traffic impacts, however, this reduction would be sufficient to reduce project impacts at the two intersections identified as impacted in the traffic section' of the EIR from significant to less than significant (although the alternative would stilt have a TPO impact that would be rnitigated through fairshare participation in funding improvements). All other impacts would be essentially the same or only incrementally reduced. 2 -6 See response to co=ein I above. Stan' Analysis CEQA requires analysis of the worst case scenario, and requires EIRs to include project alternatives that would reduce impacts. If a reduced alternative is chosen as the project to implement, it is not necessary to revise the EIR. Corn men4 Chapter 3C lists the various agency regulations that govern the traffic analysis. The Final Elk should include Measure S among the applicable regulations and discuss 2-18 whether the General Plan Amendment and addit oval traffic generated by the proposed Project trigger Measure S regulations. Response 2 -18 Mcasu'ie S is not related to physical environmental impacts and is not relevant to this CEQA docrunent. It will be addressed in the Staff Report for this Project, Staff' Analysis Measure S (Charter Section 423) is not a traffic regulation, and it establishes no thresholds for significant environmental impacts. It is a regulation for the approval of General Plan amendments, and sets thresholds for when a vote of the people is required. Comment Finally, why do the aesthetics and visual quality of the neighborhood mandate a minimum parcel -size in the Airport Area, but not on the West Newport Mesa, for instance? Response This is a comment on the Draft Generat Plan, rather than on the Draft EIR. Staff A,naOysis Comment questions a policy in the Draft General Plan, without raising an environmental issue or impact, rather than commenting on the environmental analysis. 7 Comment The use of the word "important" in Policy NR16.1,0 provides a loophole for a potential developer of the Banning Ranch to avoid habitat replacement if it is not "important." G1 order to support the conclusion of less than significant impact on 20 biological resources, the word "important" should be deleted and replacement of any habitat should be required. (Page 43-32). Response Eta -20 The Banning Ranch contains plant species and animal habitats that are not listed by stare and /or federal . agencies and Flo nor warrant protection. The commenter su xsrs that gall" hnbints should be protected and this is not legally required, no: practical. Policy \R 10A requires that -.a site specific survey and analvsis prepared by a qualified biologist [be conduercd] as a filing requirement for any development . permit applications where development Would occur ni[hin or contiguoas to areas identified as an ESA." Banning Ranch is designated on Figure hTR2 as an "I .SA." Further, Policies NR 10.5, NR. 10.6, NR 10.7, and NR 10.E proh-ide for protections of the resources that are considered by state: and federal agencies as rare, endangered, or otherwise significant. These policies are supplemented by Land L]se rlemnnr PAC%' L6 63 6 that requires coordination with stare and federal agencies in the "...identification of wedands and habitats to be preserved and /or restored and those on wbiclh development will be permuted." which would xcur through the agencies' permimng processes; as well as LU 6.5.4 That csiablishes criteria for the 3ocndon and desirm of development to project dtc site's resources. Staff�slis Comment not well thought out. The suggested language could require the protection of habitat that is inappropriate for its location. Comment The AEIR states that "LOS D is the threshold for intersection performance" in the City of Newport Beach. Considering the adverse effects of LOS "D," the policy makers and decision - makers may want to know what would be required to bring this "threshold" to 54 some better or more comfortable driving Los, for example LOS "C." The final EIR should include such an aualysis. (Page 4.13 -21 and 22) n Response EQ -54 CE:QA requires an environmental impact report to analyze the impacts of the project proposed. Ocher than the regoircmenr to analyze feasible altemndves to the proposed project, the EIR. is not requited to spcculare on a diffcrent project description. The commenter proposes different level of service standard dean the City has ever considered, or is considering as par: of the pmposed project, and, therefore, it is not addressed in this DR. Staff Analysis Comment requests information that may be interesting to decision makers, but is not related to determining a significant environmental impact of the project. Comment �P' 1 4-3 How is it shown that the noise was dominated by traffic noise? Since I.ecq is average over 1 how, how could persons walking in the park cause a 20 � 25 °0 overage? 25 Response Response 25 Observations by Mestre Greve Associates, acoustical consultant to the City for the Hoag Master Plan Update Project, during the measurements showed that traffic Horse was the dominant source of noise during the measurements. The comments in the paragraph below Table 3.4 -2 on page 3.4 -8 of the Draft EIR are descriptions of the sounds that were audible during the measurements. Persons walking through the park did not "cause a 20-25% overage." The Draft EIR states (see page 3.4 -8) that "Activities of persons in Sunset View Park, generally walking and talking, also contributed to the noise environment along with insects.... Activities of persons in the park, generally walking and talking, also contributed to the noise environment. A person talking relatively close to the sound.level meter caused the maximum measured noise level." Staff Analvsus Comment misquotes DEIR. Comment The report discusses several noise sources that EQAC believes require further analysis. with a focus on mitigation for the benefit of residents adjacent to the 37 property. Response Response 37 The comment is noted; please refer 'to the preceding responses to noise - related comments. Staff Analysis Comment is vague and does not raise any specific environmental issue or impact, making it impossible to provide a meaningful response.