Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Hyatt Regency Expansion - PA 2005-212 - CorrespondenceSPON "RECEIVED A ER AGENDA I i_.�i: , PRINTED." if I / 20 February 2009 r, E3 Mr. Ed Selich, Mayor Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach Na 3300Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 0 Re: Hyatt Regency Time Shares - "' Dear Mr. Selich and Members of the City Council: SPON has reviewed the Sunstone proposal and has found very serious environmental impacts to the adjacent public watershed. The Hyatt's previous development had graded and improved a golf course, both on the Hyatt property and across the property line into sensitive public habitat area of the adjacent John Wayne Gulch. Restoring that habitat is crucial to the new development contemplated by Sunstone. SPON hereby asks City Council to support mitigation including at least a 100' setback from sensitive ESHA (both the uplands and wetlands adjacent to the street area) and restoration of the off - property habitat. Respectfully, Mjq4uGo POPOV16A( Marko Popovich, SPON co -Chair P.O. Box 102 - Balboa Island, CA 92662 - Telephone (949) 514 -1686 SPON is a c -3 not for profit California Corporation Leilani I REC T1NITli9G, �,i3s.l EL, From: Don Harvey [harveydonw @juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:59 PM To: City Council; Henn, Michael; Webb, Don (City Council); Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Gardner, Nancy; Brown, Leilani; Bludau, Homer Subject: Agenda Item 14, City Council agenda February 24, 2009 (Hyatt Regency) February 23, 2009 Mayor Ed Selich and Newport Beach City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Hyatt Regency Expansion (PA 2005 -212) City Council Agenda Item Number 14, February 24, 2009 Dear Mayor Selich and City Council Members: The whole of John Wayne Gulch should be protected as ESHA, with at least a 100 -foot buffer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Don Harvey, JD, PhD 2039 Port Weybridge Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 harvevdonwnn iuno.com (949) 759 -9220 Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans. jj . lVr Hamilton Biological 20 FEB 24 eN 7: 28 February 24, 2009 V Hon. Ed Selich, Mayor Op'! _ Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Second Review of Biological Issues Associated with Proposed Conversion of the Hyatt Regency Golf Course to Timeshares Dear Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council: At the request of the organization Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), I provided a letter dated November 6, 2008, that evaluated various technical reports and analyses regarding the potential biological effects of converting an existing golf course to timeshare units and associated amenities at the Hyatt Regency, located near the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve /John Wayne Gulch in Newport Beach. Proposed actions include fuel modification and landscaping within the City- owned open space. As part of this review, I reviewed a biological technical report dated 7 November 2007 that Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) prepared for Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. I also reviewed the relevant portions of Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR, FEIR) that The Planning Center prepared in support of this project in 2008, with GLA serving as the biological consultant. My first letter was reviewed by Tony Bomkamp of GLA, and on 5 February 20091 met in the field with Mr. Bomkamp to review conditions on the ground and to evaluate the baseline conditions together. Subsequently, Mr. Bomkamp has provided revised plant community mapping that reflects some, but not all, of the corrections that I suggested. One proposed building location was modified to allow for a 100 -foot buffer between that building and a wetland area located just north of the project boundary, near Back Bay Drive. Mr. Bomkamp has also indicated that additional changes have been made to the plans, such as removal of all plant species from the fuel modification planting palette that are not native to Upper Newport Bay. I have seen only the revised plant community mapping and a plan that shows the revised building Iocation, This letter provides a second round of review and identifies some outstanding issues that remain to unresolved. Methods As noted in my last letter, I visited the City's public open space area during afternoon hours on 29 October and 3 November 2008 in order to field -check GLA's plant community mapping and to view the resources present along the interface between the open space and the Hyatt Regency golf course. I took into the field print -outs of aerial photos from Google 316 Monrovia Avenue - -r Long Beach, CA 90803 r' 562- 477 -2181 - -r" Fax 562- 433 -5292 � Feb ` `cOUntered ldet r apps dr. ep S�onnunun(� 1 hatull e ur OOwed met k lth x& a ofnadve plan�co�m d t� SroWing in ces For IVlr. Bow Boinka unite: areas that example, amp are mp to re Also du . Mr• Bo venOtedas ''here I i Con cllko Groper a B°Up Reld amP had areas k herenah SI'eed With On the b� Gnat ack Bay P. we co I'Ped as "iu ecoastal h his clan` thafementl�u_°`'atl °n Ma Veisnota�medthate deral "Or4aes`�„b� Prope�� the b° ainthe,wd erenOtableadOnshOw�iteYednOrth gybed." 'Is th results unclanes apes of easements enable been taYotherPro n G Acs G mg deyejOPm nt toe den noted In m 4Vbet3ofth Previous CO �on the and I rep rent le It his sho n l... aerial phod Fl. 53 Plant cunt t by thProblem yvFlgure 1 betOgraphic , ? of the DEI ututy ma e screens. Bch again mloak GLA g e uiaki employo i°rePared b es it diffic If o evant ion mcu(poge alUa ps Cl aluate then'ty map does them resources that a et 1. Revised e an Pro]ant comuni X0094 PurPlees 6y GLA o tttaP n ijsturbedcourse /orneral /orna 0 is "coastalsae / /oq,is y ental,.., ;c Bens inbib a scr,, , era,;- uracY of this YPatternPt to Veer of the getado Proper ty' alo �rth dO cross p heeactua a ending � brive this prono_, - On 10 Al. O tha -- � y tRt I � 1, vembei -.!ia Pr er �_.a.. °Per ry tl0 rrespoil �Y �r �'; _ �y -�.;, - �'•, Larbedar3' duel Porh 0 Ptnen� . , r • maP h PertY ease °wtng 1 i ahp + t0 Bete meats h a ir�a off rmine h t encroa�tAub hero e ficus tr upsth 2�Qa P¢ nt1S AQ SAacees nt the °Wept an adlarej e n �Aortartt allphable to the no owe$te course rf{erenoe "Ci an rth. It is m coat 'f ts) and here C 1'ettvee easerhe intAprt er of th er where f8 °w Sh 71 out Yus two ntprother egalla� ety pn PaCEA t decal t1�tf a" �d " the nor an$enlen tOf deny Live der the scru their ified ttrt V ante bolo 'rs a fa..-O e" areas /a t CO in arger are de -story egetaji 'ma;n,n 7 rBePa n ateunity'naa of •,rn 9Snpte (black ss !!a p syet ft to Ca at ath tGj�crob spec, founddvl cegpr drn ntyhr c° ➢grimes h +� he under rudera! mapped es, but hatreasoati °n sto "ha as .,r mike nab the Includ" a rOnsrduderat , din , ith ru intact lalso o�c abu M01,74 t Pl,yliryr47genst sP.m�romcchlsspn native 0 A, 'e yy urate as Ce Yet A d urin �h9 /u r rat °l. c eeds rude he cp g our ft I. and p110 art raP� ntln efd 'r 4117 d cert refe ues to VrSit, t e take gd gPSho� oy apt then a d70rou a`° this he agreeci Ciro e�abl'Qarancel s z ber wheati� , na pe Srbed arPatnelyt pl. n Fugu t near the �t ntpr v the b � Ps d iecthis eadt S es eying D oug�u "ho, oOftheo.,anb'eli.,pr�g shoear'e east �wv --saucy urneshares project Figure 3. Photo taken on showing native W Ev1, 3 hlte 3 November 200! cartescrnpP ssp 'V. d as -rud ral lb ) tg owing in the area rnp Phaliatr1 y GLA. Figure 5. Photo take 0. showing nee dlegrass ove the area ma ssel a s n andbro n as "ruderal'bYGLgr wn in is native November, .'h bunchgrass numerous cl ;reen growth whe were ry- n we visited e a site it th site t 1-lamihon Biology"; Page 4 _�' on 3 November mappe(DI 2001 d as h�chl:s sPlcata) ruder.," by .."� project Figure 6 shows a Bobcat (L field visit on g Ynx ru Hamilton February 20D9 )that we saw at the edge of the golf course du as unit ' i• 1 - 'y.� i h _gr } f N Wit.. 6, 2009phow taken on w a an -,., walking under the adult slocatedalonund pine edge o f the golf c northeast_ nurse. TheBobc -` Coastal Commis t walked down into the s' °� Sensi • sion n= natural o frveHabitatAre be reSPonsible or. SpaCeOfjohn areas thatincluden setting WaYneGul abveplaSalongthenorthettt the bo The California Cm anble a such as Upper houldclearl andeasterned of Environme lua habitat for Newport $a YqualifYasES dgeofthe r ntally adequate Ommi -on c efuwl1ildlite spec eS such as open spacpder the Coastal Act de larger U Protect them Y consider w as th is Bobcat. areas ma function goingppe� wPortBaY os,Vste a nab al reso °f °nly 50 commend that the on sensitive buffer as any ESFIA g of native vegetation' given thatfuel of john Wayne 60 Gulch feet is truly buffer area or on any public luands aro cc� e should n ton involvesreP atede 'um mom' and Conclusion project perim to rmitted within s reviewed in this letter hiding the.. the .. thisth a number of biologic. glcal issues r Revised remain unresolved enema Plant com at this time, Ma onto theeamentoflarge tree does not cus djacent property to the nor hthenorthweStern tel There is a Y reflect the a need to Part of the apparent Ments that are beitmt Map and discuss the Hyattproperty bound earies g relied upon to details of Y ea these ease exten cements or other arran an ments into the adjacent public o d development be Re °Ised and the pro cent bound pen space. It Yond the ge_ Plantcotnmur0l3mappingfailst recogfu e field. helpfuPoha e t Somo ••__ Second comment letter, Hyatt Regency timeshares project Hamilton Biological, lnc. February 24, 2009 Page 6 of 6 John Wayne Gulch contain numerous native plants in the understory. The Coastal Commission must carefully consider where the limits of ESHA should be drawn along the upper limit of John Wayne Gulch. Even some ruderal areas that lack native plants may have relatively high values as wildlife habitat, given their location within the larger Upper Newport Bay ecosystem. The Coastal Commission must carefully consider whether a buffer of only 50 or 60 feet is adequate to protect ESHA adjacent to the proposed development, or whether a buffer of 100 feet would be more protective of the adjacent Upper Newport Bay ecosystem. Fuel modification involves repeated, ongoing clearing of native vegetation and therefore should not be permitted within any ESHA buffer area or on any public lands around the project perimeter. I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you wish to discuss any matters, please call me at 562 - 477 -2181 or send e -mail to robb@rahamilton.com. Sincerely, Robert A. Hamilton Hamilton Biological, Inc. AFTER From: JonV3 @aol.com Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:02 PM To: City Council; Henn, Michael; Webb, Don (City Council); Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Gardner, Nancy; Brown, Leilani; Bludau, Homer Subject: Agenda Item 14, City Council Agenda Tonight, Hyatt Regency February 23, 2009 Mayor Ed Selich, and n N Newport Beach City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Hyatt Regency Expansion (PA 2005 -212) City Council Agenda Item Number 14, February 24, 2009 v Dear Mayor Selich and City Council Members, Na OD 0 I am writing to recommend that the City Council review the Hyatt EIR in terms of correctly delineating the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). I believe the biology report for the EIR incorrectly maps the ESHA and does not include the totality of the John Wayne Gulch as ESHA even though it is one big contiguous open space dominated by native species such as coastal sage scrub. The biology report seems to locate the edge of ESHA at some point down the hillside from the golf course, whereas there is a lot of coastal sage scrub adjacent to the golf course. The ESHA acreage appears to be underestimated by the EIR. In addition, the buffer from ESHA at 50 or 60 feet is inadequate given the ecologic importance of the Newport Bay ecosystem. To give ESHA its proper protections, the normal 100 -foot buffer required of most large projects involving significant ecological areas in the coastal zone ought to be required. The standard of review for this project is not the City's CLUP, but the Coastal Act, specifically Chapter 3 that deals with resource protections such as ESHA. The City's 50- foot minimum from ESHA is inadequate at this particular location. There seems to be confusion as to where the property line for the City is in relation to the Hyatt property. No fuel modification zone nor buffer for the project should extend into public open space owned by the City. The buffer for the project should extend from the Hyatt property line and not within the publicly owned open space. The whole John Wayne Gulch is ESHA as stated in the November 6, 2008, Planning Commission staff report, page 8. There has been no evidence to rebut this. To quote from the staff report: "As previously stated, the Newporter North Environmental Study Area is located north of the project site and consists of native coastal sage scrub. Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) provides habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN), which is a federally threatened species and a California Department of Fish and Game - designated species of concern. As described in detail in Section 5.3 (Biological Resources) of the DEIR, Glen Lukos Associates observed gnatcatchers in the coastal sage scrub to the northwest of the site (including a pair that was observed approximately 30 feet beyond the limits of the proposed fuel modification zone) and has also confirmed that the Newport North Environmental Study Area qualifies as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA)" Therefore the whole John Wayne Gulch including right up to the edge of the golf course should be protected as ESHA, with a proper 100 -foot buffer extending towards the proposed buildings from the golf course, and no fuel modification in the John Wayne Gulch, which will subtract from the ecologic value of the ESHA. The significance of this ESHA open space for wildlife movement was confirmed by the sighting of a bobcat in the trees adjacent to the golf course just two weeks ago. The Newport Bay ecosystem, including John Wayne Gulch, is Newport Beach's premier environmental resource and should be protected to the maximum extent possible. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot MD 2221 E 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 548 -6326 You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get Oscars updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. (httg: / /movies.aol.com /oscars- academy- awards ?ncid= emicntusmovi00000001) 02/24/2009 19:09 FAX 2134810352 r'' UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 11 UNITEWEREV, Ze"111 February 20, 2009 Mayor Edward. D. Selich City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 l¢f UUZ /UU4 ,$RECEIVED AFTER A END 0" PRIt!TFD-." 94 21m7 n r'' m c } w Re: P"& HemW footfly RegancyNewport Beat Faparasiwn (PAMS"2l2) and Env&wunn0dhWax1AeWYt Honorable Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council: UNITE HERE represents hotel employees throughout California We would like to raise several issues related to the Hyatt Newport Beach Expansion and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) accompanying the project. This letter includes some points raised in previous lcum (commenting on the project's drat EIR and for the Plattning Commission's hearings last year). We urge you not to certify the EIR and grant other approvals until time issues have been resolved. TJinawha vii and tke Coastal Act: Many of UNrfE HERE's members work in hotels along the California coastline and their families often five in nearby coastal neighborhoods. As participants in the state's tourism industry, we recognize the value of the amine as a resource and attraction for visitors. We are concerned with the inclusion of 88 new timeshare units in the proposed project. We recognize that there is a provision to amend the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) to specifically allow the planned times within the Nrisitor Serving Commercial zone, and that the Coastal Commission has signaled its consent to this change. Regardless, we believe that important issues main concerning the appropriateness of timeshares for this project Encouraaa M of Lower Cost Visitor Accommialmaw We believe that the project's timeshare component may violate Section 30213 of the State Coastal Act which states that "lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." We do not believe that timeshares fulfill this requirement because they are geared towards a small, affluent sw=W of the population. As Coastal Commisawn analyst Libra Roman notes m a March 25 , 2008 letter, "tithe share traits are not considered to be loww -cost visitor trcommodabons and therefore do no have priority over lower -cost visitor accommodations in the coastal zone. Therefore the City should consider requiring the remaining entitlements granted under CIOSA to be reserved for the provision of ❑ Main Office ❑ Garden Grove Office ❑ Airport Office 464 E Lucas Ave, Ste 201 13252 Garden Grove Blvd Ste 200 4634 W Imperial Hwy Los Angeles, CA 90017 -2074 Garden Grove CA 92843 Inglewood CA 90304 (213) 481 -8530 • FAX (213) 481 -0352 (714) 750 -4373 • Fax (714) 750 -2683 (310) 671 -0720 • Fax (310) 671 -5021 02/24/2009 19:09 FAX 2134810352 UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 10003 /004 on -site lower cast visitor accommodations. Where such provision isn't feasible, atppropristie m1tigation/0ff-5Cts should be required in order so that lower -cost visitor accommodations can be provided elsewhere in a coastal area." We also believe that the timeshare project will only worsen Newport Beach's lack of lower cost visitor accommodations. According to an August 0, 2006 Coastal Commission memorandum prepared for the Commission's "Condominium -Hotel Workshop," the majority of Newport Bomb's visitor accommodations at the time (9 of 16) were classified as "luxury." In contrast, only 3 Newport Beach