Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3B Appellant CommentSimply summarized, the massive size of this project-394 apartments on approximately 18 acres —leads to "fair arguments" that it is too environmentally significant to be approved with a mitigated negative impact report (MND) instead of an environmental impact report (EIR). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has a built-in preference for EIRs over MNDs. A full EIR is needed for a project "[i]f substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare and EiR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect." (1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act [Cont. Ed.Bar 2d ed. March 2021 Update], §6.37 p. 6-36.4, italics added; see also Remy, et al., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act [Solano Press, lath Ed.], p. 263 ["under the fair argument standard, the decisionmakers are not asked to resolve conflicts in the evidence, but merely to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support a fair argument."].) As a non -lawyer i've tried to explain this to City officials and staff, but the response I get is that new state laws require cities to approve housing developments and thus require our City to approve this project despite the fact that it needs an EIR instead of an inadequate MND for that approval. let me be clear. I am not telling the City Council to outright reject the project, instead, I'm urging the City Council to defer that decision until after City staff prepares an EiR for the project in order that the City Council and our community can be fully informed of this massive project's potentially significant environmental impacts. Anything short of that would constitute negligence on the City Council's part and expose the City to a challenge under CEQA. Case law holds that the relevant personal observations of area residents on nontechnical subjects may qualify as substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of an impact. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App.4th 903, 928 & 932 [land use]; (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [aesthetics]; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322 [traffic & biology]; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872 [noise].) Here, both local residents and experts proffer fair arguments supported by substantial evidence of potentially adverse environmental impacts arising from this project. AESTHETICS — "Aesthetics are subjective. But [] lay opinions can provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that a project may have a significant aesthetic impact on the environment, triggering the need to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to [CEQA]." (Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2018) 30 Cal.App.Sth 358, 363.) As that case and Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.Sth 1129, 1147 ["aesthetic judgments are inherently subjective"] both explain, when a dispute arises over a project's potential aesthetic impact, the proper document for analyzing those impacts is an EIR and not a MND. With regard to lay opinions, many, many people drive, bicycle and walk on Portola and Frank Sinatra. There is walking path through this area that many area residents and area visitors use on a daily basis. They utilize this path to enjoy that beautiful views that one is afforded along the path. This project would obliterate the views these people now enjoy, especially in winter months with the snow-capped mountains. If this project is approved, people walking as well as those driving in the area would be subjected to viewing unattractive 3-story buildings. Moreover, lighting for the vast outdoor parking spaces as well as the apartment units themselves, will have a negative impact on the community's Dark Sky Initiative that the residents and indigenous wildlife of Palm Desert rely on. Finally, this project does not fit in the community of single-family homes and high -end townhomes. With regard to "expert" opinion, one CECiA treatise notes that "Substantial evidence relevant to the agency's conclusions regarding the existence of a fair argument may come -- perhaps unwittingly —from the lead agency itself." (Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, 2007 Edition, p. 262; see also Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1115 [lead agency improperly rejected staff comments as "merely inferences that may be disregarded."].) The record here shows that happened here, with the ARC rejecting the project, and this is itself substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that this project will significantly and adversely impact the environment. This project was reviewed by the ARC on three different occasions. Twice it was sent back to the developer to make changes in the design. On the third review the ARC brought up concerns about the boxy nature of the 12 building along Frank Sinatra and Portola. The ARC was going to refer it back to the developer to make further changes or deny the project, but the developer requested a denial so they could move forward to the Planning Commission. This project should be denied based on the ARC position that the buildings are boxy and industrial looking. Other comments from the ARC include 1) balconies should be better integrated in the architectural design, 2) revisit the horizontal eyebrow element, 3) revisit sloped parapets, 4) revisit and improve massing along street frontages to break down massing, create better hierarchy, and variation and 5) create more interest through use of one and two-story elements that overlap different vertical sections of the building. TRAFFIC — Adding 600 plus vehicles to an already busy intersection of Portola and Frank Sinatra could produce added congestion and potential traffic accidents. There is only one exit from the property on each street. Residents of the project will, in my opinion, will use the exit that will get them off the property the fastest. If they exit onto Portola, they will be traveling south. If they want to go in a different direction, they will have to make a U-turn at the Desert Willow Golf Academy, where the center divider terminates. There is a curve in the street at this point. Making a U-turn at this location could be cause to traffic accidents on a street that is highly traveled. Moreover, 1 asked a Professional Traffic Engineer to review the traffic report them MND relied on, and he noted that it was lacking a key analysis: "In the opening section of the TA, this is stated on Page 1: i'ortota/Frank Sinarra Residential Tralpe Analysis 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential ("Project"), which is located south Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert. The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This TA has been prepared based in accordance with the County of Riverside's Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020), as the City of Palm Desert utilizes the County LOS/VMT analysis guidelines. (1) To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Palm Desert's traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this report_ The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1. In the County of Riverside's Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020), there is a requirement that projects evaluate and conduct if necessary a VMT (Vehicles Miles Traveled) assessment consistent with SB 743. The TA does not mention VMT at all. The project exceeds the threshold of 194 mid rise residential housing units that requires a VMT analysis. The TA should have at a minimum a paragraph discussion about the VMT requirement and how the project is analyzed in that context - exempt and why or analysis. They do reference an "agreement" with the City, but Appendix 1.1 cannot be found. Do you have it? The VMT analysis issue may be discussed there." After the traffic P.E. reviewed Appendix 1.1, he discovered that the required VMT analysis was not provided in the City's review process. This is a basic informational deficit of the MND's traffic analysis. NOISE and PARKING — The addition of high -density housing would significantly increase the amount of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. There are 816 parking spaces allocated for 394 units. That is 28 parking spaces in excess of the requirement of 2 spaces per unit. When there are special events, such as Super Bowl, overflow parking will spill over to the residential properties across Frank Sinatra. In conclusion, the MND inadequately analyzed aesthetic, traffic, noise and parking impacts resulting from this project that could pose potentially significant impacts to the existing area and environment of the neighborhood. Based on all of my prior comments and the fact that the ARC denied the project based on its aesthetics, I am urging that the City Council to not approve this project until an EIR is prepared for it.