The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-11-14 EQAC Back Bay Landing DEIR CommentsMemorandum To: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner From: Nancy Gardner, EQAC Chair Date: November 14, 2013 Re: Comments on the Back Bay Landing Draft EIR The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2012101003) for the proposed Back Bay Landing project. It is our hope that these comments will lead to the best possible project for the City of Newport Beach, the neighbors and the applicant. Our comments are summarized below and follow in the order of appearance in the DEIR as far as possible. SECTION 0.0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Note: This comment is more of a consideration of the project's design features (or lack thereof) and not the EIR. Therefore, it is recommended that the comment not be included. Note: The statement in question is indeed somewhat vague. However, the statement is that the Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) is intended to maintain "compatibility with the architecture and overall community character of Newport Beach." Whether or not the PCDP accomplishes this will have to be decided by Planning Commission and City Council. Unless the comment can be related to a potential environmental impact (i.e., a conflict with a land use policy or visual quality impact), it is recommended that the comment not be included. 1 Note: The project's acceptance by the community or economic viability are not subjects that should be addressed in the EIR. Therefore, it is recommended that the comment not be included. Note: It is recommended that this comment be revised and moved to comments on the Project Description section. Note: Potential opposition by nearby residents is not relevant to the environmental analysis. Therefore, it is recommended that the comment not be included. Paged ES -16 (Candidate, Sensitive, and Special Status Species). Mitigation Measure C-. nt impacts to least terns during the breeding seasonThe pmpes °ed leRgt,h SECTION 2.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Gen, infor boat The type of boats that would be stored is vague; EIR needs to provide n on the type and size of boats that will be stored in the proposed dry -stack Note: This comment is more of a consideration of the project's design features and not the EIR. Therefore, it is recommended that the comment not be included. Note: The PCDP only a Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan; therefore, specifics on the design of the wall are not provide at this time. Future development will require a Site Development Review approved by the Planning Commission. Unless the lack of specifics about the design of the wall can be related to a potential environmental impact, it is recommended that the comment not be included. K Note: The height limits proposed in PCDP reflect the base and maximum height limits in the Zoning Code for nonresidential development in the Shoreline Height Limit Zone. Unless the question can be related to a potential environmental impact, it is recommended that the question not be included. :Pape 4.M -32. Is not clear from prose the narrative and exhibits whether the 4-2� 2- foot -wide Bayfront Promenade /Trail will have portions of the path strictly desic nated for pedestrians that are separate from the Sbicycle path portions. That 0f Extending a highly-used cycling trial by biking sport enthusiasts (riding at high speeds despite posted speed restrictions), and the intermingling of Bike and Pedestrian traffic may not be safe. The artist depiction on Figu e. 2 -17 suggests no separation of these two kinds of traffic. This might cause hazards that outweigh the promotion of a "people scaled pedestrian friendly community" (p—.Fjge 4.13-38, Table 413-9). Suggestion: A curb bisecting the path and running the length of the Promenade could serve to separate the two forms of traffic and address this problem (models for this kind of thing exist — one example that works well is the very busy pedestrian and bike path along English Bay and Stanley Park in Vancouver B.C., Canada). Note: It is recommended that this comment be revised and moved to comments on the Traffic and Circulation section. Page 4.1 -7 8 (General Ran Am^ndmeRt). The EIR should clarify how the residential dens tv was calculated and the basis for The 2006 General Ran approved Iand use the surplus density of 75 residential dwelling units aGGUrate?_ Note: It is recommended that this comment be revised and moved to comments on the Land Use section. Unless these comments can be related to a potential environmental impact, it is recor�mended that these comments not be included. Pag 4.M -12T21 Mable 7.4 \. The EIR should consider in adequacy of parking during eak periods. The parking ratio requirements in Table 2 -3 in Section 2.0 seem to sh 3 su sts an inadequate amount of parking coverage during peak periods. (i.e., Summer mont is, holiday events. Note: It is recommended that this comment be revised and moved to comments on the Transportation/Traffic section. Note: The PCDP provides that the OCSD facility will be subject to Site Development Review process and subject to the PCDP Design Guidelines. However, unless this question can be related to a potential environmental impact, it is recommended that this question not be included. Note: The statement of project objectives is intended to help the City as the lead agency to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR. Unless it can be should that this statement somehow is inconsistent with a land use policy or regulation, it is recommended that this comment not be included. Page 2 -40 (Necessary Approvals). Any target dates for approvals? — TG Note: It is recommended that the request for this information not be included. SECTION 4.A: AESTHETICS area. Please clarity if the Coastal Public View Tower will be illuminated at night and addr ss liqhting impacts to surrounding land uses and habitat. Moreover, hew Paged 4.M -12. How will the tower be accessed by pedestrian traffic as it will be situated in the middle of the vehicle traffic roundabout? Note: City polices only address impacts to public views. As impacts to private views are not required to be evaluated, it is recommended that the first part of this comment not be included. It is recommended that the second