accommodations were classified as "low cost." The addition of timeshares will only increase Newport Beach's status as a playground for wealthy visitors. Visitor- Serving`Commercial Recreational Facilities: The timeshare component onent may violate the Coastal Act's policy of encouraging visitor-serving uses and public access to the coastline because timeshares are sometimes only accessible to their owners, and not tourists who are seeking overnight accommodations while visilmg the coastline. Coastal Commission an*st Liliana Roman notes that "dam project results in a net loss of traditional hotel rooms on the property-, and the loss of capacity for fimre additional traditional hotel rooms on the property that may be necessary to accommodate fntcue demand. This raises concerns with regard to Coastal Act Sections 30222 and 30223 which, respectively, encourage use of private lands suitable for visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation, and encourage reserving upland areas necessary to support recreational uses.... Commission staff is supportive of time share developments in general commercial or other land use designations, however usually not in visitor serving zones as they are only considered " quasi" visitor serving compared to regular hotel rooms." We recognize that the Development Agreement will have conditions that limit occupancy of timeshares by their owners to no more than 90 days annually. We still believe, however, that traditional hotel rooms are more appropriate for Visitor Serving areas than timeshares. Proximity to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area It is unclear whether the project is properly buffered to protect the adjacent Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). As Coastal Commission analyst Lilma Roman notes, the city's Coastal Land Use Plan OUT) contains: "... policies requiring coastal resource protection (ie., provide appropriate buffer areas and setbacks, shield and direct exterior lighting away to minimize impacts to wildlife, prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel modification within the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), etc.) The DEIR impact analysis states that there is no ESHA on -site and that the project design would result in complete avoidance of adjacent off-site coastal sage shrub ESHA with a 50 -foot minimumm buffer area between developed areas and off -site CSS. However, it appears that vegetation and fuel modification is proposed in the 50- foot ESHA buffer area. Development adjacent to ESHA must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA- Coastal LUP policy Calls for bui3er areas to be maintained with exclusively native Vegetation to serve as transitional habitat, not 2 02/24/2009 19:10 FAX 2134810352 UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 LAJUU4 /UU4 as a fuel modification zone. Fuel modification requiremems to address fire hazard should set back (within Project boundaries and outside of buff=) so that the buffer areas serve their intended function of protecting ESHA fern the disruption of habitat values." We believe that the afotioned 50 -foot buffer should be 100 -feet We also share SPON's concerns over restoration of public habitat area (the John Wayne gulch) adjacent to the hotel. hntaact on Neiehhors: Finally, we concur with points raised by Newport Beach residents in herring in Ocdober and November 2008 regarding increased noise (due to construction. and attendance at ballroom events), traffic congestion and safety (especially along Jamboree Road), the loss of a greenbelt and recreational opportanities from the elimination of the existing 94mic golf course, and the potential loss of views for nearby Sea Island residents. We believe these lashes must be addressed and resolved prim to the acceptance and oeatifiicatior of the final EIR and granting of other approvals for this project Thank you S 464 S. Lucas Avenue, #201 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 400-4283 Phone (213) 481 -0352 Fax andvlee2na.aol.com CC: Mr. Jaime Murilio, Associate Planner, City of Newport Beach 3 SZ &R LLP Fax :8054461490 Feb 24 2009 13:24 P.01 LAW OFFICES OF STOWELL, ZEILENGA, RUTH, VAUGHN & TREIGER LLP 2815 TOWNSGATE ROAD, SUITE 330 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 TELEPHONE (805) 446 -1496 TELECOPIER (805) 446 -1490 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET COUNCIL AG !4D NO. I THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS INTENDED AS A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CJENT. IT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION. DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BYTELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO USAT THE ABOVEADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE February 24, 2009 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR: Name of Individual(s): Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach Homer Bludau, City Manager City of Newport Beach Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Telecopier Number: (949) 644 -3039 From: Richard S. Zeileaga, Esq. Re: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion. Project (City Council HearinLy Date February 24, 2009) Message: Please see attached. Total Number of Pages Including this Cover Sheet: 41 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL BACK A.S.A.P. TO (806) 446 -1496. THANK YOU. SZ &R LLP DAVID T. STOWELL RICHARD S. ZRI1.6NGA DAVID C. RUTH JAMES D. VAUGHN ADAM P TREIGUR SAMUEL E- GASOWSII PHILLIP R. SLOT Via Teleconier and E -Mail Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Fax:8054461490 Feb 24 2009 um STOWELL, ZEILENGA, RUTH, VAUGHN & TREIGER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2615 TOWNSGATE ROAD , SUITE 830 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 TEL: 18061440-1490 • FAX: 18061 466 -1480 www.ssrlaw.00m February 24, 2009 Re: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project (City Council Heaung Date February 24.2009) Dear Council Members: 1324 P. 02 OF COUNSEL CARYW.SPRNCER This firm represents the City of Irvine. This letter supplements prior correspondence from the City of Irvine concerning the above - referenced Myatt Hotel Expansion Project ( "the Project") and its potential environmental impacts. The City of Irvine continues to have significant concerns about several potential environmental impacts caused by the proposed Project, as more fully described below. In summary, the City of hvine urges that consideration of this Project be continued so that the City of Newport Beach ( "City") will have an adequate opportunity to correct significant deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "), the studies supporting the EIR, the response to comments set forth in the Final EIR, and to obtain the evidence necessary to support the CEQA findings required for EIR certification. HISTORY OF CONTROVERSY. Both the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") Comment Summary, and the Final EIR comments and responses, reflect a significant amount of historical controversy concerning this Project, as reflected in comment letters from the City of Irvine, the California Coastal Commission, CalTrans, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, several homeowners associations, and individuals residing throughout the region. Unfortunately, the Final EIR prepared by the City does not adequately address many of the significant concerns raised by these commenters over the past two years, thus requiring that the City Council reject this FIR for certification. SZ &R LLP Fax :8054461490 Feb 24 2009 1324 P.03 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIP'T'ION. The Project Description in the EIR emphasizes that this Project was effectively authorized in 1993 as part of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( "CIOSA Agreement ") with the Irvine Company, which provided for the development of 479 hotel rooms on the Project site. To the extent that the Project Description conveys the impression that the CIOSA Agreement sanctioned the entire proposed Project, it is misleading. The CIOSA Agreement did not authorize the additional structures proposed as part of the Project, including a 62.5 foot high bell tower, well in excess of the maximum height limitations applicable to the site. Nor did the 1992 CIOSA Agreement expressly authorize other proposed uses /structures, including development of a two -level parking garage, an 800 -seat ballroom facility, and a public spa and fitness center. The Project Description is also vague and ambiguous with respect to some of the proposed elements of the Project. In some instances, the Project Description references a new clubhouse as part of the timeshare units, but does not define the square footage for that facility. Similarly, with respect to the new pools, the size and the nature of those pool facilities are undefined. For example, there is no indication whether the new pool facilities will have any active features, such as water slides, wave machines, etc., that can generate noise and vibration impacts. Section 3.4.3 of the Project Description (Fuel Modification and Fire Protection), aclmowledges the incompatibility of the proposed Project with applicable fire safety standards. In relevant part, the text states: "The conceptual fuel modification plan is shown as Figure 3 -10. Fuel modification widths for the site vary from 50 to 70 feet, compared to the standard 170 feat. Areas where 70 or more feet of on- and off -site fuel modification are achievable are considered adequate...." (pp. 3 -19 to 3 -20) (emphasis supplied). Those two sentences alone demonstrate a significant disconnect between existing applicable safety standards and the attempt of the applicant to "shoe horn" a larger project into an area that currently serves as an effective fire safety buffer fox the hotel site, ae., the existing 9 -hole golf course located between the Hotel site and the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve, which contains highly flammable Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. See EIR Figure 3 -3 (Aerial Photograph). This issue will be more fully addressed below in our comments on the Biological and Hazard sections of the EIR. In summary, however, neither the EK the response to comments, nor the Fire Protection Plan ( "FPP "), set forth in Appendix H to the EK demonstrate that the fire hazard risk is reduced to a less - than - significant level. To the contrary, reducing that risk to a less than significant level would require a more substantial fire safety buffer, consistent with existing Newport Beach Fire Department ("NBFD ") standards that require a 170 foot buffer. Doing so would necessarily require the removal of substantial Coastal Sagebrush habitat. If the buffer is enlarged, to meet the existing safety standard, thereby removing Coastal Sagebrush Habitat, the EIR must be revised to reflect that significant impact on biological resources. Currently, the Elk contends that not one Coastal Sagebrush plant will be removed as part of the Project. On the other hand, if SZ &R LLP Fax :8054461490 Feb 24 2009 13 :25 P.04 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 3 the fire safety buffer is not enlarged to comply with existing safety standards, i.e., the standard 170 foot fire safety buffer, then the EIR must be revised to properly disclose a significant unmitigated fire safety hazard_ Figure 3 -10 in the Project Description sets forth the Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan. The diagram is misleading to the reader in that it does not reflect the admissions elsewhere in the document, specifically that the NBFD may require a larger fuel modification zone to further reduce the potential fire hazard. Given that the existing standard is a 170 foot fire safety buffer (see EIR, Appendix II, p. 3, § Il, ¶¶ 2 -3), it is not mere speculation to suppose that the NBFD may insist upon a buffer larger than the applicant's minimal 50 foot buffer. Indeed, even after Project construction is complete, the NBFD will have the opportunity to insist upon a larger buffer on May la each year, when it annually reviews the Project's Fire Protection Plan and Fuel Modification Zone. In fact elsewhere in the EIR, the document concedes that the NBFD will review the fuel modification zone each year and may adjust the size of the zone as it deems necessary, by ordering the removal of the Coastal Sagebrush. See EIR, p. 5.6 -15. Therefore, the assumption in the EIR that no impact will occur to Coastal Sage Scrub, as demonstrated by Figure 3 -10, is false and misleading. The failure to fully disclose potential environmental impacts, including the fact that the conceptual fuel modifications zones may be substantially expanded by the NBFD, is a fundamental error in CEQA compliance and prohibits the City from certifying this EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR addresses assumptions regarding cumulative impacts. It notes that 14 Cad. Code ,Begs. ( "CEQA Guidelines) Section 15130(Bxl) provides that cumulative impacts analysis may be based on one of two sources, either. (A) past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Agency; or (B) a summary of projects contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional area wide conditions. The EIR further concedes that with respect to traffic impacts, and other quantified impacts, the EIR uses method A for its analysis, i.e., a list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts. Table 4 -2 identifies probable future projects. The Table lists eight projects, all located within the City. Such a truncated probable future projects list is entirely deficient for purposes of cumulative impacts analysis under section 15130(b)(1)(A). The Citys EIR has failed to address probable future projects outside the borders of the City, including projects in Costa Mesa and Irvine. More tellingly, and of far more concern, is the EIR's failure to address very significant nearby projects within the City. For example, the EIR does not address a very substantial nearby project at Fashion Island, the North Newport Center project The City has been well aware of SZ &R LLP Fax:8054461490 Feb 24 2UU9 16:2b r.u� Newport Beach City Council February 24,2009 Page 4 that project for years, in part because it proposes to include the City's new City Hall at that location. The City may not hide behind the notice of preparation date for this EIR, i.e., December 17, 2006, and claim that it need not address such projects because it was unaware of them on December 17, 2006. We are now in February 2009, over three years later. The City has been involved in active development agreement negotiations with the Irvine Company concerning the North Newport Center project, including development of a new City Hall at that site. This E1R figuratively and literally "sticks its head in the sand" and pretends that a very substantial project, in close proximity to the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion Project, does not exist_ Such an abject failure to properly disclose the :full scope of cumulative environmental impacts, will not survive scrutiny by the courts. (See EIR Figure 4-2 showing proximity of Fashion Island to Project site.) ICI► ► /lt ►1 AIK : lula Section 5.1 Aesthetics. The proposed Project will substantially increase the mass of existing development on the Project site, such that it will be seen from various view corridors and sensitive areas within the City, where no such development is currently visible. Most notably, the proposed Project will develop 88 new timeshare units along the Project's northern boundary, which is currently a 9- hole golf course, and will develop a 62.5 foot high bell tower, and a 2 -story parking garage. The Project is not consistent with applicable General Plan and Coastal Plan policies. For example, General Plan Policy NR20.2 (New Development Requirements): "requires new development to restore and enhance the visual quality and visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements for corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas . . . . " (EIR, p. 5.1 -4.) Similarly, General Plan Policy NR20.3 (Public Views) states: "protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway segments: • Back Bay Drive." Finally, General Plan Policy NR20.4 states: "design and site new development including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors ... to ... minimize impacts to public views." (Emphasis supplied.) For purposes of General Plan consistency, the question is whether the proposed Project "minimizes impacts to public views," in the way that the proposed timeshare units, bell tower and parking garage have been "designed and sited ?" As demonstrated below, the answer is clearly "no." The Coastal Plan similarly protects this important viewshed from new development impacts. For example, it states: "Where feasible, the scenic and visual qualities of the Coastal Zone are to be protected, including public views to and along the ocean, bay and harbor. Coastal views from designated roadway segments are to be protected pursuant to Policy 4.4 -1.6. Relative to the proposed Project site, public coastal views are to be protected from Back Bay Drive." See EIR, p. 5.1 -5. SZ &R LLP Fax:8054461490 Feb 24 2009 13:25 P.06 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 5 To address concerns about the massive new development along the shoreline, the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone also provides the following: "Concern over the intensity of development around Lower Newport Bay lead to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970s that establish more restrictive height and bulk development standards around the Bay. The intent was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures ... the Hyatt Regency site is located within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, where new development is limited to a height of 35 feet." See EIR, p. 5.1 -5. Recognizing this policy in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, the Coastal Land Use Plan incorporates