part of this comment be revised and third part of this comment be moved to comments on the Transportation/Traffic section. E Note: The Coastal View Tower is depicted in the visual simulations. Unless it is believed that the simulation does not accurately depict the tower or that the impact analysis does not address the impact of the tower, it is recommended that this comment not be included. Page 4.A - -1� c 3 (Views /Scenic Vistas). The EIR fails to does not adequately identify and address CT�..f . ubstaRtial adverse effoGt impacts the project may have on the scenic vista from Public View Corridor 8 (Fig. 2 -4). The EIR faits to does not provide a Vview Ssim lation from the focal point/main viewing area of Castaways Park. This area is narrowly identified in View Simulation 5, but this viewpoint should not be construed as a true depiction of the scenic vista views from View Corridor 8. Page 4.A -28 (Artificial Light). The EIR does not address new light sources from patio /balcony areas of residential structures. SECTION 4.C: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page: 4.0 -9. Would Please clarify how smaller animals that may not be ableto relocate will n t be harmed during the dredging portion of the construction. ' we ld ;.,-,agi% they Note: The statement in question is part of the description of the existing conditions, not an analysis of the impacts or mitigation. Unless the comment can be related to a potential environmental impact, it is recommended that the comment not be included. Note: Mitigation Measure C -3 provides that work will be halted if any observations of marine mammals are made. Unless it is believed that this mitigation measure is inadequate, it is recommended that the comment not be included. Note: Mitigation Measure C -10 requires a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Unless it is believed that this mitigation measure is inadequate, it is recommended that the comment not be included. 6i Note: Mitigation Measure C -5 requires eelgrss beds to be staked. Unless it is believed that this mitigation measure is inadequate, it is recommended that the comment not be included. SECTION 4.E: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 4.E -4 (Soil Corrosivity). The EIR f.. does not offer mitigation for the corrosion potential to buried ferrous metal. Although the EIR states further testing should take place during construction, this should not be offered as a means to mitigate any risk to possible structure collapse. Note: Unless it is believed that the mitigation measures are inadequate, it is recommended that the comment not be included Pag 4.E -10 (Failure). The EIR fails to does not identify specific Mmitigation measures to re olve substantial adverse effects that exist from Sseismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction. The EIR states that with implementations of the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study, they would need to be refined in a "design -level analysis "; the analysis should be made available to determine whether substantial adverse effects exist. Page 4.E -10 (Failure). The EIR does not discuss the substantial adverse impact that the future design feature of a water inlet may have on the site soil. SECTION 4.F: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The estimated maximum of "3,271 metric tons" of CO2e per year (p. 41-20, paragraph 3) differs from the subtotal of the same measure cited in Table 4.F -3 (p. 45-21). The Table 45-7 level of mitigated CO2e levels (= 3,010) still exceed the SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Why is the "Exceeds Threshold ?" response listed as "No "? Is there some acceptable amount of variance that allows 3,010 to be under the 3,000 threshold? SECTION 4.J: NOISE Page 4.J -3 (Newport Beach Municipal Code). There looks appears to be an error in the bold reference section. A Page 4.J -20 (On -Site Construction Noise). The threshold established does not adequately address the significant impact on -site construction noise will have on the area. Although construction is temporary in nature., and in turn exempt from excessive noise levels, the EIR should provide a more accurate means to mitigate these noise levels. Estimated duration of work activity and smaller windows for heavy machine operations may help mitigate. Page 4.J -22 (Off -site Construction Noise). it wens as though the 15nt The 15- foot -tall temporary noise barrier wall wouldn't not mitigate noise from construction trucks outside of th Droiect siteholn this oithor cinno the tri rOkS hA�io try nt9me Page 4.J -36. The 15ft wall may be objected by residents and businesses around the area for aesthetic reasons. Note: Potential opposition by nearby residents and business is not relevant to the environmental analysis. Unless the appearance of the 15- foot -tall temporary noise barrier presents an significant visual impact, it is recommended that the comment not be included. SECTION 4.K: POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT Note: The comments appear to agree with the analysis and conclusions of the EIR. Therefore, the comments are not needed. SECTION 4.L: PUBLIC SERVICES rl Note: The comments appear to agree with the analysis and conclusions of the EIR. Therefore, the comments are not needed. There is no discussion of potential impacts to electric and gases utilities. ther any additional irnpaGtS OR this regards? Note: The comment appear to agree with the analysis and conclusions of the EIR. Therefore, the comment is not needed. SECTION 5.0: ALTERNATIVES Page 5 -3 (Alternative Locations). The only o„e listed alternative site provided is the Newport Dunes. A more thorough discussion of the parameters used to identify potential alternative sites should be providedis there aRy other planes outside the dunes that night be aGGeptable. SECTION: OTHER MANDATORY CEQA CONSIDERATONS Note: Unless it is believed that the project will have growth- inducing impacts beyond local and regional forecasts, it is recommended that the comment not be included. Note: CalTrans has a specific nomination process and criteria for the designation of Scenic Highways. Since no effort is currently underway, it is not likely that designation will take place before project is considered by the City. Therefore, it is recommended that the comment not be included. oil