the policy and states: "Of particular application to the proposed project are the following policies: 4.4.2 -1 maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone." (EIR, p. 5.1 -6) (emphasis supplied). The EIR concedes that the architectural proj ections of the ballroom tower and finial would be visible from various viewshed corridors. See EIR, p. 5.1 -10. The visual simulations provided in the EIR clearly demonstrate that various structures would be visible on the Project site from areas that currently view nothing but natural open space. For example, Visual Simulation 2 (Figure 5.1 -3), showing the existing view versus the proposed view, reflects a radical change. Where the existing view shows no man -made structures whatsoever, the proposed view shows a major hotel complex, even after five years of landscape growth has occurred. Visual Simulation 5A appears to be missing from the EIR (at least the version available the City's website), depriving the reader of important information in assessing the impact of the Project on viewshed corridors. Visual Simulation 5B, similar to Visual Simulation 2, clearly reflects a major change in the existing view, as compared to the proposed view. The existing view predominantly shows landscaping with only a brief glimpse of existing hotel structures. In contrast, the proposed view, even after live years of landscape growth, is dominated by building structures, and not landscaping. Significantly, the view corridor reflected in Visual Simulation 5B is from Back Bay Drive, one of the protected resources identified in both the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, as set forth above. The same significant changes in aesthetic impacts are reflected in Visual Simulation 6, although the simulation is highly misleading. It purports to show the new 62.5 foot high bell tower, but the panoramic shot has been stretched in a way that actually has shrunk the bell tower to make it appear to be a structure of no more than two stories, i e_, less than the current 35 -foot maximum imposed within the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. A misleading impact disclosure, that minimizes the true extent of an impact, violates the fundamental information disclosure requirements of CEQA. SZ &R LLP Fax :8054461490 heb 24 Zuuy 13 ;ZO F.0 Newport Beach City Cotmed February 24, 2009 Page 6 The EIR's description of these visuall simulations, and the impacts they show, is conclusory at best. where the visual simulations clearly show a significant change, i. e., going from open space to significant building massing, the EIR dismisses that impact by claiming that the "buildings will be designed to compliment the existing surrounding architecture." Of course, where there is no visible surrounding architecture, because the view is currently of natural open space, that statement is utter nonsense. See for example, discussion of visual simulations at pp. 5.1 -31 to 5.1 -32, and compare to visual simulation No. 2, at Figure 5.1 -3. The EIR itself notes those areas of the City that are potentially impacted by the proposed Project, stating: "Potential viewers of the project site include residents, local travelers, and commuters on the surrounding streets. The City's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan focus on the protection of public views as described above in Section 5.1.2, Applicable Plans and Regulations. Pursuant to General Plan Policy NR20.3 and Coastal Land Use Policy 4.41 -6, coastal views from designated corridors are to be protected and enhanced. In proximity to the project site, these include: Back Bay Drive, Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive, and Jamboree Road in the vicinity of Big Canyon Park (north of project site). Surrounding land uses with views of the project site include the Harbor Cove residential community, on a bluff north of the project site across the Newporter North Environmental Study Area; the Bayview Landing Senior Apartments, south of the project site across Back Bay Drive; and the Sea Island Community, east of the project site across Jamboree Road." See EIR, p. 5.1 -10. The visual simulations discussed above reflect that many of these potential viewers will be impacted by the proposed Project and that contrary to the "pleasant spin" in the EM, about the "compatibility of new architecture," and the "softening effects of landscape," the proposed buildings will mark a major change in the scenic view corridors around the Project site, many of which are expressly protected in the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. The Ent's attempt to minirrlm* the significance of these viewshed impacts is fundamentally misleading. The EIR should be revised to reflect that these impacts are significant and unavoidable, and the OR should thereafter be recirculated for public review. The PR's Discussion of Niehttime GIm Iaonacts is Also huideauate. The OR concedes the following: "Expansion of the hotel would result in additional lighting, which would increase nighttime light and glare in the project area.... More specifically, additional lighting would be required to provide nighttime illumination for the proposed timeshare buildings, ballroom and ancillary structures, internal drive aisles and SZ &R LLP Fax:8054461490 Feb 24 2009 13:26 P.08 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 7 walkways, and parking areas. Nighttime illumination would also be used to highlight building sign and landscape features and to create a feeling of security and safety." See EIR p. 5.1 -34. Despite this admission, the EIR concludes at page 5.1 -37, that "nighttime lighting impacts and potential spillover of the proposed hotel expansion would be less than significant." Similarly, with respect to cumulative impacts, the EIR states that "Due to the developed nature of the project area and the existence of light from the existing hotel and the surrounding properties, the proposed project is not anticipated to add significantly w the creation of nighttime light and glare in the project vicinity. Lighting levels would not be substarmally greater than existing lighting levels at the project site." This discussion, of the nighttime lighting impacts is also fondameutally misleading. As set forth in the Project Description, the current land use for the proposed timeshares is a 9 -hole golf course bordered by an ecological preserve to the north. These areas are not "currently developed" with structures that have exterior lighting, lighted balconies, lighted walkways, etc. Accordingly, the suggestion that the additional illumination in the area at night will be the same as current levels is not only inaccurate but highly misleading for both the City's decision makers and for the general public reviewing this EIR. Essentially, the EIR's analysis of this issue is based upon whether or not there is a "spillage" of light over the Project's property lime. That of course is one aspect of the impact analysis, but not the entire impact analysis. To the contrary, the EIR should analyze additional lighting within the context of certain viewshed corridors, that will be visible from off -site. So, for example, the EIR should examine the light and glare impacts on Visual Simulation 2. Visual Simulation 2, Figure 5.1 -3 in the EIR, currently reflects a view of natural open space and some distant landscaping, without any visible buildings or structures. Visual Simulation 2 should also be prepared for a nighttime view, reflecting the existing view at night and the proposed view at night, with the new timeshare units fully lighted, reflecting full occupancy of the units, and with all of the intended building accent lighting, including on the bell tower ballroom, fitness center, etc. In addition, we assume, although it is not clearly stated in the E1R, that the 62.5 foot bell tower will also be lit with accent lighting. The aesthetic section of the EIR falls to address the lighting of that structure as a nighttime lighting impact. Although lighting that structure may not cause light spillage over the Project boundaries, it will certainly be a significant new lit structure within the viewsheds identified in the EIR. Furthermore, the lighting of that structure has apparently not been subject to FAA Part 77 review, which is necessary given the location of the Project site within the Airport Laud Use Plan boundaries. All tall structures within the Airport Land Use Plan boundaries, particularly if they are to be developed with accent lighting, must be analyzed as a potential aviation hazard. This EIR does not reflect that any of that analysis has occurred, and no such analysis is disclosed to the reader. SM LLP Fax :8054461490 Feb 24 2009 1327 P.09 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 8 CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be imposed in an effort to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, or at least to minimize impacts even if they cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. The Elk's discussion of lighting impacts violates CEQA in two respects, as explained below. First, it does not properly disclose the visual impacts, both daytime and nighttime, as significant adverse impacts. Rather, it attempts to minimize the significant changes shown on the Visual Simulations by soothing "happy talk," referencing "pleasing architectural" structures and "softening landscape treatment," none of which addresses the fact that the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan do not provide an exception from their restrictions for such "pleasing architecture" and "softening landscape." Rather, they require the minimization of any viewshed impacts from the protected areas identified. See e.g., General Plan Policy NR 20.3 and NR 20.4 and Coastal Plan Policies at EIR, p. 5.1 -5, and discussed above at pp. 4 -5. Second, assuming, for the moment, that there are significant visual impacts that the City should have identified in its EIR, the next step requires the City impose all feasible mitigation measures. Here, the City has elected to impose none. Not one. So, for example, the City could have imposed mitigation requiring that the 625 foot high bell tower not be lit at night. The City could have Ru-ther imposed mitigations requirements eliminating building accent lighting and certain landscape lighting. None of these measures are even considered in the EIR, and certainly are not imposed on the Project U FAA Part 77 regulations require that the bell tower be lit at night, as a tall structure within the John Wayne Airport Land Use Plan area, the conflict between FAA Part 77 lighting requirements and the restrictions in the City's General Plan and Coastal Plan regarding visual impacts in the Coastal Zone, should have been fully disclosed and analyzed in the EIR- In summary, the aesthetic section of the EIR should be fundamentally revised and recirculated for public review, reflecting a more accurate disclosure of Project impacts and a more thorough discussion of potential feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. Section 5.2 Air Quality. The environmental setting of the EIR reflects that the Project site is located in close proximity to very sensitive receptors with respect to toxic air contaminants, including a seniors' community (Bayview Landing Apartments). The EIR concedes that seniors are a "sensitive receptor" for air pollution, including toxic air contaminants, such as diesel exhaust. See EIR, p. 5.2 -13. With respect to potential impacts, the EIR notes the following: "The public's exposure to toxic air contaminants ( "TACs ") is a significant environmental health issue in California." (P. 5.24.) It continues: "The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be traced to relatively few compounds, one of the most important in the Southern California [area] being particulate matter from diesel- fueled engines." (P. 5.24.) Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 9 Impact 5.2 -1 Consistency with Ak Oualiiv Manaeement Plan !"AOMP" The OR assumes that because the proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the prior CIOSA Agreement, it should be deemed consistent with Regional Air Quality Management Plan. That is a logical leap, to say the least. The General Plan and CIOSA Agreement assume the development of up to 479 hotel rooms. That Agreement does not, at least as summarized in the EIR, address the development of an 800 -seat ballroom, 10,000 square foot spa and fitness center open to the general public, nor the specific location of buildings in relation to other nearby sensitive receptors. The Project Description, in describing grading activities, indicates that the Project will require 24,000 truck trips related to cut and fill and 980 truck trips for removal of building materials, equating to approximately 48 truck traps per day just with respect to those two items. See EIR, p. 3.2 -21. To the extent that any of those truck trips are associated with development of facilities not included within the 479 hotel rooms assumed in the General Plan and CIOSA Agreement, they are notper se consistent with the Regional Air Quality Mauagement Plan. The City's reliance on the AQNM standard, without deeper analysis of the Project specific air quality impacts here, violates CEQA. See e.g., Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Haywood (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (city's reliance on existing air quality standard inadequate for CEQA compliance); and Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428 (agency failed to address mobile source emissions, 1. e., truck trips). Section 5.2 -3 Construction Emissions. As indicated above, the cut -and -fill operations alone for the Project would generate many thousands of truck trips with associated diesel fuel emissions in and around the Project site, and on nearby roadways. Nevertheless, the EIR finds no significant impact from construction emissions, because it apparently only focuses upon emissions from the construction equipment on the Project site, not emissions from exporting fill off site. This section of the EIR fails to discuss truck trips on- and off -site, i.e., the many thousands of truck trips disclosed in the Project Description of the EIR. Such an omission violates CEQA. See Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.AppAtb.1428. Given the admission in the EIR that diesel fuel emissions constitute the primary toxic air contaminant in Southern California, and given the fact that there are extremely sensitive receptors nearby, i.e., a seniors' community, the failure to analyze the potential impact of those diesel fuel truck trips on nearby sensitive receptors is a fatal omission from the EIR.. A health risk assessment with respect to nearby residents, particularly children and seniors, must be conducted as part of this EIR. The EM should be revised and recirculated after that information is provided, for the benefit of the City's decision makers and the general public. Jc6K LLr Fax:80544b1490 Feb 24 2009 13:27 P.11 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 10 Section 5.24 Lone -Term Operational Impacts. The EIR contends that long -term operational impacts will not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District standards, which assumes 661 average day trips from the Project site. The analysis is deficient in many respects. First, it is does not address the cumulative impact of the existing hotel trips when combined with the substantial truck taps associated with construction of the Project site, nor emissions from construction equipment on the Project site. Furthermore, it is not clear from the discussion whether this analysis assumes existing levels of vehicle trips from the existing hotel rooms or, as conceded elsewhere in the EIR, the likelihood of a far higher utilization of the hotel's existing rooms, when the 800 -seat ballroom, two new pools, a new spa and fitness center, etc., are all completed. See e.g., EIR p. 7 -15, anticipating higher utilization of existing vacant hotel rooms upon Project Completion. The proposed Project also provides that the new spa and fitness center will be open to the general public. Increased vehicle trips associated with non - guests using the spa and fitness. facility and the 800 -seat ballroom, may not have been assumed in the prior planning documents and South Coast Air Quality Management District documents and, therefore, the assumption of consistency with the AQMD is dubious at best. See Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Ca1.App.4th 322, 342. Section 5.2 -5 Sensitive Receptors. As indicated above, the drafters have failed to address the potential impact of diesel fuel truck trips on off site sensitive receptors. See p. 5.2 -22. The table set forth for the analysis in this section of the EIR relates entirely to construction equipment. See Table 5.2 -14. It does not address the impact upon nearby sensitive receptors, including the senior community, of many thousands of truck trips associated with the cut -and -fill operations on the Project site involving 24,000 cubic yards of export. See EIR, p. 3 -21, estimating 48 truck trips per day (2,400 truck trips in total) in association with those activities. This section of the EIR is also inadequate because it fails to identify the nearby sensitive receptors with any particularity, fails to show relevant distances to the Project site, and fails to show relevant distances between sensitive receptors and local roadways, that will be utilized by 48 truck trips per day. Simply put, the necessary disclosure of facts and analysis regarding sensitive receptors is non - existent. Section 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts. The EIR states that the LTRMEIS modeling demonstrates that construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, ... [there will be) no significant impacts...." (See EIR, p. 5.2 -23.) There is no indication in the very brief analysis on cumulative air quality impacts whether "construction emissions" include thousands of truck trips related to the export of 24,000 cubic yards of dirt, and the removal of debris associated with the demolition project, over the entire 23 -month construction process. SZ &R LLP Fax:8054461490 Feb 24 2009 13:28 P.12 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 11 Section 5.2.7 of the EIR sets forth the proposed mitigation measures to address air quality impacts. Despite the EIR's admission that this Project will generate thousands of diesel fuel truck trips, to remove 24,000 cubic yards of fill from the Project site, nevertheless this EIR does not identify one single proposed mitigation measure to address impacts upon air quality. Not one. It has not identified even one mitigation measure to address potential adverse construction emission impacts upon nearby sensitive receptors, in the nearby senior community. The EIR has also not identified even one mitigation measure to address the future operational impacts on the Project site, i.e., mitigation measures to reduce potential vehicle trips associated with guests staying at the hotel, both new guests using the 88 new timeshare units and the expected increase in utilization of the 403 existing hotel rooms. So, for example, there is no discussion of a new or expanded shuttle service from the hotel to points of interest, including Fashion Island, and other relevant areas in Newport Beach and the surrounding area, that might further reduce anticipated vehicle trips. Section 5.3 Molozical ImDacts. As set forth in the Project Description, the existing hotel site sits adjacent to the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve, immediately to its north. See EIR Figures 3 -3 and 5.9 -1. However, the current hotel site includes a 9 -hole golf course along its northem boundary, which effectively creates an open space buffer /transition between the existing hotel facilities and the sensitive habitat in the Ecological Preserve. See EIR, p. 5.34. See, also, Figure 5.9 -1 of the EIR, reflecting an aerial shot of the existing golf course and adjacent Ecological Preserve on the uorthem boundary of the Project site. Relevant text in the EIR concerning the existing environmental setting states: "Immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the golf course is a steep, descending slope that supports a mixture of native and exotic species .... Native vegetation occurring on the slope is a mixture of Coastal Sage Scrub species and riparian/marsh species, including California Coastal Sagebrush ...." (P. 5.3 -9.) lm further describing the California Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, the EIR states: "Immediately adjacent to the northwestern boundary of the golf course is a bluff supporting dense Coastal Sage Scrub dominated by California Coastal Sagebrush...." (P. 5.3 -9.) The EIR deems the adjacent habitat to be an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area ( "ESHA "). See EIR, p. 5.3 -17, and p. 5.3 -18 (Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.1 .1 re Coastal Sage Scrub ESHAs). With respect to sensitive species in the Ecological Preserve, the EIR observes the following: "Birds observed within the adjacent open space include ... Coastal California Gnatcatcher ...." (P. 5.3 -9_) Table 5.3 -1 of the biology section of the EIR further confirms that Coastal California Gnatcatcher "occurs in Coastal Sage Scrub habitat directly adjacent to the project site." See p. 5.3 -10_ Furthermore, EIR Figure 5.3 -3 identifies numerous Coastal California Gnatcatcher sightings in 2007, some in very close proximity to the Hyatt Hotel site's northern border. Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 12 The Coastal California Gnatcatcher is federally listed as threatened and, listed as a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. The EIR claims that because Gnatcatchers were observed several hundred feet away from the Project's northern border, the habitat near the Project border is probably not as good. See EIR, p. 5.3 -11. .However, the EIR also discloses that the biologist found a pair of Gnatcatchers very near the Project border. Based on the EIR's logic, that sighting must make the habit near the Project border as good as the habitat further away. See EK p. 5.3 -11. The foregoing demonstrates that the discussion of this impact in the EIR is not objective, and rather is designed to minimize the potential impacts of this Project on a federally listed species, that occurs in very close proximity to the Project site. It is also designed to minimize the impact of the proposed Project on this species' habitat, i.e., California Coastal Sagebrush habitat, which may very well be substantially impacted by the proposed Project, in the likely event that the NBFD requires its standard mitigation buf%r of 170 feet rather than the mere 50 feet proposed by the Project applicant. See EIR, p. 5.3 -11, noting that a pair of Gnatcatchers (potentially reflecting nesting and breeding activity) was observed approximately 30 feet beyond the limits of the proposed fuel modification zone. Since the fuel modification zone of 50 feet appears to begin within the boundaries of the Project site (see Figure 5.3 -4), that necessarily means that the pair of Gnatcatchers observed could have been extremely close to the existing Project boundary, i.e., less than 50 feet. In any event, given the confusing nature of Figure 5.3-4 (the Fuel Modification Zone exhibit), it is very difficult for the reader to relate the Gnatcatcber sightings in Figure 53. -3, to the 50 foot fuel modification zone in Figure 5.34, thus failing the fundamental test of full and understandable impact disclosure under CEQA. Impact Section 5.3:1 Feel Modification Zone Impact on Coastal Sa a Scrub. As indicated in the beginning comments of this letter, the EIR takes the position that the proposed Project's fuel modification zone will not remove even one Coastal Sage Scrub plant. See EIR, p. 5.3 -19. The authors take that position because they know to do otherwise would be inconsistent with many of the applicable land use policies contained in the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, and would also require the EIR to disclose a significant adverse biological impact upon the EHSA and the listed Coastal California Gnatcatcher. So, for example, the EIR notes the following policies with respect to fuel modification zones impacting an environmentally sensitive area, such as the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve: "4.1.1 -3 Prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel modification in ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas)." (P. 5.3 -19_) "4.1.1-4 Protect ESHAs against any significant disruption of habitat values." "4,1.1 -5 Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to preclude new development within and minimize impacts to ESHAs," Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 13 "4.1.1 -6 Require development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas to be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas, and to be compatible with the continuance of those habitat areas." See EIR, P. 5.1-19 to p. 5.3 -20. To address these policies, and to avoid disclosing an adverse impact on the ESHA and on the Coastal California Guatcatcher; the EIR states the following: "The project design would result in complete avoidance of off -site CSS (Coastal Sage Scrub). As shown on Figure 5.34, Vegetation and Fuel Modification, neither grading nor fuel modification activities would remove any CSS. In addition, the project design includes a minimum 50 foot buffer between developed axas and off -site CSS to assure full compliance with the City's Coastal Land Use policies." See EIR, p. 5.3 -20. The foregoing statement in the EIR is misleading in several respects. First, the mitigation measures expressly contradict this statement Mitigation Measure 3- 1states: "To the mwdmuin extent b cab a no grading of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season (February 15 through July 15). It is expressly understood that this provision and the remaining provisions of these 'construction related minimization measures' are subject to public health and safety considerations." See p. 5.3 -24 (emphasis supplied). This mitigation measure clearly envisions that there may be removal of some Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, and further recognizes that it may be necessary, even during the Gnatcatcher breeding season, to invade such areas for public health and safety considerations. The risk of brush fire is obviously a "health and safety consideration." Second, the above quotation is misleading in that it states that the buffer is a "minimum 50 foot buffer." In fact, the other sections of the EIR reflect that the buffer is a "maximum" buffer. To that extent, the EIR is internally inconsistent and must be revised. Third, Figure 5.34 in the EIR, purporting to reflect the vegetation and fuel modification zones, is not readable. The explanatory text in the legend in the fuel modification zones cannot be deciphered even with a magnifying glass. As such, it fails CEQA's fundamental purpose to inform decision makers and the public. Fourth, the quoted statement above is misleading in that it does not accurately and fairly disclose that the Fire Protection Plan, EIR Appendix Ii, envisions that the fuel modification zone may be greater than 50 feet if required by the NBFD. See EIR Hazard Section, p. 5.6-15 . . (Defensible Space). Given the fact that the NBFD's standard fuel modification zone is 170 feet, it is not unreasonable to expect that the Fire Department will likely require a fuel modification zone greater than 50 feet, If it does so, there will be direct impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, the habitat of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 14 Impact 5.3-6 Conflicts with Coastal Land Use Plan. The EIR erroneously states that the Project does not conflict with any Coastal Land Use Plan. To the contrary, removing the 9 -hole golf course buffer between the existing hotel site and the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve, and putting new timeshare buildings on that buffer, is inconsistent with the policies previously quoted above from the Coastal Land Use Plan and the City's General Plan. Section 5.4 Cultural Resources. This section of the EIR is utterly deficient in failing to analyze the potential historical significance of the 13 buildings to be demolished on the Project site, including 12 villas and one ballroom. See EIR, pp. 5.4 -1 to 5.4 -15. Other. commentators on the EIR have indicated that the Newporter hur, the predecessor hotel of the Hyatt Regency, is associated with well- publicized personages in the Nixon Administration, including certain Watergate related events that occurred at the hotel site involving Margaret Mitchell, the wife of the then Attorney General. See also Exhibit A hereto. The Newporter Inn was also associated with John Wayne and other Hollywood celebrities. See Exbibit B hereto. The EIR fails to provide any photos of the buildings to be demolished, nor does it contain any analysis of the potential historic significance of those buildings. Although the buildings are not quite 50 years old, it is standard CEQA practice to analyze buildings that are in excess of 45 years when conducting a historic resources analysis for an EIR, a point conceded in the Final EIR. The buildings are certainly older than 45 years, since they were built in 1962. (See Exhibit B, interview with Hyatt General Manager) Because the EIR fails to even discuss the potential significance of the buildings to be demolished, it also fails to address any potential mitigation measures to minimize impacts to these potentially historic resources. So, for example, there is no program to extensively photograph and catalog the relevant structures prior to demolition nor is there any consideration of potentially preserving some of the structures that may be most significantly associated with past historical events or persons. Section 5.5 Geoloey. In addressing the potential for liquefaction of the Project site, the EIR concedes that water has been found as little as seven feet below the surface. See EIR, p. 5.5 -7. Nevertheless, the EIR concludes that the sand and soil in the Project site is not liquefiable. That conclusion is not supported by any evidence or discussion in the EM It is simply an unsubstantiated conclusion. See EIR, p. 5.5 -11. Given such a high water table on the Proj ect site, and the intention to develop an underground parking garage, the EIR should be revised to comprehensively address this issue and provide appropriate mitigation measures. Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 15 Instead of properly analyzing and disclosing the issue in the EIR, the EIR simply punts the issue to review by a civil engineer in the future. The EIR seems to assume that the requirement of civil engineer sign -off, will resolve all issues regarding soil stability, liquefaction, etc. See EM, p. 5.5 -13. This approach constitutes improper deferral of mitigation under CEQA. Taking this approach also deprives City decision makers and the public of an opportunity to comment on the potential problem, including the adequacy and feasibility of the potential mitigation measures that may be employed to satisfy the civil engineer_ It is evident where the EIR discloses a water table as little as seven feet below the surface that there is a significant potential issue with respect to soil stability and liquefaction. That issue should be fully disclosed in the EIR and the mitigation measures proposed to address it also fully disclosed for review by City decision makers and the public, before the EIR is certified. Section 5.6 Hazards. There are two important potential hazards to the health and safety of hotel guests that are not properly disclosed or mitigated within the EIR, namely potential hazards involving wildland fires, and the location of the Project within the Airport Land Use Plan area, requiring FAR Part 77 review of tall structures that may interfere with safe aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport. With respect to these two impacts, the EIR identifies certain thresholds of significance in Section 5.6.2.. There the EIR states the following: According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project would " . , for a project located within an airport land use plan or, when such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ... result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area." With respect to fire hazards, the EIR states the significance test as follows: "... expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to the urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands." (Emphasis supplied.) Aviation Hazard. The EIR admits the Project site is located within both height restriction and the airport obstruction imaginary surface overlay zones of the AELUP for John 'Wayne Airport. See EIR, p. 5.6 -5. With respect to the impact of tall structures on aviation hazards, the Elk notes the following: "FAA Part 77 identifies the maximum height at which a structure would be considered an obstacle at any given point around an airport. The extent of the off - airport coverage needing to be evaluated for.all structure impacts can extend miles from an airport facility: In addition, Part 77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed new airports will be considered obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of proposed Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 16 construction or alterations, and provides for aeronautical studies to determine the potential impacts of a structure on the flight of aircraft through navigable space_" (Emphasis supplied.) Unfortunately here, the FIR does not disclose or even discuss the results of any FAA Part 77 analysis with respect to the proposed bell tower, which is well in excess of the maximum height limitations in the City's coastal zone, i.e., 62.5 feet rather than 35 feet. Apart from the height of the structure, the EIR fails to address the impact an illuminated 62.5 foot high tower may have on nighttime operations using John Wayne Airport. The lighting, or lack of lighting, for such a tall structure within the Airport Land Use Plan area, must be the subject of careful study under FAA Part 77 regulations, and the results of that study must be disclosed in a revised and recirculated FIR for the Hyatt Hotel expansion Project. Wildland Fire Hazard, The EIR contains a remarkable statement with respect to the wildland fire hazard issue. It states: "The Initial Study also concluded that impacts associated with Threshold 148 ( wildland fire hazard) would be less than significant since the project site is designated as an area of low to no fire hazard in the safety element of the City's General Plan. The potential five hazards have been reconsidered, however. impacting the adjacent environmental sensitive habitat area (see Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of this AEIR). Threshold H -8 (wildland fire hazard), therefore, is evaluated in the following section." See EIR, p. 5.6-6 (emphasis supplied). This text in the EIR is in effect aclmowledgir g the inherent conflict that exists in the document between the fire hazard section and the biological impact section. It is, in so many words, conceding that the proposed Project cannot be reconciled with the standard fuel modification zones that would typically be imposed on a project in this location, bordering an ecological preserve with abundant Coastal Sagebrush Habitat. Unfortunately, the EIR's discussion of the issue cannot resolve the inherent conflict that still exists, i.e., locating structures in such close proximity to highly flammable Coastal Sagebrush habitat. Of course, the Project could easily resolve the issue by expanding the size of the buffer, i.e., imposing the standard safety buffer of 170 feet. However, because the City does not wish to run afoul of certain land use policies and restrictions involving biological impacts, it is forced to "shoe horn" this Project into a site that will not allow more than a 50 foot wide fire safety buffer. Alas, the City finds itself trapped between the proverbial "rock and a hard place," unable to satisfy a less than significant impact standard for either biology or fire hazard. Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 17 In discussing the potential vulnerability of the Hyatt Regency site to wildland fires, the EIR observes the following: "The Hyatt Regency site is considered moderately vulnerable to wildfire. Under fall weather conditions, fire can move rapidly from Sage Scrub vegetation. The most likely type of fire anticipated in the vicinity of the project area is a wind driven brush fire originatmg north of the proiect site and pushed southward by Santa Ana winds Flame lengths in some areas could be over 35 feet." See EIR, page 5.6 -12 (emphasis supplied). It further states: "The Hyatt Regency site is considered moderately vulnerable to wildfire and could expose people and structures to loss, injury or death involving wildland fires." See EIR, p. 5.6 -14. After conceding this potential safety hazard, the EIR proposes the following mitigation measure: "6 -1 The project applicant or successor in interest shall comply with the provisions in the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) as reviewed and approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD), including but not limited to ... defensible space ... • The fuel modification plan... shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate to obtain approval by the IVBFD_ The approved final fuel modification plan shall be installed under the supervision of the NBFD." See EIR, p. 5.6 -15. The mitigation measures further state: "Maintenance of the defensible space shall include modifvine or removing non - fire4esistant vegetation...." See EIR, p. 5.6 -15. These mitigation measures clearly envision the potential expansion of the 50 foot fuel modification zone to obtain. NBFD approval, which would violate the assumptions of the biology section of this EIR, which state emphatically that not one single Coastal Sagebrush plant will be removed because the buffer shall be a "maximum" of 50 feet in width. See discussion above under Biological lmpacts. These mitigation measures reference the FPP set forth in Appendix. H to the EIR- Review of that plan is very telling, and demonstrates that the fire hazard analysis in the Elk is fundamentally misleading and flawed. First, the copy of the Fire Protection Plan at Appendix H in the EIK, dated October 18, 2007, does not reflect the signature by the Newport Beach Fire Marshal. The signature line and date on the cover of the document are blank. The reader is left to wonder. Second, the Fire Protection Plan discloses that the Hyatt Regency site is: "Located within a special fire protection area as defined by the NBFD." That admission is not contained in the Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 18 EIR discussion of the issue itself, and is inconsistent with the EWs "sugar coating" of the issue, where it states that the site was viewed as "a low to no fire hazard" area in the City's General Plan, and for this EIR only, has been designed as a "moderate level" of vulnerability to wildfire. See l:IR, P. 5.6 -6. Moreover, to the extent that NBFD has designated the area as a "special fire protection area," the ,fuel modification ication buffer should be at least 100 feet in width. See Government Code §§ 51175 and 51182. Third, the FPP discloses that the Coastal Sagebrush habitat immediately north of the Project site has no recorded foes in the period 1910 to 2006. See EIR Appendix H, p. 4. The EIR and the FPP fail to provide any analysis whatsoever ofthe increased fire hazard associated with Coastal Sagebrush habitat that has not been subject to a fire in the past 100 years. See Exhibit C article entitled "The Great Malibu Fire of 1993," noting effect of dense brush not burned since the 1930s. Rather, the EIR and FPP treat that fact as a positive factor in analyzing the potential fire risk, assuming that because a fire has not occurred in the area over the past 100 years, it is unlikely to occur in the future. However, other sections of the FPP concede that the most likely cause of a fire in that area is from a tossed cigarette, from a car traveling along Back Bay Drive, a car fire, or some other ignition source occurring along the roads bordering the Ecological Preserve, See FPP at EIR Appendix H, p. 9 ( "A typical cause [of wildland brush fire] is related to roadways , such as Back Bay ,Drive [tossed cigarette, vehicle accidents, or car fire "]). The fact that such an event has not occurred previously is entirely fortuitous, and not a basis to conclude that it will not happen tomorrow; next week or next month. Fourth, the FPP concedes that its analysis is subject to variable factors, such as wind speed. At page 6 of the FPP, the following text appears: "Predicting wildland fire behavior is not an exact science. As such, the movement of a fire will likely never be fully predictable, especially considering the variations in weather and the limits of weather forecasting." The FPP then goes on to state that: "A validated fire behavior modeling system is useful in fire prevention planning so long as the limits of the model are understood. The model used in the FPP is the BehavePlus model...." See p. 6 of the FPP. in setting forth the limitations of that model, the FPP states that it assumes "that weather and topography are orm." With respect to the northern border of the Hotel Project site, the FPP discloses elsewhere that the topography has a slope measuring 22% to 25 %, i.e., not uniform topography. Finally, the stated limits of the BehavePlus model indicate that it was: "Not intended for determining sufficient fuel modification zone widths," but rather provides "average length of the flatnes" anticipated in a fire. See FPP at p. 6 (emphasis supplied). All of these limitations on the methodology of the FPP, and the BehavePlus study it relies upon, should be of grave concern to the City, particularly where, as here, the City is asked to accept a fuel modification zone 120 feet less than the standard typically imposed by the Newport Beach Fire Department, i. e., a mere 50 feet rather than 170 feet. It is asked to do so even though Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 19 the assumptions being used for the model, f. e., uniform topography and uniform weather, are not applicable here. Moreover, the model is predicting "ayerage length of the flames," not maximum length of flames. Id at p. 6. Nevertheless, in establishing the 50 foot buffer zone, the fire protection plan appears to assume that the 37.2 foot flame length is a maximum rather than an average. See FPP at p. 17 ( "... fire behavior modeling indicates that the h nest flame lengths anticipated for this site are 37 feet"). To the contrary, maximum flame lengths may equal or well exceed the proposed 50 foot buffer. See Exhibits D and E hereto, re 1993 Laguna Fire and 1993 Malibu Fire. Again, demonstrating why the existing standard of 170 feet should be followed rather than the applicant's proposed truncated buffer of 50 feet. See also Exhibit E, Memorandum attached hereto from Eric Tolles, a wildland fire expert with the City of Irvine, noting flawed assumptions in the FPP Report and BehavePlus Fire Modeling System. The FPP Report's assumptions with respect to wind speed are particularly troubling. For example, on page 8 of the Report, the following text appears: "Fire on the slopes represented by scrub vegetation (Fuel Model SCALI S) had modeling results indicating flame lengths between 27.6 and 37.2 feet, depending on slope and wind speed." Fire Protection Plan, p. 8. Table 2 of the Report, using the BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling System, assumes 20 mile per hour wind speeds generating a flame length on a 25% slope, as here, of 37.2 feet. Appended to this letter as Exhibits C and D, is information on notable Southern California fires, demonstrating that Sauta Ana winds frequently blow well in excess of 20 miles per hour, and that accordingly flame lengths during such events are frequently well in excess of 37.2 feet; the assumed length in the model. In fact, flame lengths in the Laguna Fire reached 200 feet, with wind gusts of 40 to 92 miles per hour. See Exhibit D. Similar circumstances existed with the 1993 Malibu fire. See Exhibit C. This evidence demonstrates that the FPP is not credible as a source of expert opinion evidence, and should be rejected. See also attached Tolles Memorandum, attached as Exhibit E. In the section on the Fire Protection Plan entitled " Defemsible Space," the author states that the "worst case flame length is 37,2 feet within the sensitive Coastal Sagebrush habitat area." See Fire Protection Plan Report, p. 14. That statement is misleading in that the model upon which it is based, i.e., the BehavePlus 3.02 Fire Behavior Fuel Model, provides "ayprage length of the flames" not a maximum length, and furthermore states it was not "intended to determine fuel modification zone widths." Compare FPP Report at p. 6 with language on p. 14. In a telling admission in the Report, the following text appears: "... the area in the northwest area of the property is highly restricted with regard to available area for fuel modification. To that end, the following mitigating efforts are identified as options to the standard 170 feet of fuel modification, resulting in suitable defensible space." FPP at p. 14 (emphasis supplied). The only reason that the "property is highly restricted with regard to available area for fuel modification," is that the applicant is proposing to place new timeshare buildings very close to its existing property line, in lieu of the existing 9 -hole golf course which SL &K LLP Fax:8054461490 Feb 24 2009 1331 P.21 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 20 currently serves as a natural fire buffer between the hotel site and the Ecological Preserve. That is an applicant created constraint on Fire safety, not an existing physical constraint. With respect to vegetation management, Section 4.6 of the FPP, the author states that "Maintenance of defensible spaces shall occur annually, prior to May 1, or more often, as determined by the NBFD. Maintenance of defensible space shall include modifying or removine non -fire resistant vegetation...." See Report at p. 16. This language appears to recognize that the City and/or the NBFD may insist upon larger fuel modification zones than the 50 foot buffer assumed in the FPP. That is "the rub" for the applicant, and for the City with respect to certifying this EIR. Either the 50 foot buffer is maintained without any possibility of expansion, to preserve Coastal Sagebrush, in which case there is a potentially significant fire hazard. Alternatively, the City and the NBFD insist upon a larger 50 foot fuel modification zone from time to time, on May I of each year, in which case the emphatic assertions in the biological section of the EIR that not one Single Coastal Sagebrush plant will be removed, are erroneous and misleading. The conclusion of the FPP contains an admission with respect to the potential wildland fire risk, that should cause the City to reject a less than significant finding with respect to the fire hazard risk. The FPP Report states in the conclusion: "It must be noted that during extreme fire conditions, there are no guarantees that a given structure will not burn. Precautions in mitigating actions identified in this Report are designed to reduce the likelihood that fire would impinge upon the proposed structures. There are no guarantees that fire will not occur in the area or that fire will not damage property or cause harm to persons or their property." FPP at p. 17. Thus, there is no expert opinion to support the EIR's conclusion that the .risk of wildland fires, with a mere 50 foot buffer, is reduced to a less than significant level. The author of the FPP Report is frankly conceding that significant property damage, injury and death could occur, and that the Dudek firm's proposed measures merely "reduce the likelihood that .fire would impinge upon the proposed structures." FPP, p. IT To what extent that significant fire hazard risk is actually reduced is undefined by the FPP Report. It most certainly does not reduce the risk as much as the standard 170 foot buffer would reduce the risk. To the contrary, the magnitude of the risk, with a buffer less than half of the size of the standard 170 foot buffer, must, comparatively, result in a significantly higher risk of fire hazard, given the proximity of highly flammable Coastal Sagebrush habitat. The exhibits to the fuel modification report undercut malty of the assumptions in the Report itself, and demonstrate why it should be rejected by the City Council as "substantial evidence" in support of the less than significant CEQA finding. For example, the FPP Report attached, as Appendix B, the Newport Beach Fire Department Fuel Modification Standards, dated March 5, 2002. On page 3 of those Standards, under Section 2 Requirements, the Newport Beach. City Council February 24, 2009 Page 21 following statement appears: "Development occurring within fire hazard zones ... requires modification of natural vegetation at the urban interface ... A typical fuel modification installation consists of a 20 foot setback zone (Zone A), a 50 foot minimum irrigated zone (Zone B) with an additional 100 foot minimum of vegetation thinning zones (Zones C and D)" and "the minimum, width of a fuel modification area is normally 170 feet, and in some cases, the width increases due to type of terrain and/or type and mass of vegetation." See ELR Appendix H, Attachment B thereto, at p. 3. Furthermore, the NBFD criteria require that a fire Protection Plan be submitted by "A licensed landscape architect or other design professional with equivalent credentials" for Newport Beach Fire Department review." See N13FD Fuel Modification Standard, p. 3. Although the Dudek firm may undertake such work from time to time, there is no indication in the FPP itself that this report was prepared by a properly credentialed person. Furthermore, under submittal criteria, the NBFD criteria state that the Fire Protection Plan submitted for review shall: "(2) Identify removal of undesirable plant species in accordance with the N13FD Combustible Plants Species List (see Attachment 7)." See NBFD Report, at p. 4. Attachment 7 states that Coastal Sage Scrub is one of the species for: "Mandatory removal." under the Combustible Plants List. See p. 18 of the NBFD Fuel Modification Standard Report, at Attachment 7. In conclusion, the Fire Protection Plan Report prepared in support of this EIR. is fundamentally flawed in several respects. It is not.supported by applicable standards or facts disclosed in the FPP itself and in its exhibits. Therefore, the FPP Report does not constitute substantial evidence to support a City Council finding that the potential fire hazard risk is less than significant under all reasonably likely scenarios. Section 5.8 Land Use Planning. The proposed Project, in particular, the height exceptions, are in conflict with the City's General Plan policies and also the Coastal Land Use Plan Policies regarding height limitations. For example, Section 20.65.040 of the General Plan establishes the maximum height of structures within the Project site at 35 feet. There is an exception for architectural features in Section 20.65.070, which does not specify a maximum. Howevex, the EIR concedes that obtaining such an exception, through a modification permit is only appropriate where there are "practical difficulties or physical hardship," in limiting the structure to the 35 foot maximum specified in the General Plan. See City Zoning Code § 20.93.030 (Required Findings for Modification Permit), attached hereto as Exhibit F. There is not one iota of evidence in the EIR or Response to Comments, establishing why the proposed Project could not be implemented based on "practical difficulty or physical hardship," if the 62.5 foot tower is eliminated or revised to comply with the 35 foot maximum height specified in the General Plan. The proposed tower is purely an ornamental structure, Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 22 which does not rise to the level of a necessity or a requirement for implementation of the remainder of the Project, and therefore, should not be subject to a zoning modification permit exception. See City Zoning Code §§ 20.93.030, and 20.65.070. Even if the Zoning Code permitted such an exception, it would not be consistent with the applicable General Plan and Coastal Plan policies that expressly command preserving the 35 foot maximum limit in the Coastal Zone. A zoning exception, based on a modification permit, with no limit, would eviscerate the General Plan and Coastal Plan policies requiring presentation of the 35 foot high maximum height. Any such Zoning Code provision would be void under State Planning Law. Finally, any such modification permit, allowing the Project to exceed maximum height limits, would not be consistent with the :findings required in Zoning Code section 20.65.055. Accordingly, the proposed Project bell tower is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, and if approved will be a violation of State Planning Law. The same analysis applies with respect to the Coastal Land Use Plan Policy limitations regarding height. Policy Section 4.4.2 -1, provides for the maintenance of the 35 foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone. The proposed Project is within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone. Moreover, the Coastal Land Use Policy does not provide for any exception, through any type of modification permit, to exceed the 35 foot height limit in that Zone. Accordingly, the proposed Project is inconsistent with both the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan, and the failure to disclose that inconsistency, which is a significant impact under CEQA, is fundamentally misleading. Consequently, the EIR must be revised and recirculated to properly state that impact, or alternatively, the Project must be revised to eliminate this inconsistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. With respect to sensitive habitats, the Coastal Land Use Plan provides: "Site and design new development to avoid the need to extend the fuel modification zones into sensitive habitats." See EIR, pp_ 5.3 -19 to 5.3 -20. Mere, the proper design of the Project would have preserved a 170 foot fuel modification buffer, as is the standard in the Newport Beach Fire Departmenfs Fuel Modificatiou Manual, See EIR Appendix H, Attachment B, at P. 3. Rather than preserving the 170 buffer, the applicant has designed a Project which arguably requires the extension of a fuel modification zone, of 170 feet deep, into sensitive habitat areas at the adjacent ecological preserve. Only by providing a flawed Fire Protection Plan, prepared by the applicant's consultant, has the City sought to maintain some level of "paper consistency," with the policies outlined above. In fact, the development of this Project fundamentally violates the policies outlined above because, in truth, more than a 50 foot fire safety buffer is required to properly protect the new timeshare units located on the northern boundary of the Hotel property. With respect to consistency with the Coastal Resource Protection Plan, the EIR again finds that the proposed Fuel Modification Plan and the Project's aesthetics are consistent_ That assumption is based upon the fording of no significant aesthetic impact. See p. 5.8 -27. As outlined above in the comments on aesthetics, the visual simulations clearly demonstrate a Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 23 "substantial alteration of the project site" as viewed from certain offsite view corridors. Furthermore, as explained at length above, the fuel modification plan is a flawed document that merely "papers over" the fundamental inconsistency between the proposed Project, and its de minimis 50 foot ire safety buffer, and the standard requirements applicable to such development, i.e., a 170 foot fire safety buffer, as outlined in the NBFD Fuel Modification Manuel, at EIR Appendix H, Exhibit B thereto. 5.9 Noise This section of the EIR is particularly weak, in analyzing and disclosing potential noise impacts upon sensitive receptors such as the senior housing project nearby. The proposed impacts will occur over a 23 -month period, which would certainly be of no small moment to seniors living nearby, some of whose time horizons may not extend much beyond two years. Indeed, the EIR even concedes that the noise environment at the residences could be as high as 75 dBA. See EIR, p. 5.9 -26, stating: "The future noise environment at the residences would be less than 75 dBA CNEL." The standard o£significance for exterior noise throughout almost every jurisdiction in the State of California is 65 CNEL. The EIR should be revised to reflect that an exceedance of the applicable noise standards for almost two years at the nearby senior apartment project, Bayview Landing, is a temporary significant unavoidable impact or, that the EIR reduced density alternative has been adopted to reduce such impacts upon the senior community to a less than significant level. Moreover, the noise section of the EIR fails to adequately address noise impacts associated with the significant level of truck traffic, 2,400 trips, that will be generated in and around the Project site simply to remove 24,000 cubic yards of fill. The EIR estimates that such truck trips will be approximately 48 taps per day. To the extent that large diesel fuel trucks are exporting a significant volume of dirt from the Project site over, the noise impacts associated with those truck trips should be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible_ Section 5.11 Traffic. The TraMe Section of the EIR states the City's standards of significance for traffic impacts as follows: "The City of Newport Beach standard for the minimum acceptable LOS is D. Mitigation is required when the project trips cause intersection [level of service ( "LOS ")] LOS to deteriorate from D to E. For an intersection operating at LOS E or worse, without the project, an increase in V/C of 0.0 t0 or greater due to project traffic is also considered a significant impact." EIR at p. 11 -5. The City's stated traffic standard is not consistent with CEQA case law, which recognizes that in certain circumstances, even one additional vehicle trip added to an intersection or road segment operating at LOS E or worse, can be a cumulatively significant impact. S2 &R LLP Fax :8054461490 Feb 24 2009 1333 F'.25 Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 24 With respect to construction traffic, the EIR concedes that there will be a total of 196 daily trips, 48 of which will be truck trips entering the site, and 48 of which will be truck trips exiting the site. See Table 5.11 -10 at p. 5.11 -24. Those construction - related trips, many of them very heavy truck trips exporting fill, should be disclosed as a temporary significant unavoidable impact. With respect to the impact of construction - related trips on level of service on the surrounding roads and intersections, Table 5.11 -12 is peculiar to say the least. It actually shows a level of service improving during the period of construction. So, for example, at Coast Highway and Dover Drive, the level of service actually improves from E, without construction, to D, with construction. At Coast highway and Jamboree Road, the level of service improves from F without construction, to E, with construction. At Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive, the level of service improves from B without construction, to A with construction. The EIR fails to explain how adding 196 construction trips each day, 96 of which are heavy truck trips associated with removing fill from the Project site, would actually improve the level of service at several intersections near the Project site. Parkins ImAaets. The Elk discloses that the Project will require 467 parking spaces, but proposes to provide only 406 spaces. In response to this deficiency, the EIR simply requires that 467 spaces be provided by the applicant, as if, by word alone that is physically feasible. The EIR does not provide any information on the physical feasibility of providing the 61 missing parking spaces. As such, the document is deficient in allowing the City's decision makers and the general public to understand whether or not the Project, as proposed will, in fact, have sufficient parking spaces available for hotel guests. This concern is particularly significant here, where the applicant seeks to squeeze the ,maximum density out of the Project site. Section 6 Sisnitxcant and Unavoidable Impacts. This section of the EIR should be revised to add several impacts currently deemed less than significant, including the following: (1) aesthetics, particularly with respect to viewshed impacts; (2) biological impacts regarding impacts upon the ESHA (Coastal Sage Scrub habitat) and the Coastal California Gnatcatcher; (3) temporary toxic air pollution impacts from approximately 2,400 truck trips, (4) temporary noise impacts associated with construction on site and also associated with the 96 daily heavy truck trips going to and from the Project site; (5) construction traffic impacts at the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin 1-lills Road, which the EIR concedes in Table 5.11 -12, exceeds the City's threshold for a cumulative significant impact; (6) land use consistency impacts with respect to several issues, including (a) the inconsistency of the proposed tower with the applicable General Plan and Coastal Plan Policies, (b) the placement of buildings in a way that does not minimize viewshed impacts; (c) the placement of buildings m a way that will cause Fuel Modification Zones to invade sensitive SZ &R LLP Fax!8054461490 Feb 24 2009 1334 P.2b Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 25 habitat areas, etc.; and (8) a likely fire safety hazard impact if the City elects not to further expand the 50 foot fire safety buffer. Section 7 Alternatives to Proiect. The EIR contends that the reduced density alternative is not financially viable. See EIR, p. 7 -15. The "feelings of the applicant" in that regard are not sufficient for purposes of a CEQA financial feasibility finding. The record must contain substantial evidence, demonstrating that the additional cost of an alternative or mitigation measure are so high as to make it infeasible "to proceed" with the proposed Project as a whole. There is no such evidence in this record, at least not any disclosed to the public in the EIR or Final EIR. Furthermore, in attempting to justify the rejection of this alternative, the EIR concedes that the new ballroom will increase the utilization of currently underutilized Hotel rooms. See EIR, p. 7 -15. Other sections of the EIR do not appear to take that assertion into account by analyzing the impacts, including traffic, noise, air pollution, etc., of increased occupancy rates in the existing 403 Hotel moms. Conclusion. The City Council should not certify this Environmental Impact Report because it reflects a series of rationalizations designed to minimize what should otherwise be identified as significant adverse impacts. In too many instances, such minimization of impacts has not only failed to disclose the true impacts of the Project to the general public, but has also deprived the public of any discussion of all feasible mitigation measures, which should be imposed upon the Project. The EIR should be substantially revised to address the concerns raised in this letter, and similar concerns identified by nearby property owners, homeowner associations, and other state and local agencies. The City of Irvine expressly incorporates all of the other comments and concerns raised about this Project over the course of the past two years, including but not limited to the comment letters on the Notice of Preparation for the EIR, and also in response to the Draft EIR. Newport Beach City Council February 24, 2009 Page 26 We very much appreciate your cooperation in addressing these concerns. Very truly yours, Richard Special for the C RSZ:bsm Enclosures CC: Homer Bludau, City Manager, City of Newport Beach (w/encls ) Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, City of Newport Beach (w /encls.) Leilani Brown, City Clerk, City of Newport Beach (w/encls) Douglas Williford, AICP, Director of Community Development City of Irvine (w /encls.) Tim Gebrich, AICP, Manager of Planning and Development Services City of Irvine (w /encls.) SZ &R LLP Fax :8054461490 Feb 24 2009 1334 P.28 The Misfortlmes of Martha - TIME Page 1 of 4 NONE I U,S, i M UTICS ; WORI.O I eUSINESSLTECH 1�LM &SCIENCE EM'ERTAWNeNr i v QTOS PEOPLE I BEST4, WURSTLRTS MAGAUNE TRAVEL a TIMECK Marrw always says.- UOSS 40u nmE NEws iSEARCH TIME_COM INSIDE: Main I The Page j Politics j Swampland I Real Clear Politics j White House Photo Slog I Videos The Misfortunes of Martha Mo1NW. May. 21,1814 PrbM Em" Share rtepMte Related "I've got one tongue and it warlapretty W ell." i spmesorva urAa i ONLY three days after Martha Mitchell delivered these iUadov7taduryw Md, brave, perhaps debaut words during a Watergate �ae aa,m��„d deposition bearing, her tongue wassnlled. Unable to sI eeP+ distraught and unhappy, she put herself under .Ndnlie"•evasChh. doctors' cure and volumarily entered a medical iFap AnMNghlge%ha institution last week for treatment of a nervous carep jraa•, arc�a,Tm.a owy l breakdown. e WaaC Slur BeFeTe Awl . Martha, the nnrepreaeed southern belle, ouce took great soya pea aa.a 1 fide in the fact that John bittchell —her second busband, whom she married in 1957 —wds one of Rnre Related Nixon's cloeeat advisers_ Mamba delighted in sounding . The-14p ttafulds off against anyone to the left of William MclGnley — . wow Ntton Got Frosted: Capturing / Senator J. William F idbright, for example, should he Hfetoeq " crucified' pew took any, of this too seriously, for • imeviewa, By Martha bad a certain wacky charm George She kept unwontedly quiet when in June but year she accompanied John to California for fund - raising appearances in his new post as head of Nixon's re- election campaign. Then tame the Watergate brealdu. Mitch a tlewbadc to Washington. leaving Martha at the Newporter Inn with Sw.OTIY.Agent Steva ICmg, who:was there supposedly to guard her. Martha waitedfor.Ktng to fail asleep, then placed her famous phone call to U.F.I. Washington Reporter Helen Thomas. She got as far as threatening to leave Mitchell «mess be quit the "dirty business" ofpolities- Then came the sounds of struggle, end the pboue went dead. Martha later complained that she had been held down while being injected "in the bottom-" Mattba's hysteria then was overt, but despite a certain amount of public skepticism, it tarried out that her cries about official skuMuggerybad a solid basis in fact. The Mitcliens made their peace, and John bought Martha a pith Avenue apattmeul" complete with gold bathroom fixtures, wbere she has kept herself busy since last fall selecting and arranging the furnishings. In rece�ea, bas felt herself a prisoner, her went now is filled with flowers sent bye rs tryingto curtyfavor.'Wbeaafriend suggested going out for Inch, $be retorted: uNOwwbere am I going to lunch with all this fuss?" Two weeks ago, Martha discussed with intimates the possibilily, of John's being Indicted. She was worried, but she kept herself in ebeck and made a rambling deposition in the Democreta' clva7 shit. Though she showed remarkably good spirits, she once lost her temper. "I have been at the mercy of the White House Top Stales on Time cart . After Grea Are Obame, wasblagron AM¢ges Damage • Tkiki.g to Iran: Whn Are the Different Opdner • DUtnua Dreg: NASCAATAe6 W Outrace the Receedon • A Unh, Early to Can TARP 2a Failure • Saving the Rut estate'Madku By paying the Neigblxx> Mongep 117ot Popular w Fna Uri • Most Read L Salmi Nays} Bart - Feeding and one very publlc9aMce onmpueaou lsy. B. Fativg m 3 Aacr Grvee Jab Obame, rwaahie ua Amara"& the nonage q y4Thioas r Pula Weat W now AboutyDO g. The Uabindsst CVE A C`.Adr SGUnanror See oQeadar. 6- Stimulus Deal sbowe R%Cb —and U.T15 —or owrrab, w 7. A8ee1ameiS 51001012, Peleeoaiei WC73b New rnttfadth a. Hoer larselb Ahgc leaves Nurt Ua All 9. Conpmab Newt Affair rith 7l rzr ro. ABeeer B=k Fm Cut Bvaryarurpaa 'a rhincpal MostEmailad . - -- -- imam io Questions for G9orgioArmaai EXHIBIT A MM Wets a http: / /wwwAime.rom/time/ magazine /article/0,9171,907272,00,htm1 2/13/2009 S2 &R LLP Fax :8054461490 The Misfortunes of Martha - TT1v1E for fcuryem, who have treated me abominably, W crucilled me, have seat tins out through the press end started rumots galore about me.• The Prassore inside Martha mounted for two days and tina& erupted in anotherlate -night phone can to Helm Tbomas. Wbl1e bar twetve7m -old dautgbter Mattybegged her not to talk, She said dehlberatehn. - Umyhnsband !maw anytbing about the Watergate breakin, Mr, Nixon also knew about it. I think he should say goodbye, to give med'blTitym the Republican Park and to the United States, l think he let the cennoy down. Mr. President should retire." Fact day John Mitchell wined a publicstatetnent baraft U.P.I, for treating -bat Mamba said as anything more than'Tm and gm m.k But Martha Mitchall obvlm* was, to the breaking Robot, mtaW in earnest. ecamact to this TIM!* Stmy Interact with this story aua W! Fad . orag:amta e malt meta Related storiae • Theasgaaofolae • who trawl Got Ftaend (Sptasiog tHeFna� • rnAw+'1sw&Hr Gorge a Riles TGA Plat Smsaad, I OA DaM dlbt Of FOt H.ar2 Wedhs 9yDbwblrTheua Ades! aa44ert 1New Isaer Bask atist8ar9 . . 7ta t +NRMfNro9lhlvwsve [eswTOCNngao-Stv[Ltving rn�n Free vww.tmarapmelnsEtete -tan Oinsi mscoto'A7 mntnaa * eliaa Catifi-fian wo% onrme P.M. - Free Into. wave.Vmeovvaualm /aietum PeopievOloread N1549olew • Th Danry lw l tlm U.S. Qn FOR to Leo • tbmpereo�[sypug Hoes FeeaglC • a5rLlare Ill6dnl wOnt'rOltaaOADOVt Yen ewawkh Feb 24 2009 1335 P.29 Page 2 of 4 Gat.4T�eETdeEtss>lCSbf'(Attte 5 i'' -►4i.: .• ... .. .•.us. Todd In Pictures A Hroro All Powtas a Quotes of Lire Day )D mommum Get &nhere Mugabe may bepart ofthe j.. problem, but he's also part of the solution" MRGAN TSVANOMA 7-Ob4 WBteHaty e•wr� -ib Aimn Mm'4Gt:iVNDetnetlm i unwary mtamasreh8evemnwt rI.T Prsswv Rabat At Jeetbeempriorto Ne s1WeoN4 R% Wonm. TisYa6[aTs aofiinee rer pgayAytddmrtaGvister,wp ; artenea Mae OaMa• U.S. AWTHENEV4 INSIM: Main J The Page J PGilics I SYwarnpland i Real Clear Politics I White House Photo Slog Video& krswe. DoiRwamn. -who Does Jose SNaes from the Buffalo Crash Top to Disastrous Letterman Ptiao-Wmningphotos Too& Tine =n Whrdmt Think Hole Brtemiewa 79mesia©evelamd htxpJ /www- time.cOm/ time / magazine /article/0,9171,907272,OO.htmi 2113/2009 Hotel Online special Report Opened in 1962; the Hyatt Newporter Receives $.13 million Remodel; Owner Sunstone Gives the 403 room Motel New Name - Hyatt Regency Newport Beach By Sherri Cruz November, 2004 - The lush 26 -acre resort's $13 million renovation is set for completion this month. The Hyatt has been working on the makeover since last November. Changes at the AAA - rated three- diamond hotel include a new name - -Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb —and the remodeling of its 403 guest rooms and 6,700- square -foot ballroom. Other additions include a lobby bar and Sandbar Lounge with fine Pit-lined outdoor seating in a bid to draw more locals. The hotel opened. in 1962 as the Newporter inn on the site of the original Boy Scout Jamboree. The resort once was a hotspot for Hollywood celebrities and a hangout for John Wayne. But years of wear took a toll on the resort. "The hotel was: tired," said: Bruce: Brainerd, general manages; "Everyone knew it. We just needed money." Brainerd said the hotel's revolving ownership limited money for improvements. Following a strong 2000 -- -one of the best ever in the hotel industry, Brainerd said —the terrorist attacks hit tourism hard. Meanwhile, EXHIBIT B httP : / /www. hotel - online. comNews/ PR2004_4"ovO4_HyattNewport.htrW 211312009 v}Pcucu MI iyo`z, w.e tlyan Newporter Receives $13 million Remodel; Owner Sunstone G... Page 2 of 5 coropetition flowered with new high -end coastal resorts opening, including the St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort & Spa in Dana Point, Montage Resort & Spa in Laguna Beach, Balboa Bay Club & Resort and Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort & Spa angling for vacation business. Two years ago, San Clemente -based Sunstone hotel Investors Inc. stepped in and bought the hotel for $35 million from Dallas -based Wyndham hotels as part of a multi -hotel buy with partner Westbrook Hotel Partners IV LLC. Sunstone came in with plans to renovate, Brainerd said The company, which raised $359 million in an initial public offering last month, buys and renovates upscale hotels. It owns 54 hotels, including some under the Hyatt, Hilton, InterContinental, Marriott, Holiday Inn and Wyndham names. Hyatt and Sunstone worked together to come up with a makeover plan that would match Hyatt's "Regency" quality standards, Brainerd said. Hyatt has managed the hotel since 1989 - Brainerd calls the hotel's layout and look "classic early. California, low-profile• building architecture." The resort's guests want the lush tropical feeling, he said. The hotel boasts more than 75 types of palms. Each room has been completely redone with a simple, classic look. Sol restaurant, formerly Jamboree Grill, was gutted and remodeled. It now serves world island cuisine. The Sandbar lounge, formerly a bar called Knuckles, has Adirondack chairs surrounding a fire pit. The Sandbar is for the vacationer, while the lobby lounge is for the corporate customer, Brainerd said. One of the last things to be changed is the green street sign that marks the entrance to the hotel on Jamboree Road near Pacific Coast highway. It will be changed to reflect the new name, Fut m plaus under consideration include replacing a 5 -acre, par -3 . golf course with timeshare units, and building a new 12,000- square- foot meeting room. Brainerd said most Newport Beach hotels were built 20 to 30 years http- / /www.botel- online.r,om/NwmNR2004 4ffiNov04 HyattNewporthtml 2/13/2009 SZ &R LLP Fax :8054461490 Feb 24 2009 15 :55 r.52 vpcueu in i "/, me tLyarf l4ewporter Kecei ves $13 million Remodel; Owner Sunstone Cy.. Page 3 of 5 ago and lack ballroom or meeting space equipped with modern sound and visual gear. "We've been watching many groups move outside of Newport," be said. The Hyatt spends about $1.3 million annually in renovation projects, Brainerd said. It's permitted for up to 85 more units, he said. Saudi Cain is a fieelanee Writnrand coma ibutorm the Orange Courdl. Business Iourml and mueougs industry publications She specializes in hospitality, tourism and travel. Cain holds bachdoes end masters degnms ua aducatiou from Kent Slate Umvetsiw in Ohio, where she majored in social studies. A former high school teacher, she has written for mcbe- tmullct Spam Publications in the U,S., England and Australia and fortoarly worked in both the printing and high -tech industries. A Cleveland. Ohio WmVe,.Caln hasbean a resident of Laguna Beach since the Iate'70s. She enjoys travel, gmdening, reading and spuliag her three cats- Contact: Sandi Cain Laguna Beach CA 949 -497 -2680 Orange County Cal 'fornisi Hat [ Hatnig See Mala Impact —Cruet armed — from Ubor AISO.See Turmoil in Los_Aualt;L,%Ln Franc /Sandi Cain/ Nmcmber2004 Suu%m Jjgfinesitsm Which Owns 7714=15,£ Plans for 5900 Mill' WO Will Pay Off $80 m Man of jU-Zrkt with a C of -s Proceed / Sandi Cain / Ocmber 2004 Anaheim City Officials Lnbbv Retnthlicam amt nemggmts fnr a 2008 Con tum aid Whethd it's Wonh the W rt "s M ne of Dclsate / Sandi Crain l September 2004 Tarsadia Boosting Upscale H IH ISlbuts00th SunonPlace Hnhel' N woort Beach Dm/ Sandi Cain /August 2004 .gam im Cnnv o n Canter 0counsaw Peat- rchovazion Hi h of 81 8% Future Bnokin ' lid / S?ndi Cn:n / Angun 2004 Hal 1 UpKWP g n Planned at Summit Complex Allan V' to California: a 175 - rnom Ranafsssm Club& I Sandi Cain / luly 2004 Hotel Dmpi Net Cane a Lang Way from the Coakie-cutter D= of the 19803: Dmismen Aim for Warm Nurnuing FxlPat=sept„IJ /Sandi Cain /July 2004 Hut el Drvelonment in Ora ge co= cgl_f_ A7J But Dries Un• Ha elf t of S 11 Herds Chnens Little Con=Aan Under Way / Sandi Cain / June 2004 Zk k- -Id r2mna Csamg. (Clfb ") T r ) May be Victim of Anted -x= Cntbncks/ Sandi Cain / June 2004 Lone betbre Wak MM Bgual t [.and for Disneyland Pork in the Firty 1950x, Waher Knott Planted the Seeds oft 1uA usankntl d t i Chang County California/ Sandi Cain ! May 2004 QMq from Anabeim t_Layuu Rg@ph,_Rife.vith N A sort Lap�fos'i ab Sutmne P jsss• Supnk, Sup ' Chalook Ahead far Summ Tra I Season / Sandi Cain / May 2004 Tom Btuno VP and Genpal Mana�r f D'snglattd R rt Ho[ela Maas (h,t 7004 Changes / Sandi Cain /March 2004 Dis2ty Planning for Big Year Anaheim Am d Board Drama! Sandi Cain / March 2004 Tyda+n..Iadusm RaNird,} Pmmmion Secn "�] .Darn! Sandi Cain / Febmaty httpJ /www. hotel - online. com / News/PR2004- 4th /NovO4_HyatiNewport.htm] 2/13/2009 2006 Ore 1. C nrv' 01 I Fjmels I :rte a Ranm R -rt 3% iut n in WO I Sandi Cain l January 2004 Tale f T C= ertni r =• y V'r A 1111111111ter, Tr' n Take D -i[e Ta ^k m c iverninn P�las / t: +��rw., / Jam[ary 20pd Meet' Rnokers (rin' ' u 2004 Wil Mark R bon dD&sP P - IN dlee- ?gdanue Ido Ks ft�cam q °'�_9I13 H- t. d., Aranae C N Califi Humbers Ha fnl / S&Wi Cain / JuSuaty 2004 Hor La T1vmv Parks i O e C Y •i No tda Sandi Cain I November 2003 i R -n - r In Se.r An C1ran¢r- t prate Cem ariv • w h ' a d Odmula Share Tou end Meeh eDosnnal nn 1?iFfer_ S�meA nm /Sandi CajOl Angust2003 New a Rev t Held Ora r ^` *�.,fgIDLl sa'n' r":otel Ro ms / Sandy Cam Cant m A / ttgusc 2003 Ora ne CrnmN fa Hotel R 'td' Remt sl ai h„,� Bah Sn� -t41� $mmmnnn R¢ ort MerYw along 'fi ^ I! Sandi Cain /July 2003 $ nJl�stgyiei4 tel tnva, ILL 1, and Ta,c di Hotels F /Sandi CWAI Ju e2003 SSwaodt Cain/ diai T •elw raMinue_ ( S A_, fro. aA- ami 7 I/ n/ M ev 2003 Rate weave wa F nmv H' Age, in gH / "� 03 vin A l k - ��'- `��..1 AFnI x003 'yam A— ''-TTh= QMdaec nIT(Ii. mcc I Sandi Cain! Pebruery 2003 !1u. lela daC i•f m In Q3 r he 689 I I iherglon An aha Hotet F1x for 8aokr*.. PrmeaUmr HOniwmty DiswL NnrR alt /Sandi Caiir/ Febnwy 2003 SanuiN DetailHivh -Pr to Mrerinee Na... Pyfce nt CneriN Al rt /Sandi Cein/ Iaouary 2003 1NLwI al R «1 J' 'III c C r .h 1�C ES -6yurm eti „o S- 13M2V ' /Sandi Cam /]enemy 2003 S tirity De 7" High -Pm I Meeetinas H Prlite on ' JAlm / Sandi Cain - January 2003 I raadi Nye i HIding$g 'dm M C -.,1 rjrov S; Dim Hey th Al' mam C+ ZRO Pl a •tl Yc3MI Cain/ Dee 2002 &,ckit5.�'on •y0 - A h9 Curter paaaA a t P�C $SNCeIe ! Saudi Cain / Nm 2002 AYM � door A x 1 c d' S�/ Sandi rain/ Ott 2002 gra-aketoumv taTfom' • i-icu m Co— m' Cemer f i 1.- D =ai=a re N Cumrxtdton eMM W ak P rmorcj Sandi Cain / Aug 2D02 . R"u a rr.o Sand V W' h Beath ResVI N¢ MOM Along C,41jfO0PnCs Oruro r My [u�gn•At �(, OOpr e- mbeAddm/Sendi Cai>i /AUg 2002 n nee Co tv 9�,foni 'HMI C m � -c rtln�l, -i>n�ni Nev, ro Sandi Cain / Aug 2002 Monts F mda• ^I i Puerenn acs Bee Th4rw Pnr Lt ft Colony w,� HmrL Acourad Fm M ott i W br MID million / Samb Cabo! July 2002 Oranse C N' 6 hill' A I Tourim IndLMn h k'[jpia(7e DaWI1ILm / Smdt rain / Mgr 2002 r N H d R- -' —�__- atJSandiCam /May2007 otel asiec n. :r' Chan "N Wn r1' K Hmra Fe: ° 'd Syt�/[te .0 qy_ r�$e�,�tt enN / May 2002 O2 /Saudi Cain e1 Rmk is- Fro S I r L1r^ / Sandi Cain / Jan 2002 s S&ach C idi c hit mf Iiels Fo See�rity fA +d C• as Xm .Scone V' ' / /Jao 2002 U CoWN7 vrJA eoeie RC�Bi>_m[r W¢ek 1!'n F F n nlserdi CaWm ! Sept 2001 St. Retie M rl h RmeI Re_ort & S (Joe ' Add t Comoetitirm " C�inh Oran C ui3ty Cal Fn / Sandi Cain / Aug 2001 The t3ra ee A " New L Hot I Sod jtM I ProLeAl ]CMMfornpuy Ct / Snub Cale 1 May 2001 hUP- 1 /www.hote1- online.coin/ News/ PR2004 _4th/Nov04_HyattNewport.html 2/13/2009 SM LLP Fax:8054461490 Feb 24 lUuy 10;Jb r.oµ opened m 1962, the Hyatt Newporter Receives $13 million Remodel; Owner Sunstone G... Page 5 of 5 urea Ha I C m�y �_ds���! Sandi Cain! Much 2b01 QwV- QQWS Hotsliell ReligVed M ABaheim Qpnvntlo Canter Rxnan5io Bb ostad occuoaa andEates.QuringPeslYa ar/ Sandi Cain /May 2001 1*6ailaWr, QjUMJB2d News DmsnjT,rniM the Mouse' Slowypy F_ m _anv, Another Maker / / Feb 2001 ofaaft Comn, Hotels poisrd &r Megings GmworN wcomerst1elo golnrr Tntw Snare- Disneyland hotel Still No 1 / Sandi Cain 1 Jan 2001 - To search Hotel Online data base of News and Trends Go to Hotel.OnIjue Search Homy welcome! I HoanileliN Newt i as df eds j CCataloes & Fricine I Viewroiot Forum l Ideas /trends Please contact Hotel.nnling with your comments and suggestions. http: / /www .hotel- oWWe.convNews/PR2004 4th/Nov04_HyaUNewport.ht nl 2/132009 AALB3U t`1itl; yr 17f1 µq,12 >r Nistaty �y AtY :� 7993 flr6 ill". 3 CA LonW"s and f00 %Gulsanteed SMNIC dsvelapinent plarw incleasa fire risk, yvaaien public safety �,vr.ee /xaryone.avm The Great Malibu Fire or 1993 Early in the life of the new Qty of " fire of 1993 is in a doss of dso wn, The Great Maliba Fire of 1993 prusu I.., -- . _' ;; -ft was calamity. ffre cand(was. The rasa fires in Malibu are noY uncommoM the hd water lines wore Then the weather In the firs[ days of November 1993, a "Rod Flag" warning was Issued for lA County as temperatures in the high 305 1, low humidity, and 20 -40 mph winds were predicted, At apptnxlmateiy 10-45 AM, on the morn)" Of November 2, 1993 a 911 call alerted authorities hat a fire had Ignored near the water tower on w Topanga Canyon Road, Within a half hour K The vas clear that this was a major event fire nddent Commander predicted a I "90 to 96, a a 1985 bea h, miles away, as it nod in 15 The fire grew rapidly, burning out .Of control In the rugged Santa Monica Mountains, On the northern edge of Malibu. The intensity of blaze was unprecedented In the memTbe fire A/rVl�'pr5 of : e'er MalibLL3tP3.f1LC;i. spread from one acre to 200 acres in tan minutes, and within One hour the fire had consumed over },000 acres of chaparral brush. A 30,000 foot high column of smoke was produced, the rising hot air aethng�a huge vacuum, becoming a firestorm eated Its own weather with eddies ono currents of air separate_frem tpe external atmospheric patlu" and With winds in excess ofthe slopes at b w- werZ^ c upwa a ong torch Intensiry and wind - driven starms of embers and flami head Of the fire Kin new fires as much a two miles from tnrr°_— a met" 1iM1e EXHIBIT C 2/23/2009 malibucity_1993fire -PhP MA,LIBU FIRE OF 1993 By noon on November 2, as flames moved south and west into Malibu, winds pushed the fire into all the major coastal canyons. Flame lien the of 200 feet were observed as the fire Crested Saddle Peak, and 100 root flame lengths were reportedin e c aparral above Past c blast ahway In succession Ihe^ roaretl` lar-bnn rayon, am0Paores Canyon,.Pledra Gorda, and Penland Tuna Canyons. In these canyons, fast moving fire lines overtook five separate fire engines, completely destroying two and sending six fire fighters to the hospital. All roads into the Malibu area were closed a$ panicked residents under evacuation orders packed a few belongings and got out. Police roadblocks turned away homeowners, at work when the fire erupted and desperate to return. Many residents who were at home chose to remain to fight, a futile gesture for most and fatal to a few. Others left their homes, but retreated only to friends or relatives closer to the beach In safer zones where they could stay close In rase anything could be done. Fire Teams Respond to the Malibu Fire The enormous fire elicited an enormous response. Operating under pre- existing mutual aid agreements and contingency plans, County of Los Angeles Fire Department summoned the combined forces of all fire departments west of the Continental Divide. Long convoys of fire apparatus were Immediately enroute, streaming down the web of Interstate highways into the LA area. Traffic was cleared off PCH and internal Malibu roads as many hundreds of fire trucks and emergency vehicles flowed in with thousands of personnel, Military units responded with additional manpower and specialized equipment including helicopters and fire- fighting C -130s as well as generators, water supply and other logistical help. Three staging areas were established. Along the north Flank of the fire staging was located at CLAFD Station 125 on Las Virgenes Road near the Ventura Freeway, Highway 101. For resources entering the Incident area from the north and South, this location provided easy access to the Malibu area via Las virgenes Road. The second staging area, called "Coast Staging," was at the Intersection of PCH and Topanga Canyon, designed to control and direct resources toward the coastal flank of the fire. The third staging area, "civic Staging," was located on the Chili Cook -off grounds along Civic Center Drive, near the head of the fire as it moved into Malibu along the axis of Malibu Canyon, and was easily accessed by units as they arrived from the north and west along PCH. This was a military scale operation, running around the clock at a frantic pace. At the height of the tire, the red, lemon and white fire engines were parked nose to Call in a miles -long line down PCH, a physical wall of equipment and associated manpower ranged against the fire. The names an the trucks comprised a catalog of towns and cities from the Western V.S. To manage this immense and diverse ream, drawn from 1,000 plus fire companies and staffed by over 7,000 fire fighters, a unique incident command system was implemented. It was an amazing effort, assembled almost instantly out of available resources, a tribute to the effectiveness of the emergency services, led by the Fire Department This was the largest deployment of fire fighters in the history of callfamia Involving 165 engine strike teams of 5 -6 vehicles each, 35 single resource engines and Emergency Support Teams, 129 hand crews, 31 air tankers, 23 helicopters, 13 bulldozers, 50 water tenders, a food dispensers, over 7,000 fire fighters and support personnel, plus the support of 458 agencies from 12 states. The Malibu fire continued for three days, prolonged by changing weather patterns and an abundance or dry fuels, consuming not only the huge supply of chaparral brush but also hundreds of residences and their ornamental vegetation landscapes, After the 1993 Malibu Fire The fire Is officially recorded as the "old Topanga Fire" based on its point of origin. The response represented the largest mobilization of emergency resources within a one -two day period in the history of the United States..Eyery state nest or the Continental Divide Contributed resources under mutual aid agreements. Kit" teams and equipment added to the force fighting the Immense blaze. The fire cost millions fo dollars for immediate lire suppression, destroyed approximately $230 million in private and public property, and required additional spending of millions of dollars In post -fire flood and erosion control mitigation. The state Office of Emergency Services has estimated that the Malibu fire caused 8500 million In total damage. After the blaze, an enormous dean up and reconstruction began. In the Impacted areas, houses burned to the foundation, trees were consumed to the trunk and nothing was left of utility poles but stubs of wires and transformer bodies. The landscape was a black moonscape. All the debris had to be cleared and made safe, roads cleared, and services restored,-rhe bridge in Las Fbres Canyon was destroyed by the fire, temporarily replaced by a military "Batley" bridge provided by the Seebees from Naval Mobile Construction Battalion S. In the clean up of fire debris, the city Collected a year's worth of solid waste in six weeks. Signs sprang up around Malibu, saying '`Thank you Flre Fighters" and similar sentiments in hand drawn letters. For years after the fire, Malibu residents hosted thank you parties and other events to assist and support the fire fighters who worked themselves to exhaustion or suffered injuries to save Malibu. That strong bond between the community and Its first responders Continues. By mid-1-995 the City of Malibu had approved reconstruction of ZZ5 out at 266 houses lost in the 1993 fires, Page 2 of 3 http: / /www.malibucomplew.com/mc history_ nalibtrcity_1993fixe.php 2/2312009 MALIBU klltb Uk 1.4`9:3 aRhough atWal rebuilding was slower because of dlspUtes with InSUranCe Companies and other problems. Source and further reading: Official renaritt old of LAS A oeles F're Department Return to Malibu Historv: Citvhood Or up one leve(to t4allbu History or to the Mali uComolate om Homg peae. Ads 6v OOOnle bvjQWxRff2aW r e.TrAk anak F Siatim Fim}]groem GUMOMM FVe_ * CWv"ght 100s -2009 av Ma bucw Ole4e.mm. M 60hu re 'e wOHdwlde. Page 3 of 3 http : / /www.malibtcomplete.com/me Wstozy_malibucity_1993fire.plxp 2/23/2009 'L \ LLI FUU ZY <VVJ 1V•1I 1.1V Reliving I993's Firestorm I www.lagimab&achindependent.com I Laguna Beach.Independ,.. Page I of 2 servvMs Indy Multi - Media Shopping Page Weekend Open Houses Q3"ht 2008 -2009 Tw ag un¢ earn r¢0¢ Wl.n AP nynte Rcervcd N¢wsp¢mrww s¢- FAmI mmneesoen wlsa. G/"1 n.m¢c Section B . aAertelnm¢M Sp¢r[: October 24, 2008 Reliving 1993's Firestorm By GENE FELDER Special to the Independent ArUivG aM Limo Search Archives! D The terrible Laguna Beach wildfire was 15 years ago, taking place an Oct. 27, 1993. This unsolved crime touched the Ilves of most all Lagunans. Five years ago, the Laguna Beach Historical Society sponsored a program on the Laguna wildfire and included htformatioh from a report on the 1993 firestorm, presented by county Fire Authority Chief Larry Halms. The weather an Oct 27, 1993, was typical Santa Ana Fire risers downtovm, sedty empty after conditions with winds at 40 m.p.h, gusts up to 92 the towns d"Guadun, m.p.h.78 degrees but with a relative humidity of only 6 - 7 percent The natural plants surrounding Laguna Beach only had a moisture level of about 4 percent. The summary started at 11:50 a.m. by an arsonist, destroyed or severely damaged 441 homes, burned 14,337 acres causing $528 million in damage. AccaVlaethier.R d' 1 ^Cmm iieaco. L4 sinew N=...ry l„w1 �5Owe 7 F RmlCeeW 7oV wkrdr aW et7 mph 7.eaeer Fwtt Jfta r=w Sun Reenrl I Fiah'iw Renon Click ads below for larger version By 2 p.m. the fires roaches Emerald Bay and Boat Canyon, jumps Laguna Canyon Road reaching Canyori Acres about 3:30 p.m. The fire raced up the hillside to Skyline /Mystic Hills about 4 p,m. and by 5 P.M. had reached its farthest extremities, to El Morro and Temple Hills. About 10 p.m. the winds shifted and the fire was declared contained by midnight. There was a tremendous amount of mutual old from other communities including: 345 fire engines. 17 dozers, 30 aircraft hand crews, and a total of 1,908 fire personnel. After daatroying homes in Canyon Aeree, the blaze ascended from the "Law enforcement used both north and southbound 08"yOn floor to °hrtlenrre the ce Myadc Nitri neianb°rh°°d. lanes of Coast Highway to channel bumper -to- bumper evacuation traffic out of the oily: residents evacuated southward, while firefighters and their vehicles funneled in from the north. Not a single rife was lost," according to the report "The air tankers, delayed by priorities from the other numerous fires burning in Southern Catifomia at the time, would not arrive until apprWmabely 1:40 p.m., 1 hour and 32 minutes from the initial request by the Incident commander." "OCFD's Laguna Incident command staff believed Immediate air support could have made, the Laguna fire manageable during the first quarter hour of its spread. Helicopters could have made water drops on the head of the fine." Today OCFA has two county firefighting helicopters. At least one helicopter is staffed each day, with a crew of two, from the Fullerton Airport during daylight bouts. A partial list of other improvements include building two large water reservoirs at high elevations, installation of 800 megahertz communication system, substantial rYr EXHIBIT D bnp:// www.l agunabeachindepeadent. com /news/2008 /1024/b_fcont1059•ht W 2/1M9 ,wrarsaca s.w The speed of the fin: was The top half of Emerald Canyon turned at a rats of 0 ns Lk phenomenal. 100 acres per minute. Fire flashed across Laguna Canyon Road in six pleces; leaping up the slope with 200 -feet flames. Fire burned 1.25 miles of brush in 17 minutes to reach " Canyon Acres, then overran an uphill command post at Thurston Middle School and jumped = D Park Avenue to destroy 27 Temple Hills Drive homes also. �saacsa .^...�..,.,.,.�.._,.,.,`...: By 2 p.m. the fires roaches Emerald Bay and Boat Canyon, jumps Laguna Canyon Road reaching Canyori Acres about 3:30 p.m. The fire raced up the hillside to Skyline /Mystic Hills about 4 p,m. and by 5 P.M. had reached its farthest extremities, to El Morro and Temple Hills. About 10 p.m. the winds shifted and the fire was declared contained by midnight. There was a tremendous amount of mutual old from other communities including: 345 fire engines. 17 dozers, 30 aircraft hand crews, and a total of 1,908 fire personnel. After daatroying homes in Canyon Aeree, the blaze ascended from the "Law enforcement used both north and southbound 08"yOn floor to °hrtlenrre the ce Myadc Nitri neianb°rh°°d. lanes of Coast Highway to channel bumper -to- bumper evacuation traffic out of the oily: residents evacuated southward, while firefighters and their vehicles funneled in from the north. Not a single rife was lost," according to the report "The air tankers, delayed by priorities from the other numerous fires burning in Southern Catifomia at the time, would not arrive until apprWmabely 1:40 p.m., 1 hour and 32 minutes from the initial request by the Incident commander." "OCFD's Laguna Incident command staff believed Immediate air support could have made, the Laguna fire manageable during the first quarter hour of its spread. Helicopters could have made water drops on the head of the fine." Today OCFA has two county firefighting helicopters. At least one helicopter is staffed each day, with a crew of two, from the Fullerton Airport during daylight bouts. A partial list of other improvements include building two large water reservoirs at high elevations, installation of 800 megahertz communication system, substantial rYr EXHIBIT D bnp:// www.l agunabeachindepeadent. com /news/2008 /1024/b_fcont1059•ht W 2/1M9 Reliving 1993's Firestorm I www.lagunabeachindependent.com J Laguna Beach Independ... Page 2 of 2 Firefighters workte save one home. widening of fuel.modification zone around city, the Greater Laguna Coast Fire Safe Council's Red Flag Program and fire condition signs. The web site of City of Laguna Beach has a Iwominute video of the fire that is quite powerful. httpMvww. lagunabeachellY.neMaboui/ videol The Laguna trtifiidfue PowerPoint, including many photos, and Chief Hoims' report are very large files. However, just contact me at 939, 7257, provide us a CD disc, , and we'll happily bum a copy for personal use at no- charge. Stop back Intol920s Laguna by visifing the Laguna Beach Historical Society Murphy- Smith House, located at 278 Ocean Avenue, which is opened to the public at no- charge every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from 1:00 p.m, to 4:00 p.m. Volunteers are needed to greet visitors t0 the Murphy -Smith House and should calf 939 - 7257. Those interested in supporting and joining the Laguna Beach Historical Society should send $15 per ind W ual, $25 per household or $50 per Dusinessf organization to 278 Ocean Avenue, Laguna Beach CA 92651. Gene Feller, board member of Laguna Beach Historical Society Firestorm by the Numbers - 16,684 acres burned 391 homes destroyed 44 homes with major damaga 601 homes with minor damage 1,082 homes directly threatened were saved 27,500 people were evacuated 306 fire engines were on scene 25 hand crews 19 bulldozers 19 air tankers 60,000 gallons of the retardant 10 helicopters 1,968 firefighters 8 minor Iryurle i 6 miles per hour or 46 acreslminute in its initial stage 12 miles per hour or 80 acrns"Inuta in peak stage Three major fires had previously burned Laguna Canyon, in 1946,'55 and'79. Only the 1,200- acre'45 fire had burned Into areas hit again In 1993, http:l lwww. Iagunabeachindependent.com/news /2008 / 1024[b_front1059.html '..3hepgrba dAro�am,' yybr,ZeAAi r. 2/1912009 EMBIT E 7RINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Douglas Williford February 23, 2009 Page 2 2. The proposed 50 foot impaired fuel modification zone and defensible space is significantly less than the 170 foot width set forth in the Newport Beach Fire Department Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines for Wildland Fire Hazard Areas as referenced in City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 320.4.1, as well as the standards set by other local fire agencies with similar fire exposures. Flame lengths calculated based on Santa Ana wind speeds will increase above the 37 feet calculated, further severely compromising defensible space and subjecting the exposed side of the building to radiant heat and burning embers and brands. Furthermore, the proposed building's use as a hotel creates a high density of occupants in the building who have limited situational awareness, in part because they are sleeping in the building overnight, and are unfamiliar with their surroundings due to the temporary nature of hotel stays. In addition, the proposed reduction of fuel modification zones and defensible space does not provide equivalent fire hazard mitigation for public and firefighter safety to the standards required by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Fire Department as well as the standards required by other Orange County fire agencies. Therefore further setbacks of the buildings or increases in the fuel modification zone should be considered to increase structure protection and the defensible space provided for public safety and firefighter safety. 3. The ignition resistant construction features proposed for the structures are minimum California Building Code standards required by Chapter 7A for buildings exposed to wildiand vegetation. Protection of structures exposed to wildland fire is obtained by the combination of fuel modification and building construction features. Therefore, due to the severely reduced fuel modification zone, further protection of the building structure is required to achieve equivalent mitigation. Page 13 of the Dudek report notes that an interior sprinkler system is a part of the mitigation provided for alternative fuel modification zones. This is a CBC requirement for this occupancy and does not represent any enhanced mitigation above code minimum. In summary, we find the proposed 50 foot fuel modification zone in the Dudek Fire Protection Plan for the Hyatt Regency Hotel Expansion to be inadequate and not consistent with accepted and adopted fire safety standards in the City of Newport Beach and in other cities across the county. Sincerely, �A ERIC M. TOLLES, S.E. Deputy Director of Community Development 1 Chief Building Official cc: Tim Gehrich, Manager of Planning Services SM LLP Fax :8054461490 Feb 24 2009 1339 P.42 20.93.030. Required Findings. Page 1 of 1 Title 20 PLANNING AND ZONING' Chaoter20.93 MODIFICATION PERMITS 20.93.030 Required Findings. The Zoning Administrator may approve or conditionally approve a modification permit if, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted, the Zoning Administrator finds all of the following: A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, S. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood C. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to.the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (Ord. 2004-25 § 9 (Exh. A (part)), 2004) << previous I next >> EXHIBIT F http:/ /municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/ codes/ newportb/_ DA.TAITITLE20 /Chapter_20_93_... 2/24/2009 HYATT EXPANSION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD VIEWPOINT There are significant proposals for expansion in progress at Hyatt on Jamboree in Newport. Two planning commission meetings were held on the plan; the last one in Nov. 2008. An 800 seat ballroom, 10,000 sq.ft. spa and 88 new timesharing units are the main parts of the 50 -65 million dollar project. I realize this expansion would boost revenues for Hyatt and the city. However, what about the cost for the surrounding residents ? We would lose not only views but inherit additional traffic, noise, dust and air pollution forever. The prevailing on -shore wind makes things worse. Our home is located on Sea Ridge Drive in the Harbor Cove community East of the "epicenter" where we and our neighbors paid significant premiums for view lots. Now we would be "short changed" in more than one way. Our neighbors feel the same way. Among other items, my concerns at the last planning commission meeting were that while planners, builders, agents and promoters were allowed virutally all the time to make their "presentations ", i got a warning that my 3- minute time had expired. Strange rules. We have already gotten a taste of traffic jams on Jamboree whenever events were held at Hyatt. No one is happy for traffic jams includ- ing Hyatt customers, Police, Fire Dept. or ambulances. I have walked on Jamboree and on Bayside Drive where a second entrance is planned. Plans are not necessarily working well in reality particu- larly when it comes to traffic. The planning commission voted for the plan. Now the city commission will hold a public hearing re above on Feb. 24, 2009 - Tuesday at 7 pm.(0 /y13 c iTy HALL ;A1 CoJNGil-(24 98&2-5 - 3 Vb . My expectation and hopes are that there will be more members of the affected area who would express their views towards the plan. There is a need for fair considerations on both sides of the fence. L. Mohachy Concerned Newport resident AA S(-)BMt�-,, C a icy; ;:�.,y -o7 s74WA) c ('C H- rh/4Tr i i✓ 6 Z�c 1) v - DAVID T. SPOWELL RICHARD S. 2EILENGA DAVID C. RUTH JAMES D. VAUGHN ADAM L TREIGER SAMUEL E. GASOWSRI PHILLIP E. SLOT Vw Teleconier and E-Mail David R. Hunt, Esq. City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED STOWELL, ZEILENGA. RU VAUGHN & TREIGER LL FEB 27 N 2: 5g ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2815 TOWNSGATE ROAD • SUITE 330 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 T It i`�C JI TEL: (806) 64 &1498 • FAX: I80S) 668-1g9�� li:li 1- www.cntlew.com February 27, 2009 Re: Hyatt Regency Expansion Project ElIL Dear Mr. Hunt: OF COUNSEL GARY W. SPENCER This firm represents the City of Irvine. We have received a copy of a Notice of Determination filed on February 25, 2009, with respect to the Hyatt Regency Expansion Project. . A copy of that Notice of Determination is attached for your ease of reference. The Project description in the draft EIR, Section 3.5 at page 3 -35, states that this Project includes a Development Agreement. The City's approval of the Development Agreement by Ordinance, requires a second reading, which we understand has not yet occurred. Consequently, the NOD filed on February 25, 2009 is premature, and therefore invalid. See Public Resources Code § 21152(a). Public Resources Code § 21152(a) requires that the agency's decision must be final before it may record a notice of determination, stating: ( "[w]henever a local agency approves or determines to carry out a project that is subject to this division, the local agency shall file notice of the approval or the determination within five working days after the approval or determination becomes final ....) (Emphasis added.) "A notice that is filed prematurely has no legal effect and will not trigger the statute of limitations." Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act, §23.21, pp. 1159 citing County ofAmador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 962 (to be "final" an approved agreement must be "legally binding.') Here, the Development Agreement is not "legally binding" upon the City of Newport Beach until after the Council completes the second reading for the implementing ordinance. (00064751J=; 1) City Attorney, Newport Beach February 27, 2009 Page 2 We would very much appreciate a prompt response from you indicating whether the City of Newport Beach concurs that the Notice of Determination filed on February 25, 2009 is premature, and thus invalid. If so, we request written confirmation that the City will file a second NOD for the entire nro iect, after the second reading of the Development Agreement ordinance. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yon, Richard S. ilenga' For the F'r RSZ:ag Enclosures cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager, City of Newport Beach Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, City of Newport Beach Leilani Brown, City Clerk, City of Newport Beach {00064751.DOC; 1} POSTED ,6 FEW 25 2009 FILED FEB 2 5 2009 5m- 084M CITY OF NEWPORT B NOTICE OF 3300 Newport Boulevard Beach Expansion P.O. h, CA 1768 9 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8815 (949)644.3200 ; DETERMINATION San Clemente, CA 92673 To: From: Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Planning Department ❑X P.O. BOX 3044 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 Newport Beach, CA 9265"915 ©County Clerk, County of Orange Date received for filing at OPRICounty Clerk Public Services Division a timeshare clubhouse; a new 800-seat ballroom facility; a new 10,072 square -foot spa and fitness faciity, Santa Ana, CA 92702 garage. Implementation of the project requires demolition of the 12 existing villas (rooms), the existing 3,190 - Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Name: Hyatt Regency Newport Applicant: Ken Cruse- Sunstone Jamboree, LLC Beach Expansion 903 Calls Amanecar, Suite 100 San Clemente, CA 92673 949 369+1242 State Clearinghouse Number Load Agency Contact Person Ana Code/Telephonewidenslon 2006121052 Jaime Murillo 949 644 -3209 Project Location 1107 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, Orange County, California Include courift I CAPN 440- 132-40 and 440- 132-41 Project Description: The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion includes the addition of 88 timeshare citrus within seven buiidkngs; a timeshare clubhouse; a new 800-seat ballroom facility; a new 10,072 square -foot spa and fitness faciity, including a new outdoor pool facility; a new housekeeping and engineering building; and a two4evel parking garage. Implementation of the project requires demolition of the 12 existing villas (rooms), the existing 3,190 - square -foot Terrace Ballroom, and the existing engineering and maintenance building• and removal of the existing nine -hole golf course. The project also requires the removal and reconfiguration of a recreational courtyard located in the - center of the main hotel complex and associated hotel parking areas, hardscape, and landscape. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on Eebruary 24.2009 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project. (Date) 1. The City is 100 Lead Agency O Responsible Agency) for the prod. 2. The project 10 will 13 will not) have a signifirent affect on the environment. 3. ® An Environmental impact Report was prepared for ttds project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. , O A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. Mitigation measures 1 M were O were rot] made a condition of the approval of the project. 5. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan 1® was O was not) adopted for this project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations 1® was O was not) adopted for this project. 7. Findings I ® were O were rat) made pursuant to the provisions of CEOA. The final EIR or Negative Declaratrn and record of project approval is available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Departmem located at 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beady, CA 92688- 8915; 949!844 -3200 Jaime Mudllo. Associate Planner Dale Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly. Clerk- Recorder Ig11IM0 1ll1110M1112818.25 200985000148 03:44pm 02125M., 90 276 Z92 Z01 + ' 2769.25 50.60 6.00 0.00 0.00 G.o,0 Q -00 0.06 r•